Icon Redesign for future 1.0 Release of Sigil

[shorshe]

Hi Sigil Crowd,

I'd love to see an updated Icon for a future Sigil 1.0 Release.

Attached is an idea of mine. Anyone else?

OS X Mockups:





Windows Mockups:

[KevinH]

It does look like it would fit well with the iTunes, iBooks, iPhotos, Safari, Launchpad, AirPort Utility round icons typically found on a Mac.

No idea if other platforms like/use round icons. One thing I thought about is people like this icon ... Is there an svg version? If not could one be made by copying the eps and rewriting it in svg?

[shorshe]

An SVG-Version is no problem. Added to original post.

[DNSB]

I voted Don't Care -- if the program launchs and does what I want it to do, the appearance of the icon used to launch it is, IMHO, irrelevant/eye candy.

[Toxaris]

I particularly don't care about round icons. It has no added value and will look out of place.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not crazy about round icons myself, but I could live with it if lots of users fell in love with it. And while I have no problem with the color blue whatsoever, I have to wonder why such a drastic color change is necessary. People know the one we have. As such, I'd be more in favor of tweaking rather than overhauling.

But in the end, I simply don't spend that much time worrying about how program icons look to get too worked up either way.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not crazy about round icons myself, but I could live with it if lots of users fell in love with it. And while I have no problem with the color blue whatsoever, I have to wonder why such a drastic color change is necessary. People know the one we have. As such, I'd be more in favor of tweaking rather than overhauling.

But in the end, I simply don't spend that much time worrying about how program icons look to get too worked up either way.

^^ +1

[arthurattwell]

I think the shorshe's icon is great. From a design perspective, it builds on (rather than replaces) the original, but is still a full refresh. It could very easily be adapted to include a square-with-round-corners version to fit with other OS UIs. The design is also strong and simple enough to retain its identity if its background colour changed (e.g. greyscale on high-contrast setups).

To those who think an icon is just eye-candy, I can appreciate that perspective: function over form and all. But a neat icon goes a long way to instilling trust and credibility especially among new and non-technical users, and among corporate users who lean towards slick-looking proprietary software.

[Notjohn]

I like it, too. The present dark (brown?) S doesn't pop out; I have to hunt for it.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by arthurattwell

I think the shorshe's icon is great. From a design perspective, it builds on (rather than replaces) the original, but is still a full refresh. It could very easily be adapted to include a square-with-round-corners version to fit with other OS UIs. The design is also strong and simple enough to retain its identity if its background colour changed (e.g. greyscale on high-contrast setups).

To those who think an icon is just eye-candy, I can appreciate that perspective: function over form and all. But a neat icon goes a long way to instilling trust and credibility especially among new and non-technical users, and among corporate users who lean towards slick-looking proprietary software.

But why has it to be in a circle or square? That will totally look out of place compared to the rest of the icons. It has no added value. The colors are fine, but why must it be enclosed?

[shorshe]

@Thoraxis: In wich context does the icon look out of place?
I'm using OS X. Many App-Icons are round on this platform.
I'd use the white "S" without the Circle on windows 10.

@KevinH: Is it possible to include different icons for different target platforms?

[KevinH]

Probably, but not unless we absolutely have to. I would prefer we had something acceptable to most Windows, Mac, and Linux users.

[DiapDealer]

Still don't care for the change to blue (circle or otherwise). Would rather just see a thin, lighter border added to the original S to give it more contrast.

I can't begin to tell you how little I care about corporate users who gravitate toward slick-looking proprietary software.

And yes, different icons could be used for different platforms. I, however, would not be in favor of dividing the Sigil brand across the various OSs. The shapes could vary a little, but I'd prefer a general continuity myself.

I'm voting "no" on this one. Not because I'm opposed to change (or wish it to be "left alone"), but because I don't care for THIS change. But as I said, I won't stand in the way if there's overwhelming support for it.

[shorshe]

Thanks for all your feedback. Appreciate it.

Let me explain a bit of my thinking behind this Design:
Using the S shape from the old Icon was a no brainer, since it is very recognizable.
Modern UIs (Win10, OS X, IOS, Android) tend to switch to a "Flat" design approach. Hence the white "S" without bevels or shadows.

Contrast on the old Icon is low by it's nature. Therefore the blue background.

Round because it would fit with many other App Icons.

I would argue the Flat "S" shape ist the main Focus of the branding. The surroundings could be adapted to the OS, where necessary (start menu... )


So how would this fare in the Windows Context?

Even the round App-Icon blends in... I'd argue.

[eschwartz]

My Linux system is currently a blessed sanctuary from the dreaded onslaught of the "Flat" design approach.