Hi Bernhard, Christoph, everyone, 2011/1/7 Bernhard Dippold <bernh...@familie-dippold.at>
> Hi Christoph, all > > thank you all for the iterative improvement of our icons - the present > version looks great! > Christoph Noack schrieb: > > Hi Mirek, all! >> >> Thanks for the feedback ... you may add some more, please :-) >> >> Am Donnerstag, den 06.01.2011, 19:35 +0100 schrieb Mirek M.: >> >>> 2011/1/6 Christoph Noack<christ...@dogmatux.com> >>> >> [...] >> >>> What do you think, might that work? >>>> >>>> >>> Here's my feedback: >>> I really like the colors in this iteration -- much more calming and >>> refined >>> than initially. I also love the template symbolism. >>> >> >> Thanks - especially in this case it seems, that some more people (and >> thus, some more iterations) really help to improve the outcome.# >> > > :-) > >> >> The document symbolism I'm not so sure about -- the more complex and less >>> distinct these symbols get, the less quickly a user can distinguish >>> between >>> them (just compare the icons for Adobe's CS 2 and CS 3). But as long as >>> the >>> other icons stay relatively simple and distinctive enough, this change is >>> okay. >>> >> > Adding more details is okay for larger scales while especially small icons > should keep very distinct and stylized symbols. > > I think it is hard to differ between template and document especially in > 16px size and high contrast icons, because it's just the left border, that > has a slightly bumpier design. > +1 > > I don't know how to add more differences between them - as Björn already > mentioned: Color distinction is not enough (and the different colors lose > their contrast in the small icons). > > Perhaps we should remove the blue pixels at the left border in the 16px > icons? > > Please contribute your ideas! > I think it'd be OK to bring back the gray borders to the icons, like they used to have. Alternatively, one thing that could be done is to use dotted lines in the document symbols -- to represent that it's not a finished document, but rather a blueprint. > > >> [...] >> >> Concerning the idea / thoughts of the symbolism: Initially, I thought we >> can simply re-use the established items of the Galaxy MIME type icons - >> but then it looks rather strange for larger icons (e.g. the Draw >> symbol). On the other hand, the ODF icons are very subtle and detailed - >> so (in my opinion) they lack some good differentiation. Consequently, in >> my proposals, I tried to balance these requirements. >> >> From my point-of-view, the best size to work / analyze the symbolism are >>> >> the 32px and 16px versions. The "upscaled" versions are simply enhanced >> by some more detail ... although the current LibreOffice branding tries >> to be rather clean and simple (even having some strong strokes, ...). >> > > I didn't took the strong lines of the TDF logo into account, leading to > detailed icons with much stronger border. Your version is much more > consistent! > > >> Although I am not fully happy with it, here is a the Calc version: >> http://luxate.blogspot.com/2011/01/icon-as-con-i-can-2.html >> > > It gives too much weight on the chart in my eyes - perhaps because it is > not part of the spreadsheet? > +1 I think the icon could do without a chart entirely, be just a table (I mean, that's what it's basically intended for, collecting data, whereas Impress, Writer, and Draw are more for the visual presentation of data). > > Would it be reasonable to use a different type of chart (lines?) than the > one we use for Chart itself? > > >> One thing that I would rather do without is the shadow below the icon (in >>> the default icons). Most operating systems add their own shadows and/or >>> reflections to icons, and when these icons have their own shadows too, it >>> just adds to the mess of effects that there are. >>> >> >> Mmh, to be honest, I simply re-used what I knew about the Tango >> Icons ... usually they add some subtle shadow below the icons. But this >> may be wrong, although it (already) would cause a lot of effort to >> remove it. >> >> What kind of operating systems might be problematic - Windows, Mac, ... >> > > I never saw automatically added shadow at Windows (perhaps this changed > with Windows7)- for Mac I don't know. > Sorry, mistake on my part. What I wanted to say was that default icons in various operating systems and software use different angles of shadow if they use shadow at all, so you can have 10 application icons next to each other and each of them might have a shadow under a different light source. Here are icon guidelines for GNOME, Tango, Mac OS, and Windows XP, respectively: http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/icons-style.html.en, http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines, http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIcons/XHIGIcons.html , http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx Plus Mac OS X really does cast its own shadow sometimes (with a light source being where the user is), as well as reflection. Certain Linux docks do the same. > > But there are different shadow requirements, if icons are meant to be > integrated in different OS. Apple recommends different position sun and a > different texture of the icons from Tango for example. > > > >> Another thing: the text in >>> the default icons seems a bit crammed at the bottom, perhaps because of >>> the >>> shadow below the icon or the margin, as the high contrast icons don't >>> seem >>> to have this problem. >>> >> >> Good observation :-) The HC icons are not that problematic here, since >> I've enlarged them a bit to the bottom (instead of using a shadow - >> doesn't make much sense for HC icons). Thus, we've gained a bit space >> that helps to let the symbols "breathe" a bit. >> > > The shadow at the smaller icons is nearly invisible. > What do you think of dropping it for 48px and 32px too - gaining more space > for the symbols? +1 > > >> Removing the other shadows, by preserving the currently used area for >> the symbols might solve this issue. >> >> Lastly, it'd be great if the smaller default icons >>> lost the landscape symbol, just like the high contrast icons do, because >>> at >>> these small sizes, it loses both its meaning and its charm. >>> >> >> Well, it seems like a 50:50 decision ;-) In my original design, there >> wasn#t a landscape picture, but Jaron worked out a good counter >> proposal ... I simply adapted my set for the default color set, but that >> won't work (probably) for the HC version. It's easy to rework that ... >> > > At the moment I tend to remove the landscape picture, even if I preferred > Jaron's proposal over your first design. In my opinion the text lines become > too short and lose their clear symbol language a bit... > > >> Here was the initial set I was working on: >> >> http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8QbNNW6T8I9QGW7bls2JTg?feat=directlink >> >> Anyway, great work. It's nice to see the icons progress so well. >>> >>>> Anybody who might join to bring some life to the rest (quite some >>>> number) of icons? >>>> >>> >> Mirek, thanks for the great feedback ... since I know your great designs >> (Citrus& Co.) is there a chance that you might join. > > I'm not a very good designer, trust me. (I'm also relatively new to Inkscape, having recently switched from Macromedia Fireworks, and am still getting used to its quirks.) Even if I was, January is a very busy time for me (February should be better). But I'll definitely be willing to help as much as I can when I have the time. > Thanks form my side too! Time is really short, so we only can create good > icons in time, if we can reach the best possible design very soon. > > > There is still a >> bit hope (for me) that we might have something for the LibO 3.3 release. >> > > Removing the old OOo icons would be great (even if I liked the galaxy > theme...) - I still think it is possible. > > I'd hold up before removing the galaxy theme. I've been using the Tango icon theme on Ubuntu for a while now (since that's the only one OOo ships with), and it's still a bit of a usability pain, as most of the icons have very low contrast with the background. The icons under drawing are especially awful: you can barely discern the various shapes and inner shapes (e.g. smiley face). It'd be great if sometime down the line LibO had its own set of icons, perhaps simply a derivative of the Tango icons that fixes the contrast issues. Before that happens, I'd keep Galaxy as the default (unless there are issues that would prevent us from doing so). > > I heard that almost all blockers for the release are resolved, so time >> is running ... I'm currently on vacation, but I'm unable to deliver more >> than one iteration per day (having some other duties as well). >> > > I'm sorry that I can't help more. > > Perhaps during the next days I could start working on one of the other > icons. > > Any proposals? Draw? Math? Macro? > > >> Shamelessly, I also BCC Thorsten and Nik - I'm not sure whether they are >> aware of the current discussion. It would also be great to hear their >> opinions, and maybe we can join all the forces :-) >> >> :-) > >> >> Oh, I totally forgot about that ... I reworked the wiki page a bit and >> also added the current (messy draft) source file there. The next step is >> to sum up some of the "what symbol metaphor to use" discussions ... I >> hope there will be something before I go to bed (and there is not much >> "today" left *g*). >> > > Good night ;-) > > Bernhard > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > design+h...@libreoffice.org<design%2bh...@libreoffice.org> > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
