[Fireside Chats are round table discussions conducted using Campfire.]
The Chatters
Dave Brasgalla (Icon Factory)
Brian Brasher (Firewheel Design)
Jon Hicks (Hicks Design)
Corey Marion (Icon Factory)
Michael Schmidt (Cuban Council)
Josh Williams (Firewheel Design)
(Moderated by Matt and Jason from 37signals)
| Matt | paste an icon or icon set that you’re proud of making and explain why. |
| Corey |  |
| Brian |  |
| Jon |  |
I guess I had too! |
|
| Corey | Didn’t know Hicks did the Firefox and Thunderbird icons, nice work |
| Jon | It’s kind of my one-hit wonder! |
| Josh | I did these icons for a Pawn Shop POS system years ago. The thought of Pawn Shop icons has always made me laugh a bit: |
 |
|
| Corey |  |
One of our original three sets when stockicons.com launched |
|
| Dave |  |
Cave Troll. :-D
|
|
Those LOTR icons, I love the CCave Troll, but the book… I’ve been after texture for so long, and that time I hit exactly what I had in mind |
| Jon | I love the Cave Troll icons – candidates for the first animated icons me thinks |
| Dave | Actually, I’ve always wanted to animate the cave troll to "Soul of a Man" |
| Josh | Did you do that all in PS Dave? |
| Dave | vector base shapes and millions of PS layers, Josh |
| Josh | These are still my faves, created during my Dave Brasgalla phase… |
 |
|
| Dave | Always liked the orange-y glow about those, Josh |
| Josh | thx Dave, I’m a sucker for orange |
| Michael |  |
| Brian | I’ve been posting cursors on my blog. Not icons exactly, but sorta: |
 |
|
| Corey | Classic Brian… |
| Michael | nice & pixelly |
| Josh | The texture is amazing |
| Dave | Love the cook pot! |
| Josh | we keep brian in a cook pot at the office |
| Brian | But we try not to smoke it. |
| Matt | What do you think about the new Adobe CS3 icons? |
 |
|
| Josh | I like the CS3 box art much more than the icons. |
| Matt |  |
| Dave | The new CS3 icons are sort of bizarre to me |
| Brian | CS3 icons: yawn |
| Jon | Agreed |
BUT |
|
I’ve got used to them |
|
| Josh | With so many Adobe apps, they’re gonna run outta letters |
| Brian | Are we on the cusp of a periodic table design phase? |
| Josh | Fireworks, Flash, Flex… too many icons with Fs |
| Corey | They are very…square |
| Dave | It has so many problems |
| Brian | The boxes are lovely. |
| Josh | the boxes are gorgeous |
| Jon | Agreed |
| Dave | Very nice boxes |
| Josh | Wish the icons had the same level of character, and I’m really starting to miss Venus from the old Adobe icons. |
| Brian | Lovely, yet across the room I don’t which app is in which box. |
| Michael | Once you get used them to, the cs3 icons are easier to use in the dock, though. |
| Josh | you’re right about that Mike, the current CS2 icons aren’t terrific either |
| Corey | The icons do stand out in the dock |
| Dave | Just putting letters in a square seems a design cop-out to me |
| Jon | It does, but I have to say, I think it works |
after I got over the shock |
“Just putting letters in a square seems a design cop-out to me.”
| Corey | I agree, they are easier to "learn" than the CS1 and CS2 icons |
| Brian | Abstract expressionists enter the icon design field. |
| Dave | Well, as long as i don’t have to use more than two Adobe apps, it’ll be fine! |
| Josh |  |
I liked these days |
|
| Jon | memories… |
| Brian | CS2: Adobe Feathershop |
| Jason | Is something a design cop-out if it works? |
Don’t people prefer things that work over things that just look good? Unless we’re talking about art or something. |
|
FWIW: I like the new icons. I think they are functional in a way most icons are not. In that they are designed to live along side other icons that may or may not match. I think that’s pretty unique in icon world. A lot of icons seem to be designed to live in a controlled set, not along side a set you can’t control. |
|
They also seem to deal with context well. |
|
| Dave | Well, I am talking about iconography |
Be interesting to see the Arabic localisation |
|
| Josh | Jason: no, if it works, it’s not a cop out |
he he |
|
| Matt | Related: What makes an icon a success or a failure? |
| Josh | Ask Hicks…the Firefox icon has certainly been a success |
| Jon | Failure: People don’t talk about it? |
At least the CS3 icons are noticed |
|
and discussed |
|
| Michael | Do people talk about icons? |
| Dave | Hmmm.. people talk about terrible icons, too. |
| Josh | good point |
| Brian | Noticed does not equal good. Think MySpace. Yuck! |
| Dave | I suppose it depends on the purpose of the icon. I know that sounds a bit banal, but I think it’s true. |
| Michael | Failure: you have no idea what it is you’re clicking on in the dock. |
| Jon | my personal fave:  |
| Brian | It’s all a matter of whether or not you want to divorce it from aesthetics. |
| Josh | Honestly, I do think icon design can be a bit overrated / overemphasized |
“Honestly, I do think icon design can be a bit overrated / overemphasized.”
| Matt | Meaning what, icons don’t really matter that much? |
| Dave | Things have definitely become… shall we say… rococco? |
| Jon | :o |
| Jason | Josh: It’s good to hear you say that. |
I sort of feel the same way about logos. |
|
Lots and lots of time and money are spent — or wasted — on them. |
|
| Josh | There’s only so much icons are going to do for your product. If your product is good (i.e., Firefox), then a good icon will be remembered with it. |
| Brian | Very true. |
| Josh | If your product is crap, than a pretty fox on a globe ain’t gonna help it |
Same with general UI, especially on the web |
|
Jason: we had the same discussion about logos here yesterday |
|
Logos are totally overrated. |
|
| Jon | Conversely – with resolution independence, icons take longer to make, but I find the budgets don’t increase |
| Dave | That’s a very salient point. |
| Jon | so maybe we should do away with icons and logos! |
| Josh | (It pains me to say this) |
I think we should. |
|
| Brian | Well, somebody has to clothe the emperor. |
| Jason | Re: logos and icons… I feel like good ones mean the company is paying attention at least. That’s what they mean to me. |
| Dave | I agree, Jason |
| Matt | logos and icons seem like the icing. def matter but if the cake sucks they ain’t gonna help much. |
| Josh | Sometimes a good logo or icon is an indicator that they’re taking care of business in other places. |
| Michael | True, but sometimes it also seems like the only people who care about these things are designers like us |
Which is a bit sad |
|
| Jason | But spending tens of thousands or more on a logo and "identity package"... I just don’t get it. But anyway, that’s just me. Maybe it makes sense for some of the world’s largest companies, but I see startups blowing wads of cash on stuff like that and I just don’t get it. |
They have business cards before they have products. Wrong priorities. |
|
| Jon | I think we should separate icons and logos here |
| Dave | Take OS X: if I see an app with a very nicely executed icon, and the screenshots of the interface seem attractive, I am likely to try it out. |
| Jason | Dave: I agree. |
| Brian | Dave said what I wanted to say (and better than I would have). |
| Jason | Just like I’m more likely to walk into a clean store than one with shit scattered everywhere. |
| Jon | Icons are ‘the icing’, but logos mean far more to a company |
| Dave | As Josh put it, it shows they are taking care in each step |
| Josh | It’s very true. I don’t want a crappy icon messing up my Dock. |
| Jason | It’s just a matter of presenting yourself well |
| Corey | Corporate ID is definitely out of control |
and this filters down to icon and UI design |
|
| Dave | People can "overthink" the icons (and logo)... reach a point where they are chasing thier own tails. |
Frank Herbert once wrote: |
|
One of the most difficult things to find is someone who is actually willing to make a decision |
“One of the most difficult things to find is someone who is actually willing to make a decision.”
| Corey | Marketing departments… |
design by committee… |
|
| Josh | Dave: you’ve hit it on the head |
| Jon | Too right! |
| Michael | That seems applicable to any sort of design project, though |
| Corey | absolutely |
| Matt | too many cooks in the kitchen |
| Corey | we do it with our own projects |
| Brian | I’d rather be working on an icon set designed by committee than a 30-page printed something! |
| Dave | <- shudders at the mention of print work |
Tim
on 16 Apr 07I think it’s cool that 37s was able to get everyone into a chat session at the same time since the people involved are located all over the world (in different time zones).
Dan
on 16 Apr 07Those new Adobe icons, while bland, are EXACTLY right. Teaching the Adobe apps you wouldn’t believe how many times you have to say, “No, the feather, not the butterfly!” Then sit and wait for the app to launch, quit it, and then have them hit the flower accidently. Plus, you shrink your dock down enough and it’s more like, “No, the brown lump, not the green lump.” These icons will be easy to remember, and work well at tiny sizes too.
Elliott
on 16 Apr 07The adobe CS3 logos are perfect. Each is very distinct from the next….in a large suite of applications what else are you actually looking for? They even tie in nicely into the CS3 interfaces.
Thumbs up.
Terry Tolleson
on 16 Apr 07Not a lot of explanation as to why some of those posted sets were the designer’s favorite, but I find those sets to be among my favorites per artist, as well. I am always impressed by the photo-realism captured in some sets.
With regard to the CS3 icons, my only issue is that they don’t say anything about what the program does/is. Sure, once you remember the letter combo of the app in question, you’re fine, but without context, I’m completely lost. Also, the boxes are so organic and gorgeous and are completely disconnected from the icons that represent their contents. How do those two design elements work together successfully? I’m looking at two distinctly different items there.
Jon was right to say there is a separation of icon and logo. The function for both are different, though their presentation is similar. It is very confusing and perhaps some more insight into those differences would be helpful.
This is great and I look forward to Parts 2 & 3.
Dan
on 16 Apr 07Terry—Ps says a WHOLE lot more about photoshop than a feather did. Yeah, when the icon was a camera lens there was a correlation between icon and function, but as soon as CS came about, all of that was blown out the window. Unless there’s a secret connection between page layout and butterflies that I’m not familiar with.
Nick
on 16 Apr 07I hope parts 2 & 3 set aside the branding aspects of icons. I think the functional value of in-product icons (toolbars, etc.) is much more interesting.
Jason Leveille
on 16 Apr 07I really enjoyed this post and I am looking forward to the next two parts. Rarely would I ever read a post this long all the way to the end, but I couldn’t help it. Great bits of dialog, imagery, and trolls all rolled into one.
Todd Patrick
on 16 Apr 07Man, this reads like Design Observer on quaaludes. Nice insight, everyone! “Icons [and logos] are way overrated, but if I see a nice one, I’m much more likely to try out an application.” Um, isn’t that sort of a main function of branding: to make a positive first impression? What, do you want the icon/logo to ring up your customers’ shopping cart and bag their groceries, too?
Did anyone stop to question whether any of the new Adobe “icons” qualify as such? Letters on a background do not an icon make; in fact, I’d say it’s precisely the opposite of an icon: it’s decorated abbreviation. And to everyone who thinks, “Finally, they’ve gone back to making sense! I know what it is because it SAYS what it is right there on the picture-box thingy!” I suggest you abandon using the dock, and put your applications window in list mode so you can find your apps alphabetically.
And let’s stop to applaud everyone showing up to a group interview – who are you guys, the Wu-Tang Clan of icon design? Enter the 36×36-pixel Chambers!
sloan
on 16 Apr 07As a definition the Adobe icons aren’t really icons. They are put in as icons, but really they are shorthand labels in colored boxes. If the letters weren’t there, they’d have absolutely no meaning. I think most icons have gone this route because coming up with something that is truly iconic is difficult. Compare the Adobe icons to the iTunes logo. You may not know exactly what it does, but you get the sense it is music related and discs are involved in some way. Now, that may not make sense for what the store has become, but it was a good start. Adium is a cute duck, has nothing to do with the app, but it is disctinctive at least. What Adobe has is not icons, but indistinctive labels. Now, as for the dock, that is broken in many ways and honestly, designing for a Mac OS X screw up isn’t really the way to go.
sloan
on 16 Apr 07Um. I guess I just ended up saying the same thing as Todd! :-p
Mike
on 16 Apr 07The link to Hicks Design has a space in it.
Laurent Baumann
on 16 Apr 07About PS icons (dixit wikipedia) : “An icon (from Greek εἰκών, eikon, “image”) is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics; in computers an icon is a symbol on the monitor used to signify a command, file or record;[…]” I don’t see where is the “image”, and where 2 letters makes an icon…
Richard A. Muscat
on 16 Apr 07I’m a sucker for retro stuff and therefore… I love! Brian’s pixelized icons. I hope in parts 2 and 3 there’ll be something about the process of creating the icons. i always wondered how icon designers get such an amazing amount of details working at such small scales… like those LOTR icons.
Seth
on 16 Apr 07Laughing my ass off @ 36×36-pixel chambers…..
Warren Henning
on 16 Apr 07I miss the old days of Zeldman, K10K, Joshua Davis, and even Kioken (“they ride skateboards inside! they play videogames! they are sooooo awesome!”).
Remember Dreamless? Remember how cool it was while it lasted?
Frakety Frak
on 16 Apr 07@Dan (kind of):
They WORK but that doesn’t make them RIGHT. I don’t know why they didn’t just leave it alone from the pre-CS days. Or better…
- PHOTOshop: make it a damn camera - ILLUSTRATOR: make it a damn paintbrush - InDesign (crappy name): make it a damn page (it is a page layout app, after all) - Flash: Duh, make it a damn “flash” - Fireworks: Duh, a damn firework - Acrobat: Leave it alone (it semi-sucks, but it’s acceptably recognizable now)
CEOs and marketing execs can sometimes have their heads so far up their collective asses they sometimes just can’t see the obvious.
Steve
on 16 Apr 07Great post. I’m not an icon designer so I enjoy the insight and envy the great work.
As for the new adobe icons – they’re better than the non-descript feather and butterfly. Call me old school but I would have liked to have seen some tie back to their function – maybe like: http://www.spitballin.com/adobe.jpg did I mention I’m not an icon designer. Disregard the poor 30 second typography and that they would fail at smaller sizes!My favorite icon vote has to go to the Firefox icon. By far the most impressive.
Keep these great chats coming.
Tom
on 16 Apr 07Everyone expects great icons from Adobe because it’s Adobe. Letters in a coloured box isn’t exactly awardwinner design, but it gets the job done and helps me remember which app is which.
Focusing on the tool aspect of the Application is an interesting idea. Photoshop does so much, What’s the defining feature?
Thomas P
on 16 Apr 07Ha! I guess you guys don’t like the competition. (I posted a URL to another product which has nice icons). Sorry.
josh
on 17 Apr 07I don’t think logos are overrated, but good products are definitely underrated. The Adobe icons would be better without the boxes… the forms are too similar.
Sebhelyesfarku
on 17 Apr 07This chat sounds like circle jerking. “Wow we can make 128px photorealistic icons that look like a dog turd in small size but the CS3 icons that are easily distinguished are crap…. blablabla”
Morten
on 17 Apr 07“One of the most difficult things to find is someone who is actually willing to make a decision” – I’d say it’s vastly more difficult to find one who is willing to make a decision that doesn’t suck.
My my, the bosses I’ve had…
The Doctor
on 17 Apr 07Graphic design isn’t just to make things pretty, it’s meant to solve a communication problem – expressing ideas in the most effective manner. Whether you think it’s attractive or not, Adobe’s periodic table of software icons works. The design is simple almost to the point of being generic but accomplishes it’s goals. All of the applications tie together as a family and are easily recognizable. The icons/symbols work large or small. Even in other languages the files use the same extensions – AI, PSD or whatever. Everyone that uses Adobe software knows what it does, there’s no need for the icon to illustrate the function. There are thousands of photo apps that have an icon of a camera, polaroid, lens or some variation. Just as many vector drawing programs that have an icon of a pencil, pen nib or some other obvious thing. Painter X already uses a paintbrush, it’s better than the ugly nine-fingered hand from the previous version but it didn’t help the program function better.
Jeff
on 17 Apr 07Well said, Doctor.
I’ll go one step farther: if you’re a designer and you fall into the “CS3 icons suck” camp, you need to rethink your job.
The bizarre proclamation that type doesn’t qualify as an image-or an icon-will come as a shock to the folks at McDonald’s, Circle K and ABC. Also, Zorro. And anarchists. And Nathaniel Hawthorne.
The Adobe icons completely, elegantly solve a huge fucking problem. I use these products every day. The old icons got in the way. The new icons work.
Justin Reese
on 17 Apr 07Agree with The Doctor. I wouldn’t want every icon in my dock to look like the CS3s, but as a selective few, they jump out like beacons to my twitchy cursor. Extremely usable, and I find the minimalism beautiful. (Great choice of type, and the background gradient is bold yet soothing.)
I downloaded the Photoshop CS3 beta just to get the icon and paste it on Photoshop CS. I’m not kidding.
LOL. Awesome.
John Hood
on 17 Apr 07The new Adobe icons are quite elegant and surely followers of Bauhaus would approve! I do.
nick
on 18 Apr 07They’ve already got the cs3 icons as periodic table sets. See http://www.koregraphik.com/downloads/adobe-cs3/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/52898846/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/46557601/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50549215/
Tony Gil
on 18 Apr 07I also love designing icons. I’ve done a few that might look familiar to you.
Ryan Hicks
on 18 Apr 07Hi guys,
Appreciate the CS3 icons in your discussion. (Though wouldn’t have been fun to have the Adobe designer join in the fireside chat? Maybe not quite enough rotten fruit laying around… winks).
So, our desktop icons have spawned quite the debate. A thousand posts from a thousand perspectives on countless blogs have covered everything from the failure of typography to communicate, spectral analyses of illustrative icons, academic arguments, pragmatic arguments, aesthetic arguments… The really interesting thing is that people have spent an enormous amount of time thinking about and discussing icons. Perhaps experience matters. :)
We had those discussions internally too. Ultimately, the result of our asking questions of the desktop, workflow, and the role of product identity there netted a different perspective than is normally considered. Should be said that one of the many factors weighing on this perspective is the scale of the work we needed to address. I don’t think a company offering a few tidy apps would necessarily arrive at the the same conclusion. I certainly hope the creators of apps like CSSEdit, Firefox, Transmit and such stay the course with clever and beautiful metaphorical icons.
Anyhow, the true context for any desktop icon system is in action on the desktop. Success lies in how those assets support the tools in the work you need to do. Now that I’ve finally been able to work with the new product versions, I’m in love with the experience. I hope you guys will be too.
Cheers, Ryan
Ps, I’m obliged to point out that the Koregraphik icons Matt linked above are not the actual Adobe CS3 icons. I’ll get something together with the real icons and post back if mom and dad are cool with it.
Tony
on 18 Apr 07I consider myself lucky that I worked on the older Adobe product icons. Even then we got lot’s of (sadly) negative feedback.
There was a huge surprise when we took away the eye for Photoshop and the Vinous for Illustrator. At the same time people understood the new metaphor and agreed that if fit the product better than the eye or the Vinous. I have to say, I was shocked with this new CS3 icons, but it’s starting to grow on me.
-Tony www.giltstudios.com
Dave Brasgalla
on 19 Apr 07Well, I hope I didn’t give offense, because that wasn’t my intent. Some of the people involved in the chat are long-time acquaintances, and I was talking very informally and comfortably.
Not spending much actual time on the web lately, I’ve been largely removed from what I gather has been a huge discussion about the new Adobe icon suite. I’m also not using the lastest version and still seeing the old icons during my workday.
Consequently, my answer to Matt’s question merely reflects my initial gut-level response to something I haven’t yet used and have really only looked at a few times, very much still a first impression – but I could have said it with more tact.
Not having thought particularly deeply about them – and the problems the designers had to solve – my personal reaction was more emotional than intellectual. Having it used as the pull-quote just… well… makes me wish I hadn’t commented on that question at all – even if it was an honest opinion.
Again, my apologies if I gave offense.
Namreg R.
on 19 Apr 07I think the CS3 icons are basically Macromedia icons with somebody saying “I don’t like the MX runes anymore, make it letters. Oh and while you’re at it, add that flash-y RIA gradient”.
This discussion is closed.