[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The Icon Question

"Bluecurve" has friendly, crisp looking icons due to a well chosen color
scheme, consistent perspective, and noticeable outlines which improve
contrast. Icons are pictograms and as such -simplified- images of real
objects with the aim of easy recognizability. Photorealistic icons are
rather counterproductive, especially at small sizes. The "cartoonish" look
of "Bluecurve" exactly fits this paradigm. In the "GNOME" panels and menus,
a mere 24 pixels is the default size. This has to be kept in mind.
The attached screenshot shows the huge difference between "good" and "bad"
design. The "Bluecurve" package icon is much more distinct than the "puplet"
one (the latter is too small anyway). The new "gnome-power-manager" is
particularly poor. It looks slack and fuzzy and is weakly detached from the
background. The dropshadow make things rather worse. The screenshot speaks
for itself, doesn't it? I find it rather compelling in favour of "Bluecurve".

If people believe that a new theme is necessary for the sake of novelty,
ok. But name the new theme differently and keep "Bluecurve" or name
the current one "Bluecurve Classic" (which already exists as "metacity"

> Let's discuss. =)  Mockups and sketches are welcome and most helpful.
> Subjective "I hate the whole theme" comments are less so.  Try to be a
> bit specific...I'm not saying, pixel for pixel, but...why? is it the
> colours, the perspective, or you just think that bluecurve is the best
> and should not be changed.
> Thanks
> Diana

Attachment: bluecurve.png
Description: PNG image

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]