Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

A History of Icons 400

Posted by CmdrTaco from the you-mean-like-marilyn-monroe dept.
John H. Doe writes "The GUIdebook has a great page illustrating the history of icons. Of course, they have the Lisa/Mac/OS X paths, but there's the Windows progressions, along with entries for NeXT, OS/2, BeOS, and yes, Linux. Would you call it progress?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A History of Icons More

A History of Icons

Comments Filter:

  • Rolling your own (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:03PM (#12013035) Homepage Journal
    I haven't been big on designing my own Windows icons because, before I gave up looking, all icon editors cost $$. Inexplicably the one format Paint doesn't support is *.ico

    I used to have some beauties on my Amiga, and they could be any size I liked, up to the whole screen if that was your wish. IIRC they were easy to draw with something that came with the operating system.

    I'd like to take some of my raytracings and make them icons. Any ideas where to start?

    Darn my dyslexia. At first glance I thought it said "A History of Loons" and thought it was something biographical about slashdot.

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Informative)

      by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:09PM (#12013108)
      Inexplicably the one format Paint doesn't support is *.ico

      That's because the Windows .ico format is a complex meta-format with the capacity for multiple icon sizes and color depths. Paint Is just a rudimentary application like notepad and has never been the target of much improvement by MS.

      The best Windows tool for editing icons is Microangelo. There is a shareware trial version available.

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Interesting)

      by razjml ( 700558 )
      Ahh, the good old days of throwing a MacOS 7 icon together with ResEdit. Too bad there's no quick and dirty all-in-one utility like that in MacOS X. That was the pinnacle of mac hacking.

      • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Informative)

        by raider_red ( 156642 )
        You can just use a .tif file and use interface builder to add it to your program.
        • Or, if you choose to get fancy, you can assemble a variety of sizes and bit depths with Icon Composer, which is included with the bundled developers' tools.

      • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Informative)

        by grahamlee ( 522375 ) <(moc.geelmai) (ta) (maharg)> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:39PM (#12013436) Homepage Journal
        /Developer/Applications/Utilities/Icon Composer.app

        I think that says it all.

        • Icon Composer is fine for developers who "just want to get the job done". If you're a designer who's developing a suite of icons with a consistent theme/style, you're going to be using Freehand/Illustrator and Photoshop (easier to review & edit.) To output from Photoshop, they use IconBuilder [iconfactory.com]

          When you're dealing with applications that have hundreds of icons (think about MS Office) tools like Icon Composer just don't cut it.

          -ch

        • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jc42 ( 318812 )
          I think that says it all.

          Maybe, but where is it all documented? I looked all around in its menus and meagre Help stuff, and couldn't find a thing that let me do any image editing at all. I could load images from iPhoto, but I couldn't find even a way to do a bit of cropping. All it seems to allow is loading images from other apps or files, and has no actual "composing" ability at all.

          From the name "Icon Composer", I was expecting something that would let me edit individual pixels and perform at least

      • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Funny)

        by the darn ( 624240 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:55PM (#12013612) Homepage
        Ahh, yes! You should have seen mom's face when she noticed that I had replaced her trash can icon with a carefully crafted toilet. When you put files in it, instead of swelling like the can did, I added tasteful wavy green 'stink lines'. Those were the days...

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Informative)

      by Random Chaos ( 831686 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:12PM (#12013141)
      Well, I have found a few freeware ICO editing programs, but really you don't need them unless you want a multi-size icon (one that looks good in both a toolbar and in a folder).

      It turns out that Windows can read BMPs as ICOs. Just make a BMP of the right size (16x16, 32x32, or 64x64) and rename the extension from .bmp to .ico.

      ----

      As for my most used icons: Giving all my hard disks a icon with the drive letter on it. Makes using a tool bar (I have a "goto" toolbar that links to every drive and a few important folders) easy to locate which drive is which (I only have 6 partitions/hard drives on my windows box).

      • Re:Rolling your own (Score:4, Informative)

        by alfboggis ( 528706 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:37PM (#12013413)
        This page [microsoft.com] is a useful guide if you ever need to create icons for Windows XP. It gives information on style, perspective and colours needed to make icons consistent with that OS. They recommend an app called GifMovieGear to create the actual icon files.

        • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Interesting)

          by value_added ( 719364 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:49PM (#12014211)
          Consistent with XP? That would mean an odd mixture of sometimes 16, sometimes 32 colours, sometimes more, and sizes in ranging (depending on the icon) from 16x16 to 48x48, each size being made available in either 16 or 32 colours or more, or all three, but not always, and depending on which .dll that particular icon is being served from, as opposed to other .dlls which contain an identical (but not always) icon.

          There was a Slashdot article posted some time ago where Steve Jobs was quoted as saying (way back when, and I paraphrase) that Bill Gates never understood the concept of design.

          Despite the overhaul made for the XP interface, much of the same crap found on NT, 2K, etc. can be found on XP, and the inconsistencies aren't limited to icon choices.

          As for the icon editor recommendation, unless it's capable of replacing the icons buried in innumerable .dlls, I don't believe it could compare favourably against any number of alternatives (Microangelo, etc.) which, thankfully, make Windows at least bearable.

          But that's just an opinion. I have otheres, of course.
    • Yeah, screen-sized icons in a whopping 4 colours! (which also were the WRONG colours if you deviated from the standard Workbench theme)
      Then we had about 3 different icon-enhancement sets, and the ugly MUI won...

      But I want a decent icon editor and a pointer editor too!
      I miss the pointer editor from OS/2Warp...

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Informative)

      by nazh ( 604234 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:16PM (#12013203) Homepage Journal

      I design the icons in .png then convert them to .ico with png2ico [winterdrache.de] works both on *nix and windows. You can also add several different image sizes in the icon file you make with this program.

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Informative)

      by tgrigsby ( 164308 )
      Graphics Workshop Professional will convert just about anything to an ICO. It's not 100% though -- sometimes you end up with an icon that's off-center for some odd reason. But I love this application -- I've been using it for years now and it's just too handy not to have. It's not terribly expensive, either.

      Website: http://www.mindworkshop.com/ [mindworkshop.com]
      Price: $44.95

      I also have the GIF Construction Set, which is great and all, but I'm just as likely to use some of my other graphics tools to create GIFs, or just

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Informative)

      by iBod ( 534920 )
      Try...

      http://www.microangelo.us/

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dogtanian ( 588974 )
      I used to have some beauties on my Amiga, and they could be any size I liked, up to the whole screen if that was your wish.

      Was this a *good* thing? IIRC, Amiga programs came with lots of oddly-shaped icons that frequently *were* a large portion of the screen-size.

      I'm sure it's nice for the designer's ego, but massive icons aren't that great from a usability point-of-view.

      • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hattig ( 47930 )
        Yes, it was a good idea.

        Unimportant, but maybe required at some point, files/folders could have small icons.

        Important files (e.g., the application itself) would havea big icon. They'd also have a location in the window that was easy to get to, e.g., the centre.

        Files you never need to see had no icon, and you'd have to select the option to view all files to see them.

        A good use of Fitt's Law.

        • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Informative)

          by Dogtanian ( 588974 )
          That's good in theory, but in practice, it requires people to stick to the guidelines you gave. I have memories of opening disks full of programs with massive icons that didn't help much.

          And, to be fair to windows, it lets you hide system files (though I don't).

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:5, Funny)

      by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:35PM (#12013397) Homepage Journal
      all icon editors cost $$.

      Well, when you consider all of the things that icons do, they certain are worth the money you spend on the icon editor.

      Have you ever clicked on an icon? You click on an icon and, bammo, there's a big spread sheet or email program on your screen or something. Icon editors must be complex and expensive to accomplish that. Seeing all of the amazing things icons do, it is the one software expense that the guys in purchasing will have no problem approving.

      On an unrelated note, being a manager of a large software development team, I had been wondering why you techies like Dilbert so much. I have a big informative staff meeting. Afterwards, the techies gather around to pick the Dilbert that matches the meeting. I don't get it.

    • Re:Rolling your own (Score:3, Informative)

      by Freshie ( 626007 )
      You can make an icon in paint. an icon is a bmp with the extension changed. The first pixel in the upper left denotes the transparency. Granted it won't give you sizability, but if all you icons are 48x48, just make it 48x48, and save it with a .ico extension. :)
    • try snico at http://www.snidesoft.com it is freeware

  • Deja Vu (Score:4, Informative)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:04PM (#12013048) Journal
    Or if you don't like this slashdot article, you can read the same one that was posted on slashdot exactly one year ago [slashdot.org] (well, almost exactly)

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    • Re:Deja Vu (Score:3, Informative)

      by NetNifty ( 796376 )
      That was a history of GUIs, this focuses on icons.

    • Orthodoxy Sunday (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:16PM (#12013198) Homepage Journal
      Was this last sunday - maybe it is an annual holiday type thing. (Yes I know-- they aren't related but shouldn't they be?)

      The dominant theme of this Sunday since 843 has been that of the victory of the icons. In that year the iconoclastic controversy, which had raged on and off since 726, was finally laid to rest, and icons and their veneration were restored on the first Sunday in Lent. Ever since, that Sunday been commemorated as the "triumph of Orthodoxy."

      Orthodox teaching about icons was defined at the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787, which brought to an end the first phase of the attempt to suppress icons. That teaching was finally re-established in 843, and it is embodied in the texts sung on this Sunday.
    • -A story was posted on /. and then another story that looked just like it.
      -How much like it, was it the same story?
      -Might have been, I'm not sure.

      A deja vu is usually a glitch in the /. It happens when they change something.

    • Awesome! The post you mention is one year old and the link is STILL SLASHDOTTED!

  • Amiga Icons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:06PM (#12013070) Homepage
    I know on my Amiga 500 I used to draw icons in Icon Editor, and it was pretty cool. I too had some real beauties. I miss Workbench, it was pretty sweet.

    • Re:Amiga Icons (Score:2, Informative)

      by YorgleLlama ( 814842 )
      you can always use AmiWM, using my 1.x patch... http://www.cis.rit.edu/~jerry/Software/amiwm/ :)
    • Didn't the Amiga OS allow icons of any size to exist? That tended to get obnoxious.

    • Re:Amiga Icons (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:30PM (#12013344) Homepage Journal
      Some interesting features of Amiga icons:
      - Arbitrary size
      - Could change image when clicked
      - Possible arbitrary placement

      This was making for some interesting applications. Like, the game Heimdall had screen high and half-screen wide icon of the character with a warhammer, when clicked the character was slamming the hammer down. I would add a tiny, 5x5px icon placing it over corner of Filemaster 2.2 icon just to launch Filemaster 2.0 in case it was needed (just like small "arrow down" in corner of "back" of Firefox)
      There were tools converting pictures to icons. You could tile icons being parts of bigger image over some area, making a "clickable image". Clicking on directory ("drawer") icon was "opening the drawer", there were also many other cool "mini-anims" like hydraulic press "compressing" the package for a compressor program, a floppy multiplying itself for file copy etc.
      Windows was a BIG step backwards from Amiga icon functionality. That step was never undone. Now all leading OSes have single-image, fixed-size icons.

      • Re:Amiga Icons (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dogtanian ( 588974 )
        Some interesting features of Amiga icons: - Arbitrary size. Windows was a BIG step backwards from Amiga icon functionality. That step was never undone. Now all leading OSes have single-image, fixed-size icons.

        Yeah, the multiple images were nice. HOWEVER... we have enough problems under Windows with stupid non-standard GUI flashy crap, without allowing those same aesthetically-challenged cretins to design icons that take up three-quarters of the screen.

        I'm sure those assholes would make hideous fully-

      • Now all leading OSes have single-image, fixed-size icons.

        Well as far as fixed sized goes, yo've obviousy never used Gnome or KDE with SVG icons. And icons in the Dock of OS X can be animated, likewise the systray in windows.

      • Re:Amiga Icons (Score:3, Informative)

        by master_p ( 608214 )

        Windows was a BIG step backwards from Amiga

        Brother, you couldn't have said it better:

        • Workbench apps could run at their own private screen or in the main Workbench screen, whereas in Windows all apps run in the same screen.
        • Each Workbench app could have its own resolution. Clicking the arrows in the menu bar would switch to the next app, changing the resolution automatically. You could edit your game's sprites in 320x240 while editing the game's code in 720x584 overscan.
        • Workbench screens could be d

  • Google Cache (Score:2, Informative)

    by WhatsAProGingrass ( 726851 )
    This doesn't help much, but here is the cache from google. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3hJWEm5NPAkJ: www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/icons/components +&hl=en [64.233.167.104]

  • History of Icons? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <deliverance@level4 . o rg> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:07PM (#12013078) Journal
    Worship the icon you techno pagans!

  • Hmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Psychotext ( 262644 )
    Where's my flaming server icon?

    I think it's about time that slashdot AUTOMATICALLY posted mirrors for the static pages they link to. Either that or stop posting links to crappy little servers that can't handle the traffic!
  • Looks like an iconoclast got to it.

  • my favorite icon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JeanBaptiste ( 537955 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:09PM (#12013103)
    moof the dogcow! [storybytes.com]

  • Icons? (Score:5, Funny)

    by chrispl ( 189217 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:11PM (#12013127) Homepage
    Hm, all of the icons look like the same "broken image" icon to me...

    Slashdotted to hell.

  • Full article text! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:11PM (#12013131)
    This is a chart of icons from various interfaces. Clicking on GUI names, section names or icons themselves will lead to the appropriate page: Options Show GUI families: Lisa Office System Mac OS NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody Windows OS/2 GEOS/GeoWorks Apple II Amiga OS RISC OS BeOS Red Hat Linux QNX Solaris

  • progress? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:12PM (#12013146)
    Hard to say whether it's progress, since I can't access TFA. However, I will say that the MS/Windows habit of trying to iconify every possible command is not progress. Some things simply cannot be conveyed via a 12x12 or 16x16 (or whatever the res is) pictogram.

    • Re:progress? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I will say that the MS/Windows habit of trying to iconify every possible command is not progress.

      And I will say that the Slashdot habit of blaming everything you don't like on Microsoft is also not progress.

      Funny how in one article everyone's like "Apple is teh cool, they invented EVERYTHING and Microsoft just copied them", and then as soon as someone percieves something Apple popularised - like using icons for everything and deprecating the command line - as "bad", they blame Microsoft for it!

      Apple ar

      • Re:progress? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by be-fan ( 61476 )
        You miss the point. Apple's interfaces are not like Microsoft's interfaces. It's not the use of icons that's the problem, but the overuse of cryptic ones. MS Word is the most egregious offender. There are several toolbars full of tiny icons that don't really mean anything to you unless you've used the program before. Most Apple apps, however, have one or two toolbars of big, clear icons for the most important functionality. The rest is left to text labels in the menus.

        • Re:progress? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by kahei ( 466208 )

          There are several toolbars full of tiny icons that don't really mean anything to you unless you've used the program before. Most Apple apps, however, have one or two toolbars of big, clear icons

          So, it's a choice between:

          A -- lots of functions, but you have to actually learn something before you can use them fluently

          B -- a small number of functions, but with biiig pretty pictures

          I'll pick A.

          • Re:progress? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Bradee-oh! ( 459922 )
            So, it's a choice between:

            A -- lots of functions, but you have to actually learn something before you can use them fluently

            B -- a small number of functions, but with biiig pretty pictures

            I think you missed a key point of the grandparent post - That on may OSX applications the "small number of functions with biiig pretty pictures" are the icons visible on the default toolbars and the ADDITIONAL functionality is available through the menu system and keyboard shortcuts.

            I think it would be very difficul

      • Re:progress? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )
        He is talking about "toolbars" as popularized by Microsoft software, not desktop icons. That idea is certainly Microsofts, whether it is good or bad. I do believe it is *way* overused, and am rather annoyed that they still have not figured out that there is no difference between the "menubar" and the "toolbar" and have failed to make them graphically match or merge them together. To be fair, Microsoft also came up with the popup tooltip that works (Apple's earlier version was too graphically intense and I b

    • Re:progress? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saltydogdesign ( 811417 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:02PM (#12013679)

      Some things simply cannot be conveyed via a 12x12 or 16x16 (or whatever the res is) pictogram.

      Tell that to the Chinese.

  • They're too "static" (Score:5, Funny)

    by diegocgteleline.es ( 653730 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:13PM (#12013158)
    Why not .avi files instead of .png icons? Sure, it will eat more resources, but it'd be great to see a animation (a real animation, not just a .gif or a jumping/flash effect) each time I press or put the mouse over it.

  • The more things change... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HAKdragon ( 193605 ) <hakdragon&gmail,com> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:15PM (#12013181)
    While I can't read the article as the server is being slashdotted, I can't help feel that icons, for the most part, have stayed the same since their invention. Sure, we have icons that can be huge, have millions of colors, and have cool transparencey effects, but for the most part, Icons have remained a picture that represents an object or action. The only real innovation that I can think of when it comes to icons are ones which convey information as well as symbolize actions/items. While I'm not familiar if this exists on other icons, it's pretty easy to see on a number of iApps on OSX. For example, Mail's icon shows you how many new messages you have, iCal shows the current date, and when you're downloading files with Safari,the download icons have little progress bars on them, I love the idea of icons providing information to me realting to their particular application and hope to see that implimented more on other systems,
  • In the last handful of years, icons have started making a transformation from functional to stylish. Specifically, look at the differences between Windows 2000->XP icons, and Jaguar->Panther icons. In both cases, the Calculator icon illustrates specifically what I mean. In Jaguar and W2k, it was completly clear what the icon was. In Panther, however, the buttons became grayer, and as a result, the overall icon is less clear. The XP icon is much worse - it is not even distinctly a calculator.

    There are many more examples in the 2k->xp comparison. The address book, for instance. What was once clearly an Address book is now just an open book. The control panel, while not exactly clear in 2k, is now a Todo list! The desktop icon went from a desk with a letter in draft to a _vertical_ oriented surface.

    • Re:It's as if icons peaked 2-4 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Threni ( 635302 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:31PM (#12013355)
      Stupid icons are a bit of a bugbear of mine. So often it would be more clear to simply have some text telling you what the button is/does, rather than an abstract, highly coloured blob. I like this little quote from an interview with Richard Stallman:

      ---
      I used a word processor once. Basically I was at a hotel, and I had to type something and get it out, so I used a computer there. And it was running some word processor, which might have been Microsoft Word, I don't know. On the screen there were lots and lots of cryptic icons, whose meanings I couldn't begin to understand. If they had been English words, I might have had a chance.
      ---

  • Susan Kare - Icon Artist (Score:5, Informative)

    by YorgleLlama ( 814842 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:16PM (#12013195)
    If you like icons, you should check out Susan Kare's page [kare.com] She made most of the original MacOS icons, as well as most of the original Windows icons. Lots of great pixel art.

  • Coral links (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spin2cool ( 651536 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:17PM (#12013207)

    How hard is it to use coral links? Editors - why aren't you automatically append ".nyud.net:8090" to any url? How hard is that, really?.

    Sigh...

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:57PM (#12013630)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Coral links (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CylanR77 ( 532552 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:44PM (#12014142)
        To everyone on a corporate firewall, just suck it up.

        Either just figure out the url to the original content, stop reading slashdot at work and get some *work* done, convince your administrators/managers that you should be allowed to view content on a nonstandard port so you can spend more company time browsing the web, or leave and find a different job.

        For a website which is devoted to shoveling up information for the most elitist of all computer-literate people [including some bright individuals], you'd think that somehow, a better system could be put into place than "bomb websites with loads of traffic, indiscriminantly".

  • Biblical Icons (Score:5, Funny)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:18PM (#12013220) Homepage Journal
    Don't forget the Biblical Icons. That Golden Calf must have some pretty great raytracing and high polys to be worshipped so blatantly at the risk of utter destruction.

  • If you like icons (Score:3, Informative)

    by titaniam ( 635291 ) * <slashdot@drpa.us> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:24PM (#12013280) Homepage Journal
    Then see my site iconsurf.com [iconsurf.com] where hundreds of thousands of icons are displayed to help you surf the internet.
  • It's slow, but at least it's still up! Archive.Org Mirror [archive.org]
  • Unless you include that penguin logo on boot. The graphical desktops have icons, not some kernels.
  • Please inform me. I was using X on SunOS in 1989. Did it have icons and this page is missing X altogether, or is my memory playing tricks and X hasn't had icons until recently?
  • Enjoy an article about designing those full color icons we so cherish today...

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur l= /library/en-us/dnwxp/html/winxpicons.asp

    Informative page, who says microsoft is 100% evil?!

  • Where are the default gnome icons? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arose ( 644256 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:35PM (#12013391)
    I find them better than most of the icons included in the article.

  • Bad joke about icons (believe it or not) (Score:5, Funny)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:38PM (#12013433)

    Q. Once upon a time a mouse became trapped in a Russian cathedral; how did he escape?

    A. He clicked on an icon and opened a window.

    (I can't claim credit for that one...)

  • Joke? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Q: Why is Judy Garland like a cute little picture on an Apple Mac?
    A: Because they're both gay icons.

    Man, that was lame... sorry.

  • Icon progess... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by linebackn ( 131821 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:49PM (#12013542)
    I'm not sure I would call everything that has happened to icons progress.

    Now that icons are commonly 24 bit color or more and use complex shading and styles they are often more difficult to identify at a glance than 2-color monochrome icons. (Icons should always be capable of being represented as a 2-color monochrome icons to ensure they have enough visual contrast)

    And with all of the varying styles these days, if you don't make your icons specific to each operating environment then they stick out like sore a thumb.

    The days of 16-color icons were probably the best because you could make a decent icon without having to be an artist or having an expensive paint program.

    It still boggles my mind how many people choose bad icons for their products. I currently have the joy of working with a particular software product where many of the different configuration tools all have slightly different pictures of little computer... looking things with some kind of network dealy around them, and I keep getting them all mixed up. Of course part of the problem is that the programs aren't very well organized to begin with and the fact that they keep changing the program names in each version proves that.

    Anyway, it is important that any application have a clear distinct purpose, a good icon to reflect that purpose and then to stick with it as people learn what it symbolized.

    Remember, Icons literally become a language to people!

  • People Could I have your attention? (Score:3, Informative)

    by danalien ( 545655 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:52PM (#12013577) Homepage
    for a tiny-winy bit.

    DISCLAIMER: This is off-topic, yet related.

    Now that I have it, all I wanted to say is that we (the 'slashdotters') need to agree to some common courtesy.
    Yes, I'm talking about the 'slashdot effect'.

    That each time we, who post something, take the 'common courtesy' of at least Coral CDN [coralcdn.org] [mirror it].

    And, no it's not that hard at all, either!

    all that 'we' have to do is: http://redirect.nyud.net:8090/?url=${SUBSTITUTE_WI TH_URL} (see footnotes for more info...)

    See, not that hard, really. If it wheren't I would have taken *this time to ask for you attention.


    ----

    *) ...and if you got 'Konqueror' create a (new) shortcut (like so):
    'Searh provider name' == 'Coral CDN' (or enter your own name :P)
    'Search URI' == 'http://redirect.nyud.net:8090/?url=\{@} [nyud.net]'
    'URI shortcuts' == 'cdn,mirror,mirr' (or, again, pick your own 'web shortcuts' :P)

    so, now all you konqi's have to do is 'mirr: ${URL} '

    *) .. and for all you Firefox'rs, here's a searchplugin for you'vs too: coral.src [coralcdn.org] & coral.gif [coralcdn.org] [add them to your 'Mozilla Searchplugins'-dir]

    *) .. and you with other browser, I don't know much about others to comment about. But if you use an enhanced browser (eg. not-IE :-) *blow below the belt, I know, I know =)*), you might be able to add it yourself, someway, like with 'Konqueror'. But I wouldn't know about it, so I leave this up to you'vs.

    • That's no fun (Score:3, Funny)

      by bstadil ( 7110 )
      Taking down the site is part of the Esprit de Corp of being a slashdotter.

      It instills a sense of empowerment and camaraderie among us, don't take this away from us ;-)

    • Howsabout instructions on getting around firewalls? Like was indicated earlier, most firewalls block port 8090.
    • Right; it's not hard. But it rarely works. Like now. Coral gives:
      Due to techical problems this page is currently unavailable.

      Please try after a while - we will do our best to resolve this issue as soon as possible


      And mirrordot is slashdotted.

      Any more ideas you can present to us in that super pedantic manner?
      • hehe :)

        1st) it's hard to mirror, if the target URL has been slashdotted prior to CoralCDN-mirroring it...*but you knew that*

        2nd) ... and it's also hard to mirror a target URL if CoralCDN has been slashdotted, too. [CoralCDN in my eye's is still a quite a 'green' project (needs more exposure to grow), but it sure has got potential of becoming something great!]

        3rd) .. or it could be something with your (closest) node ... or something

  • Truth is Beauty (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:07PM (#12013724) Homepage Journal
    Aesthetic progress, sure. Functional progress? Well, every icon represents a file. Why aren't the complete file operations available for that file available by clicking the icon? Why isn't it obvious by looking at a file icon which apps can process it? Why aren't different modes for reading and writing apparent from the app icons? Why aren't there very obvious differences between data, logic and presentation file icons? Why can't I draw pipes and redirects among the icons, making a graph like the one simulated in a commandline with "|" and "" characters? Not to mention no way to start an app in the background by its icon. And don't get me started on representing permissions, ownership, in-use status, or any other state metadata.

    As icons have progressed, we've evolved some very stable patterns in using the files which they represent. But all that these icons communicate is that a file exists, in a given storage subdivision (folder), with some clues to its datatype. If half the time spent beautifying icons were spent making them work better, more interactive, more representational of the full state of the file and its context, we'd all be more productive.

    • But all that these icons communicate is that a file exists, in a given storage subdivision (folder), with some clues to its datatype.

      I have three OS's in front of me right now. Two of them have icons more or less the same as in the 90's. One is different. If you want useful icons, you want OS X. My mail icon tells me how many unread messages I have. My minimized windows indicate what application they are associated with and a thumbnail of the window. My calendar app shows the date. Downloading files sho

  • A little credit to the inventor (Score:5, Informative)

    by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:58PM (#12014314)
    When the Xerox Star came out, it had icons because they had been proposed in a PhD thesis by David Smith [digibarn.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close