The Icon Question

[Máirín Duffy]

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