[chucker]

(Bigger version when you click.)

Okay, so the left one's a tad busy, and using a pencil to write a document doesn't make much sense. But nonetheless, these not only look modern, but also conform very well to the Aqua guidelines.

Adobe sure could learn a lot from this.

[Fahrenheit]

They are really busy...surely an icon is supposed to represent an application rather than be a work of art.

[ghoti]

Look good, if a tad generic - basically fancier versions of TextEdit's icon.

Also, the ink pot for Pages doesn't make a whole lot of sense, IMHO. But it's kind of difficult to draw a visual metaphor for writing on the computer that's unambiguous enough so people actually understand what you mena.

[Banana]

Chucker, just want to point out that the pencil seems to be representative of Statler, a popular brand for drafting and art works.

Not saying whether it belongs there, though.

Also, while I have to agree that this is too... obivous of a copy, I wonder where one would draw the line, given that we're trying to convey something that's very commonly associated with a paper and pen?

[AsLan^]

I think a pencil fits well with a page layout application. Presumably the content has already been created and an editor would be making changes in pencil.

I use the larger icon sizes on my desktop so I think a little extra detail looks great.

What's the deal with the spotlight though, is this graphic part of a webpage that happens to be talking about publishing layout view, or is the spotlight part of the UI?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AsLan^ What's the deal with the spotlight though, is this graphic part of a webpage that happens to be talking about publishing layout view,

Yes.

or is the spotlight part of the UI?

Not that I know of, no.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Farenheit They are really busy...surely an icon is supposed to represent an application rather than be a work of art.

Who says it can't be both?

[doublem9876]

Can't you guys just be proud of them without calling them copycats? It's not like Microsoft is the only one who has reused the typical "pencil and paper" theme. Come on. They look nice, there's nothing wrong with them.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by doublem9876 Can't you guys just be proud of them without calling them copycats? It's not like Microsoft is the only one who has reused the typical "pencil and paper" theme. Come on. They look nice, there's nothing wrong with them.

While I don't think anyone was specifically accusing Microsoft of icon piracy, I agree with your general sentiment. Yes, lots of word processsors use "pencil and paper" icons, to the point where that's what users expect. Microsoft shouldn't use abstract icons would that confuse users looking for Word on the Dock.

(That's not a slam against Adobe - I do like their new CS icons, and I think your average Photoshop user is a bit more familiar with the product's suite than your average Word user is - just an observation. )

The fact that they look vaguely TextEdit-esque just means that they'll match more nicely on my Dock.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman That's not a slam against Adobe - I do like their new CS icons

You're officially banned from this discussion.

[Fahrenheit]

Originally Posted by chucker You're officially banned from this discussion.

I like them too. They are simple and recognizable. Excellent.

[chucker]

The Dock, if Adobe made it:


Photoshop CS3's toolbar, if their icon designers had made it:

[Fahrenheit]

Originally Posted by chucker The Dock, if Adobe made it: Photoshop CS3's toolbar, if their icon designers had made it:

But they don't. They only have a select few icons. You are bending the situation.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Farenheit But they don't. They only have a select few icons. You are bending the situation.

I don't see how this is "a select few":

[JLL]

Who knew Microsoft can design icons?

Aren't they made by Iconfactory?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker I don't see how this is "a select few":

But again, nobody has that many icons on their Dock.

I don't see how Adobe's icons are any different than a series of Office icons featuring the Word/Excel/Powerpoint symbols, etc. Would a bunch of esoteric pictures that gave no clue what the program was (unless you had already learned the Adobe Code, and realized that feathers were for Photoshop, or whatever) be better?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by JLL Aren't they made by Iconfactory?

Well, Iconfactory did in the past make many icons for MS, anyway.

And Adobe's are allegedly made by some design company in the Valley. That's not the issue, though; it's up to Microsoft to choose what design they're okay with in the end, and they made a good choice here.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman But again, nobody has that many icons on their Dock. I don't see how Adobe's icons are any different than a series of Office icons featuring the Word/Excel/Powerpoint symbols, etc.

If you're referring to the Office v.X and 2004 icons: they aren't much better (aside from the dominant shape).

The Office 2003 and 2007 ones, however, are: they have symbols at all. CS3's, however, only have characters. Letters. Text.

Would a bunch of esoteric pictures that gave no clue what the program was (unless you had already learned the Adobe Code, and realized that feathers were for Photoshop, or whatever) be better?

No.

[Fahrenheit]

Originally Posted by chucker No.

So whats your suggestion?

[drewprops]

A few notes, starting with a slight correction... the pencil is made by Staedtler

Next, Chucker's dock mockup is hysterical.

You know, it always seems a bit supercilious to have serious discussions about icons because they're inevitably subjective, aren't they... I mean, how do you represent certain esoteric concepts? Document icons are typically represented with the classic 'standing' sheet of paper crossed by an angled pencil. Is that in the interface guidelines? Expect it is.

But a dock filled with standing sheets of paper with crossed pencils becomes bloody difficult to navigate after awhile, and I think most interface guideline fans can at least understand why some app-makers decide to break away with more signature icons that may not really tell the story about what the app does.... after all, the icons are simply mimetic representations of oft used tools... visual mnemonics.... flashcards for our brains.

I can agree with Chucker that the Adobe icons are the biggest cop out in the history of icon making AND I can agree with Robo that they work, because once your brain makes the association with the color/shape of the icon and the app it represents the icon maker's job is done.

However, knowing that you could just use a picture of a steaming dog turd for an icon is no excuse for actually DOING it.
The art of the icon is something that should be vigorously advocated, even if it does feel silly at times.


.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Farenheit So whats your suggestion?

Huh?

Alright, I'll give you a concrete example.

Here's the icon of Adobe Lightroom, back in beta:



And here's that of Apple Aperture:



What's wrong with either of them? Nothing. The latter immediately tells you the app is all about photography. The former, well, it's not quite as clear, but anyone will figure out it's about images. Both have unique dominant shapes. Neither is gratuitous.

But then this happened:*



(Also, they added Photoshop to the name, but that's another matter.)

What does that icon tell you? Well, if you're familiar with other 2007-era Adobe apps, it tells you that it's an Adobe app. Great. Now that's helpful. Thing is, many people who use one Adobe app use several, so they have all those icons with the exact same shapes, two seemingly random letters (no, that "LR" is short for "LightRoom" isn't relevant, because your brain doesn't actually parse that; at best, it parses the outer shapes of the letters, not what they represent) and some random hue for a monochrome gradient. Lovely.

Seriously, Adobe's icons scream "WHAT IN THE FUCK?", and that's putting it mildly. They might make for okay logos, but they're awfully bad as icons.

*) I couldn't find one with a proper alpha channel.

[ghoti]

I disagree. The Office 2004 icons have distinct shapes and colors, and are very easy to recognize. You can identify them as belonging together because of similarities in design, but there is no danger of mixing them up.

Adobe's CS2 icons were an absolute nightmare, I could never remember which abstract thingy was PhotoShop or InDesign (and I wasn't even using all their different programs). Their new ones are made for people who work with a bunch of Adobe programs at the same time, and need to be able to switch between them quickly. That's why they are clustered on the color wheel like that, you are unlikely to use several programs of the same color. And color plus letter shape is enough to differentiate them quickly.

And in Adobe's case, it's much harder to find reasonable metaphors for what their programs do, especially since they are quite similar. How are you going to design three distinct icons for InDesign, Illustrator, and InCopy? They're all layout programs of sorts, so they would all use the pencil and pad - very clever. And PhotoShop would perhaps look similar, just using a brush. And how would you visually describe what Flash does?

It's just not possible, that's why they cooked up their dumb CS2 icons. The CS3 icons are a big step forward and very useful.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by drewprops Next, Chucker's dock mockup is hysterical.

Neither image is mine, actually. The credit for the Dock belongs to amonre (a member here, though hardly an active one ). I don't know about the other image.

You know, it always seems a bit supercilious to have serious discussions about icons because they're inevitably subjective, aren't they... I mean, how do you represent certain esoteric concepts?

I can see that, and as with all matters of design, there is indeed very little objectivity. But what do Adobe's icons represent at all? That they belong together, sure. But that's it. Kinda sad, no?

Document icons are typically represented with the classic 'standing' sheet of paper crossed by an angled pencil. Is that in the interface guidelines? Expect it is.

Yep. The "tool on an object" ideal (e.g., Preview's loupe on an image, TextEdit's pen on a letter and iPhoto's camera on a photograph) is from the Aqua HIGs. Obviously, that's a bit too specific and limiting, which is why few of even Apple's own applications adhere to it. (Though you could argue that even Safari sort of does: a compass on a globe.)

So, I take no issue with icons like, say, that of Firefox. Unique shape, kinda cute-looking, and clearly a lot of thought went into it. With Adobe, not so much. It's a gradient. And two letters on it. Wow.

But a dock filled with standing sheets of paper with crossed pencils becomes bloody difficult to navigate after awhile,

Yes.

and I think most interface guideline fans can at least understand why some app-makers decide to break away with more signature icons that may not really tell the story about what the app does.... after all, the icons are simply mimetic representations of oft used tools... visual mnemonics.... flashcards for our brains.

No, I fully agree.

[Partial]

I agree with you Chucker.