Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:16685 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1043 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdragon!palarson From: palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: New System icon Message-ID: <7160@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: 1 Jun 88 19:57:27 GMT References: <184@hodge.UUCP> <373@draken.nada.kth.se> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 22 In article <373@draken.nada.kth.se>, ragge@nada.kth.se (Ragnar Sundblad) writes: > In article <184@hodge.UUCP> adail@pnet06.cts.com (Alan Dail) writes: > >no, no, no, no, no. > >The whole point of having Icons is that the visual representation > >makes it easier to find the file you want easier than having to > >read the text. The icon is supposed to represent what the cdev/init > >does. > > no, no, no, no, no and yes > The file icon is supposed to represent what the *FILE* does/contains. > Just like the document icon and the application icon there should be > an init icon, cdev icon, rdev icon, etc, etc. I fail to see why these two purposes should be at odds. All commercial applications I know of use custom icons for both the application and document files. Generally, they each depict very clearly whether a file is an application or a document. Of course, it might be helpful if a default {init,cdev,rdev} icon existes, just as default icons exist for applications and vanilla documents. The default icons, while functional, are uglier than sin. Johan Larson