Make Jabber look Good
My apologies to whoever made this icon, but really…
We’re trying to get people to use Jabber and know it’s the cool new IM protocol, not think it looks lame.
It’s really important that the style, look, and feel of Jabber logos as they are used everywhere look newer, nicer, and cleaner than the icons used for AIM, ICQ, MSN. When I see that Jabber logo next to the others, I honestly want to get my friends on MSN and AIM just so I don’t see that logo.
It is a good likeness of a lightbulb—better than I could do—but that doesn’t make it a good icon.
I couldn’t agree more!
There is an ongoing discussion about icons in the Psi mailing list:
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/psi-devel-affinix.com/2004-October/000821.html
Amen.
what about *my* lightbulb?
I’m sorry, Psi icons are no better.
These? http://semanticgap.com/psi/rostericons.jpg Bad. The stars are.. eh.. and the stars and lightbulbs both have issues with the silhouette test.
These? http://www.mray.de/psi-screenshot.png They’re squares! They violate the silhouette test immediately. They also don’t speak to Jabber-ness at all.
At least Psi has a consistent style of icons within itself, however. Certain other clients (like the one I took that icon from) don’t even have that.
Gossip’s icons (at least in the screenshots I see) pass the silhouette test and look pretty nice. Unfortunately they don’t pass on the idea of “Jabber” for those multi-protocol clients out there.
well, suggest something else as jabber’s logo? why should they change a well-established symbol? and explain what you mean by writing “newer, nicer, and cleaner”?
and what is the “silhouette test”?
I’m not suggesting Jabber’s logo shouldn’t be a lightbulb. A lightbulb is fine. I’m talking about particular renditions of the lightbulb as it appears in different clients. Some clients have ok icons, some have bad icons. They all tend to use the lightbulb (except Gossip) and that’s fine, since the lightbulb is Jabber’s logo.
Most icon design guidelines mention the silhouette test. I would hope that someone designing icons for an application would look at the icon design guidelines for their platform.
thanks for the link, very interesting reading about icon design.
i still fail to discover a suggestion on how you would improve the bulb logo you presented and judged. what does “newer, nicer, and cleaner” mean to you in detail?
Style-wise… there’s not much more that can be said other than the style is not appropriate.
i think you’re wrong there. there can possibly be said A LOT more than merely throwing around with rather abstract adjectives, sorry. this is your blog and all, but don’t you think there’s more to criticising something than saying it’s “lame”? well, you attempted to throw in some practical aspect with the sihouette test thing, but that was it.
since you obviously don’t intend to elaborate more on what you think might be “appropriate”, i’ll let you be now and drop out of this short conversation. but i hope you do reflect on your way of criticising stuff, mate.
and no, i’m not the person who created that lightbulb icon version, hehe.
Oh please. I feel I’ve earned the right to criticize Jabber and things related to it.
Design and Art have subjective components to them that are not easy to verbalize with specific compliants. I’ve had designs get a C because they “don’t feel right.” That’s what you’re going to get when you get into this world.
As far as the style of this icon: it’s flat, too literal, too conservative (straight up/down), color palette choice is very Win95-esque. That yellow along with the other stylistic choices do not at all match with “newer, nicer, and cleaner” than the other icons.
Now you take into consideration the fact that this icon was appearing for me in an application running on Mac OS X—and the style stands out as just downright wrong.
Even in the modern era of Windows XP, though, choosing a yellow which feels like it was from Windows 95 or older is not going to give you the impression of “newer, nicer, and cleaner.” Especially not in comparison with modernized versions of the AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo logos (although Yahoo’s Y! logo is rather lame).
And if you don’t like my criticisms don’t read my blog. There are people who have told me that they would like to hear more about what I find good/bad in usability, and so that’s what I’m doing. If people want further explanations they can ask—but I’m working under the assumption that people who are doing things like, say, creating icons for a major client for a service we want to push as the newer, better service would know a thing or two about icon design and artistic style. Saying “newer, nicer, cleaner” should be enough for them.
[…] evelopers lived up to (I might even say exceeded) my request that client developers should make Jabber look good by presenting us with an absolutely spectacular Jabber icon […]
Lightbulb is not good idea at all. We could talk about silhouette tests etc. but we miss main - Jabber is not a software for working with lightbulbs! It is for working with people! What if someone staying behing you asks: “What are you doing with these lightbulbs in this program?” Gossip’s icons are even worse: “Doctor, I think that some people I’m talking with are green rounds while others are red triangles. Am I mad?”
Contact list is a list of people (except bots) and icons should reflect this fact. And they do - in some other programs (MSN, AIM, partly Skype). Ain’t it bad idea? Oh, you say, Jabber would lost its “brand” it thrown lightbulb? But we are trying to create a universal messenger for everyone, isn’t it? Brand icon’s place is at the About page, but not for every contact in the list.
So, my idea - there should be people icons in the roster. And they should not be “en face”, but in profile. Because all people in the roster are not looking at us all day, they are just available for communication. And, I think, it is not bad idea for “User Profile” window - a user profile icon. But in the chat window it may be an enface icon, because people usually looks to the person they are talking with - and we also have avatars for this.
And about silhouette test - human profile has an easy understandable silhouette (yeah, silhouette is a word for human shadow). There are many ways to get easy understandable status icons - clocks, signboards, strikeouts and so on.
jabber:skir@jabber.snc.ru
Yes, some clients use people icons already. My message was mostly directed at the multi-im clients using a “Jabber-like” icon. I have no problem with clients not using lightbulb icons altogether—in fact, I’d prefer an abstract status indicator—but there’s no way I’d win that argument. I can’t even win this one (the lightbulb icons I’m seeing in clients other than iChat have gotten uglier, not better).
One issue with people icons is that some clients display avatars inline in the contact list (I don’t think any client other than iChat is making use of avatars nearly enough. See my paper on IM UI for more on that). If you have both an avatar, which probably looks like a person, and a person-looking icon, things get rather confusing. This is why abstract forms of status indication, such as iChat’s, are preferable. Of course, one issue with iChat’s status indication is that it fails the silhouette test. That’s probably why iChat actually offers the option to “Use shapes to indicate status”.
“Clocks, signboards, strikeouts and so on” will be difficult to understand or see if the client uses 16×16 status icons anywhere.