The Icon Question

[Andreas Nilsson]

Máirín Duffy wrote:

>
>
> 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....

Sorry if I came out sounding a bit silly.
Anyway, regarding icons on the Linux desktop in general, we´re all in 
interface hell. Bluecurve tried to fix this problem [1], but was 
unsuccessfull (because noone ever released any sources I´ve been told) 
and now the Tango project is giving the idea another try.
Perhaps it would be nice to discuss this during GUADEC.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluecurve
- Andreas