Analyzr - Help Choose an Icon

[RubxQub]

I still feel like it looks to busy.

While I understand there's something about the SD card look that you like, I don't think it really adds anything to the icon beyond just making the important stuff smaller. For something that's an inside joke or gives the icon a certain look, I think it's getting way too much real estate.

If you absolutely want to keep it, perhaps you could try putting the images directly on the SD card instead of inside the metallic container they're currently in? I know that goes against the look of the application itself (gun-metal looking), but it just feels really disparate to have these nested images as they currently exist.

If you're dead set on double swing picture with the play controls at a minimum, I say just leave it at that and take out the SD Card. I really don't think it's adding anything :(

[tristanhilton85]

I think the last set of icons you put up look really good... Personally I think that the SD card makes a nice border to keep things from getting washed out and if indeed the user realizes that it is an SD card and not just a border it somewhat implies what the product does. I also like the differentiation between home and pro (using blue or black for the SD card). I must admit that I really did like the upright version more, but in the dock I suppose that the sideways one is better. Short of writing on the icon what the program does I think that this is the best that can be done to convey the functionality and purpose of the product.

[iacas]

I think the last set of icons you put up look really good... Personally I think that the SD card makes a nice border to keep things from getting washed out and if indeed the user realizes that it is an SD card and not just a border it somewhat implies what the product does. I also like the differentiation between home and pro (using blue or black for the SD card). I must admit that I really did like the upright version more, but in the dock I suppose that the sideways one is better. Short of writing on the icon what the program does I think that this is the best that can be done to convey the functionality and purpose of the product.

I think the vertical SD card looked a little better in the dock (just marginally), but since it had the label and looked even more like an SD card, and the orientation was more like a standard SD card icon, I like horizontal as a bit more of a "subtle" thing. It looks like the container, like the machine, but if you really look closely you "get it" a little.

I still feel like it looks to busy.

We may remove the golfers at the 128px size, too, in which case you have a machine with buttons and two screens. The SD card simply becomes the "body" of the machine.

While I understand there's something about the SD card look that you like, I don't think it really adds anything to the icon beyond just making the important stuff smaller. For something that's an inside joke or gives the icon a certain look, I think it's getting way too much real estate.

It's given a good amount less real estate than in the old "current.icns" file - the screens are larger, buttons are larger, etc.

Something has to contain the screens - some sort of frame. We've simply chosen an SD card, which to many and particularly at dock type sizes, will look like a tablet or machine of some kind.

If you absolutely want to keep it, perhaps you could try putting the images directly on the SD card instead of inside the metallic container they're currently in? I know that goes against the look of the application itself (gun-metal looking), but it just feels really disparate to have these nested images as they currently exist.

SD cards have stickers. That's the "sticker." I tried making the screens larger but that strip of grey both between the screens and between the dark colored frame is important. Without it, the whole icon became a muddy mess of dark colors. The strips of grey are important.

If you're dead set on double swing picture with the play controls at a minimum, I say just leave it at that and take out the SD Card. I really don't think it's adding anything :(

At the very least, it adds a frame! We can't just have two screens and three buttons floating around.

Did you see "Flat.icns" in this post: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/threads...l=1#post550448 ??? I haven't given up on that as a possibility, either.

[sean_miller]

At the core, the application is a

I'm not a mac guy. Whenever we replace a PC at work I can't set it to Windows Classic fast enough. I like the folders, briefcases (etc.), and functionality that Windows Classic offers. I don't want to pretend I'm using a mac when I'm using a PC. I watch my sister and brother-in-law use their macs and they can do all sorts of things. Whenever they create a file though, they have no idea where it went. Can I get a copy of that picture? Umm . . . well.

Anyway , if I was looking at a PC icon, the icon would be much smaller than a mac icon. To capture everything these icons could convey would mean using a very simple, yet universal symbols. Drawing, searching, video, and analysis all have in common a two or three legged device with something mounted on top (a surveyor, a photographer, and a draftsman, all use something like a tripod or even go old school and use a sextant or compass).

[tristanhilton85]

We may remove the golfers at the 128px size, too, in which case you have a machine with buttons and two screens. The SD card simply becomes the "body" of the machine.

In the examples you had of the icon without the golfers it looked too empty to me... like it was missing something... so if it was me I'd keep the golfers no matter what size.

I think the vertical SD card looked a little better in the dock (just marginally), but since it had the label and looked even more like an SD card, and the orientation was more like a standard SD card icon, I like horizontal as a bit more of a "subtle" thing. It looks like the container, like the machine, but if you really look closely you "get it" a little.

I see what you're saying about the upright one looking more like an SD card, especially with the label... this may not be a horrible thing though especially with the version number on the label since it'll be a simple way for users to tell if they are up to date as the software evolves and is updated. Like I said in an earlier post, I like the sideways ones a lot and that they look really good but the upright one in my opinion does look just a bit better and more complete.

[iacas]

Anyway

The icon would still fit inside a square, and Mac icons go down to 16 x 16, just like on Windows. Windows may not go up to 512, but that's primarily for resolution independence, not because people often have their icons set at 512 x 512.

128 x 128 is a common enough size, or smaller.

Drawing, searching, video, and analysis all have in common a two or three legged device with something mounted on top (a surveyor, a photographer, and a draftsman, all use something like a tripod or even go old school and use a sextant or compass).

We'd actually considered using a compass, partly because the shape of it is like an "A" as well and it's used to measure or draw arcs, but frankly we couldn't make it work. Many of the icons outlines you've submitted have a LOT of blank space and don't make great use of a square area. That's the problem with them.

BTW, the movie camera icon reminds me of a good icon - ScreenFlow's - http://www.telestream.net/screen-flow/overview.htm . I like that icon a lot. It conveys a good message and makes good use of space.

In the examples you had of the icon without the golfers it looked too empty to me... like it was missing something... so if it was me I'd keep the golfers no matter what size.

Yeah, the problem is that Mac OS X scales down the next largest size icon. So at 33px it's going to use a scaled down 128px icon. At 129 px it'll use the 256. It's something we'll play with to decide, but thanks for the vote.

I see what you're saying about the upright one looking more like an SD card, especially with the label... this may not be a horrible thing though especially with the version number on the label since it'll be a simple way for users to tell if they are up to date as the software evolves and is updated. Like I said in an earlier post, I like the sideways ones a lot and that they look really good but the upright one in my opinion does look just a bit better and more complete.

Thanks. It's still a possibility. I've yet to talk to Dave... he's just earlier today returned from NYC, after all.

P.S. In all of this, I think it's important to remember too that this isn't that big of a deal, and our competition on Windows is named "V1" and has an icon that looks like this: . So, name recognition aside, it's unlikely we'll do worse than that.

[RubxQub]

Did you see "Flat.icns" in this post:

That's what I mean.

I feel like that's your best bet, as it gets the point across and doesn't contain a lot of bloat. I personally would remove the play controls, but I know you like them there. :) I suspect we won't really see eye to eye on the icon, but I really do believe it should be a simple defining image, and I think you've got a great one in just your golfer sillouette on top of the grid. I really really do!

[tristanhilton85]

P.S. In all of this, I think it's important to remember too that this isn't

Agreed on this... as long as the software is quality (which by the sound of it, it is) the icon won't really matter... Anyone of the possibilities you have posted are better looking than the V1 icon. I can't wait to get my hands on this software.

[iacas]

I feel like that's your best bet, as it gets the point across and doesn't contain a lot of bloat. I personally would remove the play controls, but I know you like them there. :)

Almost the same size as the SD card versions... But again not ruled out. How do you propose differentiating Pro/Home in Flat?

Controls remain because proportionally we can make golfer windows taller. It'd just be wasted space.

I suspect we won't really see eye to eye on the icon, but I really do believe it should be a simple defining image, and I think you've got a great one in just your golfer sillouette on top of the grid. I really really do!

Simple in the smaller sizes, yes, but you seem to be taking simplicity too far. At the larger sizes teeny details are nice. Simplified in smaller sizes.

Agreed on this... as long as the software is quality (which by the sound of it, it is) the icon won't really matter... Anyone of the possibilities you have posted are better looking than the V1 icon. I can't wait to get my hands on this software.

We joke that we'll skip v1 altogether. Either call it 2.0 or just go from 0.9 to 1.1.

[tristanhilton85]

We joke that we'll skip v1 altogether. Either call it 2.0 or just go from 0.9 to 1.1.

I like that... skip to 1.1 and say something like "Already better than V1!"

[RubxQub]

Almost the same size as the SD card versions... But again not ruled out. How do you propose differentiating Pro/Home in Flat?

Hmm...

You could create a 3rd golfer image and paint him yellow, and have his swing not be the perfect image that you've got in your green. He'd be improved over orange, but not quite as good as green. Home version would show orange guy and yellow guy, pro version would show orange guy and green guy. It's basically saying "with home version you could improve your swing a lot, but with Pro, you can take it all the way!" ... something like that.

Controls remain because proportionally we can make golfer windows taller. It'd just be wasted space.

This would all be solved if you went with just a single golfer, you know? :) Just one of your golfers are already in a nicely proportioned box for this type of thing... I know I know...but I couldn't help myself.

Simple in the smaller sizes, yes, but you seem to be taking simplicity too far. At the larger sizes teeny details are nice. Simplified in smaller sizes.

My objection with the SD card is mostly about it being an SD card. I just don't think it makes sense to use, as people might be loading data from actual SD cards less than half of the time, and using some other media format or mechanism entirely. It's just confusing, and doesn't apply to all consumers using the product you've made. Your app isn't about SD cards, or the use of SD cards, or requires an SD card to work, you know?

I may be taking simplicity further than you'd like, but I really think what makes an icon great is that it's simple (first) and easily recognizable (second). If I'm quickly scrolling through my applications folder, I want to eyeball your application as it flies by and ID it immediately. What would I be looking for as it zips around? Probably the golfing part of the application, not the SD container it sits in. Perhaps my opinion is more coming from the fact that I've fallen in love with the idea of just the single green golfer guy against the grid. Just think that it would look great, get the point across, and have easy home vs pro changes to make. Just look at it! LOOK AT IT!!! :) ...I'm sitting here trying to click it, its so sexy! What's this?!

[iacas]

Devil's advocate in parts, but in parts it's what I actually think...

You could create a 3rd golfer image and paint him yellow

Got to stop you right there. Yellow's not one of our colors. Just as Golf Evolution is green and orange, so too is Analyzr. Yellow doesn't really fit. Plus...

, and have his swing not be the perfect image that you've got in your green. He'd be improved over orange, but not quite as good as green. Home version would show orange guy and yellow guy, pro version would show orange guy and green guy. It's basically saying "with home version you could improve your swing a lot, but with Pro, you can take it all the way!" ... something like that.

The bigger problem is that "you can take it all the way" is not true at all and how much you can improve is not at all a function that separates Home and Pro. Home does all the same drawing and playback that Pro does - it just doesn't store as many videos and it doesn't have students, lessons, etc. It can't record an analysis as a video. The drawing and playback tools - arguably what an individual needs to improve or analyze videos - is the same.

This would all be solved if you went with just a single golfer, you know? :)

Your smiley indicates you know I've already responded to that. But no, a single golfer's proportions wouldn't work either. They're taller than they are wide. The "machine" is wider than it is tall. If we're going to show a golfer on a screen, it's

important to show two screens.

My objection with the SD card is mostly about it being an SD card.

Quite honestly, I think you've prejudiced yourself by knowing it's an SD card. If it was just a shape and you had to spend some time to figure it out you wouldn't see it as "an SD card" quite as readily as you seem to see it now.

I just don't think it makes sense to use, as people might be loading data from actual SD cards less than half of the time, and using some other media format or mechanism entirely.

Where are the rules that say it has to make sense? What's a duck got to do with chat, or a "B" have to do with a text editor, or a rocket ship and a planet with writing a blog, or - except loosely - a compass have to do with web browsers?

It's just confusing, and doesn't apply to all consumers using the product you've made. Your app isn't about SD cards, or the use of SD cards, or requires an SD card to work, you know?

First, virtually all the popular cameras that shoot video do so on an SD card. Heck, I'm not aware of one that doesn't. Second, the entire application is not simply an SD card with nothing else on it, so you're giving entirely too much weight to the fact that it's an SD card.

Second, the SD card is a supporting element, not a main element, and even then it's a somewhat hidden element. It's only obvious at the much larger sizes. In the dock it simply looks like a machine. You are placing way more emphasis on the fact that it's an SD card than anyone I've shown it to. Some have seen it after awhile, others have yet to notice it's an SD card.

I may be taking simplicity further than you'd like, but I really think what makes an icon great is that it's simple (first) and easily recognizable (second).

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Here's the FTP file. LOTS of detail in the larger icon, more simplicity in the smaller one.

If I'm quickly scrolling through my applications folder, I want to eyeball your application as it flies by and ID it immediately. What would I be looking for as it zips around? Probably the golfing part of the application, not the SD container it sits in.

Nobody's prevented from seeing the golfing part of the icon. And user experience research says that situation almost never happens. Our application starts with the letter "A" for a reason, too.

What's this?!

I dunno. It looks like an application which acts like a telescope so you can see golfers at tournaments.

But seriously, you've got an icon of a golfer on a grid. That conveys very little. It's not like we put our machine on something completely unrelated, like a chef's chopping block. It's on an SD card, where the vast majority of videos will come from, and even then the SD card is hidden, subliminal, understated. You do seem to have fallen in love with your idea... but a blue circle with a green golfer says next to nothing about the application. Thanks for your thoughts. We're probably at the point now where we're just repeating ourselves, though.

[iacas]

BTW, just want to add - though I may disagree with parts of things some of you say, I respect the fact that you're willing to help and to share your opinions and to stick by them. Contrary to what some people think, I prefer it when people disagree to when they all agree. The latter's boring and doesn't result in the best possible stuff in the end.

So thanks, everyone. Very, very much appreciate your thoughts, especially when they disagree or raise a valid point (pro OR con).

[RubxQub]

Glad you mentioned that last bit, cause I don't want to come off as some guy that's like "YOU SUCK! I RULE!". It's a lot more that I just want you guys to succeed...like I'm invested in this product or something.

...and I'm sorry to say, but you may have to see my icon more than you'd like now (unless you ask me to switch)! :)

[iacas]

...and I'm sorry to say, but you may have to see my icon more than you'd like now (unless you ask me to switch)! :)

If I did ask you to switch (ahem

), I might point out that you're violating our copyright or something like that...

[RubxQub]

Bah! You win again, Erik...

[zeg]

At the core, the application is a drawing tool, a management tool (it organizes your models, your students, your lessons, etc.), a searching and filtering tool, a video playback tool... a printing tool, an instructional tool. Believe me, we batted around ideas on those topics for awhile and the "Current" is where we ended up - "turning our software into a physical looking, real-life type machine that 'analyzed' golf swings."

Of course I don't have a suggestion, I'm just here to throw stones.

I don't know that the icon needs to "hint strongly at what the application will do." Rarely will someone just see the Analyzr icon, without the name, and not have a clue what it does, and even if they do they'll see (perhaps) an SD card and golfers and little buttons that play back and rewind and whatnot. The grid behind the golfers helps to hint at some sort of analysis or measurement. Wouldn't you agree?

The grid does help, but really only at large sizes. On my screen, in the image you've placed at the top of your reply I can't see the grids. Had I not seen the image in a larger format before, I think I'd probably have some difficulty identifying the small images as golfers (the arms and clubs have become very thin lines that are difficult to make out). I feel like there's just a bit too much detail in the icon.

In the other icons in that image, there seem to me to be two sorts, which I think fit my "tell the user what I do" vs "be a strong brand image" dichotomy pretty well. The Terminal, iTunes, and Sticky-Notes icons all fall in the former category. Of course, these are also apps that lend themselves to this sort of imagery: either they do very specific visual things (terminal screens and sticky notes) or are adequately described by a simple term (e.g. I DO MUSIC!). The other two apps (not sure what they are, I guess an RSS reader and a NASA rocket launch control app ) go with a branding icon. If I don't recognize the RSS logo, the hat is still clearly a hat, and uses all of the available space to be a hat, so as long as I learn that I use a hat to read my RSS feeds, I get it. The rocket is similar. I just learn that it does something, and then when I see the big rocket in the icon, I am in familiar territory. The rocket is also over a colored ball, which is slightly relevant to a rocket launch, but more importantly has become a common visual indicator of an application icon in OSX. So even though I don't know that what the rocket means, I feel fairly sure it's an application. Finally, the rocket does have quite a bit of detail, but it differs a bit from the detail in the Analyzr logo in that it's detailing a single, unified object: a rocket ship with a window and some colored panels. While I think they might be better served with less of that, it's not really competing with another unrelated image. In the Analyzr icon, it just seems like there's some competition for detail pixels. I'm not sure that the interface lends itself strongly enough to being represented in an icon, so I'd think focusing on a strong brand-type image would be natural, even if it's less representative. (Sorry, I wanted to say a bit more, but it's probably not helpful and I have to run). BTW I do like the look of Rubx's icon. I see your point that it doesn't represent the application as well, but I think it makes a stronger statement visually, and it has the round-icon "I'm an application" hint. I just tried hacking together a quick-and-dirty one that retains more of the elements from your icon, but it was a little too quick-and-dirty so perhaps I'll try to do a more careful job later. (Although that might take me from stone-throwing into having stones thrown my way, so maybe I better not....) Anyway, hope these thoughts are helpful. And, in keeping with the thread, 1) I mean them constructively, and 2) this is all really my picking nits about very well done images.

[iacas]

The grid does help, but really only at large sizes. On my screen, in the image you've placed at the top of your reply I can't see the grids.

I'm not sure which reply or image you're referring to. The grids and golfers will be removed at various stages as the icon shrinks. Again, Mac OS X lets you put in 512, 256, 128, 32, and 16 px icons and always scales down.

Had I not seen the image in a larger format before, I think I'd probably have some difficulty identifying the small images as golfers (the arms and clubs have become very thin lines that are difficult to make out). I feel like there's just a bit too much detail in the icon.

I agree and disagree on that. Do the golfers look like blobs at certain sizes? Yes. But do you sacrifice the entire 33px to 128px sizes with no golfers because they look muddy from 45 pixels on down?

Maybe. But detail is good, and only really becomes bad when it begins to detract from the icon - and it most often detracts by becoming muddy or indistinguishable (That's why the LEDs are gone), why there's only one set of buttons, etc. That's not to say we won't remove golfers from smaller icons. Dave likes and wanted to see some tweaked versions of the upright icon, so I've created these: http://analyzrgolf.com/64b.png http://analyzrgolf.com/128b.png http://analyzrgolf.com/256b.png http://analyzrgolf.com/512b.png In those versions I removed the golfers from the horizontal card at 128. 64 is not a size at which you get to specify a new icon, but it's a fairly common dock/Finder size. We'd have someone more graphically skilled than I touch up the horizontal SD card if we go that route to add in stronger lighting effects and a better texture than what I've done.

In the other icons in that image, there seem to me to be two sorts, which I think fit my "tell the user what I do" vs "be a strong brand image" dichotomy pretty well. The Terminal, iTunes, and Sticky-Notes icons all fall in the former category. Of course, these are also apps that lend themselves to this sort of imagery: either they do very specific visual things (terminal screens and sticky notes) or are adequately described by a simple term (e.g. I DO MUSIC!).

Precisely. You'd need a sub-30 IQ to screw up the icon for "Stickies." And given Apple's utility icon framework, likewise for Terminal. "iTunes," however, "does music" but what about music? Do you write music in it? No. And what about movie rentals? Syncing your iPhone? Shopping for apps, movies, or TV shows? Nope. iTunes is, in many ways, a horrible icon (or a bloated app - two sides of the same coin in some ways).

The other two apps (not sure what they are, I guess an RSS reader and a NASA rocket launch control app

Right, the same way that you learn that the sideways SD card with two screens on it is used for your golf analysis. The same way you learn that clicking the smiley face is the Finder, which isn't even named really well (a historical name more than a practical one - and perhaps only slightly better than "Windows Explorer").

The rocket is also over a colored ball, which is slightly relevant to a rocket launch, but more importantly has become a common visual indicator of an application icon in OSX. So even though I don't know that what the rocket means, I feel fairly sure it's an application.

A lot of people in the Mac community think that circles are overused. There's a running joke about how every icon is a blue glossy circle.

Of the icons in my dock, and grouping things into ovals, rectangles, or ambiguous shapes my icons are: rect, ambig, rect, rect, oval, rect, oval, rect (angled), rect, rect, oval, ambiguous, oval, rect (Analyzr), rect/ambiguous (Stickies), rect (Photoshop), oval (QuickTime Player). The last two aren't normally in the dock which is why I called them out separately. A whole lot of rectangles in there. And the old-school Mac application icon was a diamond.

Finally, the rocket does have quite a bit of detail, but it differs a bit from the detail in the Analyzr logo in that it's detailing a single, unified object: a rocket ship with a window and some colored panels. While I think they might be better served with less of that, it's not really competing with another unrelated image.

I don't think you're winning that argument. The planet is incredibly textured, our golfers are silhouettes, and they're on a grid with little dots. MarsEdit has the more detailed icon. Look at the lettering which you can barely even read at 512px sizes, after all.

Again, if you're doing all this talking in regards to golfers, you'll notice they're not even in the 128px version of the most recent icon. It's two screens in a black frame with buttons beneath. People will know quickly to associate our app - which uses two screens as a big piece of its functionality - with that icon.

In the Analyzr icon, it just seems like there's some competition for detail pixels. I'm not sure that the interface lends itself strongly enough to being represented in an icon, so I'd think focusing on a strong brand-type image would be natural, even if it's less representative.

The brand is named "Analyzr," so we ARE brand advertising. The machine - which looks a lot like the software - IS the "analyzr" (analyzer).

BTW I do like the look of Rubx's icon. I see your point that it doesn't represent the application as well, but I think it makes a stronger statement visually, and it has the round-icon "I'm an application" hint.

Round does not mean "I'm an application." If anything, rectangles are used for more applications. Safari is round because it's a compass. Mail is a rectangle because it's a postage stamp. QuickTime Player is round because it's the letter Q and Stickies are rectangles because they're sticky notes.

Anyway, hope these thoughts are helpful. And, in keeping with the thread, 1) I mean them constructively, and 2) this is all really my picking nits about very well done images.

Oh I know, I just hope you feel the same way. Please don't read anything above as attacking at all - It's all helping me work through some thoughts.

FWIW, Dave likes the most recent horizontals from earlier in this same post. That's the direction we're going.