It was an exaggeration to make a point.
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 don't 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.
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 isn't always a realistic or attainable goal but it should always be THE goal, in my opinion. Making an icon that's just successful really doesn't register with me. That's 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 isn't to me based on what I consider literal. I'd consider most of the icons in my bookmark toolbar to be literal.
To further clarify I said Sublime's icon needs to be more distinct and I'd prefer this being accomplished by making it more literal. The main point being that the icon needs to be more distinct whether it's in a way that is preferable to me or not.
Your first statement hinges very heavily on what you'd 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. I'd 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.
I never stated my argument was fact. The above was merely in response to your claim "I'm not making this stuff up" and attempts of passing off everything you were stating as fact. I'm saying: "You should be able to tell Sublime's icon is Sublime's 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 you're considering something to be successful. You may consider Sublime to be successful but in the scheme of things it really isn't. 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 that's 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 doesn't 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 it's use or name. The NFL logo is literal, it is made up of the letters "N", "F", and "L". CloudApp's icon is literal. It's icon is a cloud. GiantBomb's icon is literal. It's a giant bomb. GMail's icon is literal. It's icon is an envelope. YouTube's icon is literal. It's icon is made up of the words "You" and "Tube".
An abstract icon is one that is in no way associative in any form to what it belongs to. Chase Bank's logo to me is the perfect example of abstract.
I know it's not a bottle. I even state later on that it's 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 "Pepsi" would be a literal logo.
Have you ever tried searching for "metaphorical icons". If you asked someone if YouTube's icon was literal or not, what do you think their response would be?
YouTube is quite literal. It consists of the words "You" and "Tube". It's just literal to it's name and not to it's use. Twitter is literal to it's use, arguably, which is why I stated it being a stretch. I was more arguing that Twitter's 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 Lightning's logo consisting of the words "Tampa", and "Bay" along with a lightning bolt... come on! The only abstract icon on see on that entire page is Viva. NBC Universal's logo is the words "NBC Universal".
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 I'm saying. Also, again, I never stated Sublime's 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 Sublime's icon is a bad one because it's generic and it would be improved by making it more distinct and that I'd 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 Sublime's icon isn't 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 it's over something as silly as an icon :s