Program icons: generic vs. branded

[pinheiro]

A Saturday 19 April 2008 23:23:42, Aaron J. Seigo escreveu:
> On Saturday 19 April 2008, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > I find the definition of programs which should use generic icons very
> > unprecise. What is a "more advanced" program?
>
> i think that's a qualitative measure and one that's probably somewhat
> subjective. it's a sort of common sense guideline, really (and probably
> somewhat poorly worded). the "more advanced" bit really applies less to the
> capabilities of the application itself and to the functionality gap it
> fills in the desktop; so okular is very advanced in several ways but fills
> the "generic" space of "document reader"
>
> > And what is the reasoning for generic icon (names) for programs?
>
> so the fact that the apps are different can be treated as an implementation
> detail in the user facing UI bits (e.g. application launchers)
>
> > Some programs follow the spec, like Okular (graphics-viewer-document) and
> > Ark (utilities-file-archiver), others like KCalc (kcalc) don't. But isn't
> > Okular a more advanced program, while KCalc isn't?
>
> kcalc should probably be using the generic icon, really.
>
> > Does KDE follow the spec? How do I find out if e.g. Okteta, the new hex
> > editor in kdeutils :) , should use a branded icon or a generic one?
>
> really good question. i personally don't think "hex editor" is a "generic"
> problem space from the average user's POV though.
>
> > If the reason for generic icon names are icon themes, well, what about
>
> they are.
>
> > using names like graphics-viewer-document-okular and
> > utilities-file-archiver-ark? So if the branded icon is not included in
> > the icon theme the fallback will be the generic one?
>
> that's a good idea, actually =)

I agrea with most of what has been said, but my positiin is mostly "Give me 
the names i will do the icons".
The naming issues are realy complex ones specily here in the aplications area.

-- 

core oxygen icon designer