Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Sep 2009 17:43 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Last week, Culf of Mac published an article showing off some of Snow Leopard's beautiful 512x512 icons, revealing some interesting tidbits about them you could only see when the icons are fully maximised. In this article, I compare some of Snow Leopard's icons to those of Windows 7, and you'll see while both operating systems have beautiful icons, there are some key differences between the styles of these icons. Note that this article contains some large images, so if you're on dial-up, you've been warned.
Thread beginning with comment 382657
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Give me functional
by sbergman27 on Mon 7th Sep 2009 19:09 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

The fact that anyone is concerned about having "beautiful 512x512 icons" should give us a clue as to why the world is in such bad shape today. I vote we put the designers *and* the critics on the "B" Ark.

Edited 2009-09-07 19:11 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Give me functional
by WorknMan on Mon 7th Sep 2009 21:59 in reply to "Give me functional"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The fact that anyone is concerned about having "beautiful 512x512 icons" should give us a clue as to why the world is in such bad shape today. I vote we put the designers *and* the critics on the "B" Ark.


If I could, I would mod you up to 100. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the interface isn't butt-ugly, you can give me Win 3.1 icons for all I care.

Honestly, I'd take the Win32 GUI and icons over this ugly-ass glass and translucent sh!t they have going on now days.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Give me functional
by badtz on Mon 7th Sep 2009 22:01 in reply to "RE: Give me functional"
badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

The purpose is for those who want refinement, or have an artistic bone in their body ...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Give me functional
by kaiwai on Mon 7th Sep 2009 23:50 in reply to "Give me functional"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact that anyone is concerned about having "beautiful 512x512 icons" should give us a clue as to why the world is in such bad shape today. I vote we put the designers *and* the critics on the "B" Ark.


Ascetics is more than just beauty, it is also about functionality and purveying a certain message which affect peoples productivity. Just as architecture is the embodiment of certain qualities - a particular style of icons, colours, desktop and so forth can produce an response which either increases or decreases productivity.

If the GUI itself is well laid out, the colours and icon design purvey a sense of optimism, inviting and a sense of using the computer being a pleasure rather than a chore - one can easily find that their overall productivity can increase as a result. Where as an purely functional GUI might get the job done it might also drive a wedge between the end user and the computer so that it turns into something they would rather not use.

Edited 2009-09-07 23:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Give me functional
by sbergman27 on Mon 7th Sep 2009 23:57 in reply to "RE: Give me functional"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Ascetics is more than just beauty, it is also about functionality and purveying a certain message which affect peoples productivity...

There is no way in hell icons need to be a megabyte a piece in order to purvey whatever subtle message you think people can't get their work done without.

And your gate for boarding is 12C.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'd like to see a real double blind scientific study actually measuring productivity with different sets of icons. Science, Man, Science! No need to argue based upon one's individual whims.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Give me functional
by Hiev on Tue 8th Sep 2009 00:23 in reply to "Give me functional"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You mean like complaining for changing the font off a fourniture catalog?

You bet, what is wrong with these people?

Edited 2009-09-08 00:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Give me functional
by testman on Tue 8th Sep 2009 02:51 in reply to "Give me functional"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Get a grip.

"Everyone" reading this is concerned because they're interested. Is there something wrong with wanting or appreciating aesthetic refinement? Well, I suppose it's off to the gulag/"B" Ark for me and a lot of people then. ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Give me functional
by sbergman27 on Tue 8th Sep 2009 02:56 in reply to "RE: Give me functional"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, I suppose it's off to the gulag/"B" Ark for me and a lot of people then. ;-)

I'm vacillating on the Telephone Sanitizers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Give me functional
by jrlah on Wed 9th Sep 2009 20:12 in reply to "Give me functional"
jrlah Member since:
2005-08-09

should give us a clue as to why the world is in such bad shape today.

The world is NOT in a bad shape today. Crime, wars, poverty hunger, disease - everything is at the lowest point since the beginning of history. Check the classics of world literature from any century, and there were always people to whom the past equivalents of beautiful icons were important. So please stop fussing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Give me functional
by sbergman27 on Wed 9th Sep 2009 20:24 in reply to "RE: Give me functional"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The world is NOT in a bad shape today. Crime, wars, poverty hunger, disease - everything is at the lowest point since the beginning of history.

I'm not sure how you can state that with any degree of certainty. And in any event, it is a very relative statement.

Of course, the (human) world has been in terrible shape since the dawn of human history, and likely long before that. The fossil record shows that we'd started breaking the backs of each other's skulls open with clubs by the time of Homo Habilis.

I'm amazed that you could look at the hunger, the pervading poverty, the sickness, the war, the pervading injustice, the widespread prejudice, and the gross, unnecessary, avoidable level suffering in this world... and claim that just because you think you have some reason to believe that things are a little better today, that the world is not in bad shape.

It boggles the mind.

Are you sure you are not just cherry-picking the good you see?

Of course you are. We all do. We'd all go mad otherwise.

Edited 2009-09-09 20:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Give me functional
by DrillSgt on Sat 12th Sep 2009 22:04 in reply to "RE: Give me functional"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"should give us a clue as to why the world is in such bad shape today.

The world is NOT in a bad shape today. Crime, wars, poverty hunger, disease - everything is at the lowest point since the beginning of history. Check the classics of world literature from any century, and there were always people to whom the past equivalents of beautiful icons were important. So please stop fussing.
"

I would ask that you please walk outside and have a look around you. Unemployment is currently the highest as it has been in more than 25 years and continuing to rise. The numbers of homeless and sick are increasing at an alarming rate. No new jobs are being created, yet thousands of jobs are being lost every day. You may live in some type of fallacy world, but the numbers themselves prove otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 2