Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Isn't this a little bit of inefficient over-optimization. Sure auto scaled vectors look more blurred than hand made bitmaps. But the important question is: do normal people even notice the difference in today's screens? At the end of the post, the author concludes that not yet. But he doesn't seem to back it up. And I don't mean to back it up by comparing vector and manual icons for videophile designers. But actually a/b test it with real users.

I know I personally cannot tell the difference between the example comparisons in the post. Not sure my users would. I'll probably a/b test it with them at some point to be sure. Until then, my impression is that vectors are a net positive.




I use a SIMBL extension to bring OS X 10.6's colorful Finder sidebar icons to 10.7. I have always been meaning to improve its source code because it simply scales the large versions down.

The difference is irritating and clearly noticeable for e.g. the "Documents" icon if you compare it to the "Go" menu. And it's not because the big versions are bitmaps, it was mostly the missing outline and lack of contrast.

(I still find them much faster than the monochrome versions (and with a smile) :))

The Finder's "Go" menu is really a good example of tiny, clear icons.


It depends what you are showing. Seriously some stuff just has too much detail and. Less detailed version works better - was doing this for a logo the other day and there were three versions for different scales; all worked well but the larger ones were closer to the full logo.

Oddly the .ico format allows different versions for different resolutions, unlike most ther formats.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: