The Icon Question

[Andreas Nilsson]

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! :)
About the powermanager-icon, it seems the icon is a bit wierdly scaled, 
it should look like this: 
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/wipicons/PowerManager/16x16/battery-charged.png
I´ve contributed to these myself (well, just some fixes on the larges 
sizes), so it´s cool to hear some feedback. Perhaps grey on grey is not 
that optimal, might be a bit hard to spot. I´ll see what I can do about it.
- Andreas