Numen omen

A Wikipedia article states that "a computer icon is a small pictogram (...) which represents a file, folder, application or device on a computer operating system." Apple adds that icons "help communicate what you can do with an application before you open it." The already mentioned Wikipedia entry also says that "the icon must be original, distinctive, and tiny and it must be useful on a wide variety of monitors set at different resolutions." Quite a complex and difficult, yet important task, isn't it?

It is generally agreed that a well-designed and distinctive icon can make a good impression on the users. Of course, it would be silly to choose a particular browser based solely on its icon design, but if you came across a page recommending a few (unknown) browsers, I am quite sure you would click on a well designed icon as it gives an impression of being a more professional product.


Now look at the picture. There are icons of twenty web browsers (more or less popular) in it (Internet Explorer appears twice, as one icon belongs to the Windows version 7 and the other to an already discontinued Mac version). How many can you recognize? (hint: icons appear in alphabetical order). Which would you click if you were asked to launch a web browser (provided you were not using any of them, of course). What made you choose that particular icon? Would you be able to recognize all those web browsers’ icons if they were placed among hundred other icons of different programmes?

Apple suggests that an icon should give you an idea of what the purpose of the application is. This requirement is often hard to meet and in my opinion not really necessary as icons serve as visual mnemonics and can be anything you like as long as they help you remember what they represent. This does not mean obviously that application developers should make them hard to decipher for the users.

You have probably noticed that those twenty icons share certain characteristics. The most striking is perhaps the use of globe (or sphere) as the representation of the fact that it is a World Wide Web after all. Also, many applications display the first letter of their name in their logo (this includes the Opera logo, of course). Still others (e.g. Firefox) prefer to use a picture to convey their name. As for colours, blue is the most dominant whilst red is used only in Opera logo really (not taking into account small touches of in it in other icon designs like the pointer of the compass in Safari). There are also elements of navigation present in some of the designs too which may suggest the programme is used for browsing or navigating the web. Interestingly, there is only one icon suggesting surfing (a fish on the wave from Shiira), a pretty obvious collocation with the web, in my opinion.

So how does Opera icon stuck up? In my opinion, and you may well be of a different one, it is not really as appealing shiny and professional as others. Sure it is not the worst (I think that place goes for Amaya -- the first icon on the list), but it is inferior to many others including those of Open Source products which historically (but that is changing now) have always had the worst visual representation.

Another, maybe even more interesting question is if it needs a redesign. And if yes, should the developers (or rather designers) just add a few touches to make the icon more flashy and professional or should they design a completely different one from grounds up and perhaps make it more telling of the application purpose. You should bare in my mind that companies mostly opt for the first option, especially if the product's icon also happens to be their brand image (as is the case with Opera). Obviously, Opera could still keep the big red 'O' as their company logo and create a completely new icon for its internet suite, namely Opera browser.

My opinion? In a nutshell, I believe Opera deserves a totally new icon and the company a more professional design (though it would be probably well if the latter was based on the current one). What about yours?

One of Flock developers, Zbigniew Braniecki (aka Gandalf), has written an interesting article "What are the widgets for?" in which he expresses his doubts about the usefulness of the whole concept. At first I wanted to post a reply in his blog, but since my answer has become a bit longish, I decided to post a whole entry here.

I am going to refer directly to quotes from Gandalf's article, so I suggest reading it first.

Since the first news about Opera 9, we all knew that there will be a widget system. Since the first preview build, users can touch them. But until now, Opera community and Opera company, failed to clear the signal about what the widgets are for at all.

First, widgets are available since Opera preview 2, not the first build.

In my opinion, they could also add a small car racing game and/or guitar tuner.

No, it's not the same. That argument is like saying you do not get Firefox extensions thing as they could as well have implemented mouse gestures or added colourful tabs instead. Opera developers give you a tool to build cross-platform (and that includes phones with Opera Mobile) mini applications that can access the net, so you can add guitar tuner or racing game if you like, and much more!

I can hardly imagine anyone using widgets on a daily routines (...), or that someone will use Opera because of the widgets.

Again extensions analogy: I can hardly imagine any Joe Smith will use Firefox because of the extensions. He will use it because of its simplicity, security, and coolness factor attached to it. Besides, I do not think that widgets are for the average Joe (though, they are easier to handle than Firefox extensions, IMHO). They are for more technically minded people who like to tune their browser environment (and not necessary the browser itself as with extensions). Sure, you can use it for silly things like fancy display of weather forecast or calendar (and if you find it useful, then why not), but their real value is that they let you organise the small little tasks you do regularly (like checking selected news of a few websites, without requesting the feeds of all of them, looking for some info across many search engines in one place or looking up a word in an online dictionary). And what's more you can do all those things without switching to the browser window. Maybe I am plain lazy, but that is what I call convenience.

I think widgets are a Web 2.0 thing (btw, I hate the term). Browsers are no longer html viewers, they are platforms/environments for running applications too. They are becoming a sort of the mini operating systems. The great thing about them is that you are no longer tied to one OS vendor (beware Microsoft). Well-written web applications (w3c standards, anyone?) behave properly in all major browsers no matter the operating system. You can easily switch the OS and browser, and all your web applications remain functional. This together with the possibility to store your data online gives you freedom. It would be great if the widget thing was somehow standardised and implemented in other browsers to give users maximum flexibility and choice in running mini web applications (read: widgets).

Because it is a pretty new concept for browsers (widgets itself are not so fresh, but until now there was no easy way of writing cross-system mini applications) there is still a serious lack of truly useful widgets. That can make you think they are only little silly shiny things that "you can move around the screen, or disable completely." But they are much more than that!

Oh, and I am sure more widgets will come. Should other browser teams support them by implementing widgets in their products (hint, hint), faster then one might think.

Watching the others catch up with the leader?


Don't waste your time. Use the best now!

Mark Wilson from Stuff Magazine takes a first look at Opera 9 Beta. The review is quite flattering, but here comes the twist. You won't be able to read the article if you identify as Opera (which is a default id in Opera 9, anyway). Instead, you will be presented with not so hot Microsoft VBScript runtime error... Sure, Opera users do not need to be told just how hot their browser is, but still...

You can grab the review here, provided you have changed your id or use a somewhat less hot (not to confuse with cool) but more widespread browser. BTW, you can change your id for this site only thanks to site preferences. That's what they are for!