Windows 3.11 HD
A flat icon set for OS X
11–20 of 58 posts
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#12Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#13Along the same vein: http://appicns.com
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#14Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#15I like these, but they seem a bit fuzzy to my non retina macbook display. Particularly the music and calendar app icons just seem overly aliased. Can anyone else confirm?
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#16I've also seen dozens and dozens of flat icon sets for Android that basically have this same exact look. Just go to XDA or the Play Store and search "flat icons", I'm sure you'll find a bunch that have a mix of these designs.
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#17Here is my new dock: http://imgur.com/2vEM5Yv
Why the down vote?
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#18Windows 3.11 HD
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#19I may be in the minority, but these feel really boring and dull to me. I think there is a way to have a "flat" icon while still providing some depth to them. I've also seen dozens and dozens of flat icon sets for Android that basically have this same exact look. Just go to XDA or the Play Store and search "flat icons", I'm sure you'll find a bunch that have a mix of these designs.
Re: A flat icon set for OS X
#20Some say the change is driven by high-DPI displays. I disagree. I don't see any intrinsic reason that flat designs look better than rich, three-dimensional designs on a high-DPI display. Without a doubt, flat can look nice, but so can things like this:
http://www.sequelpro.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/seq...
Another justification I've heard is that it's a reaction to the excesses of the previous trend. People often point to the leather motif in certain Apple applications as an example of such excess. But first of all, those examples are outliers; few designs actually went that far. Second, the existence of a questionable use of a given style is not an effective argument against that style in general. Third, "some things were extremely 3d, so now we'll be extremely flat" seems like contrarianism for contrarianism's sake.
[1] Some call this skeuomorphism. I tend not to, because the term technically means something narrower than what we're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph