[Tango-artists] whither addressbook?

[Nathan Willis]

On 4/14/06, Jon A. Cruz <jon at joncruz.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Nathan Willis wrote:
>
> On 4/14/06, Rodney Dawes <dobey at novell.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 12:07 -0500, Nathan Willis wrote:
> > > Well, I did notice that, but I think it still leaves the underlying
> > > question unanswered: why is there no addressbook app icon?
> >
> > Because one has not been drawn, and we are trying to keep the metaphors
> > between app icons and mime type icons, different. We want to have the
> > metaphors for app icons be tool/brand related, and the mime types to be
> > more about the content.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> But then again, it hasn't been drawn.
>
> :-)
>
> 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.
>

I didn't try to blend them.

But first to answer your last question...
>

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.
>
> 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).
>
>
> 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.
>

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.

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.
>

No one is arguing that.

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.
>

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?

And if there're criteria, let's talk about what they are.

Nate
--
nathan.p.willis
nwillis at glyphography.com
aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis
blog.glyphography.com
flickr.com/photos/willis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/tango-artists/attachments/20060414/5749ee6d/attachment.html