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

Re: The Icon Question





Andreas Nilsson wrote:
Joachim Frieben wrote:

"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".

Wow, quite a mix of styles. I spot icons in old-gnome-style, tango-style, bluecurve-style and this new fedora-style. Seems like you landed up in interface hell! :)

Right, but note this is a test release..... AKA 'not polished.' Let's be fair here. If you run a test release....

~m


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