I'm not good at English, so if there is any grammatical error, please forgive me.

Recently I saw some new folder icons on a Chinese website (http://www.ikde.org/program/kde47-preview3/). Dolphin can show the type of files by new folder icons now and this is a good feature I think. I really like the work by Nuno but in my personal opinion, the big folder icons in KDE4.7 are not as pretty as before and looks like icons in Gnome 2. Ofcourse everyone has his own tastes so I wonder what do you think about them?

I think it's good that they match the places icons. I don't particularly like the new theme but icon themes can always be changed.

These icons seems has been included in kde 4.6.3. One of my friend said that it's like the speed of a High-speed railway was slashed from 380kph to 300kph...

ukyoi wrote:These icons seems has been included in kde 4.6.3. One of my friend said that it's like the speed of a High-speed railway was slashed from 380kph to 300kph...

Yes, they are on 4.6.3 and that was a big surprise...

右京样一 wrote:I really like the work by Nuno but in my personal opinion, the big folder icons in KDE4.7 are not as pretty as before and looks like icons in Gnome 2. Ofcourse everyone has his own tastes so I wonder what do you think about them?

They are not so beautiful as the previous icons, I agree, but maybe (just maybe) they are easier to identify.
I'm not sure I like the new folders. They look... 'cartoonish', in a sense. And yes, gnome icons came to my mind too...

They aren't my favorite, either, honestly.

Please remember that artists also are contributors and the Code of Conduct. If you don't like the new icons, try to offer some constructive criticism (Why don't you like them? What can be made better? etc.).

Personally I also prefer the old icons since they feel more like Oxygen to me. The new folder icon isn't bad - I like the "sharp" look - but they don't belong to Oxygen, in my opinion.

It's hard to point out exactly why they don't look like Oxygen icons, it could be the colors, the "sharpness", or simply because I've become so used to the old icons.

Hans wrote:If you don't like the new icons, try to offer some constructive criticism (Why don't you like them? What can be made better? etc.).

Well, I agree with all your critical explanations.
But I think it could be even better if designers explain us why they like new icons.
I just don't get it. I don't see any benefit from the new icons. Why was it necessary to change these icons?
I hope they don't plan to change other icons.

This blog post hints that Nuno might blog about it soon.

For the most part the other oxygen icons are bright, shiny, often have the appearance of transparency, have a strong sense of depth, and usually have lots of curves. The new icon is dark, matte, opaque, lacks a sense of depth or perspective, and has lots of sharp edges. The recessed line is a nice touch, but I think it would have been better adding it to a variant of the existing icons rather than the dark, matte, otherwise flat-looking icons we have now.

For instance, look at the pictures folder icon. It has a bunch of generic pictures in it, and I gather the folder is supposed to look a little bit open. But in reality all they did was shift the top of the front flap of the folder down a little. There is no sense of perspective that would indicate that the folder is open, no change in the size of the front part of the folder that would imply that it is closer to you than in the empty folder icon, no increased curviness at the bottom to give a sense that the folder is full. None of the depth cues that could have used to give it a 3D feeling are there.

The special folders icons also are also incosistent. Some icons, like the home icon, use a recessed symbol to signify the folder. Others, like pictures and documents, have icons inside the folder (although these are hard to see with previews enabled, and they are very small and easy to miss, this is something that would have benefited from transparency). Others, like music or videos, use an overlay icon. It would probably be better to choose one or maybe two approaches (for instance the recessed symbol and objects in the folder could be used in the same icon to make it clearer). But having three different methods to signify what sort of folder it is makes things too confusing. You can't tell where you are supposed to look in order to identify the folder.

this new icon set has far less bling,which is good for me. It appears more integrated to the overall color theme.Earlier icons were also good.

Now if they integrate progress bar to the horizontal line seen in the folder icon, it would be cool.

I also don't like the new theme, it looks inconsistent with the whole "KDE 4 style" IMO.

If you google for a while, you'll see that most people don't like the new icons, but it's not too late to change them (or stay with the current ones).

I think the next icons for KDE should look something like these:

http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Evolve+KDE+Air?content=99298

TheBlackCat wrote:For the most part the other oxygen icons are bright, shiny, often have the appearance of transparency, have a strong sense of depth, and usually have lots of curves. The new icon is dark, matte, opaque, lacks a sense of depth or perspective, and has lots of sharp edges. The recessed line is a nice touch, but I think it would have been better adding it to a variant of the existing icons rather than the dark, matte, otherwise flat-looking icons we have now.

For instance, look at the pictures folder icon. It has a bunch of generic pictures in it, and I gather the folder is supposed to look a little bit open. But in reality all they did was shift the top of the front flap of the folder down a little. There is no sense of perspective that would indicate that the folder is open, no change in the size of the front part of the folder that would imply that it is closer to you than in the empty folder icon, no increased curviness at the bottom to give a sense that the folder is full. None of the depth cues that could have used to give it a 3D feeling are there.

The special folders icons also are also incosistent. Some icons, like the home icon, use a recessed symbol to signify the folder. Others, like pictures and documents, have icons inside the folder (although these are hard to see with previews enabled, and they are very small and easy to miss, this is something that would have benefited from transparency). Others, like music or videos, use an overlay icon. It would probably be better to choose one or maybe two approaches (for instance the recessed symbol and objects in the folder could be used in the same icon to make it clearer). But having three different methods to signify what sort of folder it is makes things too confusing. You can't tell where you are supposed to look in order to identify the folder.

I was about writing soemthing similar but he said it all.

+1 for this. Please don't change the icons they do not fit the rest of the iconset.

I think the current folder icons in Oxygen (all icons, but especially the folder ones) are so terrible that nothing can be made worser. Thus any change is either neutral or to the better. Unfortunately the proposed icons are only marginally better than the current ones.

For those who prefer the old folder icons: http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Ox ... ent=142662 (I haven't tried it personally)

OP, are you the one who posted it to KDE-look?

I'm loving them actually, they have more contrast in them and that's exactly what the KDE desktop needs. There are too many shades of gray and pale colours in the current KDE style. It needs a little character, and for me these icons are a good start