The new flat icon for opening Files looks like something that Microsoft would do. I hope OpenSuSE isn’t following in Microsoft’s footsteps. Computers have been using 3-d icons for years and years. There’s not valid reason to go back to windows 3.1 graphics.
Again, the only thing we get here is that you are opening a file (or more files). It is evident that it is not in thje CLI, but in the GUI. But there it stops. Which desktop? Which program, etc., etc.
I’m using Gnome. I’m referring to the icon for the shortcut that opens the Files application. It used to look like a file cabinet with a couple drawers. At first look I didn’t realize what the new icon represented.
For ages we used horse and carriage for transport. We don’t anymore. Same goes for design insights. They change. And the change to a more Material look, i.e. flat, no 3-D has for example resulted in improvement for people with bad eyesight, colorblind people. The arguing “have been for years …” doesn’t count. We are not going back to handwriting on animal skin products, not even to printing everything in books.
I agree with your statements. A simple explanation that the “new” appearance is for sight impaired people would have been enough. But, since you brought it up, allow me to restate a point. Up until Windows 95, icons were flat 2-D objects. Then, along came 3-D and a lot of hype was made of it. Now, Microsoft is back to 2-D graphics and it appears that this will be the way of OpenSuSE Leap. So, from an end user perspective it really does look like we are going back to the horse and carriage.
No,
You’ll find plenty posted online over the past decade (Yes, it’s been discussed that long) by GUI Developers.
The standard reason given for “flat, 2D” icon images is that the image can be used in different resolution displays, particularly if the roadmap includes eventually evolving into a “universal desktop” that is used on a multitude of devices from large screens to tiny displays in phones (particularly lower resolution displays of yesterday). Te 3D types of images with shading becomes muddied at low resolutions and tiny screens.
Over the years, the idea of a universal Desktop which would require icons that would be acceptable on all devices has had a spotty record.
Ubuntu of course was a major practitioner until it junked its Unity Desktop.
You know that it’s one of the least popular features of Win8 and later, the use of tiles with flat graphics.
The simple solution of course is what Malcolm suggests… choose a different Theme.
And it’s precisely this ability to use different themes that a universal Desktop may never actually become reality unless someone dreams up something new that never existed before.
Ignoring the hype, I use KDE Plasma with the Oxygen Theme because, it looks just (3-D) fine …
And yes, I’m “anti-Breeze” …
[HR][/HR]I must admit however, when Oxygen ceased being the “KDE flavour of the month”, unfortunately, it wasn’t being maintained for a while – the artist moved within Europe to more a more lucrative city – but, after a while, and with some pushing, support for Oxygen reappeared …
[HR][/HR]So, “to 3-D or, not to 3-D – that is the question” …
IMHO, attempting to “please all of the people all of the time
” is doomed to failure – as Abraham Lincoln pointed out more than a few years ago. - I, personally, would be happy with “2-D on pocket sized devices” «such as mobile telephones
» and “3-D on modern workplace displays” «more than 27 inches diagonal and rather more resolution than 1920x1080 pixels and, curved … »
