I didn't have any specific criticisms going myself, but I figured since
we have people making icons, it'd be a good idea to share in case we
were making some of these mistakes.|
Martin Sourada wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 14:03 -0600, Michael Beckwith wrote:Thanks for the link, from my experience with Echo icons we usually tend to be aware of these mistakes, but: ad 1. especially in 16x16, this goal seems to be sometimes hard to achieve, I personally believe the package-x-generic icon I am working on ATM (see the other thread here) might have some problems with this. Luckily mostly only places/status/mimetypes/action icons are usually displayed at this size. ad 5. yep, we were criticised a lot about having 3-D icons for 22x22, the article specifically talks about 16x16 and smaller. Yet, we decided, to drop perspective for <= 24x24 action icons. A compromise between usability as slickness I'd say... ad 6. yes, this one is crucial. We need to use widely recognised metaphors, but I believe so far there are not much icons (maybe none) that violates this ad 10. this one is the most problematic, people usually forgot (or don't care?) about this step, which results in a blurry icon, and that's the reason why you see my comments about pixel grid alignment in nearly every thread related to new icon creation...
-- ~Michael http://ridleytx.structed.net (for now) http://michaelbox.net (eventually)