I'm digging. It's also a sort of a nod to the folded paper sentiment from the mood goals.

alake wrote:I'm digging. It's also a sort of a nod to the folded paper sentiment from the mood goals.

I changed it right after you posted, lol. But I like this one better.

Uri - I like it! Quirky and it stands out. It's flat yet at the same time it's not (folded paper ftw).

The same style applied to an Inkscape icon.

From the artsy POV, I like the triangly abstraction (I even drew my gf in the similar way a year ago).

(But, ...)

I don't want to kill your buzz (and again be a buzzkill and get frowned upon by Jens), but while the doplhin one actually looks like a folder, the inkscape one is not recognizable.

One thing that I need to remind you - the idea of square icons was killed because of the trademarked logos and stuff, and it is hard to fit the original icons with the square ones. How do you think they will fit with this?

Again, I don't mind the dolphin one (it is peculiar, but it grows on you), but don't go overboard, please.

ivan wrote:From the artsy POV, I like the triangly abstraction (I even drew my gf in the similar way a year ago).

(But, ...)

I don't want to kill your buzz (and again be a buzzkill and get frowned upon by Jens), but while the doplhin one actually looks like a folder, the inkscape one is not recognizable.

One thing that I need to remind you - the idea of square icons was killed because of the trademarked logos and stuff, and it is hard to fit the original icons with the square ones. How do you think they will fit with this?

Again, I don't mind the dolphin one (it is peculiar, but it grows on you), but don't go overboard, please.

The Inkscape icon is hard to do for a number of things, starting with the very name of the software and the default icon (what does a mountain have to do with vectors), and this is the same for all applications with a very non descriptive name (which are pretty much all of them), now, I get what they were going for, Ink+Landscape=A mountain made out of ink blobs in vectors, where the main function of the software was relegated to not be a part of the name or logo at all.

Now, if the problem with the icons are 3rd party applications and their respective logos, KDE has a legal team, can't this legal team ask the software developers for their opinion?, for their permission?, I mean Oxygen includes a Bluetooth icon, did the Bluetooth SIG had problems with KDE including an icon with the logo?, there's a kde-windows icon too, did Microsoft sued KDE for it?, I'm very much thinking they might not even know or if they do they don't care, I don't think the developers of FLOSS software like Mozilla or Inkscape are going to even have a problem with this.

That's one thing, another is: The icons would not even look like their original logo, in most cases where the trademarked logo is too recognizable that it can't be changed, such as Firefox or Chrome, the icon would inevitably have much of the features of the original.

I mean, at best we're doing adaptations, and even if they needed a license for the derivative work to be allowed with no legal implications that can be negotiated too.

And in the case there was a problem, well let's exclude these icons, problem solved, someone later on can add these icons, which is the very reason 3rd party icon themes exist.

On to the style, KDE has to move on, we're not anymore in the era of making things hyper-realistic, nor are we anymore in the Web 2.0 era where the original styling comes from.

My complaint here is not about legality (just recalling the reason for abandoning the square icons), it is about recognizability. Inkscape logo is (for people that use it) as recognizable as firefox is.

Doing adaptations is ok, as long as the icon remains recognizable.

The latest adaptation of inkscape's logo I was was this (not a fan of the iconset, just saw it yesterday on DA):
http://satya164.deviantart.com/art/Numi ... -446392650

Still recognizable, and I would argue even better than the original.


p.s. kde-windows is just kde logo with 4 different colours.

Since our resources are limited anyway, wouldn't it make sense to just draw icons for KDE applications first?
Or actually, are application icons our priority at this point? For me, having those icons which are used in many applications done first would be more important, because an application with Breeze style but Oxygen icons looks extremely inconsistent.

colomar wrote:Since our resources are limited anyway, wouldn't it make sense to just draw icons for KDE applications first?
Or actually, are application icons our priority at this point? For me, having those icons which are used in many applications done first would be more important, because an application with Breeze style but Oxygen icons looks extremely inconsistent.

I did Inkscape because I was missing that one.

You mean the action icons?.

Uri_Herrera wrote:I did Inkscape because I was missing that one.

Ah yes, scratching your own itch is a totally valid reason for voluntary work, of course

You mean the action icons?.

Yes. Well, there are a ton of them, but maybe the most common ones first?

Just in case you haven't checked the new icons..

Here's Ark, and you can see I made a new Inkscape icon.

Pretty

Uri_Herrera wrote:Just in case you haven't checked the new icons..

Here's Ark, and you can see I made a new Inkscape icon.



Hm, those icons all fit their meaning, but they look much more similar to each other than the Oxygen ones. Would it be possible to get more variety in their outlines so they are easier to distinguish?

Nice way to keep it simple and monochrome, yet recognizable

colomar wrote:

Uri_Herrera wrote:Just in case you haven't checked the new icons..

Here's Ark, and you can see I made a new Inkscape icon.

Hm, those icons all fit their meaning, but they look much more similar to each other than the Oxygen ones. Would it be possible to get more variety in their outlines so they are easier to distinguish?

They are (quite literally) the same icons as Oxygen, only in monochrome and thinner.

------------

Ah well... it was something in the index.theme. It wasn't loading the icons correctly, it was set to have the icons at 2 sizes, one of which scaled them over the preferred size.

My bad. Carry on.

Right, ok time to review a few things guys:

1) Uri is the expert on icons. I'm not saying you guys should shut up - but ... try to remember that he's done more icon themes than all of us put together and they are very well recieved and for good reason.
2) All feedback has to be combined with some exact reasoning AND some suggested fixes with something like "What happens if you do THIS?". Again not to shut you guys up or anything - just remember that Uri is donating time that he, quite frankly, doesn't have much of (being bound up in .... what is it now, Uri? Five different projects?). So respect that and give him proper feedback.

He is working under some rather strict specs and at the same time rather undefined specs - and as someone who's done too much freelance work where this was common ("oh just do something nice"/"I'll know which style I want when I see it") it's one of the most stressful ways of working.
That means that we need to ramp up the support he needs to be able to keep doing this awesome work.

So try to give exact, proper, criticism and if at all possible - try to spread out that Uri is helping us, doing great work and that if anyone could help him on his Flattr theme (one of his other projects) that they should do so since that means that he gets more time over for us.