[HIG] REVIEW: Icons

[Calum Benson <calum benson sun com>]

Right, my last chapter review-- I'm not going to review my own sections
cos it's 8pm and I want to go home!

First problem that jumps out in this chapter is the different heading
styles compared to the other chapters; in some parts, bulleted list
items are used to delineate sub-sections, and in others, emboldening of
the first phrase in a paragraph is used as a heading for that
paragraph.  Need to restructure this to be consistent with the other
chapters.

Toolbar and Menu Icons
----------------------

- "Lighting should come from a point well above the user's head, casting
a small shadow down".  This isn't sufficient information, does the
shadow also cast to the left, right or straight ahead?

- Consistency: how do we write "GTK"?  It's called both "GTK" and "gtk"
in the space of a couple of paragraphs here, but this chapter is by no
means the only offender.

Application Icons
-----------------

- "Application icons... should be test viewed at smaller sizes": 16x16
is probably the smallest realistic size anyone might need to view them
at, so might be worth saying so.

Document Icons
--------------

- "Also remember that doc icons are likely to be used in conjunction
with a variety of different themes": the same could well be said of
toolbar and application icons, why only say so here?  Or do you mean
Nautilus themes rather than GTK themes?  (Even if you do, it's still
true of all icons with respect to GTK themes).

Graphic Design
--------------

- "Accessibility Note": I'd rather not see this pulled out as an
"accessibility note", we're trying to ensure accessibility guidelines
are an inherent part of the wider usability guidelines and not
distinguish between the two. Especially as this is only partially an
accessibility point anyway.

Kinds of Icons
--------------

- This section looks like a list of viable alternatives for acceptable
icon types, it's only on closer inspection that the last two (text icons
and random icons) turn out to be in the "shouldn't be used" category. 
Could perhaps split this section into two tables (columns: type,
example, description), one for 'acceptable' icon types and one for
'unacceptable'?    Would take up much less space that way too.

- "If at all possilble": I think we decided to remove "if possible" and
"where possible" where possible :)

- "Failing that, a name suggestive icon can be an appropriate choice":
typo, did you mean to remove "name"?

Functionally suggestive icons
-----------------------------

- "Icons should be, if possible": another one to remove if possible...

- "Users tend to recognize...": "tend to" is another phrase you can
safely remove in all cases without affecting the meaning of the
sentence  :)


Icon Problems to Avoid
----------------------

- "They were thrown off": "thrown off" is a bit colloquial, suggest
"misled" or similar

- "minimal visual element(s)": remove the parentheses

- "(debately)": typo, and if it's debatable we shouldn't really be
mentioning it at all

- "It needs to avoid imagery that is potentially offensive or crass
imagery to other cultures": remove second "imagery"

- "Figure 16. Destructive looking Shutdown icon": should be
"Destructive-looking"


-- 
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer       Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:calum benson ireland sun com    Desktop Engineering Group
http://www.sun.ie                      +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems