The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Icon design
by molnarcs on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @01:52
|
"It is VERY important for consistency and unified look."
Why is that so important? I don't think they look worse if they face multiple directions. Currently (in my kicker) icons look at various directions, and it doesn't bother me in any way, and it looks good!
I'm asking this because I heard this before, but I never heared an explanation - or is it just that it looks better if they face the same direction? (I can accept that, I can even accept that most people would find it more pleasent that way - even though I personally don't - if the claim is backed up by solid research).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by Carlo on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @04:56
|
>I'm asking this because I heard this before, but I never heared an explanation
Some have a sense of aesthetics, some don't.
> or is it just that it looks better if they face the same direction?
It's worse. A set doesn't look consistent, when the imaginary view point axis isn't the same for all icons.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by furanku on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @07:20
|
I think it's just about aesthetics, nothing more.
> A set doesn't look consistent, when the imaginary
> view point axis isn't the same for all icons.
What is a "point axis"?
I think you want to talk about the the "vanishing point", which is the point where parallels in some perspectivic point of views intersect. This has nothing to do with the orientation of the depicted object, and is also for a two dimensional desktop irrelevant, because then you would need to change the view of the icon depending on the position on the screen (which would be easier to implement if you would go to a real three dimensional Desktop).
So maybe you mean that all icons should have the same perspectivic point of view, but the actually are consistent in that. The speaker is in the same perspectivic view as the printer next to it, the object itself is just rotated. I think it's legitim to do that. A speaker for example has it's "chakteristic view" of the cone, chassis and the coils if seen in a "semiprofile". If you look at it in a frontview you basically see concentic circles, which are not that easy to identify as a speaker. Similar observations lead to other (rotational) views on other objects, but the perspective stays the same.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by oliv on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @23:07
|
>What is a "point axis"?
Something similar to a line surface ? but with 1 dimension less... fractal stuff, perhaps?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by molnarcs on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @11:54
|
I saw this in the past few weeks. I think this new hobbyhorse is actually a (psycho)linguistic phenomenon. Icons facing in the same direction convey a sense of order which is one of the connotiation of consisteny (it is not its meaning, and I won't say it is its primary connotation, just one of them).
From a usability point of view it doesn't make too much sense, nor does it from an aesthetic point of view. Take a look at my kicker in the kde screenshot>
ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/mykde343/kdedesktop_3_3.4.3_kcontrol_and_media.png
The reason that the icons are inconsistent there is not primarily because they face different directions (take a look at the middle), but because they are from different icon sets (no icon set is complete enough unfortunately). There are a number of aspects that make an icon theme more consistent, all of which are more important than the direction they face (for instance, the color palette). In fact, if we allow the "direction" mantra to override other aspects, it may even hurt usability. Icons should be easy to distinguish from a distance, and what's more, if there are two applications that serve more or less the same function (you see kword, openoffice writer and scribus in my screenshot), the difference in the direction helps to distinguish (not only on first sight, but it makes easier to remember as well).
Basically the parent's post is a good example for taking direction too seriously. We see three icons: printer, speaker, CD. The printer and CD face us, the speaker doesn't ... and actually couldn't. Imagine the same speaker from the front :)) So basically parent is asking for redrawing the icon completely, because it doesn't face us. This "must face the same direction" is a little bit overrated, don't you think?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by Lala on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @18:20
|
'From a usability point of view it doesn't make too much sense, nor does it from an aesthetic point of view.'
You are talking about about aestetics and usability? First, you have to learn something about colors (your desktop, which you are so proud of, is a proof that you are colorblind). Combination of shity green and shity blue color on your desktop is a great example how one should not use the colors.
And rule number one (which you don't understand):
Aestetics = usability
'There are a number of aspects that make an icon theme more consistent, all of which are more important than the direction they face (for instance, the color palette). In fact, if we allow the "direction" mantra to override other aspects, it may even hurt usability.'
No shit. Dude, you don't understand anything. Direction is as important as any other aspect. Icons must not be a disturbing element on a desktop, and they are disturbing element if they are not facing the same direction.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by oliv on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @23:11
|
>Aestetics = usability
Please check in a dictionary. And then read some documentation about usability. And then think. The conclusion will spring. A sparkle of understanding in your mind. A delicious feeling.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by molnarcs on Thursday 17/Nov/2005, @03:57
|
"your desktop, which you are so proud of,"
Oh, please - I'm not proud of it, in fact, I linked to it as an example for color mismatch. I prefer green as a background, and I have yet to find an icon theme that is both complete and integrates well to my taste in backgrounds.
"Aesthetics=usability"
Yeah, sure. I just checked the highest rated icon sets on kde-look: nuvoeXT, crystalclear, nuvola, in this order. These are the icon sets users found most pleasing, and yet - behold the direction of the icons: ftp://hatvani.unideb.hu/pub/personal/screenshots/icons/
I think this pretty much settles the matter: good usability doesn't have to be explained to the users (with brain-pattern-recognition babble). I'm all for cooperation and whatnot, and my intention is not to incite a flamewar, but this entire matter reminds me of usability folks in the "other" project having to explain why one or other feature (spatial browsing by default comes to mind is supposed to be better), disregarding every complaint from the userbase... yeah, sure, you usability pundits don't have to listen to your users (this is a hypothetical "you" here, adressed to usabilityDude type of pundits). If they don't agree with your views on usability, it simply because they have poor aesthetic taste, and idiots in general, right?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Icon design
by Thomas Zander on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @04:55
|
Hi usabilityDude;
I'm not new to usability and the only thing I know about is people facing left or right as well as moving things going left or right.
The things you point out are new to me, please tell us how you came to the above conclusion.
Cheers!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by UsabilityDude on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @11:17
|
I will only say one thing: BeOS.
It had ALL its icons facing at the same direction. And this made a HUGE impression to its users, making them think that the system is actually easier to use, because the brain did not have to adjust itself to recognize shapes looking at different directions.
Usability for large sets of icons DICTATES that for consistency and for brain's ease-of-pattern-recognition, ALL its icons MUST face at the same direction.
The new Gnome effort is also doing the exact same thing. I hope the KDE dudes also listen and do it too.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by molnarcs on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @12:18
|
In my above reply I tried to remember where I saw icons that were aesthetically unpleasent and they looked like an army or something - and BANG! it was the BeOS screenshots I saw (I just didn't remember it).
"Usability for large sets of icons DICTATES that for consistency and for brain's ease-of-pattern-recognition, ALL its icons MUST face at the same direction."
I think this is a hoax - or at least it doesn't make any sense (but sounds good and it looks like as if it was something serious - it isn't). Capitalizing the keywords don't help it either :) Lets see:
- "for consistency:" this almosts amounts to tautolgy ... consistency with what? with each other? Because there are a lot of factors that are more important to make an icon set consistent: the color palette, the "theme" (in the sense of kids-icons, realistic-icons, whatnot), etc.
- "and for brain's ease-of-pattern-recognition," Again, what do you mean by that? Becaue it sounds cool and all, but there is no such thing as the brain's easy-of-pattern-recognition. Yes, the brain recognizes patterns (which appears to be acquired with and a function of language) - even where there are none I might add :) - but that doesn't necessarily help usability at all. It is much more important what the icons actually represent. The user should know at first glance what will be the result of clicking a particular icon, and whether all icons face the same direction or not doesn't help a bit in this.
- " because the brain did not have to adjust itself to recognize shapes looking at different directions." You largely underestimate the average brain. Your entire argument is a classic case of thinking of human beings as computer programs in the sense that you reduce the user to a set of functions - the brain's easy-of-pattern-recognition function - without taking into consideration just how complex the entire issue is. For instance, one might argue that "a slight variation in the direction icons look keeps the brain unconsciously alert" - I just couldn't make that argument with a straight face :))
Are you sure you didn't make that post with tongue in cheek (because then, I'm a victim of your humour :)))
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by UsabilityDude on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @14:36
|
You are obviously an idiot. Icons of a given set must be consistent with each other. They do look better, they do look more welcoming, and they don't look like a FREAKING MESS.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by Dolio on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @15:39
|
You're probably going to have to do better than resorting to name-calling to get people to take your point seriously.
Try answering his actual points. Calling him an idiot is just a signal that you don't have actual data to back up your point of view.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Icon design
by molnarcs on Wednesday 16/Nov/2005, @16:36
|
"You are obviously an idiot." Yeah, obviously.
You answered none of the points I raised, and your reaction is quite ironic in the light of your nickname and the fact that you're preaching usability.
I will try to describe my points more simply (I'm not an english speaker, so it might be difficult to understand me sometimes). So: whether an icon theme is consistent or not depends on many things, of which the direction they face is the least important. I refer you to my screenshot that I posted before. If you check out the 4 icons in the middle, odd one is obviously the kword icon - not because it leans in another direction, but because it has an entirely different color palette.
What you wrote as an explanation seems to be no more than good sounding but empty terms (brain-pattern-recognition...) and I eagerly awaiting your real answer to the points I raised concerning your techno babble.
My whole point is that icon direction is totally overrated. Yes, I can imagine certain circumstances when it is beneficial, or simply looks better (like mimetypes/folder icons) - but that doesn't mean that they are actually more usable or user friendly. In very simple terms, a variation in direction might help the users remember the distinctions between say scribus, openoffice or kword which have similar functionality (thus they'll have similar icons: see my example, there is pen and paper on each of them) but are completely different beasts in reality.
Your BeOS example fails on the point that, again, you overrate one aspect of the UI (all BeOS icons lean in the same direction) so much that you attribute the - admittedly legendary - usability of BeOS to this single factor. This is the least important factor in my opinion, and what's more, I haven't seen any solid evidence or theory behind your reasoning except the (silly) BeOS example and the fact that GNOME is doing it. Fine, and tango actually is not bad, but what makes it good is that it is less dull than the current GNOME icon theme - see the comparison on the project's page. And we know pretty well that the current icon theme was also the result of wild usability theories, which now seem to be discarded in favor of a new one (and I might add that what makes tango nice is that it is not very dissimilar to oxygen's less vibrant themes).
In short: if you come up with such a wild theory, and you keep shouting DO THIS BECOUSE USABILITY DICTATES IT, you better come up with some reasoning beside GNOME is doing it and BeOS ruled once. And don't call those who disagree with you idiots. Thanks.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
