Anomareh wrote:First, saying: "Well all the other icons don't describe what they're owners do so it's ok!" doesn't make it a good thing to do.
Anomareh wrote:Perhaps the majority of apps just have bad icons? IE is an initial of the app as well as the planet ring giving off the idea it has something to do with the internet. Firefox, again the planet associated with the internet and a fire colored fox. Chome's icon at least has Google's colors. Safari's is a compass indicating you'll be navigating something. Adobe apps all have the app initials in their icon.
Anomareh wrote:Again, in the end this is just about an icon and Sublime's really isn't so bad that it's a problem. A strong and stable feature set speaks a lot louder than an icon ever will.
charlesroper wrote:I didn't say that.
charlesroper wrote:OK, following this logic, Sublime's icon is as good as any of these other icons. It's a black square which represents the look of Sublime and its philosophy of zen simplicity and hidden depths. On my Windows 7 task bar it stands out perfectly well, and looks good, unlike some of the other icons. How would making it a more literal interpretation help?
charlesroper wrote:Completely agree. Jon seems to have the aesthetic judgement of a designer even though he may not be a designer (just like Steve Jobs) and I believe the look and feel of Sublime is in good hands with him. The last thing he needs is 'design by community' and I'd imagine (I hope!) he's ignoring this thread. Although the very fact the community is having this conversation shows that we care. We're passionate. We love Sublime and want it to succeed. That's a good thing.
Anomareh wrote:When you started talking about other icons (incorrectly) that failed to do the same thing, that's what you were implying.
Anomareh wrote:If you're only exposure to Firefox/IE/Chrome/Safari/Adobe was looking at their equivalent "tour" pages and then you later saw their icon you'd probably recognize what it belonged to. It's not necessarily that it should be more literal, just more defining, and being more literal is one way to help accomplish that. There are a lot of apps that have a "dark look and a philosophy of zen simplicity". Should they all share the same icon? Currently the icon doesn't identify with it's owner in any significant or unique way, and in my opinion Sublime is truly a unique editor. If my only exposure to Sublime was it's tour on the front page and I later saw it's icon, I'd have no idea what it belonged too.
charlesroper wrote:No, you inferred it. I said "Logos (or icons) shouldn't be taken literally," then gave some examples of successful non-literal icons, then went on to say "A good logo and/or icon should encapsulate the brand." I stand by that argument. I would qualify the first statement with "Logos (or icons) shouldn't necessarily be taken literally." A good icon can be literal.
charlesroper wrote:OK, but that's a different argument. You're not arguing that the icon should be more literal, but arguing that it should be more distinct. I could agree with you on that, perhaps. However, your original argument was that you should be able to "tell Sublime's purpose from it's icon," which is why I said "Logos (or icons) shouldn't be taken literally," which, again, I stand by. You should be able to identify Sublime from it's icon, that's true. It's purpose is inferred from everything you already know about it: you see the icon, you think Sublime, your brain does the rest.
I personally find ST's logo distinct enough, but then I don't have any other apps with similar icons, which means for me Sublime 'owns' the black square. And I don't think I've ever come across another app with a similar icon. So for these reasons, it is a good icon for me. It may not be a good icon for you because you have a bunch of apps with similar icons. I agree that it could perhaps be made more distinct. I guess it's for Jon to decide.
Anomareh wrote:The first sentence you type said they flat-out shouldn't be taken literally.
Anomareh wrote:You pretty much just reworded the sentence "Those other icons aren't literal so this one doesn't need to be." which was what I said you were implying and was apparently correct about. No idea why you would refute that and then go on to do exactly what I said it was you were doing.
Anomareh wrote:Saying icons shouldn't be taken literally then giving examples of successful non-literal icons gives the very implication you believe icons don't need to be literal because hey here are some successful non-literal ones.
Anomareh wrote:Especially only when you go on to say A good logo should encapsulate the brand. in a separate paragraph. I could have listed just as many successful literal icons.
Anomareh wrote:I was arguing that being literal is a way of making an icon more distinct (which I prefer over just being something abstract).
Anomareh wrote:If Sublime's icon was a black square with a pencil or a cursor then surely it wouldn't be the icon for the media player "with a dark look and a philosophy for zen simplicity".
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests