Iconset for XnView 1.75

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:29 am

ckv wrote:
helmut wrote:ckv, what's the difference between...
Hmmm. Maybe I need bigger picture to demonstrate the difference

I have glasses, so I did see that difference.

But what's the difference in your iconset archive http://koti.mbnet.fi/ckv/files/offset/Iconset-3003.zip? To me, this looks identical to Dreamer's iconset.

ckv · Post by **ckv** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:51 am

Exactly that gray border around the file type sign. 16x16 icons are identical, but in the 32x32 and 48x48 icons, I removed that border.

The difference is small, but I see it easily.

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:01 pm

ckv wrote:Exactly that gray border around the file type sign. 16x16 icons are identical, but in the 32x32 and 48x48 icons, I removed that border.

The difference is small, but I see it easily.

The difference is obvious. For some reason I thought that the file on the left was your icon and the one at the right was Dreamer's. I prefer your version - without grey border. Perhaps the border is needed for the brighter colours (yellow, light green).

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:18 pm

helmut wrote:
ckv wrote:
What about making 32 x 32 icons more ssssexy. See the difference. Maybe it needs little polish.
1. I like your draft (middle and right icon). The XnView logo on the left looks tame, the other ones are more impulsive and have more energy. It needs some polishing though, especially some of the satellite pixels (pixels that are all alone) should be removed to make it look a bit less "wild".

2. For the "bmp" you have taken the font of the large icons (48x48) which looks more fancy. I think that this font is a bit harder to read, so I'd prefer the old one.

1. I agree
2. I agree

I guess ckv just changed size of the 48x48 icons to 32x32...

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:25 pm

helmut wrote:I prefer your version - without grey border. Perhaps the border is needed for the brighter colours (yellow, light green).

I'd prefer the border for all icons or for none. Maybe with a different colour for some formats...

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:50 am

Dreamer, ckv, et al,

There will be release candidates before the final release. So we can still do some fine tuning, if we want. Once the 1.75 I'll have a bit of a break regarding icon design...

I've used your (Dreamers and ckv's) good approaches and ideas and developed them a bit further:

The icons & changes from left to right:

1 - ckv's latest version (no grey frame around "bmp")
2 - Dreamer's latest version (grey frame around "bmp")
3 - ckv's "Unplugged logo" version. Also font of 48x48 format is used.

The following ones are all based on the "Unplugged logo" of ckv (see 3):

4 - Different, small font for "bmp"
4a - no grey frame (see 1)
5 - grey frame (see 2)
6 - "Tamed logo" A
7 - "Tamed logo" B
8 - "Tamed logo" C
9 - "Tamed logo" D

The differences in 6-9 are probably hard to see. Step by step the logo has been smoothened. I think the "Tamed logo" D has a good level of "wildness".

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:58 pm

helmut wrote:The differences in 6-9 are probably hard to see. Step by step the logo has been smoothened. I think the "Tamed logo" D has a good level of "wildness".

Yes very hard to see, I think bmp9a.ico is good, maybe you could remove two orange dots near the right border...

Update - new 16x16 16 colours icons:

General old

| General new

| Another update

| Last one

PSD old

| PSD new

| Another update

| Last one

PSD (and BMP) is just an examlpe for all 16x16 16 colours icons, what you think which one is better?

(Helmut, I sent you both new icons)

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:57 am

Dreamer wrote:... I think bmp9a.ico is good, maybe you could remove two orange dots near the right border...

O.k. I've changed that. The results:

9a - Tamed Logo D (see samples above)
9b - Logo (Removed two orange pixels near right border)
9c - Logo (Two pixels at right border, enhanced fourth orange xnview dot")
9d - Logo (Logo covers left vertical line of document)
9e - Logo (Two pixels at right border moved back to right border)

I don't know what other people think, but I think the results 9a - 9e are all pretty good and it is hard to decide. My favourite is 9e, now.

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:35 am

At the moment I think it's still unclear whether we should have a format label with grey frame or not. To give a basis to make a decision I've created some samples:

From left to right:

9e - Framed label (see samples above)
9f - Non-Framed label (no grey frame)
9g - Non-framed, small label
9h - Non-framed, shadowed label

The non-framed labels for the formats kdc and sld look so-so. My favourite is the shadowed version "9h". What do you think?

Olivier_G · Post by **Olivier_G** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:18 am

My vote

1. Non-framed, shadowed label (9h) => visibility + slight 3D effect
2. Framed label (9e) => good visibility
...not fond of the others 2.

Olivier

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:26 am

Dreamer et al,

Dreamer wrote:...
Update - new 16x16 16 colours icons:
...

Good new design for the 16x16 pixel general icon. The icons are all zoomed, this makes it easy to see the changes but it's a bit hard to decide which ones look better.

Below your icons and some more. In all the icons only the four XnView "dots" of the logo have been changed.

The changes are some few pixels only, so I guess that we have reached a point where even the monitor (TFT, CRT, resolution) plays a role. My favourites for both general and format specific icon are -06 and -07. The change for the general icon is really good, but let's keep in mind that the 16x16 pixel with 16 colour icon is not so important.

Note:
I've removed some posts in this topic, we are still above 80 posts, now.

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:50 am

I've packed the samples and icons used above, in case someone (Dreamer, ckv, ...) wants to use them as a basis for further design. Here's the current Iconset archive.

Dreamer · Post by **Dreamer** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:50 pm

helmut wrote:
Dreamer wrote:

I vote for 9d, I don't like 9e

helmut wrote:

I vote for 9e, maybe we could use both framed and shadowed label ?

Also I don't like this:

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:32 pm

Dreamer,

thank you for your votes.

... Also I don't like this:

If I get you right you don't like the logo overlap /exceed the "document" on the right side. On the left side this is the same (even more) and I think that makes the logo look more interesting. I haven't tested on a dark background, perhaps it doesn't look that nice, then.

Note:
I'm aware that the icons that I've provided as ZIP archive don't use the proper background colour (you can see this in the image above on the left side).

helmut · Post by **helmut** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:08 pm

Dreamer, Olivier, et al,

o.k., one more.

On a white background:

On a black background:

Legend:
9da - Based on 9d - changed left pixels of fourth Xnview "dot" on the right
9ea - Based on 9e - changed left pixels of fourth Xnview "dot" on the right

Personally, I do not want to put much more effort into this. The results are good and more work does not result in much better results. So I'd like to come to a decision regarding the 16x16 pixel and the 32x32 pixel icons for XnView 1.75.
My favourite is 9ea or 9ea with a shadowed format label (see 9h above). For the 16x16 pixel it's General-07.

Olivier and Dreamer have voted, already. Other opinions? A poll (seriously)?

XnView Software

Iconset for XnView 1.75

Re: I'm back

Framed or non-framed label

Current samples