Adobe CS Iconography

My thoughts exactly. I bought the full suite, and find that I am relying heavily on the dock's "showing the icon title upon rollover" feature to figure out which program is which.

My first thought when I saw the CS suite's new packaging (besides my initial positive impression) was,"Where is Venus? Where is the eye in the lens?" Those graphics were so recognizable; they didn't even leave a hint of them in the new design. For those of us that have been using these products since the very early versions, this is troubling. It's like driving around one day and seeing that the stop sign is now a pink rhombus.

Actually, the icons don't form a "creative bouquet" because Photoshop/ImageReady icons are feathers and InDesign is a butterfly. I suppose they are "pieces of nature" or something. If the dock didn't show the titles of these apps before I select them I would have no idea which to click on. The icons are pretty much worthless until I memorize them. At least Macromedia's ugly new icons use the first letter of the app so I have a chance of figuring them out.

RE: Venus

I forgot to mention Venus in my post. Her imagery didn't necessarily have anything to do -- on a purely technical level -- with illustration either. Yet they did render her hair and other facial features as vector art. A photo-realistic flower is not the same thing.

RE: Butterfly, feather

My mistake. I only purchased Illustrator CS, and at first brush it appeard the whole suite (as indicated on the outside of the Suite's packaging) was a collection of flowers, or at least plant life of some kind. But...my original point still holds. I dare someone to explain what a feather has to do with editing photography, or a butterfly with page layout. :)

What might be even worse is that the ImageReady, Photoshop and InDesign icons are almost identical in shape, making Illustrator the only icon that somewhat stands out in the doc. I've had to mentally map "green" to photoshop (green feather), "yellow" to Image Ready (2 yellow feathers), etc. screen cap

It's as if Adobe or Macromedia think that by changing the icon we'll think that the software's that much better. Maybe once they can't dramically improve software anymore the only thing left to change is to change the iconography.

Agree completely, Todd. With the new definition available in OS X icons how come we never see any with type? A "Ph," "InD," and "Ill" (hah, ok, maybe not) would be more user-friendly than any symbol.

I've been hearing a lot of buzz about a rebirth of Neuveau and biomorphic design. Maybe some marketing twit at Adobe decided that nature was the new black.

I would agree with the observations here, but no one is forced to use these icons. Download some more tradtional ones and swap them out, or use your old ones. They are all customizable.

I'm sure the pretty picture icons are to lessen the hole that the software companies have left on your credit cards. Kinda of sympathy thing or maybe it's tied in with the other updated farce ,the new money. When are people going to stop buying every "new" upgrade and force these companies to fix the promises they have never lived up to in the first place? Adobe is terribly, re: Acrobat 4, 5 & 6, Ills 9-10 to name two. I'm glad Illustrator is better, it certainly can't be any worse, but I'd venture to guess that the file sizes haven't come down one bit. And why should anyone have to upgrade to get a better feel, what 10 was all about? Until you stop feeding them, they're gonna keep consuming you and leaving you with nothing more than flowers, feathers and b-flies. Get a grip on the "gotta haves"and start holding these companies to task. Can you tell me how these new CS versions are so much better?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe MetaDesign did the entire identity for the new release of the Adobe Creative Suite

At my school there is an Adobe CS poster and it says that Peter Saville and some other person created that image on the box. Maybe I mis-read!?

Well, if you visit the MetaDesign website, their homepage claims they were responsible for much of the new identity. It's possible Peter Saville is part of their team, though I know he is not one of the primary partners. I'd be surprised if MetaDesign was giving individual credit on such a project; they are a hugely successful design firm with a very big reputation in the industry.

Either way, I'm mixed on the new identity. I'm not particuarly fond of the new icons or packaging for that matter, but I appreciate they are, as Todd mentioned, trying something a little different.

Venus is still there, she is just wearing really bad makeup. Hold down the option when selecting the "about" screen.
Poor Botticelli must have turned in his grave so many times, I am glad Venus can now relax a little bit. (Will write a piece about her progression from a bitmap lady in the very first version of illustrator to the quite scary interpretations in some later versions.)
Todd, you should have bought the entire Suite. The image that makes it all appear like a collection of applications is this very nice little System called Version Cue. It is very interesting and you especially would certainly get a real kick out of its workings.
Can you return Illustrator and just upgrade your Photoshop to the entire Suite?... : ) If you buy it through my site, I might buy Flash through yours...
; )

There seems to be this theme with a strangely bitten Apple all over the system I am using here. How does an "Apple" translate into "Computer"?
; )
And could it be that it has secretly something to do with the Venus that had been used for the Adobe Illustrator cover screen?... (I think there is very strong connection and I have the feeling that the pink flower was originally supposed to be a Rose. Rose=Pink in most languages, and so you have the symbolism being carried nicely and in a very subtle and good way... but that's just a side note...)
When I look at the new Adobe Iconography, I have new hope that there is intelligent life out there.

ok, I'll bite (HA!):

> How does an “Apple” translate into “Computer”?

The computer brand is called Apple. The logo for the brand is an Apple. Apples and computers have nothing to do with one another on a fundamental level, but Apple started as a computer manufacturer, built up its image as such, and thereby the brand makes sense. What would be *odd* is if Apple suddently and without good reason changed its logo to a monkey.

I think the point Todd is trying to make is there is no connection between a flower and an illustration program. Adobe had worked hard to imbed the icongraphy of venus as being synonomous with Illustrator, and this sudden change seems illogical. It seems especially illogical considering the image of a flower doesn't *help* the move the brand forward, *nor* does it make the user experience any more simple.

With all that said, however, it may be annoying but in the end, if illustrator does it's job better than it did before, than the icon is fundamentally irrelevant.

Oddly enough, QuarkXpress 6.0's OS X icon is also a flower. It's even in a similar shape to the Illustrator CS flower. Coincidence?

As an aside, does anyone have a larger screenshot of all the Adobe CS icons together for comparison? Adobe's website doesn't even show the suite's icons.

Dear CM, yes, it would be probably odd if Apple changed their logo and started using a monkey. We would not find it as dramatic though if Apple dropped the colors off the logo, and, actually dropped the name "Apple" of all of its packaging, leaving us with something more of an idea of what is there, not an actual Apple, or a Monkey... (Monkeys tend to get the laughs.) : )
You know as well as I do that Venus and a Rose symbolise a similar idea. If you have Illustrator 10 around, look closely at the startup screen and you will see that the roses are there... as they are in the Botticelli original. The Botticelli original has a whole swarm of roses in it.
When I saw the pink (rosé) flower (and what to me looks like the outline of a five petal flower in the upper right corner of the start up screen of Illustrator 11, I really was glad that finally somebody was smart enough to stop forcing Botticelli's venus through those "look what tools we have now" makeovers.)
So, I am not really comparing Apples to Monkeys here. (Though Monkeys tend to get the laughs, I agree.) A monkey is a monkey is a monkey? hmm...

As for that Quark Flower... well... Is this the kind of a flower that will die, once it is visited by a butterfly?
; )

Being able to change the icon isn't really a solution when you work in teams. If I change all my icons back to the old style and then have to switch to another computer I'm screwed. I'll never remember what the pink flower is. Plus, somebody else who has to work at my station will also get confused by all the old icons - like maybe I didn't get the upgrade or something.

Well, my guess is that everyone will soon get used to Adobe's new icons for the CS Suite.

I believe that it doesn't matter (much) what the icons represent as long as they are uniquely identifiable (stand out) and recognisable.

Icons for 'Send e-mail', 'Home' or 'Bigger text' is a different story. Here function and form are closely connected.

My point is that once you have used Illustrator a couple of times, you will mentally link the pink flower with 'Illustrator' and that is all what is required in this case. I could have been anything, really, as long as it hasn't been used before.

Yes. I agree... : )

For your reference, you can see the CS icon collection here.
I agree with Todd in that it's somewhat counterproductive to spend years developing the visual identity of the Adobe product lineup, only to tear it down and start over from scratch. However, artistically, I think the new icon sets are beautiful. I also question the idea that once a software developer has picked a visual icon (in Illustrators case, that would be Venus), that that company has to then stick with that identity for all eternity. Many companies, much larger than Adobe, have changed their logos over the years in a "re-branding" effort. I don't see why Adobe shouldn't be allowed to do the same (which I don't think Todd is saying, but you get my drift.)

The whole 128pix photorealistic icon thing in Mac OS X is stupid. Icon must be essential and abstract, not a photo gag.

Adobe's Photoshop icons has been refined over the years. There was the rainbow-bordered eye icon, then a red-bordered eye, and then a shift to the blue-bordered eye with the filter . For me, bigger visual shift is the colour, not the icon, especially for the PSD files themselves. It might take me a while to get use to looking for green PSD files.

In Adobe's shift towards providing a suite, their icon strategy works. It's more consistent as a set than trying to meld together all the previous icons: an eye (Photoshop), Venus (Illustrator), a compass (ImageReady), a planet with a hand (GoLive), and a butterfly (InDesign)

Shane: Thanks for the screenshot. You wouldn't by chance happen to have a screenshot of the 128x128 resolution CS icons handy, would you? =)

There's a small article on this change in this month's Macworld. Also a link here with some quotes. According to MetaDesign, precision, beauty, and inspiration were the three points behind the re-design. "A nature theme satisfied all those attributes," says MetaDesign executive creative director Brett Wickens. "Nature became the lens through which we looked to define the images of each product."

He also notes they were overhauling the box art for products aimed at illustrators, graphic artists, and other folks who know a thing or two about effective designs. "You're talking about probably one of the most cynical and critical markets on earth," Wickens says. "So it's tough."

Welcome to your nightmare . . .

This is a growing problem we've been experiencing with our clients. They want the packaging to extend to the desktop. In their eyes, it's a way to carry the product branding a step further.

As has been noted above, usability suffers when this happens. We recommend against the practice, but when there are huge advertising budgets behind the branding, there's not much you can do.

Sure. For a fellow starving artist, anything.
;)
By request, you can see the 128 x 128 Adobe CS icon lineup here.
Not to stray too far off-topic, but I was also particularly impressed with the case that the five CDs (yes, 5!) came in (please excuse the relatively poor picture quality). Instead of the standard paper sleeve, this case had two hinged holders that held one CD per side. In keeping with the new CS theme, the CDs also made good use negative space by printing the negative shape of a leaf on each disc in white. All-in-all I thought the overall design was well thought out and cohesive. But just like Macromedia's Studio MX 2004 package (and what is seemingly a common practice for software publishers nowadays), Adobe's Creative Suite Premium (which is Photoshop/ImageReady, Illustrator, GoLive, InDesign, Acrobat Pro [which still uses a non-CS themed icon interestingly enough], and Version Cue. Altogether seven apps!) came with a tiny little manual. I left it to gather dust in the CS box.
;P

It would be really cool if at the end of an installation Adobe CS would offer you a splash screen with options of... umm.. say 3 or 5 different icon sets and start-up screens. This would allow users to select the one they'd like the most and could memorize the most easily.

With problems like these, it's strange you guys get any work done at all..

As a designer of logos myself, I can see that Adobe really wanted to show the full integration of all applications in one family. Change is good when it's warrented. And those icons look very good.
As for myself, I'll probably be using both Illustrator 10 and CS at the same time (technical difference is saving files). I enjoy the fact that the icons are different.
Another subject of concern is the naming of the suite. Will they go the Macromedia way next year and name the follow-up CS 2005?

I have to agree to be honest. I havent purchased the new suite yet but have seen the results of change. How hard would it have been to go down the StudioMX route and make obvious, usable icons for us to look at.

Adobe have slightly missed on the packaging im afraid.

Quark's logo is a lotus, a symbol of enlightenment to a fifth of the world's population. Personally, my enlightenment came when I quit using Quark.

If it's a dog-turd on a stick, it's a logo! I hate to say this cos all u people and Todd are so much more intelligent than i'll ever be (i'm a designer and still rubbish at it) but all this wordage about one little minute smidgeon of nothing - peeps, i say this with love and respect, u be needing some more fresh air in your daily lives, you're hyperventilating.
And what did Botticelli, the master, do to deserve the godawful glossy gradient treatment in the first place?
Why flowers and feathers? WHY NOT?! Get out. Now.
PS Usability my arse.

: )
well... ; )
carry on...

Now, no software design decision -program icons included- is meant to become an unchangeable, static paradigm forever and ever. Sure we got used to Photoshop's eye and Ilustrator's Venus imagery over the years, but the way I see it it's not like a big deal to argue about, even if I get confused at times.

I'm still pondering what in earth have feathers to do with Photoshop, though.

It's been very interesting reading all the comments here regarding our redesign of the Adobe packaging and iconography, both good and bad.

Here are a few comments, straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak) as we at MetaDesign were responsible for the redesign.

1) The MacWorld quote misquoted me. It should have read 'precision, beauty and aspiration', not inspiration.

2) Peter Saville had nothing to do with makeover. I was formerly Peter's design partner in the UK and I commissioned him on behalf of Adobe to produce two of his trademark 'Waste Paintings', one of which we used on one side of a limited edition poster for Design schools.

3) For a better article on the 'making of' the new packaging, etc., and all that went it to it, check out the December issue of Computer Arts (UK), which dedicated a whole supplement to it.

4) Yes, there are people who like the new look, those that don't, and those that are undecided. But there were very few ways to find newly tortured forms of either Venus or the Eye. We looked at them all and decided that - especially with the integration concept of VersionCue - that commonality was important. Nature provided a good metaphor for the role of design software... beauty in nature can be described in mathematical terms (the spirals of a shell, the growth patterns of flora, snowflakes, etc.) Likewise, anything created with any product from Adobe Creative Suite is also being described mathematically - code for the digital files that creates what you are looking at, living on your hard drive.

5) The CS Standard and Premium both use a leave motif. The stalk is a metaphor for VersionCue, and the former version has three leaves (because it contains three products), the latter has five leaves for the same reason.

6) The former Adobe icons were all based on a square frame format. Not much has changed their, except we moved the complex frame to a simple 'tablet' or 'canvas', and reintroduced white space so the singular forms would 'pop'.

7) The collage style, long a hallmark of the product packaging, represented a different time when packaging was used to show every possible feature of the software. After nearly fifteen years of existence, there's no need to be so literal. People know what Photoshop and Illustrator are. They are to the designer what Office is to the workplace.

8) Feathers were one of the original drawing/illustrating tools. Stars were the original navigation technology. Flowers are present in the original Venus painting. Butterflies were already established in the InDesign packaging, so already fit the scheme. That may answer some of the comments in this forum.

9) I haven't used Quark since v4, though I understand they have a lily pad motif and that is the type of flower they use on their icon. It had no bearing on what we designed for InDesign (butterflies).

10) Sometimes evolution needs revolution. Coke redesigns it's logo every five years, but you wouldn't notice from one period to the next. But take the one from 100 years ago and put it next to today's, and the difference is quite profound. We are not talking about Coke here. The Adobe packaging had evolved over the past 10-15 years, but not enough to either keep pace with changing tastes in the marketplace - OR - signal that a really new version of something important was coming out.

11) Reintroducing a bias towards properly-set Myriad is certainly more contemporary and appealing than 'ad-spaced' Minion. The mix of the two (which are Adobe original fonts) is appropriate.

12) Packaging and icons based on the initial letters of a product are monograms - not icons. And English is not everyone's first language. Yes, Microsoft Office and Macromedia do it. Should that become the standard, or should different companies establish and exude their own personality?

12) Good design is not about what you put in. It's about what you leave out.

- Brett Wickens, MetaDesign

Personally, I am fairly fond of the new set of icons. They have a nice cohesiveness about them. The main problem I have with them is the Illustrator icon. The others have a color scheme that complements each other. But the pink flower doesn't fit in well. If the the flower were more of an earthy orange or something (like on the wing of the butterfly or the feather for ImageReady), I think it would work better.

Does anyone want to create a replacement set of icon's for those of us who don't like the pink? I'm not too good at Photoshop, but it seams the new color replacement feature might work for this. Anyone good at making/reworking icons?

That was the first thing I said, when I installed Illustrator CS. I guess adobe is getting too selfish regarding the GUI business. I replaced the old icon with the new one, simply because the new one sucks.

Well, I like the new icon. I've been using this app for years and frankly I'm happy to see something a little different. I mean, why not. Am I so easily upset-able that I'm going to bemoan the fact that the icon is different? After all, it's the software that matters. Which, by the way, has lots of nice improvements. If you are looking for some custom icons, though, I recommend this site: www.xicons.com

I am new to this forum but I'm glad I found it.

I did a Google search on "Hate the new Adobe CS package" and wound up here. Where I not only read posts from other designers concerned about the new logos and icons, but I also read a post from one of the people who designed them. Amazing.

Anyway, I understand the rationale behind the new design, but for me design fails if it fails to communicate. This design effort, though well thought out and well paid for, fails to do the job of basic communication. Bring back the eye and the Venus, please.

Len (Preston)...

"...for me design fails if it fails to communicate"

And the eye and the Venus communicated exactly what?

- Brett

I wonder if there is a secret competition between Adobe and Microsoft to see which will come out with the lamest icons. So far, Microsoft is winning, but only by the slenderest of margins.

Not that I am arguing the old icons were sacred cows, but the new ones are completely meaningless and hard to distinguish on the dock (apart from the pink Illustrator Squoosh ball). MetaDesign's tortured rationalizations strike me as exactly the kind of high-concept gobbledygook Dilbert would poke fun at.

I just installed CS on a new machine, and I am looking for the old icons to replace the new ones (I don't really feel like removing CS, reinstalling Photoshop 7 and reinstalling CS just for an icon). They are copyrighted, but surely they can be found somewhere? Failing that, does anybody have a replacement set somewhere?

I, too, stumbled across this site after a Google search, though one not quite so constricting as Mr. Preston's. A simple "Adobe CS Icons" did it for me.

After reading Mr. Wickens' comments, I see more the rationale behind the overhaul, and am inclined to agree with it. A few questions remain, however:

1) Why is Illustrator some sort of purple daisy or carnation, and not a rose, or even one of the flowers on the box? Every other icon actually appears on the box; Illustrator's flower seems to be culled from FTD.

2) GoLive's star icon is all murky and black. Howzabout a nice royal purple?

3) And why are all the "nature" elements resting on giant Altoids? Or are they pillows? The texture of the white things seems weird and cutesy.

Contrary to the majority of posts on this page I love the new identity. Maybe that is to do with the fact that I'm a graphic designer and I look at the icons 20 times a day, every day. I do agree however, as much of a fresh change these are my first impressions were a little let down after they came out with that great icon for Photoshop 7.