Windows 10 Icons Are Getting An Overdue Redesign (engadget.com) 144
Microsoft is rolling out updates to the icons for Windows 10's core apps over the months ahead, starting with the Calendar and Mail apps in a new Release Preview for Windows Insiders in the Fast ring. Engadget reports: The company's design team explained that it wanted to break away from the flat, colorless icons you see today in favor of ones that are at once more consistent with newer branding (including apps available beyond Windows) and different enough that you'll have an easier time finding the one you want. This is arguably an overdue move. Microsoft hadn't really touched Windows 10's main icons since its debut in 2015, so they risked feeling old. There were also inconsistencies creeping in, especially once Office got its new look. This update drags Windows 10's appearance into the modern era, and might just give you a more colorful OS in the bargain. "Flat, monochrome icons look great in context of colorful tiles, but as more icon styles enter the ecosystem, this approach needs to evolve," reveals Christina Koehn, a design leader for Windows and Devices at Microsoft. "When icons in the taskbar and Start menu are different styles, it creates more cognitive load to scan and find applications. We needed to incorporate more visual cues into the icon design language using our modernized Fluent Design Language."
You can read more about Microsoft's approach to updating the icons in Windows 10 in this Medium post.
You can read more about Microsoft's approach to updating the icons in Windows 10 in this Medium post.
Why would icons ever need to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would icons ever need to change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this idea that things are "overdue" for a redesign is a construct of fashion.
If it really needed a redesign for some practical reason, someone would've sat down and done it. If you're overdue for things that are practically needed, you're out of business.
Re: Why would icons ever need to change? (Score:3)
The windows 10 look and feel is a lot less coherent than Windows 7 and predecessors. Overall it's like the graphics design of Windows 10 was done by some autistic 12 year old.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft have quite a track record when it comes to putting out n
Re: (Score:2)
"Microsoft had grand plans for Windows, which for various reasons, didn't work out. "
How long have they been at this "Windows" game? You'd think they could just get it right, then quit.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows ME never should have happened. Windows 2000 was supposed to be where the combined the professional and consumer lines (NT and 95/98 respectively) into one product. As I recall, however, they had some issues getting DirectX to work right with the NT 5.0 kernel. So they shipped Windows 2000 as the professional product and then had to slap together something for the consumer line. They pulled a few things out of 2000 and tried to make them work on the 98 kernel. Then they shipped that as the Millennium
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 10 is inconsistent because it's a rush-job.
That's the why, the GP described the what. The point remains unchanged.
Simple "reason": (Score:2, Interesting)
Around Windows 8's time, it became a stupid meme, that the same OS should run on everything from a low-end smartphone to a seven foot projector screen to a workstation.
But mobile devices were too weak for the looks of Windows 7 (and anything else that was clearly inspired by Compiz).
And at the same time, minimalism became fashionabe with the scared-of-power-and-freedom pussy generation(s) anyway.
So they chose the most minimalist UI design possible, from a computing power standpoint. Flat single-colored surf
Re: (Score:2)
I just want them to bring back fucking buttons that look like buttons and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the conversation in mum's basements everywhere ...
"We will fuck their Icons, so it is easier to learn Linux than figure out if this is or isn't another Windows malware fiasco!"
Even SuperMario could not make this one up!
Re:Why would icons ever need to change? (Score:5, Funny)
This is the sort of job that modern-day telephone sanitizers would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: MS does not want do address the real issues with Win 10: The spying, the updates, the lying (about needing an MS account, for example).
Hence they need some smokescreen and an icon redesign that nobody wants or needs is just that.
Re: (Score:2)
"...needs to evolve..."
I'll tell you what needs to evolve, Microsoft: stop changing stuff that doesn't matter, and concentrate on building a robust OS and apps that are reliable and easy to use. Oh, you say, we have that already. Yes, if you'd just stop messing with it. You have Teams and Skype and Skype for Business. Why do you have three comms apps? And why do all three work...most of the time...differently and incompatibly? And why does the damn UI keep changing? I long for the old text menu. I've neve
Re: (Score:3)
you could have said that about the redeisng that scrapped perfectly good icons and replaced them all with the flat, colourless ones.
Work for work's sake, or just another group of designers who cannot bear to not be on whatever bandwagon happens to be rolling past?
BRLLNT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the whitespace. The icon needs to be surrounded on all sides by 6 inches of whitespace. Just because, you know, because ...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Because clearly the issue of most concern to Win10 users was the fscking icons.
What alternative do you propose? Fire graphic designers and rehire them every time you need to make a change? Just because something isn't a concern doesn't mean addressing it is waste that could be better spent elsewhere.
I want to know where this meme that large multinational corporations can only work on one thing at a time started and punch them in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Change for the better is a cost that is recovered. Windows iconography is inconsistent as heck, and if you're worried about the cost of someone having an icon change in their PC then please let us know where you work so we can short the stocks and get in on the collapse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Vertically flip the image, then vertically flip the display output, and swap the left and right mouse buttons
Nothing stopping you from using it. (Score:2)
Most Linux desktop environments let you choose the icon set, fonts, colors, widget style and window frame style separately.
And they usually accept very simple icon set formats.
Someting like a zip/tar file ot directory, with the images and a ini file where the image files are assigned to general identifiers (so icon sets are interchangeable).
Windows 3.11's icons were all compressed ico files on its install medium.
A small script should quickly
1. uncompress them,
2. run them through imagemagick for conversion t
Re: (Score:2)
No one gives a shit about your hate for this user. Really, what's this add to the discussion? It's not even funny.
I've much prefer that Microsoft ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Namely adding the option for people who want to manually install to disable automatic updates.
While they're at it, go ahead and totally remove all of that spyware/malware crap and make worthless shit like Cortona, Xbox, Edge and MS Store opt-in installations where you have to actually install them yourself if you want them.
Re:I've much prefer that Microsoft ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thinks its probably OK for the OS to do a little bit of user nag such as telling the user how many critical updates are pending in the notification area, or even better how long its been since the last update. Many applications already do the first or the second in some way. The OS should too. Thats are there is to it.
Re: (Score:2)
No the user has conclusively shown that they can't be trusted to marination their own health and self interest of given the power to do so. The user can already delay security updates, but seriously your unvaccinated computer should not be sharing and infecting or public internet.
Re: (Score:2)
No the user has conclusively shown that they can't be trusted...
But neither can Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this. Two of my Windows 10 machines are stuck at 1709, and have refused all attempts at updating (and believe me, I've tried *everything*). I've made my peace with it, but now every month, Windows insists on trying to update to 1803, then gives up and rolls back after it hangs after the reboot. I actually saw a number of patches intended to "fix" whatever was preventing people like me from upgrading, but I think they've just given up on machines like mine at this point.
I'm sort of wondering how long
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sort of wondering how long MS will continue to patch this version of Windows 10 before they declare it unsupported?
According to this
https://blog.juriba.com/window... [juriba.com]
you've got until 14th April this year.
"EOL date for one version got re-purposed to another, e.g., Version 1709 originally had an EOL of Oct. 8th, 2019 (now 1703's EOL) which has now moved to April 14, 2020."
Re: (Score:3)
They are. It's far more costly to fire and rehire specialists for special purposes than it is to simply keep them on and pay them to work while you work on other things as well.
Unless you think graphic designers are the ones who should be fixing Windows update (absurd) you notion that a multinational mega corp can only do one thing at a time is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, when will we see the quality of Windows Updates increase? It has been years of problems. What is taking Microsoft so long?
Working on it and producing results are two different problems. You are talking about resources, there are resources working on Windows update, that is an irrefutable fact given that the system continues to be modified with every version of windows and the update mechanism keeps going through various revisions.
... Unless you think graphic designers are the ones ... --- Notice I said resources, and not graphic designer resources. From here it looks like Microsoft is fiddling while Rome burns.
Indeed and I pointed out it was stupid because resources are not flexibly relocatable, so I ask you again this time with a multi-choice answer: Do you:
a) think a graphic designer is best placed to fi
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you think graphic designers are the ones who should be fixing Windows update...
Based on some of the problems, are you sure they are not?
Re: (Score:2)
Based on some of the problems, are you sure they are not?
Based on what Windows 8 looked like and when the problem started I think it was quite clear that MS had no graphic designers on staff when Windows Update problems started at all ;-)
Will they also... (Score:5, Funny)
It's a longstanding Windows tradition, and it wouldn't be NEW and IMPROVED Windows without it.
Re: (Score:2)
...pointlessly move these icons around to different, unfamiliar locations in the UI, forcing a relearning curve for absolutely no benefit?
It's a longstanding Windows tradition, and it wouldn't be NEW and IMPROVED Windows without it.
I think the plan is to add an entirely new entirely incomplete menu system to manage windows with new icons. Later when everyone least expects it they will push another update taking random features from existing menus, water them down even more and make them only work with new menus.
Re: Will they also... (Score:2)
How would they justify pointlessly taking more money for something that was "done" and feature-complete, ages ago?
It's funny, how Windows 3.11 feels just as nice to use as Windows 10. Sometimes even nicer. As long as I can get back to the main program group in a single step, there is not really a notable improvement since then, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
Whats Next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next thing you know they will want to replace the START menu with cascading menu's because the current START menu is boring. Then they will be wanting to put borders back on windows on the screen so that you can tell where the windows are and where to grab the fuckers to move and resize them. Then perhaps they will want to make the window colours customizable instead of all being so all so low-contrast shares-of-grey.
Whatever will we do?
Obviously the folks at Microsoft are running out of actual work to do and are back to pissing about just for pissing about sake.
Re:Whats Next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Borders around windows? YES, PLEASE! I hate it when I have overlapping white-on-white windows and I can't tell where the edges are.
Re: Whats Next? (Score:2)
That's also one of my primary issues with Win10.
The start menu in Win10 is also useless. At work I was able to install a menu with a more classic look&feel in order to survive.
Re: Whats Next? (Score:5, Informative)
ClassicShell. That will replace most of the Microsoft UI "improvements" with 21st century technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic Shell is no longer supported, however the code is being updated as Open Shell now.
Re:Whats Next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure I have that problem (do you have a white desktop?), but I do agree that they should put borders back on--in my case because I find it impossible to tell which app on my screen has keyboard focus. (I can tell when programs like Firefox have focus, because they have a decent top border that changes color. But lots of apps don't, and I've often found myself typing--or worse, hitting the DEL or BACKSPACE key--in the wrong window.)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose MS caters only to people who have one full-screen window on one monitor at any one time.
There is a way to improve issue: in the Windows settings, go to Colors, uncheck "Automatically pick an accent color from my background", choose a conspicuous color. That color will be used for the title bar of the focused window.
Re: (Score:2)
You can turn on the accessibility features like high contrast mode to get back indication of the focused window. Looks ugly but Windows never won any design competitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Run sysdm.cpl, go to Advanced tab, click Settings under Performance. Check "Show shadows under windows".
You're welcome :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just empty marketing, M$ desperately trying to stay relevant by generating meaningless news stories, still refusing to return privacy and control to end users of course, like fuck the customer, we own their computers.
No. PROGRAM GROUPS. :D (Score:3)
The Start menu will just be a regular old folder with shortcuts again. :)
Now those were the times! ^^
Re: (Score:2)
Ho, hum. (Score:5, Insightful)
The company's design team explained that it wanted to break away from the flat, colorless icons you see today in favor of ones that are at once more consistent with newer branding (including apps available beyond Windows) and different enough that you'll have an easier time finding the one you want.
I seem to recall almost exactly the same words when the previous icon redesign was announced. And the previous one. And the previous one.
From the marketing speak you would have thought that the previous generation was horrid, misguided, and an embarrassment. And yet, the ones being replaced were lauded when they were new as the next great thing. As were the previous generation. And the previous.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Re: (Score:2)
From the marketing speak you would have thought that the previous generation was horrid, misguided, and an embarrassment. And yet, the ones being replaced were lauded when they were new as the next great thing. As were the previous generation. And the previous.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The UI team have to justify their existence somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
No, they are DIFFERENT! Just like they were last time! ;)
Included Bloatware (Score:2)
And why are they starting with the included Microsoft Bloatware? This is the absolute first thing deleted. I do not care if they change the icons for the Microsoft Bloatware/Crapware into Goatze pictures as I have removed all that crap long ago and banished it to the /dev/nul in the sky. I guess I'll shut up now before they decide to spend their time diddle-fucking with important icons instead ...
So, Finally Moving Away from Win 8? (Score:5, Informative)
"Flat, monochrome icons look great in context of colorful tiles" -- you mean, the "tiles" that everybody was going to use with our Windoze Phones and Windoze Tablets? THOSE tiles?
Yeah, high time and PAST time to go back to treating computers like computers, and not pretending that everything is a phone.
Re:So, Finally Moving Away from Win 8? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to grab their GUI designers and say "I would like to whisper something in your ear. You ready? Ok listen carefully. YOU DON'T MAKE PHONES ANYMORE!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They do not need things whispered in their ears. They need to be taken out behind the barn and beaten to death with baseball bats ...
Re: (Score:2)
Just contemplating the scenario gives me warm and fuzzy feelings...
Tiles weren't suitable for phones either. (Score:2)
They weren't suitable for anything but marketing displays.
Full circle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Full circle (Score:4, Informative)
They've done heaps of research. I've summarized the article from https://medium.com/microsoft-d... [medium.com] (written by Christina Koehn but Danielle McClune did the actual writing as noted at the end of the article). This is the summary:
To design for Windows is to design for the world. Fast forward to the era of Windows 10 and the concept of the personal computer (the PC, fondly) means something entirely different than it did three decades ago. In terms of a system, we can look to the Windows icons as a means of wayfinding. Systems are inherently complex and icons provide simple points of reference. We rely on that cognitive machinery when we design, helping the mind multitask, organize, and communicate. This design choreography becomes more critical as technology advances. Our experience ecosystems are incredibly intricate and have started to spill out of Windows into third-party platforms. Research shows that people want consistency in design and connection to brand, with enough differences to aid in recognition. We stretched the language to allow for literal representations as well as abstract metaphors while maintaining a common DNA that ties them all together. The new rounded corners across the Windows 10 interface achieve the same goal: making these icons feel like they live in the real world. This real-world journey continues with designers across Microsoft. Redesigning these icons signals our commitment to the evolution of the Windows OS, honoring its legacy while redefining the archetype in which it lives.
The writer (writers?) clearly use the word research and clearly state what they're using the research for: to redefine the archetype in which the Windows OS lives. Maybe some choreographed live opera as well. Oh, and the icons will be living in the real world.
"To design for Windows is to design for the world. (Score:3)
You cannot possiblye expect me to take this seriously and keep reading this "research" after this.
It was only done because mobile devices were deemed too slow and details too battery-wasteful anyway. The rest was indeed the minimalism fad.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I expect you to take it seriously. It talks about the DNA of icons and how the DNA wants the icons to have rounded corners so they feel better and can properly help their host organism (Windows) redefine Windows' archetype. It's a matter of nature vs. nurture and clearly, based on their research, we've been oppressing the icons for years by forcing them to comply with a shape that's just not in their DNA. This isn't only about icons, though: it's also about how they influence our intricate "experi
Re: (Score:2)
I made a mistake. After re-reading the research it's apparent that the icons having rounded corners is no necessarily embedded in their DNA. After re-reading this sentence from the article:
The new rounded corners across the Windows 10 interface achieve the same goal: making these icons feel like they live in the real world.
It seems that the icons may just feel like they're living in the real world. It's not apparent (from this research anyway) whether or not it's a nature vs. nature thing or a combination of both. But it is clear that the icons will at least feel as though they're part of the real world which should stop them being bullied
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen so many words used to say nothing. She sounds like a philosophy major.
Re: Full circle (Score:4, Insightful)
Flat was the UI of windows 1.x and 2.x. in 3.x we got a 3D look&feel that actually improved the user experience.
But it wasn't until NT4 we got a real OS. After Windows 2000 the UI started to go downhill, but it wasn't until Win 8 it became really bad and now in Win 10 it's flat as it was in 1.x and 2.x. at least we still are allowed to have overlapping windows so it's not on 1.x level.
Re:Why would anyone want overlapping windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is not a single use case, where a window being partially overlapped by another window ever was useful.
You have a notable lack of imagination to try to say that with any degree of authority. Simple case in point - there are plenty of times when I'm working on something that needs the majority of the screen space while tailing a a couple of logs to see when a particular log message appears. I don't need to see full terminal windows for that - just the last couple of lines is fine, and it's very handy to have those terminal windows behind the window in which I'm actively working but with their lower edges poking out from behind, visible and still available to click on for occasional interaction but not taking up so much space that they're distracting or otherwise in the way. I, not the window manager, am the arbiter of what my workspace should look like. For people that prefer tiling, great, accommodate them and make the option available, but don't try to stand on a soapbox and dictate that your preference is the One True Way.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why scalable icons are so difficult. SGI IRIX could do it 25 years ago but now its a real head scratcher?
Re: (Score:2)
Software people are guilty of such nonsense too. Change for the sake of change. At some point you've reached peak design, so stop. But when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.
They always looked old (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 10 icons, and it's structure in general, started out feeling old. Flat icons and window frames, square corners, lack of transparency, it looked very Windows 3.11 - ish from the beginning. Not the good kind of retro.
I know transparency in window frames had its detractors, but I found it useful. When I had a lot of windows up, finding something under something else was easier when I didn't have to contend with opaque frames.
Aero may have been a resource hog for common hardware available at the time, but to modern computers it's a tiny part of the whole, and makes the interface look less 1990s. Besides, you can always turn it off if you feel like turning back the clock a couple decades.
Icons seem to go back and forth between textured and flat with Microsoft and Apple making the change at the same time. I'd expect Apple to do a wholesale icon change in their next release. We've been flat for awhile. We'll go back to textured for awhile, and then flat again. I'm sure that each time this happens, the director that takes credit for it gets a big raise and his name in Forbes.
I've wanted to turn Metro off since day one. It's one of those extreme ironies that we still have to fight with it on Windows servers, which never have a touch screen interface, for which Metro was originally designed.
Re: They always looked old (Score:2)
Correction: Windows 2.x-ish. 3.11 looks good compared to win 10.
But I never liked transparent windows.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be right. I only have a vague recollection of the appearance of Windows before 3.X
Not everyone liked transparent windows, I get it. But you can turn it off.
If you couldn't turn it off, I'd join the revolution with you.
I've looked into this, deeply. (Score:2)
And the problems here stem from a single cause: Too high background detail obfuscating the actual foreground detail.
The reason transparency is used at all, is obviously only because it looks pretty. Which is not wrong, as long as it does not obstruct the actual functionality. Form always follows function, dear Apple! :)
The problems can be easily mitigated though. :D
1. Keep the opacity high. 20% transparency is enough for everybody.(TM)
2. Keep detail low! Especially if you want to have more transparency, a b
Re: (Score:2)
I know transparency in window frames had its detractors,
yup, I'm one of them. It's bloody annoying to have the background windows bleed through into what you're working on. The reduced contrast and increased noise makes it harder to read the foreground text, so that was one of the first items I switched off when Aero became available.
If I want to find a background window, I'll use the taskbar.
So lets see? (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be interesting if some of the linked websites actually showed the icons rather than just the useless blathering of fools.
And no, I will not turn on JavaScript just to see an image on a web page. That was solved way back in the 1990's with the tag. This is all a bunch of drivel by a bunch of buffoons in order to generate massive numbers of clicks and enable massive spying and malware operations. It serves absolutely no (other) purpose.
Because it's about usability... (Score:2)
...what's better for usability of an interface than to arbitrarily change shit that people are comfortable and used to?
I understand that some people NEED change like a drug. That doesn't mean change for change's sake is an inherently good idea in all circumstances.
They do this because they DID arbitrarity change s (Score:2)
This is just changing it back. Because flat monochrome icons always were useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Tail fins on cars.
Look and Feel (Score:4, Interesting)
I have always found it amusing that as graphics cards got more sophisticated, Computer icons became flat ugly boring colorless super simplified things. All 3D was deemed old fashioned, shadows were eliminated. Icons that looked like what they represented were discarded, and replaced with flat simplified square things. Office Icons don't look like anything at all. The Word Icon and the Excel Icon look identical except for color (which probably looks identical to a color blind person) and is distinguished only by a 'W' and an 'X' (I could point out that 'Excel' starts with 'E', but that would be picky).
Now two days ago, I saw some article from some graphics 'guru' arguing that icons that looked like physical things were somehow in bad taste... not sure why a calendar that looks like a calendar is bad, but ... he's a 'guru'. So now he says we went too far and the answer is in the middle somewhere. The middle? We want a calendar icon that looks kind-of like a calendar, but not quite?
At least Apple got rid of Jony Ive before he successfully eliminated the 'Contacts' icon that looks like an address book, which he rallied against for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Are glyphs a science or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Emoji probably fits that bill, we just need a way to wholesale replace OS icons with emoji. Nobody's going to mess with something that changes the emoji in chat apps, there'd be riots!
The entire point is lost (Score:3)
If you keep changing icons. Icons are effective because you brain's pattern matching learns to recognize them efficiently. If you change them, that recognition needs to be retrained.
Why would you do that? Does anyone look at their screen and think "boy, I wish those icons were newer". Computers are a *tool* not artwork.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at my screen and think "boy, I wish those hieroglyphs were words." There's a reason the alphabet took over from hieroglyphics. Heck, I might even take cuneiform in place of hieroglyphs.
Well, that is just as bad. (Score:2)
Look, there are people who think in pictures (like me) and people who think in words. Anything that neglects half the population is stupid. Your words aren't any superior over hieroglyphs/Chinese characters. Only differently optimized.
Oh, and if you think alphabets are the pinnacle of progress, you should look into the Korean alphasyllabary. Now *that* is elegant! Seriously... why haven't we adopted that yet??
And analogously, hieroglyps are bad for visual people like me, too, because they are basically lett
Re: (Score:2)
Us old people and people in general who use computers as a tool just want consistency and loathe change for the sake of it
Bring Back Skeumorphs! (Score:2)
Having icons that actually looked like something was actually useful. Being told by everybody from Apple to Google and Microsoft that I was thankful that all my icons looked like they were designed by a 5 year old did not actually convince me!.
Having the ability to put pretty wallpapers on my PC/phone/tablet means that I need icons that stand out from those backgrounds. They need to be 3d and they need to be different when selected (single clicked).
Hopefully this is the start of the return. Will they the
Icons of the Future (Score:2)
from tfa: "Icons of the Future"
or, you know, at least for the next 2 to 3 years...
What about the start menu (Score:2)
How about fixing the hideous tiled start menu. It's an eyesore.
Of course (Score:3)
Great thinking (Score:2)
"So we're going to solve this by giving you icons you don't know at all."
#1 Reason for Design Change (Score:2)
The end of flat and monochrome icons? (Score:2)
I get that having monochrome icons makes everything look more uniform and, at least in the eyes of some people, prettier. But computers are tools and the job of icons is to be easy to distinguish and locate so that the user can easily and quickly do the action they intend. Monochrome icons compared to muliticolor are harder to distinguish from one another so they're actually worse.
At work I have the latest Office version and whi
When will all this innovation stop? (Score:2)
This relentless innovation by Microsoft is killing off the bespoke-icon industry and throwing literally trillions of hard working iconographers out of work and into the gutter, where they'll die, sick and starving!!
When will all this destructive innovation stop?
Seriously, just go back to the Win7 icons and call it good. And stop with all the "flat-this" and "flat-that" interfaces. THEY SUCK, and no amount of subtle shading will ever change that.
Windows 10 Icons Are Getting An Overdue Redesign (Score:2)
Apple WWDC 2006-Windows Vista Copies Mac OS X [youtube.com]
Re:Do you really need icons? (Score:5, Insightful)
NO. Icons only work if there are less than seven on the screen at any one time.
Kanji works because it has been stable for 4,000 years. If you want picture language, learn Kanji.
For everyone else, there is the Roman alphabet. Even people using Cyrillic have figured out Roman is better, but like switching to driving on the other side of the road, once you have started, change is difficult.
Its not the colour of the icons that is old, tired and stupid. its the concept. Time to go back to hierarchical drop-down menus - they work to upteen levels of (well organized) nesting for anyone who is illiterate. And if you are not literate- you should probably stick to your Xbox - where you can tile yourself to death.
Yes, many people actually do. (Score:2)
I'm a visual person. I think in pictures. Not in spoken words or math structures.
E.g. I literally cannot copy a text by hand and learn it at the same time. They are like mutually exclusive separate mental pathways. Because I copy text by copying images, without ever reading what it says.
So plain text only screens are much more cumbersome for me to navigate, because it takes forever, for me to actually switch to reading mode and read all those words.
Ideally, I only see text menu items as single colored compl