Wildfire 5.0 icon

[zpaolo]

So, WF 5.0 is here, preproduction and final version, with its new flashy interface... and the old boring, 32x32 icon! If you want an alternative, this is my interpretation for an updated, 32x32 and 48x48 icon, hope you'd like it



you can find the .ico and .png here...



2009-09-14_135439_proicon.zip

Paolo

 

[jvidal]

it's nice
thanks

 

[magnusod]

So true...they are all relics from Win 98 something... Almost the only CAD package out there with these old style icons..

I know it's a secondary thing but how hard can it be to update. A salesman from PTC once said that they had one dedicated person only making icons. An ex programmer transfered to a new position or....even the new ones like the Manikin icon looks very simple... That guy need some training in graphics...

Another thing that irritates me is that they don't use the icons they have in e.g RMB pop-up menu...

 

[zpaolo]

I think the icons for the interface look good the way they are, I mean, I hate when interface commands icons are too smooth, flashy, elaborate, it's very distracting IMO and sometimes it's difficult to tell what they do or to discriminate between a row of gummy looking smooth icons. But for application icons, well, they ought to be much better

Paolo

 

[tontonsam]

I agree with Paolo,


The application icondesigned here isgood (better?)than the out of the box one.


But please don't get confused, this is one of the last solid software's that doesn't look like a candystore! The worst part is that some educational institutes here are getting seduced by the 'look' rather than look at the engine and realm of possibilities a software tool offers.


*sorry for the off-topic*


I did replace my desktop icon with yours ;-)

 

[Kevin De Smet]

I don't particularly agree, just look at a few Solidworks icons and see the amount of detail those guys can squeeze into them:

Instantly recognizable. You might think the "bright and flashy" nature might be hard to stand for hours upon hours on end, but for some reason it's not.

Black magic???

 

[tontonsam]

Kevin,


I agree again, that the quality, crispness and readability is highliy important (and lets not go into comparing applications based on this

)


But my point was to limit the presentness of icons in every pop-up, menu and why not like some softwares even to repeat it in commandline... This is too much imho.


A clear, crip toolbar, and the rest should be text based, to gain in 'simplicity'. And I believe the people at PTC understood this and instead off reinventing the wheel, they applied the extensive research Microsoft did on usability. This resulting in the application off a 'ribbon-based' menubar for drafting in WF5. This does require an adjustment but as in office 2007, in the long term you gain massive mouse travel reduction.


I don't know the application off this type of user-layout in other CAD applications, but applying the UI of the most commonly used software is a good strategy to reduce the learning curve of an application.


so no black magic, but good research

Edited by: tontonsam

 

[zpaolo]

This resulting in the application off a 'ribbon-based' menubar for drafting in WF5. This does require an adjustment but as in office 2007, in the long term you gain massive mouse travel reduction.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree on this. Ribbon interface, as implemented in WF5.0, is slow and modal, and basically I'd rather have all my useful icons available at a single direct click, rather than have to switch labels every two seconds...

Paolo

 

[magnusod]

To me it's the other way around. A text based menu is less clear than a text menu with icons on the side.

If you right click in Word you the menu has icons on the left in a grey shade that is distinguished from the text. Copy, Paste and Delete icons are so well known that it's much easier to distinguish them than plain text. If PTC were following the research by MS they should do the same in all areas. In PDMLink 9.0 they did add icons to pull-down menus which I believe is an improvement.

Ribbon interface seems controversal but I do believe it's a good thing to follow MS choosen interface as this is what most people use and you get a familiar feel.

 

[zpaolo]

Instantly recognizable. You might think the "bright and flashy" nature might be hard to stand for hours upon hours on end, but for some reason it's not.

Hmm at first glance and without the text, how can you tell that the revolved cut is... a cut? An not a revolve feature? Of course every icon set needs some time to get used to, but for example there's no need for these icons to be so smooth, borders are pale brown, it's perhaps my personal bias but I don't like too much anti alias in icons If you look at Word (pre 2007), icons are graphically "simple" they are not "work of arts" they are just small glyphs to convey an idea.

On the other hand, I like when icons are repeated even in menus, it adds coherence to the interface. But just to be completely pointless, I also love Lightwave interface which have not a single icon

Paolo

 

[zpaolo]

OH, and just a note on ribbon interfaces before this topic becomes a "rant and rave"... The selling point of ribbon interfaces is that "it looks like Word" and "you have the tools you need at hand". I disagree. Completely. First, I'm a hi-end CAD user, I'm not a Word or Excel "fan", I personally don't give a damn if the quite expensive piece of software I use to gain a living looks or doesn't look like Office. For the same reason, I have my own workflow, and I'd really like to be able to tune the interface to my needs. I'm "smart" enough to work with menus only, or to work with all the icons scattered around multiple toolbars. If it suits my needs, the software should be able to adapt to these needs too... IMO

Paolo


Edited by: zpaolo