Re: [HIG] REVIEW: Icons

[Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>]

> 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.

This is a standard docbook mechanism, formal paragraphs. I'm rather
loathe to make yet another level of subsection for single paragraphs,
its sort of goofy. I'll look at balancing this out with the rest of the
document though, I've already made a few changes to bring the style more
into line.

> - "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?

Lighting dictates where the shadow will go. If the light is above the
users head and the object is straight in front of them the shadow will
not go to the left or right but directly down.

> - 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.

Changed to 'GTK'. I had imported some text from another source there
that used 'gtk'.

> 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.

done.

> 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).

Changed to "with a variety of icon themes". The reason this is specified
while GTK theme compatibility is not is that I've never seen a problem
with document or application icons being designed for a very specific
GTK theme. Document icons will be used alongside icon themed icons, so
its much more important for them to be fairly theme agnostic.

> - "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.

Dropped in as a normal paragraph. I need to finish that section 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.
> 

I'll look at changing to a table later, though I'm not sure its the
right way to go for a two-entry per set of items. I added section
headers for "Acceptable Icons" and "Unacceptable Icons" to make it more
clear on scanning that some of them are bad.

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

done.

> - "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  :)

done.

> 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"
> 

done. 

thanks Calum!

-seth