Re: [Usability] Rational for icons in button

["Ronny V. Vindenes" <s864 ii uib no>]

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 10:34, Julien Olivier wrote:
> (snip)
> 
> > Finally, as a matter of personal preference, I find that icons doesn't
> > make the desktop more colorful as much as it makes it more noisy. It
> > also forces themes to implement their own stock icons if they are to
> > appear consistent. Looking at http://art.gnome.org/ there are many good
> > themes, but few (none?) of them implement complete stock icon sets.
> > 
> 
> I think icons should be defined by icon themes. I know GTK+ currently
> doesn't support icon themes. But in the future, style designers
> shouldn't have to worry about icons.

This is only half a step in the right direction, it removes the problem
of keeping two icon sets consistent, but it doesn't fix the real
problems.

Making complete and consistent icon sets is very hard work[1], and with
some of the icons in gtk/gnome today it is in fact impossible to make a
"correct" set that makes sense in any locale. Too many of the metaphors
in use rely on an understanding of American expressions and culture
(such as a green light to indicate approval, or red to indicate error or
dismissal - I think red is associated with luck in China(?)). 

While it may have been pure coincidence that caused gnome to use icons
in buttons initially, I don't think it's a coincidence that no other
desktops use them.

Relying on theme designers to either only design themes that doesn't
clash with random icons from existing icon themes or to design suitable
icons to go with their themes, just isn't a good idea.


[1] None of the desktops I've seen the last 15-20 years ever implemented
more than a couple of complete icon sets.

-- 
Ronny V. Vindenes <s864 ii uib no>