Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > X vs. XP's icons

X vs. XP's icons
Thread Tools
Orange Luna
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 04:05 PM
 
Hate to say it but X gets blown away in icons to XP. People have been hampering on X's icons for a long time but I've got somewhat used to them until I saw XP's. Damn! IconFactory made them and they are so nice. Check out the link:

Icon Factory Design: XP
"It's the cowards and weaklings and sorelosers who hide behind rules and fair play."
The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester
     
cheerios
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 04:10 PM
 
:shrug: to each his own opinion, I guess... I like the X icons much better, though, except when you have classic apps in the dock, 'cuz they look all pixelly... XP's just add to the playschool look that is has... ugh
The short shall inherit the earth. Just you wait. You won't see us coming. We'll pop out from under tables, beds, and closets in hordes. So you're tall, huh? You won't be so tall when I chew off your ankles. Mofo
     
Immortal K-Mart Employee
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 04:16 PM
 
Ew, you like those? They look so Flash like.

{v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
     
Amorya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 05:45 PM
 


No comparison

Amorya

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Amorya ]
What the nerd community most often fail to realize is that all features aren't equal. A well implemented and well integrated feature in a convenient interface is worth way more than the same feature implemented crappy, or accessed through a annoying interface.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 06:50 PM
 
X's are far sleeker looking, XP's are just to cartoonish.....
     
Nick
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 06:58 PM
 
I've seen better homemade things on Xicons
     
Dogma
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cumbria, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 07:09 PM
 
A combination of the two would be great - XP's look more obvious and helpful, I hate too say, whilst OS X's do have a sheer elegance about them. If you look at some of OS X's icons - some people will have a hard time figuring out what they do (which can always be said of various icons - including those in XP)

Almost all of the XP icons are much clearer and concise than the airbrush chique of OS Xs. With the exception of the Install Icon - which OS X absolutely rips to shreds. Will there ever be a perfect icon set? I doubt it - you can't keep everyone happy all the time - and when you're dealing with a large consumer market, the more obvious you make the function of a certain program, the more the user will be confident in their choice.

Isn't GUI design a fickle and oh so personal difference - for one I hate Aqua, not the whole thing, but elements get on my nerves. (e.g. Those goddawfull headache inducing lines and the lack of a distinct border around windows can really confuse you when you have many windows open - for a start)

It's a choice thing - but Apple seem to be playing the 'sophisticated' style card - whilst M$ are playing the 'fun, young and fancy free' one.

I know I'll end up using OS X anyway full time - I just wish that some things were kept unbroken - I can do well without headaches when I'm using my computer!

Grr! Those damn pinstripes!
Hark, I hear a robin sig'ing in the trees!
Nae, there is no sog to be sug,
or am I wrog? Why can't I sig?
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 07:21 PM
 
Apple should have IconFactory design icons for the OS. I think they would do an awesome job with what is already pretty good.
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 07:21 PM
 
To each their own, I agree, but the Fisher Price look was out for me at age 5. LOL I'm happy with my X icons by far.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: exca1ibur ]
     
fobside
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 07:24 PM
 
i like the cartoonish look a lot actually. but i wouldnt change my icons. im one to stick with what comes standard. if i want the XP icons so bad, ill use XP. considering my friends have told me its crap, ill stick with win2k.
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 10:45 PM
 
IconFactory made XPs ICONS!??!?!??! WHOA!

-Owl
     
RAzaRazor
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2001, 11:14 PM
 
I kind of like the XP icons when compared to Win2k. They are nice because they give enough information without giving too much information. They are smooth, so my mind just notices what the icon represents, and not the jagged edges.

That is kind of the problem with some of OS X's icons. Too much information, my mind pays more attention to them because of the detail.

All that aside, I LOVE X's icons, becuase they are so big that people have been able to come up with some amazing ideas. It gives them the canvas space to do something artistic.

     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 01:25 AM
 
OS X icons are TONS nicer than XP's. And I am betting Apple didn't have to hire a "outside party" to do it for them either.
     
MikeM32
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: "Joisey" Home of the "Guido" and chicks with "Big Hair"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 04:35 AM
 
XP's are far too "cartoony" looking. As far as information goes, I have absolutely no problems with figuring out what OSX's icons mean. Just look at the side-by-side comparrison above. Seems pretty obvious to me.

I sorta accept the icons that come with the platform I'm using anyway. I simply prefer the Mac over X86 boxes. Toi be honest I'm still not on OSX full-time yet either.

Mike
     
oranjdisc
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 10:16 AM
 
I know I'll get flamed for this, but I find it kind of disheartening that Iconfactory did the icons for XP. I mean, I know we all have to make money, and I'm sure Microsoft poneyed up quite a chunk of change (the page said it took 4 months to do them all -- 4 months at $50-$100 an hour? hmmmm), but I can't help feeling a little weird about it. I mean, to me, Iconfactory is synonomous with the "Mac experience," and to see them working for Microsoft just depresses me.

I don't particularly like the icons though -- luke warm, IMO.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 02:44 PM
 
Just a typical MS move. "We want icons that look like nice Mac ones" so what do they do? Hire some of the best Mac icon makers.

Heh
     
pete.z
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rotterdam,Holland.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 06:06 PM
 
XP icons? Looks more like a disney cartoon to me.If I want to see those,I let my little brother play with kid pixels a little....

Oh well,I'm sure window users around the globe are thinking they look great.....poor sobs.
MOSTLY HARMLESS

http://www.macfreak.nl
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 08:20 PM
 
Personally, I like all of the XP icons better, except for the Recycle Bin. Which I do like better than the OS X Trash, actually, but nevertheless isn't good. Not very many people know that there are faddish trash cans that look like that. A more traditional and recognizable design would've been better.

Basically, the OS X icons are too _busy_. The Trash is a great example, where between the wires and the crumpled paper, you can't see much. The keyring is pretty similar. Also, the OS X printer is _way_ too dark. The main body of it is very nearly black... it's difficult to make out, especially if you have poor vision.

Dogma--
Regarding the installer, I disagree. My Mom, the platonic ideal of a newbie user (has to get someone to help her use her TV remote; I love her, though) has no idea what a hard disk looks like. Not a damn clue. She could probably be mugged in a dark alley, late at night by one that had a neon sign on it that said 'HARD DISK' and not be able to recognize it.

But she knows a cardboard box when she sees one.

The box and CD are more recognizable as components of the installation process than a component buried in the guts of the computer that many people never learn about. (especially given that there's lots of users that think that the monitor is the computer, and the entire CPU is the hard disk; some don't understand the difference between a 'hard' 1.44 floppy and a hard disk either)
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 08:48 PM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>

Also, the OS X printer is _way_ too dark. The main body of it is very nearly black... it's difficult to make out, especially if you have poor vision.


</STRONG>
The thing is that most of the "dark" icons above are Utility based icons. According to the Aqua guidelines. ultility apps should be darker to suggest their utility like nature while other apps can be lighter if they wish.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 11:07 PM
 
IIRC, it was that utility icons should be more or less colorless -- not dark.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Mac Guru
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2001, 11:36 PM
 
One thing I feel is lacking in the XP icon area is that while they can be veiwed larger they are stuck at 48 MAX while OS X has 128 MAX. I know a lot of you out there tend to say "we'll ya but no one in their right mind uses 128". Well I'm here to say I use them a LOT. When designing things like CD's... When a user inserts a CD into a drive, and opens it on the desktop, you want them to see the important stuff.. by enlarging an icon to 128 and centralizing it in a window they get "hey I am VERY important" right away and that is a good thing... I've seen many people using this already and it's very smart. in XP you still get, even at 48 "hey look mommy, a bunch of really pretty BIG icons." I have yet to see very many CD's in windows that people GET when they see the contents" (hell has anyone ever noticed that there are sometimes anywhere from 3 to 4 SETUP icons? Even I get confused at times)

Mac Guru
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 01:03 AM
 
I still can't believe there are MS apologists trying to actually say XP's icons look better...

I guess to some people 4 dogs playing poker is much cooler than a Da Vinci
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 02:24 AM
 
Who's an apologist?

First, there is no platonic ideal involved here that any one of us can haul in as support. It is entirely possible for people to have differing opinions each of which are equally valid. Certainly there's no objective _proof_ that DaVinci is better than "Looks Like Four of a Kind" (the name of the dogs playing poker painting) Both are artistic works, although even that can be extraordinarily broad. (I like McCloud's definition -- roughly: art is everything not an intrinsic part of reproduction or survival, and can even accomplish those goals as well at times) Certainly tastes change even among the elite. A hundred years ago impressionism was still working to establish itself widely, and now people wear t-shirts with Monet. Muslim artists from many centuries ago would probably appalled at the inclusion of human forms, which is idolatrous. Pre-renaissance artists might've been mystified by our fondness for perspective. Often size was dicated by importance, not proximity to the viewer.

Platform ideology as a method of determining what is and isn't good art strikes me as about as appealing as any other ideology... teutonic art, soviet art, etc. Don't go that route.

Second, personally, I've been trying to evaluate these functionally. Do they serve their purpose as iconographics representing some object (or ocassionally verb, adjective, etc., e.g. stop, disabled), if they're clear and recognizable, if they're generally not loaded with culture-specifc meaning (check out mail icons sometime -- the sheer variety of mailboxes precludes this being safe territory), if they can be recognized by people with physical impairments, if there's not too much redundant information, and so on.

I'm not awfully fond of the differing perspectives, varying light sources, etc. in either, but that is at least a relatively minor issue, and forgivable if there's a good reason for it.

But I think that, very broadly speaking, abstraction is preferable here. Most iconographics tend to follow this route. Partially this is due to practical restrictions. But I think that there's a definate preference to strip away unnecessary meaning. Look at international road signs, for example. They're used to one extent or another in all kinds of situations and all over the world. (there was a debate about whether Americans would understand the international prohibition symbol when it began to be introduced on no-smoking signs, no-parking signs and such. We seem to have coped)

Little details on a hard disk -- especially if they're not doing a good job with hinting (I'd have to go back and check, I don't remember) -- seem quite extraneous. As I mentioned before, I think that in many circumstances it probably isn't even wise to show people pictures of hard disks because that references something that isn't familiar in the real world. (we were doing alright on floppies and external hard disks however -- that's what the old MacOS icon is of, btw... a disk's case) About the only exception I can think of would be of graphical information, at least if it's something recognizable.

Representative and communicative value are what I'm looking for in icons. They need to work, not be hung on a wall.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 03:20 AM
 
You can muddy your waters to appear "deep" all you want..

You take Joe Schmoh off the street and ask him which one looks better and I am betting he will say OS X's icons.

You can however say "I like the cutsey cartoonish look of XPs icons better." There is nothing wrong with that.
But saying that they do indeed look better or are of better quality than OS X's icons is downright silly.
Anyone with any type of artistic knowledge or not will tell you the same thing. The reason why icons where simplistic before was the limitations they had to work with. Now there is no limitations. While XPs icons are TONS better than previous MS OS's they are in not the same league as OS X's.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 03:28 AM
 
Let's look at more OS X icons. Please show me something in XP that even COMPARES to these.

     
fobside
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 03:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Sine:
<STRONG>Let's look at more OS X icons. Please show me something in XP that even COMPARES to these.</STRONG>
these are pretty impressive. i still like the XP icons too tho. theyre both nice. ones definitely more cartoonish than the other and some people like that. no big deal and no reason for anyone to get bent out of shape if someone doesnt agree.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 04:18 AM
 
Sine--
I am an artist. I made my living as an artist for years. I only just a few months ago set that aside to go back to school, in order to change professions into one that is (from my point of view) exceptionially intertwined with art, and from where I believe I can influence art even more extensively than I did as an actual artist.

I really dig art, I think that for a subject as difficult to describe or define in any objective way, that I'm reasonably good at it. You are of course free to differ.

This argument is precisely the reason why, as an artist, I really don't care for arguments as to what constitutes art, or what makes some art better than some other art. Both decisions are intensely personal.

The most I can say for the former is that I believe that very, very many things that people do are art, even if not intended or easily recognizable as such. That is, I favor an all-inclusive view. I won't discuss what art I personally like usually; that kind of discussion doesn't often pan out well, I've found. (a lesson learned only after dating, living with, and being friends with a host of other people with deep interests in art)


But this is why I declined to post my views as to which of the two sets of icons had the greatest artistic merit. Really, with regards to icons, I don't care much.

What I specifically said that I was looking at was how _functional_ the icons are. If you sat people down and carefully measured, across a large, diverse test group, reactions to the various icons, and performed this test in a totally objective manner, that the XP icons would win out on a number of key criteria.

NOT because they're 'cute' or 'cartoony.' Because I think that they are more recognizable as objects (or verbs, adjectives, etc.) typical users are familiar with. Because I think that they do not confuse their meaning with unecessary noise. Because the raison d'etre of an icon is not to look good, but to communicate information to the user. Appearance is important, but necessarily secondary to that utilitarian goal.

Indeed, you say "The reason why icons where simplistic before was the limitations they had to work with. Now there is no limitations." This is, however, demonstrably untrue. Consider, as I've mentioned before, those acme of iconographics, STREET SIGNS. Although I'm more of a pen and ink guy, when it comes to doing work by hand, I bet I could crack open the old paints and put a delightful little academic landscape on a 'School Crossing' sign. And there are plenty of artists that are more proficient than I am.

Why then, do you think, the current sign, with two very rudimentary stick figures was adopted? There's room on the sign for additional detail. And I've never met a student yet who looked like that. (the lack of a head floating above their bodies usually gives this away to my eagle eyes) You cannot make the argument that it is because technology did not permit them to do so. That is manifestly false.

Rather, the sign was DELIBERATELY INTENDED to confer, in the simplest and most rudimentary way, the notion of a school child with no wasteful detail whatsoever. We then typically reinforce it with a printed legend underneath. (As Apple's HIG discovered after things like the Control Panel disaster, words are worth a thousand pictures)

I _seriously_ think you should try something light to get you started as to how this concept can work, and why it can work out well. I've already mentioned McCloud, and he's pretty accessible. Check out his first book, "Understanding Comics" for some discussion along these lines. Later, you might want to branch into Tufte (who's awesome, but not for the raw beginner) and then see if you can pick up a manual of iconographics just as a comparative thing. You'll be surprised how many thousands of symbols there are that denote things effectively with little, if any, realism at all.


WRT the 2d set of icons posted, I cannot compare them to additional XP icons. I am simply unfamiliar with them. My judgements, like everyone else's here, I suspect, are based on what was in the thread. You're free to find some others, if you like, however.

But I can point out a few problems with the OS X icons at least:
N.B. that this is in no particular order, nor exhasutive. I used to charge a bit for this kind of thing, so be glad to get it for free

*As already mentioned, most users do not know what an internal 3.5" hard disk looks like. Thus, using a moderately photorealistic icon of one isn't necessary. It only confuses things.

*The arrowheads on the DiskCopy icon are indistinct. The icon was either designed to be usable only at very large sizes, which is not the norm, or it did not gain the benefits of thorough hinting at smaller sizes. Additionally, it does not conform to Apple's HIG regarding document placement in an application icon.

*The CPU Monitor icon is suffering from severe dissonance with its name. The CPU in the background (a G4, I believe) is occluded so by the stopwatch that it is difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, most users don't know what a CPU is, the difference between CPU as it refers to their computer and CPU as it refers to a microprocessor (an unfortunate relic of mainframe and minicomputing), or what one looks like, if you remove the rather massive heat sink. At the very least, many people do know what a monitor is, but there isn't one in the icon, nor does the program actually have anything to do with a monitor in the common VDU sense of the word aside from displaying output on one. The stopwatch doesn't make much sense at all. Nothing in the functionality or the name gives it any reason to be there.

*Preview _could_ work, but it strikes me that the designers were either harmfully in tune with their userbase, or thinking only of themselves. I bet you could ask a hundred people on the street what a loupe is, and people would describe objects twisted into a circle, e.g. roller coaster tracks. Loupes of that design are rare outside of graphic design, and even then only designers a fair bit with print media. I don't even know where mine is anymore, although I did find my gauge and my calculator wheel as I've unpacked.

*Network Utility ("I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" -- heh) does not utilize the same 'network' symbol as in its proximate neighbor, NetInfo Utility, iDisks, the Network icon, etc.

*Internet Connect, with it's large yellow 'book' and telephone handset, seems to have been a past incarnation of the Address Book. It's certainly triggering associations with that for me. The WWW is about the only thing it has going for it, and that's not going to survive at small sizes, but that yellow sure will.

*None of the icons have any kind of bold outlining associated with them to help them stand out. The presence of an alpha mask helps somewhat, and I'd keep that too, but I don't see a reason to ignore that old illustrator's trick, at least at small sizes, where it can be introduced by hinting.

Anyway, there's a slew of stuff, but I really want to take advantage of that extra hour of sleep tonight. Just remember that you should be less concerned with the subjective artistic merit of the icons, and more interested in the objective usability of the icons.

'DO THEY GET THE JOB DONE THE BEST,' as opposed to 'are they pretty'.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 04:19 AM
 
No ones getting bent out of shape But no one needs to be a "apologist" for MS's lack of taste either.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 04:53 AM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Sine--
I am an artist. I made my living as an artist for years.</STRONG>
So do a lot of people in this forum. Including me.
<STRONG>
I really dig art, I think that for a subject as difficult to describe or define in any objective way, that I'm reasonably good at it. You are of course free to differ.</STRONG>
Oh yeah.. I am sure you hold no bias..
<STRONG>
This argument is precisely the reason why, as an artist, I really don't care for arguments as to what constitutes art, or what makes some art better than some other art. Both decisions are intensely personal.
</STRONG>
This has nothing to do with art.. the OS X icons simply LOOK more polished. They look like more thought was gone into them.
<STRONG>
The most I can say for the former is that I believe that very, very many things that people do are art, even if not intended or easily recognizable as such. That is, I favor an all-inclusive view. I won't discuss what art I personally like usually; that kind of discussion doesn't often pan out well, I've found. (a lesson learned only after dating, living with, and being friends with a host of other people with deep interests in art)
</STRONG>Again more muddying the waters to appear deep
<STRONG>
But this is why I declined to post my views as to which of the two sets of icons had the greatest artistic merit. Really, with regards to icons, I don't care much.
</STRONG>
My argument is not even about artistic merit.
<STRONG>
What I specifically said that I was looking at was how _functional_ the icons are. If you sat people down and carefully measured, across a large, diverse test group, reactions to the various icons, and performed this test in a totally objective manner, that the XP icons would win out on a number of key criteria.
</STRONG>
I am betting the XPs icons wouldn't win. I am betting if you took people that have NEVER used a computer before XPs icons would lose hands down. See while MS pays other icon artists to make their icons for them.. Apple has people in house that does such things. They take these things VERY seriously.. in not just originality but quality and usability.
<STRONG>
NOT because they're 'cute' or 'cartoony.' Because I think that they are more recognizable as objects (or verbs, adjectives, etc.) typical users are familiar with. Because I think that they do not confuse their meaning with unecessary noise. Because the raison d'etre of an icon is not to look good, but to communicate information to the user. Appearance is important, but necessarily secondary to that utilitarian goal.
</STRONG>
And the OS X icons are in no way "confusing" and maybe typical "windows users" are more familiar with. Hell look what they have had to live with before XP.. pure crap. You know you CAN make something functional AND look good. OS X's icons do just that.
<STRONG>
Indeed, you say "The reason why icons where simplistic before was the limitations they had to work with. Now there is no limitations." This is, however, demonstrably untrue. Consider, as I've mentioned before, those acme of iconographics, STREET SIGNS. Although I'm more of a pen and ink guy, when it comes to doing work by hand, I bet I could crack open the old paints and put a delightful little academic landscape on a 'School Crossing' sign. And there are plenty of artists that are more proficient than I am.
</STRONG>
Your supposed to be watching the road.. not staring at street signs. There are reasons street signs are simple and not eye catching.
Your computer monitor is staring straight at you. It's nice to have pleasant icons in front of you.
<STRONG>
Why then, do you think, the current sign, with two very rudimentary stick figures was adopted? There's room on the sign for additional detail. And I've never met a student yet who looked like that. (the lack of a head floating above their bodies usually gives this away to my eagle eyes) You cannot make the argument that it is because technology did not permit them to do so. That is manifestly false.

Rather, the sign was DELIBERATELY INTENDED to confer, in the simplest and most rudimentary way, the notion of a school child with no wasteful detail whatsoever. We then typically reinforce it with a printed legend underneath. (As Apple's HIG discovered after things like the Control Panel disaster, words are worth a thousand pictures)
</STRONG>
Read above.
<STRONG>
I _seriously_ think you should try something light to get you started as to how this concept can work, and why it can work out well. I've already mentioned McCloud, and he's pretty accessible. Check out his first book, "Understanding Comics" for some discussion along these lines. Later, you might want to branch into Tufte (who's awesome, but not for the raw beginner) and then see if you can pick up a manual of iconographics just as a comparative thing. You'll be surprised how many thousands of symbols there are that denote things effectively with little, if any, realism at all.
</STRONG>
So cause Apple isn't following a long these "rules" that aren't really rules they are wrong? Heh
<STRONG>
WRT the 2d set of icons posted, I cannot compare them to additional XP icons. I am simply unfamiliar with them. My judgements, like everyone else's here, I suspect, are based on what was in the thread. You're free to find some others, if you like, however.

But I can point out a few problems with the OS X icons at least:
N.B. that this is in no particular order, nor exhasutive. I used to charge a bit for this kind of thing, so be glad to get it for free

*As already mentioned, most users do not know what an internal 3.5" hard disk looks like. Thus, using a moderately photorealistic icon of one isn't necessary. It only confuses things.
</STRONG>
So you put a computer there instead? Nope.. I know some people that wouldn't OPEN a icon that looked like their computer cause they was afraid of messing with the computers "insides" Fact is there are going to be stupid computer users anyhow. Must we dumb down things just for them? This reminds me of MS's "Are you sure you want to do that" dialog that pops out about 3 times before you can do anything.
<STRONG>
*The arrowheads on the DiskCopy icon are indistinct. The icon was either designed to be usable only at very large sizes, which is not the norm, or it did not gain the benefits of thorough hinting at smaller sizes. Additionally, it does not conform to Apple's HIG regarding document placement in an application icon.
</STRONG>
Your joking right? I am sitting here looking at it at 32pixels wide. I clearly see the arrows.. and any idjit would know that means disk - &gt; image.
<STRONG>
*The CPU Monitor icon is suffering from severe dissonance with its name. The CPU in the background (a G4, I believe) is occluded so by the stopwatch that it is difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, most users don't know what a CPU is, the difference between CPU as it refers to their computer and CPU as it refers to a microprocessor (an unfortunate relic of mainframe and minicomputing), or what one looks like, if you remove the rather massive heat sink. At the very least, many people do know what a monitor is, but there isn't one in the icon, nor does the program actually have anything to do with a monitor in the common VDU sense of the word aside from displaying output on one. The stopwatch doesn't make much sense at all. Nothing in the functionality or the name gives it any reason to be there.
</STRONG>
Now this is quite funny. The FIRST icon I had EVER seen from OS X was this one. A Apple employee showed me it before OS X was out.. showing my the quality of work the icon team was doing. Now immediately seeing this I knew it was some kind of processor usage application. Would some guy that knows nothing about computers know this? Who knows. If not I am betting the same person has no idea about what the XP icons mean either.
<STRONG>
*Preview _could_ work, but it strikes me that the designers were either harmfully in tune with their userbase, or thinking only of themselves. I bet you could ask a hundred people on the street what a loupe is, and people would describe objects twisted into a circle, e.g. roller coaster tracks. Loupes of that design are rare outside of graphic design, and even then only designers a fair bit with print media. I don't even know where mine is anymore, although I did find my gauge and my calculator wheel as I've unpacked.
</STRONG>
They are pictures.. What else would someone confuse this app as? Nothing. You see that icon and you KNOW its use.
<STRONG>
*Network Utility ("I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" -- heh) does not utilize the same 'network' symbol as in its proximate neighbor, NetInfo Utility, iDisks, the Network icon, etc.
</STRONG>
And it should why? It's a pinger and traceroute. Pinging term came from Submarine ships.. get the picture? It's quite clever actually.
<STRONG>
*Internet Connect, with it's large yellow 'book' and telephone handset, seems to have been a past incarnation of the Address Book. It's certainly triggering associations with that for me. The WWW is about the only thing it has going for it, and that's not going to survive at small sizes, but that yellow sure will.
</STRONG>
That one I will give to you. It was a bad icon design.
<STRONG>
*None of the icons have any kind of bold outlining associated with them to help them stand out. The presence of an alpha mask helps somewhat, and I'd keep that too, but I don't see a reason to ignore that old illustrator's trick, at least at small sizes, where it can be introduced by hinting.
</STRONG>
You mean none of them are real gaudy and stand out? GOOD! They are more pleasing to the eye.. less cartoon like.
I have yet had any one complain OS X's icons where dull though.. or they had a hard time seeing them
<STRONG>
Anyway, there's a slew of stuff, but I really want to take advantage of that extra hour of sleep tonight. Just remember that you should be less concerned with the subjective artistic merit of the icons, and more interested in the objective usability of the icons.

'DO THEY GET THE JOB DONE THE BEST,' as opposed to 'are they pretty'.</STRONG>
And in my opinion XPs icons do not do that any better than OS X's to a person that has no idea about computer. To them both of the icons would practically mean nothing to them. To a person that has used computers.. it's obvious what icons are better here.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 05:02 AM
 
Lets look at these again



The first ones shouldn't be compared cause MS uses that icon for the "drive" and Apple uses a hard drive.
Now do you open your computer and it's monitor to get inside to your information? No you open your HD

The cameras are about the same as far as functionality goes. It's obvious though what one is the better looking

The trash icons are in NO WAY comparable. XP's trash icon looks NOTHING like any trash or "bin" I have ever seen IRL.
The top of it looks more like a G4 tower. While OS X's trash icon indeed looks like one I have in my very office.

The print icons are the same functionally .. but again.. OS X's look tons better.

Same with the key icons

XP's folders are Kindergardenish to say the least. I was hoping they would get away from the Yellow look.

The installer icons are not comparable either. XPs is a box with a CD standing in front of it. That just doesn't say "Installer" to me.
However OS X's does this very well indeed.


I am sure the icons looks had more to do with MS's poor taste than the artist's ability. Cause i have seen Iconfactory's work before. This is sub par compared to most of their work.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Sine ]
     
DocWest
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 07:39 AM
 
I wouldnt say that the XP icons are bad work.
But for an OS, they suck.
They could be good for a kiddie theme, but not a standard out of the box OS.

But i like looking at the keys. Goddamn that X one is nice.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 12:31 PM
 
Sine--
Your argument regarding who precisely is designing the icons has no merit. Partially because in this case, as IconFactory clarified (I'm told) on their site, they worked hand-in-hand with MS. And partially because Apple often goes outside for design work, e.g. some of the proposed Copland themes, the MacOS logo (which is used as an icon), etc.

Besides, what does it matter who designed it? I'm not seeing the relevance at all. Might as well complain that Apple purchases a lot of the parts it uses from other vendors as well.

My argument as to the intended objective of iconography stands. I really wish you'd look into it. There is distinct value in abstraction, and I think that you're really not giving any weight to functionality, which in this case actually deserves most of the weight. Your refusal to consider the example of the preponderance of icons everywhere is pretty astounding here. Apple doesn't get to have its own private set of rules, you know.

However -- if we remain in contention, there is but one actual way to determine who is right here. A double-blind usability test. Interface design is a science, not an art. I encourage you to check out some books on user testing, impartially conduct a survey over a decently sized population, and bring us back the results. Me, I have work that I need to be doing, and I gave up this kind of thing. But it is the only way to be sure. Personal taste is not a valid metric... that's why I've been trying to avoid it, and merely been looking at how well either set of icon conveys useful information, regardless of if the colors clash or whatever.

Incidentally, the WinXP Recycle Bin was, as I said, poorly chosen. It looks like a sort of rather trendy trash can sold at Target, and a few other places. It's actually won design awards, it's pretty neat, and a roommate of mine had one, but it is not a familiar design. I've been critical of that particular choice for a while.

My objection to the OS X Trash, however, was not that it is not easily recognizable: it is. Rather that in a small area, on a computer screen, a mesh of fine diagonal lines on top of many different greys from the crumpled paper is difficult to make out if your vision is not excellent. This is what I mean by unnecessary detail. Rather like when the original Mac and Lisa designers decided that having flies circling the Trash was a bad idea. (check it out -- it's true)

I'm surprised that you don't like the yellow folders. After all, are not the vast majority of real-life folders yellow? (or at least manilia colored) If realism is important to you, I would've thought that you'd be all over that.

Re: the installer, check out my previous note. Personally, I wouldn't've thought of the XP approach to it, but it's a very bright idea.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 01:17 PM
 
I have ben designing icons and GUIs for about 5 years now. I have read up on all of the "icon" sciences and the Human Interface Guidelines. WinXP's icons makes it no easier to determine what things are to NEW computers users than OS X icons. Fact is anyone not "in the know" would have to learn what these icons represent. Anyone "in the know" that is older than 16 (young kids and teenage gir;s probably do like the "cartoonish" look better) and has no bias to either OS would clearly choose the OS X icons. And BTW I happen to know Apple did indeed design those icons in house.
     
oranjdisc
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 02:24 PM
 
About the trash cans &gt;&gt; both Apple AND Microsoft are guilty of designing their trash can icons based on real-world cans. I should know...I have 3 of metal mesh cans in my house, bought at Bed Bath and Beyond. When you enlarge the trash can icon, it's virtually identical to the real one.

The Microsoft trash icon was taken from the molded plastic cans you can find at stores like Hold Everytthing and The Container Store. Quite simply, they're everywhere, and a big fad, especially for the dorm room milk crate crowd.

While I'm at it, the whole "Recycle Bin" metaphor is just dumb anyway. Unplug your experience and think of this from a newbie perspective -- what makes more sense when you want to delete something? Trash, or Recycle? No contest...trash.

Apple needs to come up with a different icon for "Computer." Sure, it's the face of an iMac, but for all we know it could resemble monitor settings. Doesn't work well.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 02:38 PM
 
Originally posted by oranjdisc:
<STRONG>About the trash cans &gt;&gt; both Apple AND Microsoft are guilty of designing their trash can icons based on real-world cans. I should know...I have 3 of metal mesh cans in my house, bought at Bed Bath and Beyond. When you enlarge the trash can icon, it's virtually identical to the real one.

The Microsoft trash icon was taken from the molded plastic cans you can find at stores like Hold Everytthing and The Container Store. Quite simply, they're everywhere, and a big fad, especially for the dorm room milk crate crowd.</STRONG>
They are supposed to be designed based on real-world cans. That is a GOOD thing. Although I have to say I have never seen a can like the one that looks like XPs
[/qb]
While I'm at it, the whole "Recycle Bin" metaphor is just dumb anyway. Unplug your experience and think of this from a newbie perspective -- what makes more sense when you want to delete something? Trash, or Recycle? No contest...trash.
[/qb]
That was just MS's "Look we didn't copy off of Apple.. it's not a trash can .. it's a recycle bin!"
How clever.
<STRONG>
Apple needs to come up with a different icon for "Computer." Sure, it's the face of an iMac, but for all we know it could resemble monitor settings. Doesn't work well.</STRONG>
Works just as well as XP's computer and monitor icon. After all you don't open the contents of your monitor to get inside the computer.
     
iCartman
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In a van down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 02:51 PM
 
It's a shame Apple removed it's HID group... They used to product some earth shattering UI's
respect mah athoritah!
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 03:28 PM
 
Yeah I am not too thrilled about Luna OR Aqua.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 05:12 PM
 
Sine--
You've repeatedly made unfounded accusations of my being an "MS Apologist," and you've continually refused to address my contention that REGARDLESS of artistic style or asthetic merit, icons may be objectively determined to hold functional value.

You're totally hung up in an anti-MS bias which has no place whatsoever in objectively trying to improve UI, as good ideas can and do come out of Redmond. And you're making wild claims that no one in the world who you cannot stereotype in some negative fashion would possibly disagree with you.

Again, your _OPINION_ as to what looks good and what doesn't equally as worthless as everyone else's. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish any kind of objective truth here. Give it up; it doesn't work, it's never worked.

What I am interested in, as I am finding myself having to continually repeat to you, in progressively smaller and smaller words, is how well the icon actually does its job. In finding this out, you FIRST see if it communicates all that it needs to, to the user, and only what it needs to, to the user. Only SECOND do you try to find something which fulfills the first criteria and is also attractive to a wide range of users.

From your posts, all I'm picking up from you is that you want things to comply with your taste, which favors photorealism, and if it doesn't work as well as it could (e.g. as in details being lost at small sizes in the Disk Copy icon because so much is crammed into it) then that doesn't matter because it looks like something, and besides which, "any idjit would know...." You defend the Network Utility because even though it breaks with an established theme, there's a subtle in-joke that only a small minority of users will ever understand. You claim that because the predominant element in the Preview app are document icons, that it is clear that it is in fact an application. (esp. as the tool included to denote that it is an application is a rare specialty tool limited to only a couple of professions, and isn't awfully visible)

So based on your comments, you are of course unhappy with Apple using the logo it has for so many years. I mean, it's not a realistic looking Apple, is it? It's often either rainbow-striped, or blue. It's pretty flat. There's no stem holding the unrealistically proportioned leaf on. No specular highlights. No mottling on the skin. No rivulets of juice running along the side, or pooling at the bottom. We can't see the interior. We can't see the teethmarks. By the standards you've been espousing, it's got to be one of the crappiest logos ever! Me, I think that the rainbow stripes were a bad idea from a feasability standpoint and I would never have done it, but that it was otherwise excellent. And in fact, they almost went too far, and had to put in the bite to help make it clear as to what it was.

If you're not interested in holding a real discussion on the subject, you need only to say so. Me, I am interested in meritorious design WHEREVER I find it, because I know that it is folly to wallow in your own self-assuredness.

Incidentally, what's your beef with the concept of having a Recycle Bin? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: UI is not a pissing contest. Anyone who thinks that it is good to refuse to share their UI concepts is a fool. The sole objective of good UI is to help users. That's _IT_. It is extremely humanist; I've always felt it to have some rather noble qualities. If having a Trash-analogue will assist Windows users, then I'm all for it. I want people to try to improve the ideas that they borrow of course, but I see no reason to let people suffer from bad UI when it is unecessary. It is directly contrary to the goal of the thing. Look back to the development of the Mac and Lisa, the Star and Alto, and Doug Englebart's AHI (Augmenting the Human Intellect) work at Stanford.

Greediness is one of those things that should be left at the door. It has no place whatsoever in the designer's mind.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 05:30 PM
 
Excuse me.. but I understand exactly what your saying. It's redundant. Cause anyone that isn 't familiar with computers wont have a clue as to WHAT the icon represents until they learn to associate that icon with a certain action. And yes this means your average Joe. I have also showed how XP's icons also faulted in the way you claim OS X's do. They both go against your "rules" for icon design.
Hell look at the IE logo.. one big E. HTF is that supposed to make people think of the internet? The only people that relate that to the internet are the ones that have all ready been using computers. They all ready know what action that icons represents. You being a MS apologist by making up redundant excuses as to why their icons look the way they do. And yes I know all about the ALTO and PARC. The GUI was a lot different than the Mac GUI was. Unlike Windows which copied the basic design of the Mac. No there was no trash can in the PARC OS either.I stated that OS X's icons looked more classy than XP's and I will stand behind it.
     
nforcer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 05:34 PM
 
XP icons and it's interface looks too kiddy. It looks like a so-so theme someone made under OS 9 with a Kalideoscope theme maker, whereas X has a much more cleaner, refined, photographic look.
Genius. You know who.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 05:47 PM
 
Now lets see



To me this says paint program not Appearance & Themes



You'd think this was some sort of Pie Chart making software

And oh about Hard Drives icon that shouldn't look like the actual HD cause your average user don't know what that looks like..



Looks like MS breaks that "rule" of yours too.

Now that we can admit that both Apple and Microsoft both break your guidelines for icon design. Your argument is moot.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Sine ]
     
groverat
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austin, Tx.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 06:01 PM
 
If the XP icons were used in a MacOS you would make the same argument in reverse.

They are icons.

jesus h. christ
Long live the AppleInsider forums!
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 06:03 PM
 
Originally posted by groverat:
<STRONG>If the XP icons were used in a MacOS you would make the same argument in reverse.

They are icons.

jesus h. christ </STRONG>

Naw I wouldn't. I actually like that Silver Luna theme better than I do Aqua.

Aqua is just lame for design use.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 06:58 PM
 
My argument was _never_ that XP had better icons generally. Only that of the icons presented _here_ that they appeared to have been equally or better designed. Even then with some caveats, e.g. the trash can not being sufficiently recognizable.

Hell, I don't have XP, I'm not planning to get it, (I primarily use Win2K, MacOS 9, and Linux) and I've never seen more than a couple of the icons. I never once have said that MS can do no wrong. You're putting those words into my mouth. Hell, I can't stand _most_ of what MS does. But I'm willing to give them credit when credit is due. That I was not giving even the paltry few icons listed initially unconditional support ought to have been a rather big clue. Frankly I agree with you completely regarding your most recent post w/ icons.

I have no doubt that MS screws things up at times. Hell, I know a number of people at MS; I'd go so far as to say a lot of the time. If you had been more attentive, Sine, instead of instantly labling me and ignoring what I've been saying, you probably would've realized this.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 07:24 PM
 
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>My argument was _never_ that XP had better icons generally. Only that of the icons presented _here_ that they appeared to have been equally or better designed. Even then with some caveats, e.g. the trash can not being sufficiently recognizable.</STRONG>
Did you not say?
What I specifically said that I was looking at was how _functional_ the icons are. If you sat people down and carefully measured, across a large, diverse test group, reactions to the various icons, and performed this test in a totally objective manner, that the XP icons would win out on a number of key criteria.

NOT because they're 'cute' or 'cartoony.' Because I think that they are more recognizable as objects (or verbs, adjectives, etc.) typical users are familiar with. Because I think that they do not confuse their meaning with unecessary noise. Because the raison d'etre of an icon is not to look good, but to communicate information to the user. Appearance is important, but necessarily secondary to that utilitarian goal.
<STRONG>
Hell, I don't have XP, I'm not planning to get it, (I primarily use Win2K, MacOS 9, and Linux) and I've never seen more than a couple of the icons. I never once have said that MS can do no wrong. You're putting those words into my mouth. Hell, I can't stand _most_ of what MS does. But I'm willing to give them credit when credit is due. That I was not giving even the paltry few icons listed initially unconditional support ought to have been a rather big clue. Frankly I agree with you completely regarding your most recent post w/ icons.
</STRONG>
But you was being a apologist as to why MSs icons looked so "generic" I proved just because the icons are generic looking doesn't mean it is easier for normal Joe to use them.
<STRONG>
I have no doubt that MS screws things up at times. Hell, I know a number of people at MS; I'd go so far as to say a lot of the time. If you had been more attentive, Sine, instead of instantly labling me and ignoring what I've been saying, you probably would've realized this.</STRONG>
Again I wasn't ignoring what you said at all. I just didn't agree with it. And I proved the reason I didn't agree with it was right. XP's icons are no easier to use than OS X's.. and on top of that.. they are no where near the quality.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 08:45 PM
 
I proved just because the icons are generic looking doesn't mean it is easier for normal Joe to use them.
Again I wasn't ignoring what you said at all. I just didn't agree with it. And I proved the reason I didn't agree with it was right. XP's icons are no easier to use than OS X's..
In total? I couldn't say whether there's a difference. Of the original sets of five? You proved nothing. Nor did I, in fact, as I said earlier. Proof consists of hard numbers, Sine. It consists of properly-conducted actual user testing, and not Aristotelian* mental masturbation as to what you, with no evidence at all, think the result of a test would be. There is NO proof that you have presented. Am I mistaken? Is there a copy of some test result with good methodology somewhere in this thread that establishes your position? No, no, I don't think so.

My arguments aren't founded on proof -- in the absence of hard, irrefutable data, I've been sticking to a precedential approach. I.e., that the approach adopted by prior designers, some of whom have done proper testing, is probably still valid. I could be wrong, and if so, I'm happy to adopt a different standpoint. But you're in no position to tell me, as it stands.

and on top of that.. they are no where near the quality.
Which is entirely subjective, as I've flogged to death. For every person who likes your DaVinci, there is another person who thinks that it's crap. Both people are right. Artistic value isn't quantifiable or objective, so please stop bringing it up again, and again, and again.

But you was being a apologist as to why MSs icons looked so "generic"
No, no I wasn't. If I am siding anywhere, it is not with Apple or with MS. Both can go to hell, so far as I care. I don't like platform ideology, much as I was involved in it in my youth. I think that they both suck.

My position is that abstraction in icon design where functionality is not impaired is good. If MS has icons that adopt that approach, then they are falling within the boundaries of what I support. If Apple has icons that adopt that approach, then they _too_ are within those boundaries. If either changes, then it is not my position that is being altered.

A little of the XP icon set appears to fall inside the bounds of what I think is generally good design. Virtually none of the OS X icon set does. But that's not _my_ fault, and should it, I'd gladly endorse it.

I refuse to be categorized as an apologist for anything. Neither MS nor Apple, nor any other platform or company is important to me. I am interested only in good design, and if they want to join that party, they're welcome to. I hope that they do; the world doesn't need poor design.

*You remember Aristotle: he theorized that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it made sense to him. He theorized that women naturally had fewer teeth than men, when he could've easily checked. He thought there were only four elements, and that animals could spontaneously generate out of other matter. He is the epitome of a BAD scientist, in that he never bothered to test his theories against reality. It took nearly two thousand years to get rid of his influence, and good riddance.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 09:04 PM
 
<STRONG>
In total? I couldn't say whether there's a difference. Of the original sets of five? You proved nothing. </STRONG>
Maybe you need to say "In these 5 icons" instead of saying "XP" icons. Maybe you need to make yourself a little more clear. That way you just don't ASSUME people think you mean "just these 5 icons" But I guess that is my fault huh?
<STRONG>
Nor did I, in fact, as I said earlier. Proof consists of hard numbers, Sine. It consists of properly-conducted actual user testing, and not Aristotelian* mental masturbation as to what you, with no evidence at all, think the result of a test would be. There is NO proof that you have presented. Am I mistaken? Is there a copy of some test result with good methodology somewhere in this thread that establishes your position? No, no, I don't think so.
</STRONG>
Um I think I did prove that XP's icons broke the very same "rules" that you claimed OS X's did. Did I not? Yes I did.
<STRONG>
My arguments aren't founded on proof -- in the absence of hard, irrefutable data, I've been sticking to a precedential approach. I.e., that the approach adopted by prior designers, some of whom have done proper testing, is probably still valid. I could be wrong, and if so, I'm happy to adopt a different standpoint. But you're in no position to tell me, as it stands.
</STRONG>
And I was using the EXACT SAME GUIDLINES you claimed that OS X broke in their icon design to prove that XP did the same thing. Did I not? Yes I did.
<STRONG>
No, no I wasn't. If I am siding anywhere, it is not with Apple or with MS. Both can go to hell, so far as I care. I don't like platform ideology, much as I was involved in it in my youth. I think that they both suck.
</STRONG>
Never said you was siding did I? You can be a apologist and not be a zealot.
<STRONG>
My position is that abstraction in icon design where functionality is not impaired is good. If MS has icons that adopt that approach, then they are falling within the boundaries of what I support. If Apple has icons that adopt that approach, then they _too_ are within those boundaries. If either changes, then it is not my position that is being altered.
</STRONG>
Ah but you made comments saying MS's icons where designed better than OS X's cause they was more "user friendly" which is total BS.
<STRONG>
A little of the XP icon set appears to fall inside the bounds of what I think is generally good design. Virtually none of the OS X icon set does. But that's not _my_ fault, and should it, I'd gladly endorse it.
</STRONG>
Should I show you more XP icons that do indeed fall behind this bounds you have for yourself? I can if you want. There are TONS more that do this. Just ask me and I will post them gladly. I posted the more obvious ones.
<STRONG>
I refuse to be categorized as an apologist for anything. Neither MS nor Apple, nor any other platform or company is important to me. I am interested only in good design, and if they want to join that party, they're welcome to. I hope that they do; the world doesn't need poor design.
</STRONG>
You can refuse to .. but when your acting like one your going to get labeled as such. MS's icons while are pretty.. are still generic.
And they do not help a "newbie" to the computer world anymore than OS X icons would. Again your point is MOOT.
<STRONG>
*You remember Aristotle: he theorized that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it made sense to him. He theorized that women naturally had fewer teeth than men, when he could've easily checked. He thought there were only four elements, and that animals could spontaneously generate out of other matter. He is the epitome of a BAD scientist, in that he never bothered to test his theories against reality. It took nearly two thousand years to get rid of his influence, and good riddance.</STRONG>
Oh I have tested my theory. I have done tech support many times. I know that people that do not have any understanding of computers can only associate icons with actions once the become accustom to the principal or someone tells them. Which makes your point moot and obsolete. Just like a non-puter user would know a big "E" stands for surfing the web. Or a Flower stand for Instant Message.. until they are shown or figure it out themselves. Face it.. XP's icon's suffer from the same "breaking of rules" as OS Xs does. So do most applications.
     
Mac Guru
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 09:10 PM
 
In response to my own original post... OS X users can uses their icons in a LOT more elegant ways than XP users... not once have I seen this done in Windows on an install Disk...


REAL Elegant and REAL nice... eat it XP.

Mac Guru

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]
     
Sine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Zion
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 09:19 PM
 
MacGuru I am sure MS will come up with something similar soon. They always do.
     
Mac Guru
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2001, 09:23 PM
 
I actually doubt it... we've had that kind of stuff for years and the best they have is autostart.ini to bypass all the crap they have to have on the CD for the installers.

Mac Guru
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:34 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,