On 4/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jon A. Cruz</b> <<a href="mailto:jon@joncruz.org">jon@joncruz.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="direction: ltr;"><span class="q"><br><div><div>On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Nathan Willis wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
On 4/14/06,<span> </span><b class="gmail_sendername"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rodney Dawes</span></b><span> </span><<a href="mailto:dobey@novell.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238);">dobey@novell.com</span></a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 12:07 -0500, Nathan Willis wrote:<br>> Well, I did notice that, but I think it still leaves the underlying<br>> question unanswered: why is there no addressbook app icon?<br><br>Because one has not been drawn, and we are trying to keep the metaphors
<span> </span><br>between app icons and mime type icons, different. We want to have the<br>metaphors for app icons be tool/brand related, and the mime types to be<br>more about the content.</blockquote><div><br>Ah, but it has been drawn; the MIME type icon. And the MIME type icon is the same as the actions icon for "new addressbook." In what way is the x-office-addressbook icon about content?
<span> </span><br></div></div><br></span></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div></span></div><div style="direction: ltr;"><div>But then again, it hasn't been drawn.</div><div><br></div><div>:-)</div><div><br></div><div>Seriously, though, one needs be try to separate the information from the presentation. This is a big point for user interfaces, and very much so for icons and themes.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I didn't try to blend them. </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="direction: ltr;">
<div>But first to answer your last question...</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="direction: ltr;">
<div>First, x-office-address-book is under "Standard MIME Type Icons". Under MS Windows, the equivalent would be the icon associated with a type, not an application.</div><div><br></div><div>Secondly, it's description there clarifies things further. That says "The icon used for generic address book file types". Again, this is for the *file type* (aka the data) and is not intended for the application running them. In fact, it could be a mail application that supports it, not an "address book" application. The former would equate to MS Outlook on MS Windows, while the latter would equate to "Address Book" on OS X (which is separate from
Mail.app).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Now here is probably the main point. This is the logical meaning of the given icon name, not it's physical appearance. Under some themes things might appear similar, but then again under other themes the "similar" icons might look wildly different.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>No, you misunderstood my question completely. The address book -- in
the physical world -- is the access mechanism; the entries are the
content. The *entries* are the data, not the book. The access mechanism -- be it book, rolodex, yellowpages or scroll -- is analagous to the app.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="direction: ltr;"><div>As long as the names are mapped to logical meaning, not just accidental coincidence of appearance, then themeing works and UI's can be changed, translated, and localized to specific markets. If, on the other hand, the icon names get their logical meaning overloaded, things get horribly difficult to switch themes or localize for other markets.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>No one is arguing that.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="direction: ltr;">
<div>Oh... and to "already been drawn", though it might look that way to you, the icon looks very different from what I'd expect an application icon to look like. So what is the same for one person might be different for another person.
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br>So? Does that statement add something? Do addessbook applications suddenly disappear because not every person on the planet would come up with identical metaphors and icon expectations when locked in isolation with a pen and paper? Seriously, we can refrain from rehashing the theory of UIs and icons in general. The real problem is that *none* of this addresses the inconsistency of the "apps" icons -- let's be blunt: are we content to have /apps/ populated haphazardly and by historical whim, or are we choosing them based on some genuine criteria?
<br><br>And if there're criteria, let's talk about what they are.<br><br>Nate<br>-- <br>nathan.p.willis<br><a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com</a><br>aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis<br><a href="http://blog.glyphography.com">
blog.glyphography.com</a><br><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/willis">flickr.com/photos/willis</a>