[openbeos] Re: Icon Design Contest
- From: "Curtis Wanner" <katisu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:13:44 -0400
Charlie Clark wrote:
>So, the whole idea is pointless?
Personally I didn't take that from his response. There's a difference
between being innovative and having a unique style.
>While this is certainly not the place for an extensive debate on pictogram
design (icon is actually being incorrectly >used in this context) there is
no need to be defeatist.
Actually I believe this has been the point of the contest and the existing
discussions. I believe the only defeatism is if we don't come up with
guidelines because we haven't come up with something that smacks us in the
head as being innovative.
>To be pedantic: there was a major shift in European 2D art with the
introduction of linear perspective in the >renaissance which is why
Hieronymus Bosch's pictures are now so disturbingly enigmatic.
But you wouldn't apply it to an OS interface. It's one thing to talk about
regular art and another about an OS interface which has usability
constraints.
>But to the matter in hand. To state that it is impossible to come up with
something new for Haiku is both stating the >obvious as well as missing the
point. I don't think Michael is asking for an entirely new semiotic system,
simply a >recasting of the existing symbolic base in a more Haiku-centric
way.
I disagree, Michael said he would like to see something innovative -
"introducing a new idea". I don't think you even have to picky about terms
to understand that innovation is MORE than just being unique or distinctive.
>I think there is a lot to be said for retaining the isometric style but
infusing it with a bit more Haiku flavour but >this is certainly not the
only possibility.
Again I wouldn't call this innovation, just a unique or distinctive style.
As for being innovative, this would require a change in the interaction of
the WIMP interface or a completely new interface itself.
If you are picky about terms (i.e. icon, pictogram), your use of isometric
isn't correct either. They actually use what is referred to as a dimetric
projection or 3/4 perspective.
Curtis
Other related posts:
