![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eWhat is the purpose of the icons on a computer screen? Some people would seem to think they are simply decoration, and as such should be color coordinated and a of regular size and shape, but they are wrong. Icons are a visual index to things on your computer. It makes very good sense to make each icon be as different from all the others as possible to aid in quick recognition. Hence icon makers should exploit variety in size, shape, color, tone, and orientation to let your vision pick out the desired pattern as quickly as possible.
I have seen many icon sets that look incredibly uniform, varying only in the slightest little detail, and even worse, many times this variation is in simply a few text letters in the icon. What does this convey that the name doesn't? Little or nothing. Such icons become a waste of screen space and of CPU cycles. My desktop uses hundreds of icons I've created or filched from other operating systems and from many icon sets. All my icons look different. Some people consider my desktop to be unattractive, but it is not meant to be a work of art. I'm an artist. If I want a work of art I'll make one; if I want something that is maximally usable then I will have that. And my desktop is extremely usable.
In a similar manner window decorations can add to, or detract from the usability of an interface. I've seen many interfaces that look utterly gorgeous, but are as useful as high heeled shoes and a white ball gown are when you need to push your car out of mud. Many such interfaces bog the processor down with displaying complex window shapes and pretty baubles instead of the more clear, simple, informative symbols. Many interfaces have extremely thin borders that are absurdly difficult to grab and often entirely omit the top resizing border from windows. All these things misguidedly reduce an interface's functionality for the sake of fashion. And you know what they say about something that is fashionable: that it is guaranteed to go out of fashion.
Over the decades I've witnessed many fashions come and go, and I have to say there are few things more ugly than old fashions. They aren't even redeemed by usefulness.
I have seen many icon sets that look incredibly uniform, varying only in the slightest little detail, and even worse, many times this variation is in simply a few text letters in the icon. What does this convey that the name doesn't? Little or nothing. Such icons become a waste of screen space and of CPU cycles. My desktop uses hundreds of icons I've created or filched from other operating systems and from many icon sets. All my icons look different. Some people consider my desktop to be unattractive, but it is not meant to be a work of art. I'm an artist. If I want a work of art I'll make one; if I want something that is maximally usable then I will have that. And my desktop is extremely usable.
In a similar manner window decorations can add to, or detract from the usability of an interface. I've seen many interfaces that look utterly gorgeous, but are as useful as high heeled shoes and a white ball gown are when you need to push your car out of mud. Many such interfaces bog the processor down with displaying complex window shapes and pretty baubles instead of the more clear, simple, informative symbols. Many interfaces have extremely thin borders that are absurdly difficult to grab and often entirely omit the top resizing border from windows. All these things misguidedly reduce an interface's functionality for the sake of fashion. And you know what they say about something that is fashionable: that it is guaranteed to go out of fashion.
Over the decades I've witnessed many fashions come and go, and I have to say there are few things more ugly than old fashions. They aren't even redeemed by usefulness.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
In the Face
Date: 2008-06-04 02:17 am (UTC)Like objects I'd arranged on a table my hand and mouse-pointer would move automatically to the one I wanted. Didn't have to think too hard - or carefully read down alphabetical lists of filenames in a smallish font. Just click, dash click, dash click.
This icon/filename autoarrange, autoalphabetise is what I hate most in Windows. I want to create my own messy but familiar icon arrangements.
I think the Mac lets you arrange icons how you like, not sure how the flavours of Linux behave.
Best, MFG.
Re: In the Face
Date: 2008-06-05 09:05 am (UTC)It all made life very easy on the Amiga and I rarely had the problem of losing things within the filing system. I seemed to work much more quickly and efficiently.
I haven't much experience with the Mac, but the versions of Linux I've used don't give much more control than MSWindows does.
[sigh]
windows icons and more
Date: 2008-06-05 01:24 pm (UTC)It has to be way easier in linux and (what? kde?)
Oh, two of the icons in the quick start bar (which i keep collapsed) are for Windows Explorer: one that starts in my home directory and one which starts somewhere else).
Speaking of UIs, did you ever use Caligari Truespace? I found the designer of their UI at a VRML conference and killed him. Monterey gave me a parade.
Oh, better provide a spelled out "home" link on your web pages. You remember, only a minority of users know that clicking on the title at the top takes you home.