On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:38:48PM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:05:33 +0100
> Thomas Leonard <tal00r@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:25:07AM +0200, Guido Schimmels wrote:
> > [...]
> > I've already copied some across, but the trouble with many of them is that
> > they all look very similar. In fact, they're often the same icon but with
> > the extension written on!
> This is only true for the groups image, audio, video. And there it is a
> natural thing to do ! The individual formats within those groups can't
> be differentiated by icons in a meaningfull way. The only thing you
> could do is, for example for the group image, thumb-nail some pictures
> from the Louvre. Well I think it's ok the way it is and btw. the
> NextStep icons use the same strategy (don't know about MacOS X).
Yes, grouping is a good idea. The original plan (started by Andrew Clover)
was to have several groups of icons (directory, text, image, etc), each
with a smaller icon in the lower right corner.
So, HTML is text+globe and PS is text+printer. Archives should probably be
directory+box, bmp bitmap+windows logo, etc. ie, the same as GNOME but
using icons instead of text (in part because you can still recognise them
in Small Icons mode).
Probably someone with artistic sense (ie, not me) should take the GNOME
icons as the base and paste on some other subicons. The main groups should
be things like:
- Directory (dir, zip, tar, jar)
- Text (plain, html, tex, abiword)
- Bitmap (jpeg, gif, png)
- Vector (svg, tgif)
- Source code (.c, .h, python, perl)
- Binary (.o, .pyo, .exe, .gz)
- Sound sample (ogg, mp3, wav)
- Sequence (midi, mod, lilypond)
- Video (mpg, avi)
The main groups should be very distinct, and the subgroups recognisable at
Small size. Any takers?
Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net