@maa2007 Good job creating the icons. The problem is that even those first 11 icons are completely inconsistent with Blender’s already existing icon scheme though. Another problem is that while the color scheme might work for your theme it will not look good with other themes, just switch between the default themes included with Blender and add your icon set and you will see.
Your claim is that it is easy to make icons and have them be consistent so try again and make them look exactly like the original icons. No new color scheme or personal touch. You’ll see that it is much harder than it looks.
thanks for taking the time to make the icons. While I agree about the color scheme being maybe not ideal, the rest ist great. I totally like the symbols you came up with, really great job.
Such icons would be very helpful to me, especially in long menus like the shader list that are not sorted alphabetically.
Text should be seccond to visuals, (any designer will tell you that).
It amazes me there are not more designers here at the forum.
Idealy i’d like see icons with a popup text explaning them, its the way how photoshop and many others teached us their icons.
The popups could revamped to be something much more then they are today.
Now we get some cryptic python explaining, and sometimes minimal info of what valeus mean.
But these days we have ways to connect computers all over the world, and point to articles full of explaining text like Blender wiki or even video’s explaining it all. So people could learn Blender a lot faster and easier (beeing forwarded to the right articles).
Icons with popups, huh? So when you don’t know which icon you want, you hover over each of them just to learn their names. Half an hour later, success! You’ve found the icon you were looking for…
What a bizarre idea. Just because Photoshop is doing it wrong doesn’t mean Blender should follow.
GIMP does it too,
Paint Shop Pro does it,
Krita does it,
Corel does it,
Synfig does it,
Toonboom does it…
Open Office does it… (in all their applications)
Microsoft Office does it… (in all their applications)
Operating systems do it… Linux, android, Windows, Apple.
…
…
. (and i could make this list a lot longer, but by now you should get it).
And looking at photoshop, and MS office etc these where paid application, ea no limits other then making sure people would like and COULD easily use their product. We might have personal dislikes taste etc but what i say is not about that.
And believe me those apps have been tested for their GUI extensively, almost bizarrely.
Photoshop isn’t doing it wrong, it’s just not something you like for the way you work. Other people do like it, though. I see a problem with only tooltips, though, so I agree to a point. But there are ways to solve that, like, option to display text, and, when you have learned and want to, turn on only icons.
Everybody, please can we keep the discussion technical and constructive, and please keep an open mind about workflows of others. We are all different, one size does not fit all, one way is not better than other ways for everybody.
Regarding icons… I love icons… and I love actual toolbars (NOT A “TOOL SHELF”), however I only like them for tools I commonly use that cannot be used with a single action (a single hotkey for example). If the tool requires a key press + menu nav + click, I would prefer an icon on a tool bar, but again, only if it’s something I use a lot. Everyone has their own preferences as to what they would want, so custom and dock-able tool bars like some other apps have would be my preferred way to deal with it.
@Razorblade,
But are these applications comparable with a complex program as Blender with thousands of options and functions? How many icons can you memorize? How big should be the icons so you can see clearly what each icon represents? If there are a lot of icons, How can do to make the icons do not begin to look like each other and everything begins to be confused?
I think icons only is a bad idea in Blender (although perhaps this could be configurable for those who want it that way). I have no problem with having icons+text using that icon holder area.
Lightwave has mostly textual buttons, yet I still had a hard time looking for the items I wanted when I was trying it out. So this whole notion that text buttons are more recognizable at first glance is erroneous. They are not.
But I’m in the middle when it comes to this topic (icons vs text). Most 3D apps have icons and text buttons. Only program that is riddled with icons is TrueSpace.
First of all, there’s no argument if icons are accompanied with their text name. This thread, as seen in his example, just wanted to add icons. He’s clearly not eliminating the text counterpart. So I see no problem with it. If you are against such, then your arguments will hold no water. You’re just wasting people’s time.
There’s no pain in reading symbols. Even illiterate people can read symbols. Well, they have to, they have no choice.
Don’t even understand why some people become extreme when it comes to their opposition to icons. All of us started reading symbols before even being able to read. Our everyday life is filled with symbols. I’m okay with a stop sign or a red light, for example, instead of the full word “STOP.”
While some icons are unrecognizable at first, they become second nature after becoming familiar with what they do.
I already said that for me it’s much easier and much more comfortable to have icons instead of or alongside text. So you are saying that this is Stockholm syndrome? Really? You know me better than I do myself?
Well Blender is not the only complex program there is, but all big programs have their learning curve Blender is not different in complexity.
And “only” icons will not be possible, somethings are hard to explain in sign language.
I wouldn’t know how to draw remove doubles, (unless someone else does)… then it shouldn’t become an icon.
Good icons replace things without text or words, and are universal for their goal.
Only sometimes icons get meaning because of what they do and we remind/learn them like that (ea traffic signs).
To many of such icons wouldn’t be good, but a few wont hurt.
For the complexity of Blender, the 2.8 goal should be to make it less complex, less clutter on the screen less text.
Icons are not the only part, custom manipulator prj is another part in how interaction with blender could become better.
Regrouping menu’s is another big one. Rethinking menu behavior might be another (maybe smart auto hide).
Blender does not need icons. It obstructs the function name I’m looking for. Photoshop, windows, gimp and so on has like 20 icons to memorize. Blender has like 200 functions.
the next big thing at least for Blender are actually a tighter integration of gestures (Pies) since they minimize memorizing a vast amount of Shortcut keys with maybe a slight expense of speed.
Additionally the “next big thing” are widgets which even further minimizes the need of gestures.(Pies)
and then you could use the freed up keys for functions/taks you use very often.
Icons for the Node menu doesn´t sound bad, I actually would love to have icons there.
For the T panel imo icons could make accessibility way easier…
right now its hard to read , some addons even lost the name completely and that happens quite
fast.
With Icons on the other hand, you would be able to have more activated addons
while being able to read/understand what is actually there… so yeah Icons are highly efficient when space is severely limited.
If you use like any of the buttons in that toolbar, you need to get good son. Learn the hotkeys, they’re there for a reason.
I only use that toolbar for some addons and some surface normal controls.
w
ctrl f
ctrl e
ctrl v
spacebar
Assorted shortcuts likr ctrl r, k, etc.
G.rab T.ranslate R.ortate
FACT Icons do make things more recognizable once you’re use to them.
Clutter is not a good thing, we don’t need a bloody icon for everything, seriously… For example, we could do without any icons save modifiers in the properties zone. Some for certain things WOULD be nice however.
so yeah Icons are highly efficient when space is severely limited.