Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Oct 2007 16:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 281443
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-30
The whole consistency thing is a double edged sword:
Make your icons too inconsistent and the whole thing looks like a mess, make them too consistent (similar in perspective, color, brightness, shape) and they become basically indistinguishable, especially if they are rather small.
Friends think my icons look like one big mess but if they were more similar I would struggle to actually see the differences between them. So I guess it's different strokes for different folks again.
At least I would choose messy and inconsistent icons over icons that all look the same any day.
But that may result from my eyes which are not all that good ;-)
Nice article, anyway. I didn't know how much thought people put into icons. Although I must say I liked the first part of this series better. But that may be just me and let's not start to interpolate using just two values ;-)