OK, following this logic, Sublimeâs icon is as good as any of these other icons. Itâs a black square which represents the look of Sublime and its philosophy of zen simplicity and hidden depths. On my Windows 7 task bar it stands out perfectly well, and looks good, unlike some of the other icons. How would making it a more literal interpretation help?
Completely agree. Jon seems to have the aesthetic judgement of a designer even though he may not be a designer (just like Steve Jobs) and I believe the look and feel of Sublime is in good hands with him. The last thing he needs is âdesign by communityâ and Iâd imagine (I hope!) heâs ignoring this thread. Although the very fact the community is having this conversation shows that we care. Weâre passionate. We love Sublime and want it to succeed. Thatâs a good thing.
When you started talking about other icons (incorrectly) that failed to do the same thing, thatâs what you were implying.
It really isnât. If youâre only exposure to Firefox/IE/Chrome/Safari/Adobe was looking at their equivalent âtourâ pages and then you later saw their icon youâd probably recognize what it belonged to. Itâs not necessarily that it should be more literal, just more defining, and being more literal is one way to help accomplish that. There are a lot of apps that have a âdark look and a philosophy of zen simplicityâ. Should they all share the same icon? Currently the icon doesnât identify with itâs owner in any significant or unique way, and in my opinion Sublime is truly a unique editor. If my only exposure to Sublime was itâs tour on the front page and I later saw itâs icon, Iâd have no idea what it belonged too.
No, you inferred it. I said âLogos (or icons) shouldnât be taken literally,â then gave some examples of successful non-literal icons, then went on to say âA good logo and/or icon should encapsulate the brand.â I stand by that argument. I would qualify the first statement with âLogos (or icons) shouldnât necessarily be taken literally.â A good icon can be literal.
OK, but thatâs a different argument. Youâre not arguing that the icon should be more literal, but arguing that it should be more distinct. I could agree with you on that, perhaps. However, your original argument was that you should be able to âtell Sublimeâs purpose from itâs icon,â which is why I said âLogos (or icons) shouldnât be taken literally,â which, again, I stand by. You should be able to identify Sublime from itâs icon, thatâs true. Itâs purpose is inferred from everything you already know about it: you see the icon, you think Sublime, your brain does the rest.
I personally find STâs logo distinct enough, but then I donât have any other apps with similar icons, which means for me Sublime âownsâ the black square. And I donât think Iâve ever come across another app with a similar icon. So for these reasons, it is a good icon for me. It may not be a good icon for you because you have a bunch of apps with similar icons. I agree that it could perhaps be made more distinct. I guess itâs for Jon to decide.
The first sentence you type said they flat-out shouldnât be taken literally. You pretty much just reworded the sentence âThose other icons arenât literal so this one doesnât need to be.â which was what I said you were implying and was apparently correct about. No idea why you would refute that and then go on to do exactly what I said it was you were doing.
Saying icons shouldnât be taken literally then giving examples of successful non-literal icons gives the very implication you believe icons donât need to be literal because hey here are some successful non-literal ones. Especially only when you go on to say A good logo should encapsulate the brand. in a separate paragraph. I could have listed just as many successful literal icons.
[quote=âcharlesroperâ]OK, but thatâs a different argument. Youâre not arguing that the icon should be more literal, but arguing that it should be more distinct. I could agree with you on that, perhaps. However, your original argument was that you should be able to âtell Sublimeâs purpose from itâs icon,â which is why I said âLogos (or icons) shouldnât be taken literally,â which, again, I stand by. You should be able to identify Sublime from itâs icon, thatâs true. Itâs purpose is inferred from everything you already know about it: you see the icon, you think Sublime, your brain does the rest.
I personally find STâs logo distinct enough, but then I donât have any other apps with similar icons, which means for me Sublime âownsâ the black square. And I donât think Iâve ever come across another app with a similar icon. So for these reasons, it is a good icon for me. It may not be a good icon for you because you have a bunch of apps with similar icons. I agree that it could perhaps be made more distinct. I guess itâs for Jon to decide.[/quote]
I was arguing that being literal is a way of making an icon more distinct (which I prefer over just being something abstract). If Sublimeâs icon was a black square with a pencil or a cursor then surely it wouldnât be the icon for the media player âwith a dark look and a philosophy for zen simplicityâ.
Thatâs true, although I later qualified that with necessarily which you perhaps missed?
With the greatest respect, youâre putting words in my mouth. Thatâs a misrepresentation of my position; a straw man argument. Youâre quite literally inferring this as you inferred that other sentence you made up. I am implying that logos/icons should not necessarily be literal.
I gave some examples of successful icons that arenât literal. I am saying that icons shouldnât necessarily be literal. What is your point here?
OK, you could have listed just as many successful literal ones - so why didnât you?
You seem to be plucking bits of my argument out in support of your own and not taking the whole thing into account. To put things simply so that you donât misunderstand me, the vast majority of icons are not literal, they are abstract. Most successful icons are abstract and do not literally represent what the application does. This is a basic principle we learn at design school in logo and branding classes. Itâs been over 10 years since I was at design school, but the principle hasnât changed. Iâm not just making this stuff up.
You may prefer it, but the body of evidence suggests that successful icons tend to be more abstract than literal. An allusion rather than a realistic rendering. I have no problem with the icon being more distinct, but it looks pretty good to me already. It works.
@marksteve Nice - that makes the blank slate idea more obvious and fits with the definition of sublime as âsloping up to the lintelâ, although it loses some of its purity. How does it look at different sizes?
I just donât understand why you would emphatically state that icons shouldnât be literal to later go on and say that, literal icons can be ok. Perhaps later on youâll decide literal icons can be just as good as non-literal ones and then maybe decide literal icons are the best. How am I supposed to take what youâre saying seriously when youâre constantly changing youâre stance.
It really isnât. The first paragraph of your argument was as follows. Icons should not be literal (which you later amended which doesnât really make your argument any stronger if youâre going to be constantly changing your stance). Then you went on to list several icons that you considered to be successful non-literal icons. What conclusion do you expect someone to draw from that? Iâd argue the only rational conclusion to draw from that would be that icons shouldnât be literal because there are successful non-literal ones.
I was reiterating my previous statement for clarity.
You seem to be plucking bits of my argument out in support of your own and not taking the whole thing into account. To put things simply so that you donât misunderstand me, the vast majority of icons are not literal, they are abstract. Most successful icons are abstract and do not literally represent what the application does. This is a basic principle we learn at design school in logo and branding classes. Itâs been over 10 years since I was at design school, but the principle hasnât changed. Iâm not just making this stuff up.
For the same reason I felt you didnât need to list a handful of what you perceived to be successful non-literal icons that nearly every computer user sees on a daily basis. Do you need me to list some successful literal icons?
Iâm really not. Youâre stating the same thing over and over and itâs the exact thing Iâm describing. You are not actually giving reasons for why a non-literal icon is better than a literal one. The only reason youâve supplied for them being better is that you know of more successful abstract ones than literal ones. What exactly are the criteria you are requiring for an icon to be considered âsuccessfulâ? To be honest, youâve yet to actually supply a real argument. You have merely been stating a personal opinion.
What body of evidence would that be? Perhaps this is all hinging on your definition of literal? Icons and logos can be literal in different senses. A bottle is not the only way for a Pepsi logo to be literal. YouTube, NFL, and perhaps even to the degree of Twitterâs silhouette of a bird could all be considered rather literal. Non-literal, abstract icons and logos would be that of the likes of Pepsi and Chase Bank. Youâll actually find ânon-literalâ and abstract icons / logos are quite in the minority.
A blank slate suits many things. Itâs a blank slate. Itâs the base of many things, hence why it makes a bad icon. It could be alluding to a number of things.
I made a mistake which I corrected in order to clarify what I am saying. Iâm only human and Iâm sure Iâm not the only one to be imprecise in my language. I didnât mean to emphatically state that icons should never be literal. Iâm not constantly changing my stance - thatâs an exaggeration, hyperbole. My stance is clear.
You invented two sentences and actually quoted me on them and now also made an exaggeration. That really is a straw man argument. Given that my first sentence was at first imprecise, for which I apologise, I can see how you drew your conclusion initially. Itâs no big deal, just a misunderstanding because of my imprecise language. My bad. But I did clarify what I was trying to convey and youâve continued to attack me on my first faulty, but now corrected, sentence. It feels like youâre ignoring what Iâm actually saying just so you can declare victory rather than reach an amicable understanding. If victory means so much to you, please do accept it with my best wishes. Maybe we need some debate victory medals on this forum?
Let me break down what I am saying so that there can be no misunderstanding:
My assertion: Icons should not necessarily be literal
My evidence: Most successful icons are not literal
My conclusion: Therefore the Sublime icon does not need to be literal in order to be successful
Clear?
You could do, and it would certainly strengthen your argument. Why have you not? Because itâs hard to find good literal icons perhaps? Iâll help you out if you like: OS X has some notable literal icons such as iCal, Address Book and iPhoto. Obviously listing a few decent literal icons wouldnât prove your point unless you could gather a list of all literal icons and compare them to a list of all non-literal. What we can do is look at our own task bars or start menus or docks or whatever and get a rough idea of the ratio of literal to non-literal icons. I invite you to do that. I am saying that most icons are non-literal in my task bar and start menu. I am saying most well known recognisable and therefore successful icons are non-literal. I am saying that Sublimeâs icon does not need to be made more literal. You say it needs to be more distinct by making it more literal. I say if Jon wants to make it more distinct, he doesnât need to make it more literal.
Non-literal is not necessarily better, but it gives you a greater amount of flexibility when trying to convey all of the fuzzy stuff encapsulating a brand. More flexibility is better. Tell me why the Sublime icon needs to be more literal in order to make it distinct.
You are stating your personal opinion too, that the Sublime icon should be made more distinct by making it more literal - youâre saying we should be able to âtell Sublimeâs purpose from itâs icon.â If you knock out âpurposeâ from that sentence, weâd be in agreement.
The criterion I have for judging an icon to be successful is the body of icons and logos and brands I see around me and making a judgement call on which are successful based on whether the company or product is successful. Is that not reasonable?
The body of icons and logos and brands all around us. Maybe you see the world differently but I perceive there to be more abstract icons than literal ones from which I infer that abstract tends to be more successful.
Maybe it is hinging on both of our definitions of literal? My definition is in the traditional sense: non-abstract, factual, avoiding metaphor, non-figurative. What is yours?
The Pepsi logo is not a bottle (that would be one of Cokeâs branding styles); the Pepsi logo is entirely abstract and non-literal.
I see what youâre getting at, but only the NFL logo is really anything like literal. YouTube uses metaphor: a red bezelled rectangle that is suggestive of old-style TVs. Thatâs not a literal rendering of online video. Twitter uses the metaphor of a bird (which twitters) and is therefore non-literal. If Twitter were a site about birds, then it would be close to literal. But Twitter isnât a site about birds, which makes the logo non-literal. See what I mean?
Take a look through a logo/branding/icon gallery site and see how many are non-literal vs literal. The statement âYouâll actually find ânon-literalâ and abstract icons / logos are quite in the minority.â is factually and demonstrably incorrect. Try here for instance: underconsideration.com/brandnew/
I think what youâre saying is that some logos have some element representing a sort of stylized literal rendering of a real-life object or product or organization. Thatâs a fair observation. But it doesnât detract from the idea that logos donât need to be literal and that most, in fact, are not literal and therefore Sublimeâs does not need to be literal either.
Your opinion is that icons are better if theyâre more literal and yet youâve given nothing to support your claim. My opinion is that icons arenât necessarily better if theyâre more literal and have given plenty in support of my claim. Your opinion is that itâs a bad icon because itâs not distinct enough and would be improved by making it more literal. My opinion is that itâs a pretty good icon and doesnât need to be made more literal, although it might be improved by making it more distinct. Perhaps weâre both right. This isnât a binary issue. Icons donât need to be either absolutely literal or absolutely abstract and neither of us is arguing that. Either way, I think Jon should spend his efforts elsewhere. As should we.
I never stated that you in fact said those sentences. I stated that what you said was equatable to those sentences and was what they were implying. The majority of my previous post actually had nothing to do with your previous correction. It would seem you are ignoring what I am saying? Or perhaps responding to it in part and not as a whole? You clearly read my entire post so I donât see why you would state that I am only attacking you on that one point when as I said the majority of my previous post had nothing to do with it.
[quote=âcharlesroperâ]Let me break down what I am saying so that there can be no misunderstanding:
My assertion: Icons should not necessarily be literal
My evidence: Most successful icons are not literal
My conclusion: Therefore the Sublime icon does not need to be literal in order to be successful
Clear?[/quote]
Perhaps the rift between our stances is due to your conclusion? I see no point in doing anything in this world unless your goal is to make it the best. Obviously this isnât always a realistic or attainable goal but it should always be THE goal, in my opinion. Making an icon thatâs just successful really doesnât register with me. Thatâs like making something and saying: Oh hey, it works, good enough! For me it should always be: Oh hey, it works! Now how to make it better?
It really isnât to me based on what I consider literal. Iâd consider most of the icons in my bookmark toolbar to be literal.
To further clarify I said Sublimeâs icon needs to be more distinct and Iâd prefer this being accomplished by making it more literal. The main point being that the icon needs to be more distinct whether itâs in a way that is preferable to me or not.
Your first statement hinges very heavily on what youâd consider to be literal. Sure abstract may be more flexible, but having a completely abstract icon can really backfire when no one can place what that icon or logo belongs too. Iâd argue an abstract icon would only be possible if you have the means and audience to push that icon being yours. Or if simply it being recognizable is of no importance to you.
Again, I stated this above, in my last post, and I believe in the one before that. I said I only preferred that it becomes more distinct by way of becoming more literal. The main point was that it needs to be more distinct and I supplied the way I would prefer this being accomplished.
[quote=âcharlesroperâ]You are stating your personal opinion too, that the Sublime icon should be made more distinct by making it more literal - youâre saying we should be able to âtell Sublimeâs purpose from itâs icon.â If you knock out âpurposeâ from that sentence, weâd be in agreement.
The criterion I have for judging an icon to be successful is the body of icons and logos and brands I see around me and making a judgement call on which are successful based on whether the company or product is successful. Is that not reasonable?[/quote]
I never stated my argument was fact. The above was merely in response to your claim âIâm not making this stuff upâ and attempts of passing off everything you were stating as fact. Iâm saying: "You should be able to tell Sublimeâs icon is Sublimeâs icon and it should never be possible in any situation to be confused for another apps icon."
I suppose your criterion is passable although it gets very fuzzy based on what sense youâre considering something to be successful. You may consider Sublime to be successful but in the scheme of things it really isnât. I believe it has the capability to be, but there is nearly 0 word-of-mouth and absolutely no marketing behind it. You ask 10 people what their text editor of choice is likely 0 will name Sublime. Out of 100, maybe 5? And thatâs probably being generous. Sure 5 might be better than a lot of other editors, but editors are a dime a dozen and while it might be more successful than those that doesnât make it successful in the scheme of things.
Again, this is all down to our interpretations of literal and abstract when it comes to icons and logos.
Literal in the sense of pertaining to itâs use or name. The NFL logo is literal, it is made up of the letters âNâ, âFâ, and âLâ. CloudAppâs icon is literal. Itâs icon is a cloud. GiantBombâs icon is literal. Itâs a giant bomb. GMailâs icon is literal. Itâs icon is an envelope. YouTubeâs icon is literal. Itâs icon is made up of the words âYouâ and âTubeâ.
An abstract icon is one that is in no way associative in any form to what it belongs to. Chase Bankâs logo to me is the perfect example of abstract.
I know itâs not a bottle. I even state later on that itâs a good example of an abstract logo -_- My point was if you wanted to create a literal Pepsi logo, a bottle is not the only way to accomplish this. A logo containing simply the word âPepsiâ would be a literal logo.
Have you ever tried searching for âmetaphorical iconsâ. If you asked someone if YouTubeâs icon was literal or not, what do you think their response would be?
YouTube is quite literal. It consists of the words âYouâ and âTubeâ. Itâs just literal to itâs name and not to itâs use. Twitter is literal to itâs use, arguably, which is why I stated it being a stretch. I was more arguing that Twitterâs icon was more literal than it was abstract.
Nearly every logo on that page you linked is literal to the name of whatever is in question. Tampa Bay Lightningâs logo consisting of the words âTampaâ, and âBayâ along with a lightning bolt⊠come on! The only abstract icon on see on that entire page is Viva. NBC Universalâs logo is the words âNBC Universalâ.
[quote]literal: 1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word. 2.following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe. 3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.[/quote]
4.being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city. 5.(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic. 6. of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet. 7. of the nature of letters. 8. expressed by letters. 9. *affecting a letter or letters: a literal error. *
That is not what Iâm saying. Also, again, I never stated Sublimeâs icon HAD to be literal, I said I preferred it. What I said it had to be was more distinct.
I have stated this like 5 times now : I never said literal icons are better, I said I preferred them. I did however state distinct icons are better than generalized and generic ones. I stated Sublimeâs icon is a bad one because itâs generic and it would be improved by making it more distinct and that Iâd prefer it accomplish this by making it more literal, but the main point being it needs to be more distinct regardless if it accomplishes this in a way I prefer or not.
I also stated, I think 2 posts ago now, that Sublimeâs icon isnât that bad and that a strong feature set speaks louder than an amazing icon. (I think I bolded it then as well D:)
Perhaps we should move on but I always enjoy a good debate, even if itâs over something as silly as an icon :s
It looks like our debate was really over the word literal and what we meant by it. I donât categorise logotype to be a literal rendering of a logo because letters are an abstract form in themselves. The word âhammerâ does not look anything like a hammer or in any way hint at the action a hammer performs. I suppose onomatopoeia is getting close. But, actually, literal is literally expressing something in words (one of the definitions anyway), so I see where youâre coming from. I was thinking in terms of literal being an accurate, literal rendering of what the app does as with iCalâs icon: itâs a picture of a calendar. By my definition, for it to be literal, the NFL logo would need to be a picture of a football field with players on it and goals and the like.
But anyway, good debate. Did we get anywhere? Probably not, but we bored the socks off everyone here I think. Deepest respect to you for not turning it into flame war - itâs good to know the net has decent people inhabiting it still.
Aye, the feeling is mutual. A good debate is always a good device to get the brain churning. It always amuses me when people interpret it as fighting when to me it was just a good conversation heh.
There is one thing I care about in an icon. It has to look good next to everything else in my dock. I didnât give a crap that Smultronâs icon was a giant strawberry so long as the strawberry looked awesome. I donât care that Firefox is a fox with its tail on fire humping a world. I donât care that VLC is a traffic cone. I donât care that chrome looks like some kind of anime robot.
I really like this but the highlight line is too straight. Take a look at some of the other Mac (& iPhone) icons (Terminal, Console, Spaces, Expose, etc.) and youâll notice that the highlight is curved and at an angle. Its a small thing but I think the small things make all the difference.
I wonder how many of the users complaining about the icon are OSX users? As a predominant windows/linux user, it doesnât matter the least bit to me! Iâd like features over icons.
Although the very fact the community is having this conversation shows that we care. Weâre passionate. We love Sublime and want it to succeed. Thatâs a good thing.
