![[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.