<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s up with the new Photoshop icon &amp; branding?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 03:22:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dallas Peters</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1827</link>
		<dc:creator>Dallas Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Umm...don&#039;t like the icons. Make your own and use them. I dig &#039;em and won&#039;t have to waste my time. I did however dig the white type of CS3 a bit more than the black transparent in CS4.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm&#8230;don&#8217;t like the icons. Make your own and use them. I dig &#8216;em and won&#8217;t have to waste my time. I did however dig the white type of CS3 a bit more than the black transparent in CS4.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alkemy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1826</link>
		<dc:creator>alkemy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Must admit that the new style is   dazzling.But have always wondered how they come up with those smooth curves in their splash screens.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Must admit that the new style is   dazzling.But have always wondered how they come up with those smooth curves in their splash screens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mansour</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1825</link>
		<dc:creator>Mansour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indeed, we need to change the icons for more sense. Legend for me is something important to the success of an integrated.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, we need to change the icons for more sense. Legend for me is something important to the success of an integrated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kev</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1824</link>
		<dc:creator>Kev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also agree that icons need to be symbols or images and reading (even if its one or two letters) takes an extra step of brain power to recognize an app.
Adobe has so many apps so there is no way they can keep the colors apart.  (Might have worked for a company with a less than 10 products)
I hope for CS4 they would rethink this system or atleast give an option to select from 2 (or more) sets of icon themes that is defined by some sort of global Adobe setting on the machine.
I noticed that some of the later apps (like AMP and AIR) are starting to use real icons even though the single color box remains (I can live with the box) I think this is a good sign and lets keep our fingers crossed.
This would still keep those &quot;simplisity junkies&quot; happy while letting the icons do the job of being icons!
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also agree that icons need to be symbols or images and reading (even if its one or two letters) takes an extra step of brain power to recognize an app.<br />
Adobe has so many apps so there is no way they can keep the colors apart.  (Might have worked for a company with a less than 10 products)<br />
I hope for CS4 they would rethink this system or atleast give an option to select from 2 (or more) sets of icon themes that is defined by some sort of global Adobe setting on the machine.<br />
I noticed that some of the later apps (like AMP and AIR) are starting to use real icons even though the single color box remains (I can live with the box) I think this is a good sign and lets keep our fingers crossed.<br />
This would still keep those &#8220;simplisity junkies&#8221; happy while letting the icons do the job of being icons!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yann le coroller</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1823</link>
		<dc:creator>yann le coroller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not very pleased with the solution adobe chose.
First if it improves on previous ones which were a total mess, Types are not the fastest way to recognize an Icon. It&#039;s even in the definition of the word icon, it&#039;s an image. And that image should tell as much as possible about the function of the app. And then color and shape blah blah blah...
But what I think is very wrong is if that design work may work in the Adobe ecosystem it would fail totally systemwide. Imagine Apple chose that in 84 and everybody followed : what a mess would be the system today !
So I really think they should go back to the very basic work of icon design and do Icons. you know...
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not very pleased with the solution adobe chose.<br />
First if it improves on previous ones which were a total mess, Types are not the fastest way to recognize an Icon. It&#8217;s even in the definition of the word icon, it&#8217;s an image. And that image should tell as much as possible about the function of the app. And then color and shape blah blah blah&#8230;<br />
But what I think is very wrong is if that design work may work in the Adobe ecosystem it would fail totally systemwide. Imagine Apple chose that in 84 and everybody followed : what a mess would be the system today !<br />
So I really think they should go back to the very basic work of icon design and do Icons. you know&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1822</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have to laugh at the people yearning for feathers and butterflies—Listen to yourselves, FEATHERS AND BUTTERFLIES?
From an ability to easily identify and select their icons, Adobe&#039;s done a great job here, the periodic table of apps is a great solution to identifying the dizzying array of apps now offered by Adobe. I have to admit that while I grew fond of the old PS 3.x and 4.x icons.
&lt;i&gt;[Yeah, PS3 was my favorite.  I don&#039;t know why they went back to the black-and-red-only thing for PS4.  It&#039;s Adobe, not the White Stripes...  --J.]&lt;/i&gt;
I detested them from there on out. This redesign is a remarkable improvement in function, elegance, and usability.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to laugh at the people yearning for feathers and butterflies—Listen to yourselves, FEATHERS AND BUTTERFLIES?<br />
From an ability to easily identify and select their icons, Adobe&#8217;s done a great job here, the periodic table of apps is a great solution to identifying the dizzying array of apps now offered by Adobe. I have to admit that while I grew fond of the old PS 3.x and 4.x icons.<br />
<i>[Yeah, PS3 was my favorite.  I don't know why they went back to the black-and-red-only thing for PS4.  It's Adobe, not the White Stripes...  --J.]</i><br />
I detested them from there on out. This redesign is a remarkable improvement in function, elegance, and usability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rob coen</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1821</link>
		<dc:creator>rob coen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AMAZING...!
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AMAZING&#8230;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David law</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1820</link>
		<dc:creator>David law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1820</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bad design makes me ill too, honestly.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bad design makes me ill too, honestly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andre</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1819</link>
		<dc:creator>Andre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 12:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[okay, as a graphic design, I have to say I am a bit slow to recognize words. I rely on shapes and colors together more than words. Of course you can say word are shapes but dont you think a butterfly is easier to recognize than seperate between FS and PS. Thus, I think it&#039;s an eyesore to see my file&#039;s icon (i got zillion of files in every directory/desktop etc..) turn into those ugly-looking-thing. Ok, the font is good but I would never want a big slap of gradient color on my icons. I agree with one of the comments says it does looks like a placeholder for a further development of icons.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>okay, as a graphic design, I have to say I am a bit slow to recognize words. I rely on shapes and colors together more than words. Of course you can say word are shapes but dont you think a butterfly is easier to recognize than seperate between FS and PS. Thus, I think it&#8217;s an eyesore to see my file&#8217;s icon (i got zillion of files in every directory/desktop etc..) turn into those ugly-looking-thing. Ok, the font is good but I would never want a big slap of gradient color on my icons. I agree with one of the comments says it does looks like a placeholder for a further development of icons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ann Shelbourne</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1818</link>
		<dc:creator>Ann Shelbourne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 20:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have not heard further complaints from me because I replaced the entire set of CS3 icons within 30 minutes of installing the programs as I found them so offensively ugly and confusingly indistinguishable in use.
I had totally forgotten about those CS3 abominations because I no longer have to suffer even a glimpse of the horrible things!
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have not heard further complaints from me because I replaced the entire set of CS3 icons within 30 minutes of installing the programs as I found them so offensively ugly and confusingly indistinguishable in use.<br />
I had totally forgotten about those CS3 abominations because I no longer have to suffer even a glimpse of the horrible things!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taber</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1817</link>
		<dc:creator>Taber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 00:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My style is all about simplicity, so I think the new icons are great! They solve the design/communication problem you guys were facing, and the Slimbach font is nice! However I gotta disagree with the claim that they aren&#039;t periodic table elements. Maybe that wasn&#039;t your intention, but... I mean come on. :)
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My style is all about simplicity, so I think the new icons are great! They solve the design/communication problem you guys were facing, and the Slimbach font is nice! However I gotta disagree with the claim that they aren&#8217;t periodic table elements. Maybe that wasn&#8217;t your intention, but&#8230; I mean come on. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1816</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
What a confusing mess. If this is in any way accurate - who would support this?
&lt;i&gt;[Funny, I don&#039;t hear complaints from people who&#039;ve actually *used* the icons.  --J.]&lt;/i&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/" rel="nofollow">http://guckenheim.org/2006/12/21/adobe-creative-suite-3-icons/</a><br />
What a confusing mess. If this is in any way accurate &#8211; who would support this?<br />
<i>[Funny, I don't hear complaints from people who've actually *used* the icons.  --J.]</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1815</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These icons are easy to use and they do tie all the products together, but why do I keep having the feeling that something is wrong with them, and why couldn&#039;t I put my finger on it?
Then I suddenly realized what the problem is. They aren&#039;t icons at all! They are buttons. No wonder they look out of place--they are!
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These icons are easy to use and they do tie all the products together, but why do I keep having the feeling that something is wrong with them, and why couldn&#8217;t I put my finger on it?<br />
Then I suddenly realized what the problem is. They aren&#8217;t icons at all! They are buttons. No wonder they look out of place&#8211;they are!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1814</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have to say right out that I&#039;m not much of a picture person; I work best with words. I like things to look pretty, but I&#039;m not an arteest.
The new icons are functional. I won&#039;t find myself launching the wrong application by mistake; that&#039;s true. They also have a common theme that makes it very clear that they are related [Adobe] products.
Even though I respond better to text than to pictures, and these icons have text on them, they do look like placeholder art to me. They are misfits on the dock and they don&#039;t follow the whimsical tradition of Mac icons in general. (I love the rubby ducky for Cyberduck, for instance.)
I think you did a good job, but the icons don&#039;t look like they were made by artists using Adobe products. You did about as much as could be expected the first time around, but you should thinking of ways to improve them for the next release.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say right out that I&#8217;m not much of a picture person; I work best with words. I like things to look pretty, but I&#8217;m not an arteest.<br />
The new icons are functional. I won&#8217;t find myself launching the wrong application by mistake; that&#8217;s true. They also have a common theme that makes it very clear that they are related [Adobe] products.<br />
Even though I respond better to text than to pictures, and these icons have text on them, they do look like placeholder art to me. They are misfits on the dock and they don&#8217;t follow the whimsical tradition of Mac icons in general. (I love the rubby ducky for Cyberduck, for instance.)<br />
I think you did a good job, but the icons don&#8217;t look like they were made by artists using Adobe products. You did about as much as could be expected the first time around, but you should thinking of ways to improve them for the next release.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Andrew Borders</title>
		<link>http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_up_with_the_new_photoshop_icon_brand.html#comment-1813</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Andrew Borders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.adobe.com/jnackdev/2006/12/whats-up-with-the-new-photoshop-icon-branding.html#comment-1813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new icons are extremely disappointing!
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The new icons are extremely disappointing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
