RE: User interface suggestions

[Jörg Rathlev <joerg jrsoftware de>]

> Oh, that was exactly my idea... If you see at the suggested images
> (for desktop & applications), low used icons are in "black and white"
> (=uncolored=grayscaled :), most used ones are in color, and disabled ones
> are "whited?" (which can be in color or uncolored too, depending of the
> level of use). Now I'm sure, it has been a misunderstanding... :)  Tnx

No matter what it is called, IMHO it doesn't make sense.

If less used icons get greyscaled, developers won't want to choose
black&white styled icons for their apps any longer because it will never
receive the honor of being shown in color. The same applies to icons with
only little color (where it would be hard to distinguish between colored
state and greyscaled state).

This will lead to is lots of very bright, colorful icons that distract users
from their actual work (take a look at KDE's icons).

BTW, this might also be the reason why Microsoft uses greyscaled buttons in
Internet Explorer: they avoid distracting users from the actual website.

I think both KDE and GNOME are already using icons way too much, and often
the icons are hard to distinguish (and don't improve usability at all)
because the focus was put on making them look like photos (i.e. lots of
color, faded colors etc.) instead of giving them a clear, unique outline.

Just take a look at the screenshot (see link below) and compare the icons in
the start menu with those of GIMP. Which are easier to recognize, easier to
distinguish and (probably) easier to memorize? Or compare the outlines of
the copy and the paste icon. No difference, if it didn't have the little
arrows.

http://www.gnome.org/images/screenshots/19991208-jrb-big


Jörg