0.9.5 icons, Why were they changed? Options

[picmixer]

Edit: why changing icons?....

The icons where changed a) because we needed Vista compatibility and b) because I felt like something new.

[Fandango]

Edit: why changing icons?....

The icons where changed a) because we needed Vista compatibility and b) because I felt like something new.

Hm, can you remove the "WAV", "MP3", etc text from the 16x16 icons (if that's not against the Vista standard)? Because that caption isn't recognisable at that resolution and so it looks a bit odd. I liked the old way better where there was no caption for the 16x16 sizes.

PS: Apart from that the new icons looks great, of course!

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 22 2007, 13:05

[picmixer]

Yes I was already considering to remove that caption at 16x16 sizes since it doesn't really serve a purpose at that size. Not sure when I'll get around to doing so though.

Glad you like them otherwise.

This post has been edited by picmixer: Oct 22 2007, 13:08

[Fandango]

Ok, nice.

On a sidenote... I've noticed that IrfanView shows me the ICO files contain 10 images (pages) now (old icons had 6 "pages"), but this viewer can only display 6 of them: 3x4bit and 3x24bit. Are the other 4 vector based images for Vista? I've read an article about Vista's new icons a few months back, and it was mentioned that it supports vector based icons now (or maybe it was dropped?)...

edit: little mistake

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 22 2007, 13:18

[picmixer]

Ok, nice.

On a sidenote... I've noticed that IrfanView shows me the ICO files contain 10 images (pages) now (old icons had 6 "pages"), but this viewer can only display 6 of them: 3x4bit and 3x24bit. Are the other 4 vector based images for Vista? I've read an article about Vista's new icons a few months back, and it was mentioned that it supports vector based icons now (or maybe it was dropped?)...

edit: little mistake

The Vista images embedded in the icons are 256x256 png. Don't know anything about vector based images but afaik Vista simply scales the 256 pixel ones.

[Fandango]

Ah I see, yeah, then Vector based icons were dropped before the Vista launch.

And IrfanView simply doesn't support the new ICO format of Vista yet, has nothing to do with vector image formats. Currently it only displays images upto 48x48... Mr. Skiljan needs to update his viewer.

[zachastrife]

I actually liked the old ones better.

But as I only look at files through Total Commander i only see the 16x16 and I don't browse my music that often so it doesn't matter really, especially when you fix the 16x16 icons (when you get the time).

One thing I like (with the new icons and old) is the ones with the black logo. One thing confuses me though, why doesn't wav have a black logo?

[Fandango]

I actually liked the old ones better.

You can still save the old ones and keep using them. I have an old icon from the shorten input component and it seems to still work with 0.9.5b1. In fact it's still Windows that's handling the icons, fb2k only sets the registry so that the filetypes use the correct icons. So there should be no problem unless a future version of fb2k rejects non-Vista compatible icons in the "Preferences->File Types" page (but I doubt that), then you have to manually associate the old icons to the file types.

One thing confuses me though, why doesn't wav have a black logo?

It does. But the shiny Vista gloss at the upper left corner makes it appear less dark.

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 22 2007, 13:53

[steliyan]

It will be better if you remove the caption from 16x16 icons and maybe remove the light effect on the caption from the other icons.

[Squeller]

I'm currently not convinced about the new icons:

[picmixer]

The white glitches on dark background will definitely be fixed soon. For the rest they will most likely stay as they are.

[halabund]

I really don't care about the exact looks of the icons, just please make sure that the different colours (for different file types) are as easily distinguishable as with the old versions (even on a crappy screen). Especially at 16x16.

[picmixer]

They are easily distinguishable enough for me I have to say. 16x16 should be as well once the caption is removed. Crappy screens aren't really my problem.

[Fandango]

I have to agree with halabund. It's a lot harder to distinguish the 16x16 versions of WV and FLAC from another now. The gloss undeniably has increased and is just too dominant on the colors of the small version. So I don't have a crappy screen either... still the FLAC's orange looks more like red in the new 16x16 icons now. If there's no WV file in the same directory I tend to think of WVs when I see the new FLAC icons, this is kind of annoying, because I usually transcode FLACs to WVs but now I have to look twice when I see a "red" icon. Although if there's a WV and a FLAC in the same directory (or close together) the difference in color is more apparent. The icons are so light now, that it causes this optical illusion that orange becomes red for some people...

But I also agree with you and I'm confident that this will improve once you have removed the captions from the 16x16 icons... well we'll see. Can you upload the FLAC and WV icons in 16x16 reso. without the caption but with the new (Vista-style?) gloss?

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 23 2007, 00:07

[boombaard]

Crappy screens aren't really my problem.

why do i see pointless slurs like this so relatively often on these forums?
i can't for the life of me imagine what a 'crappy screen' is, anyway.. most of em are still CRTs, and while it's certainly possible to fuck up the alignment of the magnets and thus ruin the color display, i'm not sure the remark was any more than perfunctory..
That is, i cannot for the life of me imagine what a 'crappy screen' would be.
In that respect his disclaimer was useless without further specification of his definition of 'crappy' when applied to monitors..
Otoh, your statement that 'crappy screens aren't my problem', while true, comes across as somewhat hostile and at the very least opaque (again, define a 'crappy screen')..
does it mean that, once you fix the captions any other complaints/criticisms/remarks will fall upon deaf ears, or does it mean something else?

i didn't really mean to get on a soapbox, but it seemed somewhat superfluous, and it comes across as moderately unfriendly.

This post has been edited by boombaard: Oct 23 2007, 00:26

[Fandango]

Another thought, picmixer: you could slightly reduce the gloss effect in the upper left corner a bit and the one on the bottom to an absolute minimum for the 48/38/16 versions and but leave it as is for the 256 version... Vista style guides leave you this freedom I think.

Unfortunately I don't have a Vista-ICO viewer but has the 256 version the required(?) drop-shadow behind the icon? You've dropped that in the 48/32/16 version so why not reduce the gloss, too? As I said I think only the 256 pixel version must follow this new Vista style, but it can be partly dropped if it bleeds out the smaller icons too much.

@boombaard: You're aware that picmixer didn't come up with the term "crappy screen" here, are you? I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

This post has been edited by Fandango: Oct 23 2007, 00:50

[picmixer]

Crappy screens aren't really my problem.

why do i see pointless slurs like this so relatively often on these forums?
i can't for the life of me imagine what a 'crappy screen' is, anyway.. most of em are still CRTs, and while it's certainly possible to fuck up the alignment of the magnets and thus ruin the color display, i'm not sure the remark was any more than perfunctory..
That is, i cannot for the life of me imagine what a 'crappy screen' would be.
In that respect his disclaimer was useless without further specification of his definition of 'crappy' when applied to monitors..
Otoh, your statement that 'crappy screens aren't my problem', while true, comes across as somewhat hostile and at the very least opaque (again, define a 'crappy screen')..
does it mean that, once you fix the captions any other complaints/criticisms/remarks will fall upon deaf ears, or does it mean something else?

i didn't really mean to get on a soapbox, but it seemed somewhat superfluous, and it comes across as moderately unfriendly.

Well you did get into a soapbox here. Because as far as I can tell you have nothing constructive to contribute to this topic whatsoever. If things would fall on dead ears in general do you really think I would even be replying in this topic.

Now I really have no idea who you think you are that you can give me advice here on how to converse in this topic and on this forum. Again I see people being slightly over sensitive to honest and direct conversation. A trend that somehow seems to spread lately. So in the future please keep on topic and don't barge into them simply to make your own discomfort about the tone of conversation known to the world.

So in dear respect, thank you mommy for your great advice on life and the art of conversation.

This post has been edited by picmixer: Oct 23 2007, 00:40

[picmixer]

@fandango:

I'll play around with a few of those ideas when I find the time and see how I like them personally. However that definitely isn't a promise that any major changes will be made to the icons. We'll have to see.

[Fandango]

I've found the Vista Icons Guidelines, but it only adds to my confusion about this matter:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx

Then I don't actually know whether you tried to achive the maximum Vista-style strictness, seems I'm just guessing here?

[Hancoque]

When I compare the old icons with the new ones, I notice that the text on the new ones is definitely less legible, especially on the playlist icons. The paper background of the playlist icons could also be a bit more pronounced in my opinion.

[halabund]

Crappy screens aren't really my problem.

My point was that that not all screens have the same contrast, and they don't display colours in the same way. This is good to keep in mind when designing icons for a large audience, however, designers are prone to forgetting about it, and not testing, but on a single (possibly high quality) screen.

But it's not a big deal since icons are customisable anyway.

EDIT: Neither do I have a "crappy" screen (perhaps I used the wrong word, sorry about that), but it is a not very high quality flatscreen (contrast is not good, yellows are paler than on a CRT). I think that fandango's idea about reducing the gloss would help a lot. Thanks for considering some modifications!

This post has been edited by halabund: Oct 23 2007, 07:29

[reil]

why don't you try calibrating your screen? there's free software (and pay hardware/software like the spyder2) to help give most screens proper colors.

[halabund]

why don't you try calibrating your screen? there's free software (and pay hardware/software like the spyder2) to help give most screens proper colors.

This is not particularly about my screen, but about good accessibility. As I said, all screens have different colours (and not all people have equally good eyes). For example, WavPack and Flac are easily distinguishable here at 16x16 (fandango had problems with these). But Musepack, OGG and WAV are not. WMV is also looks uncertain since it is much more greyish than the previous version (but it can't be mixed up with APE because of the white-vs-black cat).

This could be a reasonable requirement: When presented with a single 16x16 icon (no captions, etc.), one should be able to decide which filetype icon one sees with only one glance.

[odyssey]

Crappy screens aren't really my problem.

It's definately not YOUR problem, but as a designer you should take into account that not everyone has the same screen as you.

[zachastrife]

You can still save the old ones and keep using them.

Nah, as I said I don't look at them that often and I'll need to learn to like them. It's to irritating to have a extra pair of icons to move around at every install.
And I'm already beginning to like them. Except the gloss in the bottom (which makes the text hard to read) and the text and gloss in the 16x16 icons.

One thing confuses me though, why doesn't wav have a black logo?

It does. But the shiny Vista gloss at the upper left corner makes it appear less dark.

I meant the cat head thingie. As I've understood it all lossless formats have a black head. Doesn't wav comply as lossless?

why don't you try calibrating your screen? there's free software (and pay hardware/software like the spyder2) to help give most screens proper colors.

This is not particularly about my screen, but about good accessibility. As I said, all screens have different colours (and not all people have equally good eyes). For example, WavPack and Flac are easily distinguishable here at 16x16 (fandango had problems with these). But Musepack, OGG and WAV are not. WMV is also looks uncertain since it is much more greyish than the previous version (but it can't be mixed up with APE because of the white-vs-black cat).

This could be a reasonable requirement: When presented with a single 16x16 icon (no captions, etc.), one should be able to decide which filetype icon one sees with only one glance.

I do actually agree. I'm writing this on a new laptop with a 15 inch screen and with a resolution of 1680x1050 (maybe that's what picmixer meant with "crappy screen" ) with a x3100 GPU which don't allow me to lower gamma (which is needed as the colors are washed out) makes it kinda hard to see things sometimes. So far I've learned the colors which is a little harder to distinguish now... (at the 16x16 size mainly, but I hope that problem is fixed when you get the time to edit the 16x16 icons).

Oh, and if you are following the vista icon guidelines read the "Level of detail" part on the page that was linked

This post has been edited by zachastrife: Oct 23 2007, 10:15