Re: Yet another emacs icons

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Andrew Zhilin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

Hello, all,
 
Following the discussion, I've decided to make a 16x16 "notebook" version. Oh my, that was not easy =)  Here's the result of my effort. It does not satisfy me 100%, but after a certain point new iterations just ceased to make things better. 
If you like it, it would be great, if not - the best candidate for 16x16, in my opinion, is "emacs_16_06.png". It is more neat than the first version and matches with 32 & 48 "notebook" icons in color. 
 
Thank you for inspiring comments and moral support.
 
WBR,
Andrew Zhilin
andrew_zhilin @ yahoo dot com

 



		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 938 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 779699844-emacs_icon_v102.zip --]
[-- Type: application/x-zip-compressed, Size: 16867 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Lennart Borgman]

Andrew Zhilin wrote:

> Hello, all,
>  
> Following the discussion, I've decided to make a 16x16 "notebook" 
> version. Oh my, that was not easy =)  Here's the result of my effort. 
> It does not satisfy me 100%, but after a certain point new iterations 
> just ceased to make things better.
> If you like it, it would be great, if not - the best candidate for 
> 16x16, in my opinion, is "emacs_16_06.png". It is more neat than the 
> first version and matches with 32 & 48 "notebook" icons in color.

It is on the web.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Mathias Dahl]

Andrew Zhilin <andrew_zhilin@yahoo.com> writes:

>    Following the discussion, I've decided to make a 16x16 "notebook"
>    version. Oh my, that was not easy =)  Here's the result of my effort.
>    It does not satisfy me 100%, but after a certain point new iterations
>    just ceased to make things better.
>    If you like it, it would be great, if not - the best candidate for
>    16x16, in my opinion, is "emacs_16_06.png". It is more neat than the
>    first version and matches with 32 & 48 "notebook" icons in color.

I like the non-notebook version of the 16 x 16 icon better. It seems
that trying to squeeze that into notebook-look makes it look "strange"
instead.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Miles Bader]

2005/10/18, Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com>:
> I like the non-notebook version of the 16 x 16 icon better. It seems
> that trying to squeeze that into notebook-look makes it look "strange"
> instead.

Oh, I dunno, I think Andrew's idea of making it an "upright notebook"
instead of slanted is a good one for easing the space constraints, and
something nice can be made with a bit more effort  Since the notebook
"theme" is very useful, it seems worth trying.

Perhaps reducing the number of notebook rings and giving up trying to
make it look quite so "3D" (i.e., make something slightly more
abstract like olde-tyme mac icons) would be useful?  Most of the good
icons I see at 16x16 size seem to use a more abstract high-contrast
style, not the shiny 3D ray-traced look... :-)

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Brad Collins]

The slanted notebook with the horns is very good -- certainly the
best I've seen so far.

Most of the Emacs icons I've seen uses a gnu of some sort, and I
would think many existing emacs uses associate emacs with those gnu
images, even though this is not technically a correct association.

For new users, a notebook with a distinct graphic is clean and sets
it apart from other icons.  It's clean, clear and works.

I've tried it both on an old laptop with Win95 and a GNU/Linux box
running GNUStep... looks good and I'm sure it will look good on gnome
and kde...

I also like it slanted better than flat -- it keeps it distinct from
MS icons for Notepad and Wordpad (yuck!).

b/
-- 
Brad Collins <brad@chenla.org>, Bangkok, Thailand

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Richard M. Stallman]

Now understand what people mean by "notebook icons", and I like them.
Thanks very much for producing them.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Andrew Zhilin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

Hello, all

Here's a new icon set - with some color variations. 
I am very grateful for your ideas and helpful comments. Unfortunately, not everything was possible for me to implement ("E" and "M" made of horns or diagonal "E"- I just saw no way to make it non-ambiguous and good-looking at the same time).
After I heard that chipped-horn "E" looks more like "E" and that it would be nice to actually have "emacs" word in an icon, I just did so. 
I will be very glad if you find something useful.
 
WBR,
Andrew Zhilin
andrew_zhilin at yahoo dot com

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 826 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: pat1712119221 --]
[-- Type: application/x-zip-compressed, Size: 65268 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Miles Bader]

I think all of your icons are very pretty, but I liked the earlier
"notebook" versions much better -- it seems like a notebook conveys
the generic idea of editor, and the E/horns add an easily recognizable
"tag" to tell you it's Emacs[*].  I think adding the word "emacs" to
the icon is pretty useless except at huge icon sizes, and merely
muddles up the icon at small sizes.

So my requests:  Add back the "notebook".  Get rid of the word "Emacs"
in small sizes (anything less than 64x64 really).

However _any_ of these new icons is better than the old Gnu/mushroom
icon -- now I see that old icon at about 16x16 size in my taskbar, and
it looks basically like a piece of lint!  The original image is far
too detailed to ever be very useful as an icon i think.

[*] Of course someone who doesn't use emacs won't know what the
crooked horns mean -- but so what?  Icons are not really any good at
introducing new concept anyway.  They are much more useful for
_recognition_ than documentation.

-miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Lennart Borgman]

Miles Bader wrote:

>I think all of your icons are very pretty, but I liked the earlier
>"notebook" versions much better -- it seems like a notebook conveys
>the generic idea of editor, and the E/horns add an easily recognizable
>"tag" to tell you it's Emacs[*].  I think adding the word "emacs" to
>the icon is pretty useless except at huge icon sizes, and merely
>muddles up the icon at small sizes.
>  
>
I agree, all Andrew's icons are very pretty. I have uploaded them, to 
the same page as usual (for your convenience, here it is again: 
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/NewIcons.html).

I also think the same as Miles about the "notebook" version. I am a 
little bit wondering about a 16x16 version of this, but I guess that is 
impossible?;-)

>it looks basically like a piece of lint!
>  
>
Which makes me more curious than my lexicon could take...

RE: Yet another emacs icons

[Drew Adams]

    _any_ of these new icons is better than the old Gnu/mushroom
    icon ... it looks basically like a piece of lint!  The original
    image is far too detailed to ever be very useful as an icon

Most of us agree (I think), that neither complex images nor text work well
at icon size. I've already stated my preference for no gnus, and just a
single "E". (One of the "E"s I posted was split - top and bottom
video-inverses, which abstractly suggests windows in a frame, but
essentially it's just an "E".)

However, another possibility now occurs to me - a very simple, recognizable
object. This wouldn't be an object that says "Emacs" or "Gnu" by its nature.
It would be recognizable as what it is at even tiny sizes, but it wouldn't
by itself communicate "Emacs" initially. However, if an attractive but
not-too-cute object were chosen, it would quickly become associated with
Emacs.

An example of such a simple object is the apple with a bite out it of used
by Apple Computer. I personally use, for Emacs, a simple tree icon I grabbed
somewhere, just because it looks good and stands out. The exact object
chosen is really less important, I think, than having something that is
attractive.

Another possibility is not to try for a recognizable object, but just an
attractive pattern or geometric shape that stands out. An example is the
Google-Desktop swirl. Besides repeating Google's colors, there is nothing
about it that says "Google", and it is not a recognizable object. But it
does look good and stand out.

The infamous kitchen sink and mushroom-gnu were unsuccessful not because
they didn't communicate the idea of "Emacs" well, but because 1) they were
too complex, 2) they simply were not recognizable as anything at all (even a
pattern), and 3) they were not attractive. They did, in fact, quickly become
associated with Emacs through use, but they were just bad icons.

I guess I'm saying that we could broaden our scope and try to come up with
something outstanding at tiny size, even if it doesn't communicate "Emacs"
out of the box (it will soon enough).

If we chose a simple object, we might want to choose a different object
(perhaps of a similar kind) for each release. Or we might offer several
different (perhaps related) objects with the same release, letting users
choose.

Think, for instance, of what O'Reilly books do with animals. The animal
itself isn't important, and doesn't usually communicate much, but the
general idea is clever, and it identifies the books as O'Reilly - and the
animals are attractive (very important).

To adopt this approach, we would try to look for (create) object images that
are 1) SIMPLE, 2) clever, original, interesting, and 3) attractive 4) at
even tiny sizes. Of course, this is not the most important thing for people
to work on, but it could be fun, and who knows what we might come up with? I
think now that limiting ourselves to trying to convey the idea of "Emacs" or
"Gnu" has perhaps stopped us from being more creative.

Emacsians are weird, funny, creative people - much weirder than the kitchen
sink. A sense of humor in this endeavor is essential - what icon would Zippy
adopt? (No, a washing machine is too complex for an icon. A piece of lint,
perhaps? LOOP) Thinking caps on (or is it off?), chill out, dream on... No
more complex icons. 256 bits max...

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Richard M. Stallman]

    I think all of your icons are very pretty, but I liked the earlier
    "notebook" versions much better

What do you mean by "notebook versions"?  I can't match that with
anything I remember seeing.

    [*] Of course someone who doesn't use emacs won't know what the
    crooked horns mean -- but so what?

I do use Emacs, but I don't find crooked horns to have a self-evident
meaning.  Also I am not sure I would recognize any crooked horns
in those images.  That may not make them bad, though.

RE: Yet another emacs icons

[Drew Adams]

        I think all of your icons are very pretty, but I liked the earlier
        "notebook" versions much better

    What do you mean by "notebook versions"?  I can't match that with
    anything I remember seeing.

Lennart has put all of the icons here:
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/NewIcons.html.  The "notebook" icons are here:
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/NewIcons.html#AndrewZhilin.

However, the "notebook" icons are not 16x16. For that size, Andrew uses the
"crooked horns" only, without the notebook.

Unless we plan to use the larger icons somewhere, I think we should consider
only 16x16 icons. That would no doubt eliminate any consideration of
notebook images, as much as some people might like them.

        [*] Of course someone who doesn't use emacs won't know what the
        crooked horns mean -- but so what?

    I do use Emacs, but I don't find crooked horns to have a self-evident
    meaning.  Also I am not sure I would recognize any crooked horns
    in those images.  That may not make them bad, though.

I agree. Such an image should be judged on its own, without regard to its
possible suggestion of gnu horns, because that association is absent,
especially at size 16x16.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Miles Bader]

2005/10/17, Richard M. Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
>     [*] Of course someone who doesn't use emacs won't know what the
>     crooked horns mean -- but so what?
>
> I do use Emacs, but I don't find crooked horns to have a self-evident
> meaning.  Also I am not sure I would recognize any crooked horns
> in those images.

I'm the same way, but I don't think it matters much.  I think the key
point is that once you've made the connection, you'll easily recognize
the image the next time you see it -- that it be easy to remember.  I
think the horns do serve that purpose well enough.

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Ken Manheimer]

i like andrew zhilin's set of notebook icons very much, and think
there are compelling reasons to go with them.

first of all, i think most of the other candidates are misguided,
because text in an icon is almost always clutter.  i am fairly certain
that icons serve the purpose of elemental glyphs in user interfaces,
and text in a glyph is unweildy clutter.  even a single letter is the
wrong thing - a glyph in a glyph.  (those companies that do use a
letter for their brand icon usually abstract it.  macdonalds presents
it's M brand icon as "golden arches", and that's they way i, for one,
remember it - not the "golden M".)

the notebook-ish set of images are simple and memorable - glyph-like. 
people will recognize them distinct from other icons, even when
reduced to the squiggle.

they are explicable - people can make the connection between the gnu
horns and the emacs icon squiggle, and see that the larger (than
16x16) versions convey a notebook.  i think both are extremely useful
associations for an emacs icon, and add value to the proposition.

at the same time, an icon need not have an obvious literal meaning to
be recognizable.  look at the lucent zen circle, the nike swoosh, the
bp mandala, etc. all are distinctive in elemental ways (while having
some conceptual mnemonic for the companies they denote).

they (andrew's notebook icons) are graceful, at all scales.  it's a
*nice* squiggle, that will be a pleasure to add to your launch bar.

these points add up to an appealing, distinctive, and memorable symbol
for denoting emacs, and i think add up to a really winning icon.

ken manheimer
ken.manheimer@gmail.com

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Lennart Borgman]

Ken Manheimer wrote:

>i like andrew zhilin's set of notebook icons very much, and think
>there are compelling reasons to go with them.
>  
>
Indeed, I agree, they are nice in both 32x32 and bigger (though I think 
there are other nice icons too). But is the 16x16 icon version 
acceptable too? Can the 16x16 version be enhanced? (It is an important 
icon size, at least on w32.)

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Ken Manheimer]

On 10/17/05, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> wrote:
> Ken Manheimer wrote:

> >i like andrew zhilin's set of notebook icons very much, and think
> >there are compelling reasons to go with them.

> Indeed, I agree, they are nice in both 32x32 and bigger (though I think
> there are other nice icons too). But is the 16x16 icon version
> acceptable too? Can the 16x16 version be enhanced? (It is an important
> icon size, at least on w32.)

the 16x16 versions seem quite fine to me.  (i meant to include the
suggestions page url in my last message:
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/NewIcons.html - thanks for maintaining
that.)  the notebook representation in the large-scale versions will
emphasize the text-editing connection, but the squiggle will be
recognized across the different scales, and that sees to me to be the
crucial thing.

do you find the 16x16 version unclear, or too unconnected from the
others in that set, or undistinctive from other common icons?  those
would be primary disqualifiers, once we agree that we like the design
in general.

ken
ken.manheimer@gmail.com

Yet another emacs icons

[Andrew Zhilin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

Hi All!
 
In the attachment you will find zipped version (16, 24, 32, 48 pix 32bit-png and win32 .ico with all above) of emacs icon set, which I crafted last weekend. I will be happy if someone found them useful :)
 
E-letter - vectorized gnu-horns from Luis Fernandes's GNU Emacs logo
http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/emacs/logo/logo3.html
 
WBR,
Andrew Zhilin
andrew_zhilin at yahoo dot com


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: pat1751074003 --]
[-- Type: application/x-zip-compressed, Size: 18335 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Frank Schmitt]

Andrew Zhilin <andrew_zhilin@yahoo.com> writes:

> In the attachment you will find zipped version (16, 24, 32, 48 pix
> 32bit-png and win32 .ico with all above) of emacs icon set, which I
> crafted last weekend. I will be happy if someone found them useful :)
>  
> E-letter - vectorized gnu-horns from Luis Fernandes's GNU Emacs logo
> http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/emacs/logo/logo3.html

Those icons look very professional. Well done, for me those are the best
ones proposed until now.

-- 
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bullshit nobody will read.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Richard M. Stallman]

    > E-letter - vectorized gnu-horns from Luis Fernandes's GNU Emacs logo
    > http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/emacs/logo/logo3.html

    Those icons look very professional. Well done, for me those are the best
    ones proposed until now.

I have to strain a little to see the E in the design, and strain very
much to see the gnu horns.  If I had not read that they were supposed
to resemble gnu horns, I would never have seen it.  As far as I can
tell, you have to look at the letter sideways to see it as horns.  Is
that right?

However, it may nonetheless be a good icon, if people will remember it
and know what it means.  I wish we could get the advice of someone
who knows more about this than we do.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[David Kastrup]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > E-letter - vectorized gnu-horns from Luis Fernandes's GNU Emacs logo
>     > http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/emacs/logo/logo3.html
>
>     Those icons look very professional. Well done, for me those are the best
>     ones proposed until now.
>
> I have to strain a little to see the E in the design, and strain
> very much to see the gnu horns.  If I had not read that they were
> supposed to resemble gnu horns, I would never have seen it.  As far
> as I can tell, you have to look at the letter sideways to see it as
> horns.  Is that right?

The horns can be viewed as either "E" or "M" depending on the angle,
and they look more horn-like from the "M" aspect.

Maybe one should use _two_ horns, identical but with different angles
so that "EM" is more or less spelled, and have them in a relative
position suggesting two gnus locking horns?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Maybe one should use _two_ horns, identical but with different angles
    so that "EM" is more or less spelled, and have them in a relative
    position suggesting two gnus locking horns?

It might look good _if_ there is room for two of them that would be
large enough to be clear.

Here's an idea: use this for the larger icon sizes, and just one of
them for the smallest size.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Christian Schlauer]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

> However, it may nonetheless be a good icon, if people will remember it
> and know what it means.  I wish we could get the advice of someone
> who knows more about this than we do.

Have you got any response from the GNOME/OpenOffice icon designer
mentioned in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/42403>?
-- 
Christian Schlauer

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Have you got any response from the GNOME/OpenOffice icon designer
    mentioned in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/42403>?

I never asked them about this.  I will do so.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Frank Schmitt]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> However, it may nonetheless be a good icon, if people will remember it
> and know what it means.  I wish we could get the advice of someone
> who knows more about this than we do.

We could ask the people from http://tango-project.org/Tango_Desktop_Project

-- 
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bullshit nobody will read.

Re: Yet another emacs icons

[Lennart Borgman]

Andrew Zhilin wrote:

> Hi All!
>  
> In the attachment you will find zipped version (16, 24, 32, 48 pix 
> 32bit-png and win32 .ico with all above) of emacs icon set, which I 
> crafted last weekend. I will be happy if someone found them useful :)

I have added these nice icons to the page with the icons:
    http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/NewIcons.html

I reordered the page a bit again to make it easier to find things (I hope).

>  
> E-letter - vectorized gnu-horns from Luis Fernandes's GNU Emacs logo
> http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/emacs/logo/logo3.html 
> <http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/%7Eelf/emacs/logo/logo3.html>

Ah, I thought it was a combination of an E and an M first ...