Application Icons

[ohyrans]

I had ideas to improve the icons - and started drafting a concept based on the applications unique approach to vector files and how they are created.

I wanted to do something using a single colour to easier be styled between themes (especially dark themes etc) that also dodged the most normal choices of symbols to break the user out of a learned idea of WHAT a vector editor is and isn't as that could define a new users experimentation.

The icons are 32x32 px vector images but can be enlarged to better fit other sizes and still align to the pixelgrid as these do.

The idea is also to create different SHAPES that can be easily spotted - the slanted hand (Select), an isolated mid shape (Sculpt), a S shape (Scetch) and a Z-ish shape (Paint)

[dalboris]

Hi, thanks for contributing here!

These look nice, however at a first glance I'd say they are a bit too complex be recognizable at small size. Also, I think it's important for standard icons, like the paint bucket tool, to actually look like the paint bucket in Photoshop. Let's not deviate from what is already standard :)

[ohyrans]

The smaller ones are being worked on!

BUT this is my defence speech for straying from the norm.
[Gets up on soapbox]
The paint bucket / roller switch is not that radical since it already exists - BUT the other ones, are different but my argument is that that is for good reason.
Photoshop is its own beast. There is no existing application without such a grasp on our culture - you "photoshop" images, you don't edit them.
BUT this isn't photoshop. People for whom an application like this is valuable are those that actually know what they intend to do. It is a breakway idea from what we have seen as a standard in image creation for a long time: Photoeditors look one way, Vector editors another, and illustration apps a third. This isn't your standard vector editor though - the ideas you guys had are comparatively so out there that they are an evolution of what should be expected IMO.

Visually its better to not try to be "normal" in that regard. Users will have to accept a change in the way they think of the vector editor - and introducing that technical change, by also being a bit different with the visuals is a worthwhile thing. All users will still have to learn the application - and if the application visually claims to be the same - that isn't a good thing for most users. What the node editor does, isn't what a node editor does. The selection tool doesn't do what a selection too does. Having icons that are similar to what they should be may feel like the best - but in fact unless the application is a 1-to-1 for say Inkscape or Illustrator, there is no worth in it. Rather the opposite.

The icons for tools are never self-explanatory within complex applications. Whenever you learn a new app, hovering above the icons is usually par the course.

And keeping the icons the same - even if the action isn't - isn't a good thing.

I would argue that capturing the users imagination and exploratory zeal - to invite her to see the application for what it is - something new, something exciting, something that hasn't been seen before, is beneficial to the experience.

Capture the imagination of the user - let them experience the star scape you're aiming for - don't put them down by misguidance, or by trying to stick to a symbol language that simply isn't there anyway.

"New" isn't scary. It's fascinating. Communicate that fascination.

[Gets down from soapbox] :)

[dalboris]

Visually its better to not try to be "normal" in that regard. Users will have to accept a change in the way they think of the vector editor

I will have to strongly disagree on this :) Because the drawing paradigm is already different enough than in other apps, it makes it even more important than common features have icons and behaviors as close as possible as their existing counterparts. It makes the transition easier. Also, artists regularly use several applications at the same time: it's important to have similar icons and similar shortcuts for the things which are common in both, as it decreases cognitive load.

[ohyrans]

(I notice you didn't bring a soapbox) ;)

I would disagree. I have worked as an illustrator and graphic designer (and UX/UI designer) for about 12 years now. I've gone through and had to learn a wealth of strange applications depending on the actual work. There have never been a transition. Some things need to stay the same, like "pen" - it has to be a pen. But some are just things you need to learn. Take the Blender toolbox. A line being bent with a dot.
Take the Krita toolbox "a brush with some kind of action line next to it" (Colorize mask brush)

The point of the symbols is to guide your eye to them. If the application is basically the same - well thats one thing, but if its not - it doesn't matter. At first they invite you to test, then they stick as symbols for actions. Some need to be the same ("Save" is a good example) some really doesn't make sense being the same (Draw freehand curves and Draw Bezier Lines in Inkscape for example) but many don't.

I would argue that the benefit here would be to dare stray from the pack.

BUT this isn't my baby :) so say "no" and I would love to help do more conservative icons too of course! I just feel in my bones that your application would benefit so much by daring to be different.

[dalboris]

The best will probably to submit this to a vote a bit down the line :) But generally speaking, my intuition would be to go for minimalist icons (they have to work well on iPads and potentially mobile phones too), and as close as possible to Illustrator or Photoshop icons when possible.

I can totally hear your arguments though. I love the idea to dare to be different. But I feel it's important too to not frustrate users looking for an icon they are used too in Illustrator and not finding it.

[ohyrans]

I hear ya! :D

Ok ok gotta make more standard ones tomorrow to submit.

[dalboris]

Awesome, thanks! Good night :)