5 ms·

> Icons were high contrast Seriously. Who demonized having legible color icons in exchange for blurry grayscale icons?

by DCH3416 2y ago

layer8 2y ago
Ironically, having to support high-DPI displays destroyed having nice icons.
- DCH3416 2y ago
  That's true. Right up until you look at Haiku and its vector icons. But I get it. Everyone has to look the same.
- anyfoo 2y ago
  I think that’s true. I recently installed Windows 2000, also for nostalgia, and marveled at the icons. I like the Windows 3.11 (not so much the 3.0) icons even more. They have such a charm and special style that only works through their low pixel count, but if you would pixelate icons today it would just look gimmicky and out of place with the rest of the OS.
  - DCH3416 2y ago
    It depends on the design of the icon. You generally can't scale Windows 3.1 graphics to higher resolutions without it looking like it's lacking details. The charm was with what you couldn't see and your mind could fill in the blanks.
    - anyfoo 2y ago
      Yep, that’s what I mean. Art comes from restriction, and the designers at Microsoft did really charming stuff with what they had to work with. I still vividly remember such simple but delightful things as the Excel icon, or the icon of a stylized 386 processor for the System category in Control Panel.
      - Lammy 2y ago
        > the designers at Microsoft Susan Kare did a lot of those! I love how they're just as expressive at 16-colors as at higher color depths. https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-computer-icons https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-comput...
        anyfoo 2y ago
        Ah, thanks for telling me that. I had absolutely no idea she had any involvement, but now it makes perfect sense.
- Dwedit 2y ago
  Vector graphics are a thing, you can make colorful graphics that can scale. You just might need multiple levels of detail depending on how large it's rendered at.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Windows Vista begs to differ. https://archive.org/details/UXGuide https://archive.org/details/UXGuide > Provide icons for all ribbon controls except drop-down lists, check boxes, and radio buttons. Most commands will require both 32x32 and 16x16 pixel icons (only 16x16 pixel icons are used by the Quick Access Toolbar). Galleries typically use 16x16, 48x48, or 64x48 pixel icons. > Be sure to test your windows in 96 dpi (100 percent) at 800x600 pixels, 120 dpi (125 percent) at 1024x768 pixels, and 144 dpi (150 percent) at 1200x900 pixels. Check for layout problems, such as clipping of controls, text, and windows, and stretching of icons and bitmaps. > Icons are pictorial representations of objects, important not only for aesthetic reasons as part of the visual identity of a program, but also for utilitarian reasons as shorthand for conveying meaning that users perceive almost instantaneously. Windows Vista® introduces a new style of iconography that brings a higher level of detail and sophistication to Windows. > Icons have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels, making them suitable for high-dpi (dots per inch) displays. These high- resolution icons allow for high visual quality in list views with large icons. > In the smaller sizes, the same icon may change from perspective to straight-on. At the size of 16x16 pixels and smaller, render icons straight-on (front-facing). For larger icons, use perspective. > Icon files require 8-bit and 4-bit palette versions as well, to support the default setting in a remote desktop. These files can be created through a batch process, but they should be reviewed, as some will require retouching for better readability. Nice icons were destroyed after high-DPI support, for some unknown-to-me reason.

> Icons were high contrast Seriously. Who demonized having legible color icons in exchange for blurry grayscale icons?

layer8 2y ago

Ironically, having to support high-DPI displays destroyed having nice icons.

DCH3416 2y ago
That's true. Right up until you look at Haiku and its vector icons. But I get it. Everyone has to look the same.
anyfoo 2y ago
I think that’s true. I recently installed Windows 2000, also for nostalgia, and marveled at the icons. I like the Windows 3.11 (not so much the 3.0) icons even more. They have such a charm and special style that only works through their low pixel count, but if you would pixelate icons today it would just look gimmicky and out of place with the rest of the OS.
- DCH3416 2y ago
  It depends on the design of the icon. You generally can't scale Windows 3.1 graphics to higher resolutions without it looking like it's lacking details. The charm was with what you couldn't see and your mind could fill in the blanks.
  - anyfoo 2y ago
    Yep, that’s what I mean. Art comes from restriction, and the designers at Microsoft did really charming stuff with what they had to work with. I still vividly remember such simple but delightful things as the Excel icon, or the icon of a stylized 386 processor for the System category in Control Panel.
    - Lammy 2y ago
      > the designers at Microsoft Susan Kare did a lot of those! I love how they're just as expressive at 16-colors as at higher color depths. https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-computer-icons https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-comput...
      - anyfoo 2y ago
        Ah, thanks for telling me that. I had absolutely no idea she had any involvement, but now it makes perfect sense.
Dwedit 2y ago
Vector graphics are a thing, you can make colorful graphics that can scale. You just might need multiple levels of detail depending on how large it's rendered at.
wizzwizz4 2y ago
Windows Vista begs to differ. https://archive.org/details/UXGuide https://archive.org/details/UXGuide > Provide icons for all ribbon controls except drop-down lists, check boxes, and radio buttons. Most commands will require both 32x32 and 16x16 pixel icons (only 16x16 pixel icons are used by the Quick Access Toolbar). Galleries typically use 16x16, 48x48, or 64x48 pixel icons. > Be sure to test your windows in 96 dpi (100 percent) at 800x600 pixels, 120 dpi (125 percent) at 1024x768 pixels, and 144 dpi (150 percent) at 1200x900 pixels. Check for layout problems, such as clipping of controls, text, and windows, and stretching of icons and bitmaps. > Icons are pictorial representations of objects, important not only for aesthetic reasons as part of the visual identity of a program, but also for utilitarian reasons as shorthand for conveying meaning that users perceive almost instantaneously. Windows Vista® introduces a new style of iconography that brings a higher level of detail and sophistication to Windows. > Icons have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels, making them suitable for high-dpi (dots per inch) displays. These high- resolution icons allow for high visual quality in list views with large icons. > In the smaller sizes, the same icon may change from perspective to straight-on. At the size of 16x16 pixels and smaller, render icons straight-on (front-facing). For larger icons, use perspective. > Icon files require 8-bit and 4-bit palette versions as well, to support the default setting in a remote desktop. These files can be created through a batch process, but they should be reviewed, as some will require retouching for better readability. Nice icons were destroyed after high-DPI support, for some unknown-to-me reason.