Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
Op vrijdag 22-12-2006 om 12:20 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Andreas Nilsson: > That didn't work very well though, as things didn't move to the trash > when deleting stuff in evolution for example. By default things _are_ moved to the Evolution "trash cans" by clicking that icon... -- Jan Claeys -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
Nacho de los Ríos Tormo wrote: > I profoundly dislike the crumpled paper icon because a) it takes hard > observation to deduce it is that and b) it is a confusing metaphor for > anybody in any culture, especially when sitting side by side with a > trashcan, a red cross and a shredder. > Agree that this combination of icons are quite bad in that case, and it's super-hard for application developers to predict this because of theming. :( Where is this btw? Evolution? > As for the shredder, there are ethnicity, technological and education > level issues that make it a very bad metaphor. Shredders are not > household items in every country, not everybody in every office has > access to one in most places, even if they've seen one and know what it > is, and youngsters may have never seen one in their life. On top of > being a very bad metaphor, the Tango shredder is a very bad icon, > because a shredder itself has not much detail, so after iconification > nothing much remains to recocnize it. And the low contrast plays against it. > The old edit-delete icon in tango-icon-theme looked like this: http://www.andreasn.se/diverse/temp/tango/22/edit-delete.png Had to scrap that though, as it looked too much like a warning sign. Before the warning sign GNOME had a trash can for delete (and gnome-icon-theme still use this metaphor) http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/gnome-icon-theme/22x22/actions/edit-delete.png?rev=1.1. That didn't work very well though, as things didn't move to the trash when deleting stuff in evolution for example. Might have been some kind of X before that, but that also looks too much as a warning sign and saying "don't do this" mostly. I believe there can be some extent of learnability of icons in a interface, provided that they are not too many symbols to learn. Someone might have some time looking into the metaphor again after Christmas (and perhaps do some user testing, who knows), but I'm afraid we're all very busy with other icons at the moment. Thanks for your time. - Andreas -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
> Alright, let's let you be the client for a few moments then. Don't > respond to the list with this, as it is clear that your thoughts require > a good deal of fleshing out before they can be implemented in a useful > manner. Feel free to privately email me your responses. > > Nacho de los Ríos Tormo wrote: > >> I said the orange disks are too featureless and so they don't stand out >> from each other, which defeats their purpose. >> > > 1) Define featureless with greater clarity. Do you mean the > visualization of the memes chosen? > 2) What is their purpose? Is their purpose to be an icon unto > themselves or more of a simple branding? In this light, specifically, > what would be a more appropriate alternative? > OK, i'll try to define "featureless". When I say an icon is "featureless" I mean that the image has been oversimplified to the extent that it lacks too many of its original features to make it easy to recognize. As a case in point, take the emblem for "presentation". The pie chart it tries to represent has been reduced to an outline that resembles a pacman figure. I have mentioned the lack of colour and contrast as a problem, and here that problem is evident: if instead of the pacman outline we had five different-colored sectors, it would be a lot more evident that it meant to represent a pie chart, and it would also stand out from the orange-disk uniformity. As for their purpose, I believe it is to label inidistinct icons so as to give an idea of their purpose or contents in just one quick look. That is why I believe the emblems should be really different to one another, or the clue they give need too much observation to gather and in the end it is just the text label that gives the content away. What would be a more appropriate alternative? I've said it many times: More colorful, more detailed, more contrasty icons that could be told apart in just one glance. The original gnome emblems were a lot better in this respect, and the set that was offered at the start of this thread is better too, in my view (of course). > Ugly is a relative term. Describe exactly which emblems you dislike > and suggest another option that is easily rendered within approximately > 50 pixels squared. Remember -- easily recognized is based on your > experience and culture, so be careful with your choices. > > I have described the emblems I disliked one by one, and said why. Somme application of color would make a lot of them a lot easier to understand and recognize, and may even make them prettier (which is a relative relative term!). You seem to agree there is a problem picturing things in 50 pixels square. Well, it is evident that picturing things in 50 square ORANGE pixels is even more difficult. Here are some examples: *Color the piechart with a few color sectors. *Color the brush and paint blobs *Color the pencil so that it looks like a pencil, not a door. *Illustrate the photographs just a bit, so that they don't just look like three rectangles. *Redesign the box in the package emblem. It really does not look much like a box. It may be that applying color in the images will break the uniformity of the orange disks, and color images inside orange disk may even look ugly (dare I say?), but then something would have to be done with the disks themselves. >> I said their problem is one of lack of color and detail >> > > 4) See (2) above. Do you mean color within the iconography or the > overall emblem? > 5) See (2) above. How much detail should an emblem offer within the > clearly defined technological limits? > How much detail? Not much, but more that what we've got now. We are not limited by technological restrictions, but the artificial limit to only use the orange color and the decision to discard all detail. >> I said that some of the Tango icons also lack detail and contrast and >> that also makes them difficult to recognize. I pointed to two that I >> believe are bad choices (the shredder and the crumpled paper). >> > > COMMENT) Tango icons are all 100% identifiable to the people who created > them. Do you mean recognizable to someone outside of the Tango project? > If so, define the audience that is having trouble identifying the > items.Is it an ethnicity issue? Education level issue? > Technological issue? > Yeah, and when my 3-year old nephew draws a squiggle in a piece of paper he recognizes it as an airplane or a horse. I don't mean the tango artist draw like 3-year olds (and in fact I think that 98% of their work is great), but that you tend to recognize what YOU have drawn, even though others might have real difficulties. Here we're not talking about pleasing ourselves, but being as universal as possible. Also only said that SOME of the Tango icons have problems. I profoundly dislike the crumpled paper icon because a) it takes hard observation to deduce it is that and b) it is a confu
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alright, let's let you be the client for a few moments then. Don't respond to the list with this, as it is clear that your thoughts require a good deal of fleshing out before they can be implemented in a useful manner. Feel free to privately email me your responses. Nacho de los Ríos Tormo wrote: > I said the orange disks are too featureless and so they don't stand out > from each other, which defeats their purpose. 1) Define featureless with greater clarity. Do you mean the visualization of the memes chosen? 2) What is their purpose? Is their purpose to be an icon unto themselves or more of a simple branding? In this light, specifically, what would be a more appropriate alternative? > > I said that the current drawings on the emblems are oversimplified and > that it is difficult to recognize what they represent, let alone what > they stand for. I also said that some are ugly, which I believe is > indeed a problem. 3) Ugly is a relative term. Describe exactly which emblems you dislike and suggest another option that is easily rendered within approximately 50 pixels squared. Remember -- easily recognized is based on your experience and culture, so be careful with your choices. > > I said their problem is one of lack of color and detail 4) See (2) above. Do you mean color within the iconography or the overall emblem? 5) See (2) above. How much detail should an emblem offer within the clearly defined technological limits? > > I said that some of the Tango icons also lack detail and contrast and > that also makes them difficult to recognize. I pointed to two that I > believe are bad choices (the shredder and the crumpled paper). COMMENT) Tango icons are all 100% identifiable to the people who created them. Do you mean recognizable to someone outside of the Tango project? If so, define the audience that is having trouble identifying the items.Is it an ethnicity issue? Education level issue? Technological issue? > > Listen, I may or most likely may not be able to design > better images than what we've got, but I do believe I have spotted > problems, and I have the perfect right to state them. Arguable. A mailing list is meant for communication, and it may well be moderated. That said, if you state your opinions properly with good researched backed references, you are likely to gain more credibility with the people designing the work. Everyone in the world has an opinion. Despite the fact that art and design is a formalized and professionally taught, researched, and practiced realm, you won't be able to find a single person who isn't willing to bikeshed relentlessly with vague words claims such as "isn't functional" "is ugly" "doesn't work" "doesn't fit" "isn't professional", etc. This isn't a direct knock against you, but rather a simple suggestion that _everyone_ believes their position on art and design to be correct. > > That said, I'll try to tread more lightly in the future, although I'm > afraid we're all to happy with ourselves to garner too much progress. > I don't believe that the artwork team is at all 'too happy with ourselves'. To the best of my knowledge, we simply aren't in a position to offer alternatives at this juncture. Sincerely, TJS -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFi6Cuar0EasPEHjQRArAtAJ91lMpdQ46fJJMVUjtiqHt4gxUGTACfSLYJ vhq2rYN84nLZsNyM1q/+zW0= =hWcz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
2006/12/21, Nacho de los Ríos Tormo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Nacho de los Ríos wrote: > > > >> The icons suck, and the metaphors suck. They have to be replaced > >> > > > > Very counterproductive and negative approach. > > > > Free software design has a little growing room, and you could get in on > > the ground floor by providing positive techniques to overcome these > > sorts of issues. > > > > Perhaps offering up a design plan, an alternative, or something to build > > on might be more applicable? > > > > There are many that _might_ agree with your position, however, the > > manner in which you state it will garner zero attention. It doesn't > > take much effort for a seagull to fly over and poop on the crowd below. > > It _does_ take a good deal of effort to engage the issues and work to > > resolve them. > > > > Once again, it is always easier to tear down than build upwards. > > > > > > I AM offering suggestions: You ARE bashing other people work while "offering suggestions" and it is not the best way possible to do it. > > I said the orange disks are too featureless and so they don't stand out > from each other, which defeats their purpose. > > I said that the current drawings on the emblems are oversimplified and > that it is difficult to recognize what they represent, let alone what > they stand for. I also said that some are ugly, which I believe is > indeed a problem. Again I don't think the word "ugly" is a good choice here, "not very good in my opinion" would sound a lot better. [SNIP] > > By the way, the idea to relate icons with locales is an excellent idea, > although I'm afraid we don't have the power to bring it forward. It > would have to be proposed and defended somewhere upstream. Upstream doesn't have enough man power as well atm. Ciao Lapo -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
> Nacho de los Ríos wrote: > >> The icons suck, and the metaphors suck. They have to be replaced >> > > Very counterproductive and negative approach. > > Free software design has a little growing room, and you could get in on > the ground floor by providing positive techniques to overcome these > sorts of issues. > > Perhaps offering up a design plan, an alternative, or something to build > on might be more applicable? > > There are many that _might_ agree with your position, however, the > manner in which you state it will garner zero attention. It doesn't > take much effort for a seagull to fly over and poop on the crowd below. > It _does_ take a good deal of effort to engage the issues and work to > resolve them. > > Once again, it is always easier to tear down than build upwards. > > I AM offering suggestions: I said the orange disks are too featureless and so they don't stand out from each other, which defeats their purpose. I said that the current drawings on the emblems are oversimplified and that it is difficult to recognize what they represent, let alone what they stand for. I also said that some are ugly, which I believe is indeed a problem. I said their problem is one of lack of color and detail I said that some of the Tango icons also lack detail and contrast and that also makes them difficult to recognize. I pointed to two that I believe are bad choices (the shredder and the crumpled paper). If in your eyes that only makes me a seagull that shits over the crowd, well, not being able to take criticism won't make it easy to build anything upwards. Listen, I may or most likely may not be able to design better images than what we've got, but I do believe I have spotted problems, and I have the perfect right to state them. That said, I'll try to tread more lightly in the future, although I'm afraid we're all to happy with ourselves to garner too much progress. By the way, the idea to relate icons with locales is an excellent idea, although I'm afraid we don't have the power to bring it forward. It would have to be proposed and defended somewhere upstream. Regards, .Nacho. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nacho de los Ríos wrote: > The icons suck, and the metaphors suck. They have to be replaced Very counterproductive and negative approach. Free software design has a little growing room, and you could get in on the ground floor by providing positive techniques to overcome these sorts of issues. Perhaps offering up a design plan, an alternative, or something to build on might be more applicable? There are many that _might_ agree with your position, however, the manner in which you state it will garner zero attention. It doesn't take much effort for a seagull to fly over and poop on the crowd below. It _does_ take a good deal of effort to engage the issues and work to resolve them. Once again, it is always easier to tear down than build upwards. Sincerely, TJS -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFh+q7ar0EasPEHjQRAm5eAKDioTaU15r8KBm1NGUpFDiHia4pKgCgoKgr XztqHMOJRhZUnTH9syoM9fc= =+hdb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
AFAIK those icons come from the Tango Project, so maybe your critique > should go to those people to be effective... :-) If Tango icons suck, maybe we should dump them of fork them. Some of them are really nice, but the lack of detail and contrast in some makes them unrecognizable. And the choice of metaphor is in some instances plain wrong. (And the "spam" icon depicts a crumpled piece of paper, but I agree that > I had to take a second, closer look before seeing that, and then think > for some time about what it could mean, so it's not really a good icon.) I know It tries to look like a crumpled piece of paper, but it really does look a lot more like a meteorite, doesn't it? And even if it *were* a good image of a crumpled piece of paper, why should delete spam by crumpling but delete ham by shredding -- given that you recognize the shredder for what it is, which is not really that immediate, and don't mind the fact that "shredded" mail waits intact in the trashcan for you to unshred. The icons suck, and the metaphors suck. They have to be replaced -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
Op donderdag 14-12-2006 om 20:34 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Nacho de los Ríos Tormo: > In Evolution it drags a message to the program's trashcan folder, where > you can watch it, read it and manipulate it to your heart's content > until the trashcan is emptied (THAT might be a good use for the shredder). > > But then, Evo offers something that looks like a meteorite to symbolize > "spam", so their mindset must be clearly different. AFAIK those icons come from the Tango Project, so maybe your critique should go to those people to be effective... :-) (And the "spam" icon depicts a crumpled piece of paper, but I agree that I had to take a second, closer look before seeing that, and then think for some time about what it could mean, so it's not really a good icon.) -- Jan Claeys -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
[ubuntu-art] The shredder icon for delete sucks
The last time I brought this up it was very late in the Edgy release cycle and there was not much time to stir consciences, but now the time is right to pick this up again. The issue is: The shredder icon for the delete action has to go, because it has many problems. * It is a very bad drawing of a shredder. People at my office said it looks like a typing machine, or a roll of toilet paper. Only the girl that actually uses the shredder instantly recognized it, but then was fooled as to what was its meaning. It has very low contrast, and bland features, so it is difficult to recognize. The reduced icon is even worse: it looks like a square jellyfish relative of Bob Sponge or however he's called. After all, a shredder is not a machine that has prominent features that can be easily caricaturized. Which also means the following: * It is very difficult to make a very good caricature of a shredder with low detail as in an icon. * The shredder is a very poor metaphor. Many people have never seen a shredder in their lives, or maybe occasionally in movies, so the association of a bad image of a shredder with deletion in their mind is tenuous, at best. I tried my nephews and nieces (ages 7-8-9) and they had not the foggiest notion what it could be (they've never seen a typing machine, which I think is what the icon most closely looks like). They had no problems recognizing a trashcan, though: they've seen them in all sizes and shapes, in reality and movies, and they even have them in their rooms. * People that recognize it as a shredder, get the notion that it means permanent, irreversible deletion, which is not necessarily the truth. The girl in administration in my office, as well as my boyfriend, who routinely destroy documents in a shredder, fell into this trap. They would find it logical to have BOTH a shredder AND a trashcan, side by side, because they understand you can take papers out of a trashcan. But even if it were intuitive, which it is not for a majority of people, usage is inconsistent. Some examples: In Tomboy, the shredder correctly means permanent deletion. Still, switch the icons to the standard Gnome set, and see how much better the page with the red cross works. In Gedit, however, it stands for plain deletion, the kind that may be undone with ctrl-z or edit-undo. In Evolution it drags a message to the program's trashcan folder, where you can watch it, read it and manipulate it to your heart's content until the trashcan is emptied (THAT might be a good use for the shredder). But then, Evo offers something that looks like a meteorite to symbolize "spam", so their mindset must be clearly different. -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
