phosfate
2004-07-14 05:36 pm UTC (link)

Well, basically, I'm tired of people griping based solely on the fact that it's illegible. It doesn't matter to these people that it's not meant to be legible. It doesn't matter to them that these icon makers know what they're doing, and that they're not just applying text poorly.

Gosh. Don't I feel bad now for thinking the illegible text iconers were, y'know, dopey or something.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	llama_treats 2004-07-14 05:40 pm UTC (link)
	I just thought they all had superhero magnifying vision of some sort. I mean, how dare I think that text is meant to be read and understood? WHAT WAS I THINKING?! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dorothy1901 2004-07-14 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	I hereby propose that all sooper-kewl graphics designers who want to use teeny, tiny decorative elements that cannot be read stick to polka-dots and curlicues. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladybirdsleeps 2004-07-14 06:17 pm UTC (link)
	I approve of Mecurtin, but I hate that South Park icon. (Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

llama_treats
2004-07-14 08:17 pm UTC (link)
(And where does the OP get the idea that no one unintentionally makes text too small?)

Because it's art, dammit. ART!!!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

It's ART, dammit!
littlebitca
2004-07-15 01:41 am UTC (link)
Well, sure. But then there's Art, Big Art, Art junior, Uncle Art, Bubba Art, Wherefore Art Thou, Clip Art, Art Pr0n, Art Linkletter and kids who say the darnedest things.

Hard sometimes to know who we're talking about.
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: It's ART, dammit!
llama_treats
2004-07-15 01:57 am UTC (link)
I'll take Art Pr0n for 1000, Mr. Linkletter!
(Reply to this)(Parent)

pradaloz
2004-07-14 10:37 pm UTC (link)
(And where does the OP get the idea that no one unintentionally makes text too small?)

Seriously. After running across far too many sites marked up in 8 pt font with nasty-ass contrast schemes (or no contrast color scheme at all), I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume some icon makers are unintentionally illegible.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

alpheratz
2004-07-14 08:01 pm UTC (link)
I think icon wank is my favourite wank ever. Thanks, llama_treats.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

llama_treats
2004-07-14 08:19 pm UTC (link)
Don't worry. I'm sure there'll be plenty more where this came from. Who'd have tought that 100 x 100 pixels could cause such grief?
(Reply to this)(Parent)

plazmah
2004-07-14 08:30 pm UTC (link)
I think I was the first un-loyal, un-minion who replied to teh_indy. But unfortunately I don't care whether icons are unintelligable or not. A wanker I am not. *sniff*
(Reply to this)

25th_of_april
2004-07-14 08:49 pm UTC (link)
Mecurtin kinda scares me, because my vision is already pretty awful and I'm only 21. I do not want to think of a day when my vision is so bad that I can't tell when text that fucking tiny is meant to be illegible or not.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

txvoodoo
2004-07-16 12:13 am UTC (link)
Hello, and welcome to my world. *sigh* Due to eye surgery 10 years ago, I had to get bifocals about 5-10 years before I would have had to under normal circumstances.

So yeah, maybe these people mean the text to be illegible, but I don't know that when I see the icon used in a post - each post using it doesn't come with disclaimer about the icon used. So I squint and move back and forth thinking it's me.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

aloysius
2004-07-14 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Using text as an element of graphic design isn't new, and you see text that isn't informative everywhere (e.g. integrated into the background or written in non-Roman alphabets).

But the bottom line is that if she makes an icon with text that isn't supposed to be read, but the majority of people still think it is supposed to, she hasn't utilized this design element well enough. It's not the duty of her audience to read her mind, it's her duty to convince the audience to see it her way. She has failed.

/wank
(Reply to this)(Thread)

crickets
2004-07-15 03:04 am UTC (link)
The most logical and concise rebuttal yet. Word.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

tianxiaode
2004-07-15 10:02 pm UTC (link)
Exactly!
(Reply to this)(Parent)

lurker32
2004-07-14 10:27 pm UTC (link)
Oh, my goodness. There's nothing like MISUNDERSTOOD ARRTEESTS OMG for sheer, exquisite drama. Your average tinhat or rabid HP shipper may throw an impressive shitfit, but they just can't reach that ultrasonic pitch of condescending martyred whine.

Beautiful, beautiful. *sniffles*
(Reply to this)(Thread)

llama_treats
2004-07-14 10:34 pm UTC (link)
*offers tissue*

Now, your icon is a work of art. Whenever I see it, I actually hear the pinging. PING!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

lurker32
2004-07-14 10:37 pm UTC (link)
*blows nose* Why, thank you.

MsA-speak does make a better design element than anything else...
(Reply to this)(Parent)

kookaburra
2004-07-14 11:11 pm UTC (link)
Some things must be sacrificed in order to achieve a good overall design - including the legibility of text. The text then becomes an important element of a larger design, rather than just plain text.

Ah hahahaha! If she decides to become a professional graphic designer, I wish I could have a photo of her first client's face when she tells him that his product's price and information had to be "sacrificed to achieve a good overal design."

Form follows function, people!
(Reply to this)(Thread)

alpheratz
2004-07-15 03:13 pm UTC (link)
I wish I could have a photo of her first client's face

Would it look something like this?

Form follows function, people!

Well, I don't necessarily agree with that, because I don't see what function LJ icons serve besides showing off (and it's a noble purpose, as far as I'm concerned *g*). But in your example, sure.
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

gippity gip
roxannelinton
2004-07-15 10:17 pm UTC (link)
Offtopic, but man, do I love that scene. A beautiful example on cinematography, that brought us art such as this.
*sniffles* Brings a tear to my eye, it really does!
(Reply to this)(Parent)

kookaburra
2004-07-16 10:29 am UTC (link)
The "form follows function" was in response to the overall vibe of aeshetic appeal over everything else, which totally drives me batty.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

thebratqueen
2004-07-14 11:22 pm UTC (link)
that really doesn't make sense seeing as Indy, the person who WROTE this rant, has ASTIGMATISM!

Is this the small font version of "You can't hate on her! She only has three weeks to live!!!!11!!one!!!"?
(Reply to this)(Thread)

sorchar
2004-07-14 11:26 pm UTC (link)
No, I think it's the small-font version of, "I'm not a homophobe! I have gay friends!"
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

thebratqueen
2004-07-15 01:17 am UTC (link)
I'm not a small fontophobe! Plenty of my friends are font size=-5!!
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

littlebitca
2004-07-15 01:43 am UTC (link)
Yeah. Sure. I bet it's a designer font size=-5.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

mpoetess
2004-07-14 11:29 pm UTC (link)
I love that ASTIGMATISM is written all capslocky and big. So those of us with eye problems (ASTIGMATISM in fact!) can read it. That was a kind and generous touch.
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

misswindy
2004-07-14 11:37 pm UTC (link)
*dies laughing* She should have written it in really big font.

ASTIGMATISM!!1!!!!

Like that. ;)
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

llama_treats
2004-07-14 11:45 pm UTC (link)
I can totally hear The Tick yelling that. Thought you ought to know.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

llama_treats
2004-07-14 11:37 pm UTC (link)
I had to lean so far forward to read the small font that I fell off my chair and broke my hip.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

jfpbookworm
2004-07-15 01:52 am UTC (link)
Dude, I called it. Right down to the name.

As for this icon, it's not intentionally illegible. I just don't know how to reformat the graph to make it more readable.
(Reply to this)(Thread)

llama_treats
2004-07-15 02:12 am UTC (link)
What does the legend say? I was wondering the other times I've seen it...
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jfpbookworm
2004-07-15 04:38 am UTC (link)
"Perceived Ability"
"Perceived Test Score"
"Actual Test Score"

It's from this article, entitled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments."
(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

llama_treats
2004-07-15 11:55 am UTC (link)
A very interesting article! Thanks.
(Reply to this)(Parent)

frodaish
2004-07-15 07:24 am UTC (link)
Damnit you beat me to it.

I don't really give 2 shits about icons, so I guess I skipped the rant yesterday.
(Reply to this)

blue_linnet
2004-07-15 08:41 am UTC (link)
I enjoyed mercurtin's response to the condescending and utterly pointless 'did you even read the post'. I see that accusation flung around so frequently it hardly makes an impression on me anymore, but God is it irritating, especially when that's the entirety of the rebuttal.

It's not like she was saying 'all small-text iconmakers should DIE', so what is the big deal? So she doesn't like a particular brand of icons.
(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2004-07-15 11:16 am UTC (link)
Some fine wank on the subject of 4 x 4 drivers (http://chat.dailymail.co.uk/dailymail/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=196&thread=9646708&message=10495400) at the Daily Mail forums. I especially like the woman who uses "flossing" as a swear word.

snowballjane on LJ
(Reply to this)