[Tango-artists] Icons for inclusion
nisses.mail at home.se
Tue Mar 13 12:14:04 PDT 2007
I was referring to a drawn proposal for a new developer category icon, I
was under the impression you had fixed one.
Sorry for being unclear.
Nathan Willis wrote:
> This one what?
> On 3/13/07, *Andreas Nilsson* <nisses.mail at home.se
> <mailto:nisses.mail at home.se>> wrote:
> Hi Nathan!
> Do you have this one ready so I can take a peek at it somewhere?
> - Andreas
> Nathan Willis wrote:
> > See, I think that's the important distinction -- the toolbox is from
> > the "tool" element of the construction metaphor, not the
> > element. Everybody at the construction site wears boots, too,
> but the
> > image of a boot doesn't communicate what you want.
> > As far as the hammer itself goes, sure not everyone uses one all
> > time, but then again I'm looking at the Edgy Applications menu right
> > now and the "graphics" category is represented by a paintbrush, the
> > "sound and video" category by a director's clapboard, and the
> > category by a pen cup. Does every artist carry a paintbrush? Do
> > *any* of the "sound* apps incorporate anything analogous to the
> > director's clapboard? Do we all have pen cups in out offices --
> > if so, are they what we do our office work with? It's not necessary
> > that the tool used in a category icon be universally required
> for all
> > the tasks in that category -- and a good thing, too, since that
> > be impossible. What it does have to do is communicate and be
> > recognizable. My point was that the hard hat does neither of those
> > things.
> > I personally don't think that hammers or toolboxes intrinsically
> > relate to programming at all; we may have gotten used to seeing the
> > construction site metaphor associated with programming tools,
> but it's
> > only because of repetition. I'd like to see some better metaphor
> > altogether; it's a task without a physical-world equivalent, but who
> > knows how much we could come up with if we actually pounded at it
> > intentionally. But I do think that of the construction items we've
> > brought up thus far, at least (claw) hammers have a distinctive
> > outline, and that's an improvement.
> > Nate
> > On 3/10/07, *Rodney Dawes* < dobey at novell.com
> <mailto:dobey at novell.com>
> > <mailto:dobey at novell.com <mailto:dobey at novell.com>>> wrote:
> > Perhaps it could use some touch-ups, sure. But I think the
> > metaphor does
> > in fact make sense. It is a category icon, not an tool,
> process, or
> > product icon. All persons on a construction site, must wear
> hard hats.
> > They don't all have to carry or use hammers, nails,
> > fishing wire, or many of the other things used in the
> > of a
> > building.
> > Perhaps a toolbox would be a somewhat better metaphor though.
> > Given that
> > it contains tools for building software.
> > -- dobey
> > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:47 -0600, Nathan Willis wrote:
> > > As long as we're talking about coding metaphors, I have to
> give my
> > > thumbs-down to the yellow hard hat metaphor -- it, too, is
> > > indistinct at small sizes, and even at larger sizes it
> lacks the
> > > "distinct shape" Rodney mentioned, as well as detail and
> > contrast. Is
> > > it a lemon? A tennis ball? A gumdrop? And even if it is
> > recognized
> > > eventually as a hard hat, it doesn't communicate. Hard
> hats are
> > > safety gear, not tools, not process, not product. At the very
> > least,
> > > if you are going with the "construction work" metaphor, a
> hammer is
> > > more visually distinctive and more appropriate.
> > >
> > > Just wanted to get that off my chest.
> > >
> > > Nate
> Tango-artists mailing list
> Tango-artists at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:Tango-artists at lists.freedesktop.org>
> nwillis at glyphography.com <mailto:nwillis at glyphography.com>
> blog.glyphography.com <http://blog.glyphography.com>
> flickr.com/photos/willis <http://flickr.com/photos/willis>
More information about the Tango-artists