On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:13:37 -0000, microUgly <drworm@...1743...> wrote:
bulia byak wrote:
I agree, and this is exactly why our current set is better :) A lot of work went into small meaningful details of the current icons.
I think this is the core of the differing opinion here. You feel the icon will not fulfill it's purpose if it doesn't contain details.
Actually, the operative word in Bulia's text was "meaningful". The Tango icons for magnification contain details but they are so small and badly done as to be meaningless. The stray feathers on the caligraphy icon are certainly details but they are confusing and make the icon rather baffling at first glance. The lack of detail in the gradient icon makes it unclear what is represented.
It's only purpose is to create a visual association and the currently proposed icons from the GIMP set do that suitably.
Icons for functions which are frequently used may, as you say, simply have to make an association but that is certainly not their only purpose. Those which represent functions which are rarely used MUST also have a mnemonic aspect, and since we don't know which functions are rarely used by each user all icons must be treated as such. Additionally, a set of icons which represent associated functions (like the magnification icons) MUST clearly differentiate those functions.
The proposed icons seem, to me at least, to fail in these latter two requirements quite blatantly and are therfore most UNsuitable.
TW