Back in the OS/2 days, I used to make icons like crazy. On OS/2, the sizes were 20x20 and 40x40. On Windows they were 16x16 and 32x32.
You could use a free icon editor or buy fairly good icon editors that let you edit the icons pixel by pixel.
In Windows XP, things started to change. Now icons could be alpha-blended and they could be up to 128x128. Making a 128x128 icon is a whole different discipline than making a 32x32 icon. One is pixel art, the other involves some serious graphics design.
I can't make a 128x128 icon that's particularly good and neither can most other people -- even many who could create quite nice 32x32 icons.
In Windows Vista, Microsoft did two more things -- they allow users to view individual folders with icons at different sizes and they made all the icons nice enough to encourage people to have their icons at higher resolution.
In addition, Microsoft made the default format 256x256. In fact, if you don't make an icon 256x256, then the icon will be displayed as a rather weird looking tile on the desktop with the icon in 32x32. This is true even if there's a 128x128 -- it won't even scale them up!
It's really changed the way we look at how to make icons. Are there any other old icon makers here or current icon makers? What do you think how things have evolved. It's been quite a journey!
what can i say, i love the huge sized icons, they look neat in the desk & dock.
i for sure use this steps:
-i make the icons in illustrator -then i just drag & drop into Photoshop in a 128x128 transparent new doc and i use the "save for web..." to save it in PNG -last step involves using Axyalis iconworkshop wich imports smoothly the png and automagically creates all the icon sizes,
As such, I'm really not a fan of huge icons whose purpose is more aesthetic that it is functional. Also, since keyboard shortcuts are typically faster, the fewer icons, the better, I think.
256x256 icons aren't really icons anymore, imo. They don't need to be that size to work.
I agree. The quality goes up. But now creating an icon is really creating a serious piece of artwork.
In the past, an icon was really a distinct art form from other types of illustration.
But at 256x256, that's a pretty high resolution. I remember when PC games were 320x200. It requires a very different set of talent and skills to do a 256x256 icon.
yeah that's right. Now the 16x16 icons are called "pixel art" In the past was harder to crate an icon. But well technology upgrades so everything related with it does
You also have to consider what the screen resolution was when you were designing those 16x16 & 20x20 icons, probably 640x480 or 800x600.
Now 1920x1200 is becoming fairly common.
I don't think a screen resolution of something like 3840 x 2400 is too far in the future. You'll need icons that are at least 128x128 if you want em to look sweet.
I'd never even consider doing icons as anything other than 256x256 .pngs. If I could swing 512x512 I'd probably do it. People can always resize em, again, the bigger size just gives more options. Whether my icons are worth a crap is debatable though.
i think it will give the icon makers more options now, but i disagree about it being harder.. i think smaller icons are harder to make. since were talking about icon size the new leopard os wll have 512px icon sizes now Dats big :D
It's certainly harder to communicate a meaning in a 16x16 space than it is in a 256x256 pixel space. Guys who could make good, recognizable icons in that small of a space are skilled.
But working in a larger and more detailed manner takes a different kind of talent. It certainly opens up the format to more artistry and stronger images.
That said, I think an icon should remain true to it's definition and offer the user an easily understood symbol. Overly busy icons turn me off.
it is already the case that many icons that look great at 128x128 just get downsized with a script and look like some non-recognizable color blobs at smaller sizes. this will become even worse. i think the best approach right now is in X where you can use vector graphics as base icon (so no limits, be it 128, 256 or 512) and bitmaps for the smaller sizes if desired. the Tango Desktop Project is an example how this can be done successfully.
