Re: Icon design

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

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.

Related Links

·   Articles on Graphics and Art
·   Also by Carlo
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

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 ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"That's something I don't know." -- David Faure
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.