Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Oct 2007 16:55 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the second article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I]. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. In part II today, we focus on the pictogramme, popularly known as the icon.
Thread beginning with comment 281443
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Consistency
by RandomGuy on Sun 28th Oct 2007 18:53 UTC
RandomGuy
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 ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Consistency
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 28th Oct 2007 20:51 in reply to "Consistency"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

make them too consistent (similar in perspective, color, brightness, shape) and they become basically indistinguishable

That's what I said about the new Krita icons:
http://www.koffice.org/krita/pics/bala_krita1.6.png

The response was that they look classier or more consistent or something. Never mind that there are no color hints for distinguishing between the icons anymore.

Previous setr:
http://www.koffice.org/krita/pics/july06.png

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Consistency
by tyrione on Sun 28th Oct 2007 22:13 in reply to "RE: Consistency"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Separation between icons doesn't have to be about Color. The actual geometry alone can make all the difference in the world. The new icons for Krita are more pleasing on the eyes and you can distinguish quickly. Now if they can add some color/contrast on them to indicate what one is to expect when using them [where necessary] then all the better.

Application specific task/action icons are more susceptible to geometry needing to be unique than application startup icon needing to be both color and geometry needing to be unique but consistent in balance wrt to the rest of the desktop.

Old NeXTSTEP addressed this with the consistent gray border around their icons. Borderless icons opened up a world of distraction forcing one to really pick steady color themes in the background and letting the foreground standout wrt to the unique geometry of the icon.

Photorealistic icons have been overdone and used to compensate for an inconsistent look n' feel.

Reply Parent Score: 2