RE: Yet another emacs icons

[Drew Adams]

    _any_ of these new icons is better than the old Gnu/mushroom
    icon ... it looks basically like a piece of lint!  The original
    image is far too detailed to ever be very useful as an icon

Most of us agree (I think), that neither complex images nor text work well
at icon size. I've already stated my preference for no gnus, and just a
single "E". (One of the "E"s I posted was split - top and bottom
video-inverses, which abstractly suggests windows in a frame, but
essentially it's just an "E".)

However, another possibility now occurs to me - a very simple, recognizable
object. This wouldn't be an object that says "Emacs" or "Gnu" by its nature.
It would be recognizable as what it is at even tiny sizes, but it wouldn't
by itself communicate "Emacs" initially. However, if an attractive but
not-too-cute object were chosen, it would quickly become associated with
Emacs.

An example of such a simple object is the apple with a bite out it of used
by Apple Computer. I personally use, for Emacs, a simple tree icon I grabbed
somewhere, just because it looks good and stands out. The exact object
chosen is really less important, I think, than having something that is
attractive.

Another possibility is not to try for a recognizable object, but just an
attractive pattern or geometric shape that stands out. An example is the
Google-Desktop swirl. Besides repeating Google's colors, there is nothing
about it that says "Google", and it is not a recognizable object. But it
does look good and stand out.

The infamous kitchen sink and mushroom-gnu were unsuccessful not because
they didn't communicate the idea of "Emacs" well, but because 1) they were
too complex, 2) they simply were not recognizable as anything at all (even a
pattern), and 3) they were not attractive. They did, in fact, quickly become
associated with Emacs through use, but they were just bad icons.

I guess I'm saying that we could broaden our scope and try to come up with
something outstanding at tiny size, even if it doesn't communicate "Emacs"
out of the box (it will soon enough).

If we chose a simple object, we might want to choose a different object
(perhaps of a similar kind) for each release. Or we might offer several
different (perhaps related) objects with the same release, letting users
choose.

Think, for instance, of what O'Reilly books do with animals. The animal
itself isn't important, and doesn't usually communicate much, but the
general idea is clever, and it identifies the books as O'Reilly - and the
animals are attractive (very important).

To adopt this approach, we would try to look for (create) object images that
are 1) SIMPLE, 2) clever, original, interesting, and 3) attractive 4) at
even tiny sizes. Of course, this is not the most important thing for people
to work on, but it could be fun, and who knows what we might come up with? I
think now that limiting ourselves to trying to convey the idea of "Emacs" or
"Gnu" has perhaps stopped us from being more creative.

Emacsians are weird, funny, creative people - much weirder than the kitchen
sink. A sense of humor in this endeavor is essential - what icon would Zippy
adopt? (No, a washing machine is too complex for an icon. A piece of lint,
perhaps? LOOP) Thinking caps on (or is it off?), chill out, dream on... No
more complex icons. 256 bits max...