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.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 66 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 383391
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Give me functional
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 11th Sep 2009 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Give me functional"
Member since:

how is it not? 512x512 allows one to blow up icons to pretty big sizes (useful in many ways), particularly since OS X focuses much more on visual details, such as dock icons.

One of the things beaten into my head as a design student was (paraphrasing here):

"There is a difference between design and fine art. Design is communication using the visual language."

The icons may be look gorgeous, making them successful from an artistic point of view - but that doesn't make them successful from a design point of view.

The goal of an icon is to be, in a word, "iconic" - and not necessarily to serve as an illustration (also the reason why E.g. "road work ahead" signs have rough silhouettes and not a blueprint/photo of the actual work). Within that context, I think that whether or not an icon is identifiable at typical sizes (32x32, 48x48) is much more important than how nice it looks at 512x512.

Reply Parent Score: 2