[Jebusfathead]

Go create some Icons yourself so we can see how godly yours are if these are so awful.

First of all, while design is subjective

Go create some Icons yourself so we can see how godly yours are if these are so awful.

follow at least one form of design language. (If it follow two or more then for god sake don't use two that contradict each other like these icons do.)

But what if the style is subjective in that they want to use 2 clashing 'design languages' ?

[yokai]

But what if the style is subjective in that they want to use 2 clashing 'design languages' ?

Then it is by its very definition, a bad design. (If you don't believe me, then go as Google or Microsoft, they even made specific guides on how to avoid said topic.) There are good contrasts, and bad contrasts. Clashing design languages are bad ones, as it has no order to it, which design should always have some of. Art on the other doesn't need to have that, at least not modern art.

[Red_mybb_import25644]

That logic is as faulty as the "ABC" logic. First of all, while design is subjective, it is also a fair deal of "objective". For example, icons must be easy to understand, give the specific message they aim to do and follow at least one form of design language. (If it follow two or more then for god sake don't use two that contradict each other like these icons do.) Furthermore, design should also not use other's work without permission and I am having a slightly hard time believing that the icons that were used in making these are also made by @10 and that they aren't just cropped assets.

Not really, before i saw your thread i wanted to see how good you where because all you do is slam @@10 on this and that.

[Jebusfathead]

But what if the style is subjective in that they want to use 2 clashing 'design languages' ?

Then it is by its very definition, a bad design. (If you don't believe me, then go as Google or Microsoft, they even made specific guides on how to avoid said topic.) There are good contrasts, and bad contrasts. Clashing design languages are bad ones, as it has no order to it, which design should always have some of. Art on the other doesn't need to have that, at least not modern art.

But you can't define something if it is really subjective, because to the person it won't be by very definition 'bad'?

[yokai]

Not really, before i saw your thread i wanted to see how good you where because all you do is slam @@10 on this and that.

That logic you stated is faulty, no matter how you view it. I also don't "slam" him in any form. Its called constructive feedback, or in the case of one of my posts on this thread, a reference to a older feedback I did on his work.

[Theós]

Go create some Icons yourself so we can see how godly yours are if these are so awful.

That logic is as faulty as the "ABC" logic. First of all, while design is subjective, it is also a fair deal of "objective". For example, icons must be easy to understand, give the specific message they aim to do and follow at least one form of design language. (If it follow two or more then for god sake don't use two that contradict each other like these icons do.) Furthermore, design should also not use other's work without permission and I am having a slightly hard time believing that the icons that were used in making these are also made by @10 and that they aren't just cropped assets.

But what if the style is subjective in that they want to use 2 clashing 'design languages' ?

Then it is by its very definition, a bad design. (If you don't believe me, then go as Google or Microsoft, they even made specific guides on how to avoid said topic.) There are good contrasts, and bad contrasts. Clashing design languages are bad ones, as it has no order to it, which design should always have some of. Art on the other doesn't need to have that, at least not modern art.

I use http://all-free-download.com/free-vectors/ for the icons, I have permission to use ALL the vectors I used in this design. I also draw up my own icons if it's something very specific.

[yokai]

But you can't define something if it is really subjective, because to the person it won't be by very definition 'bad'?

Art is fully subjective, only a very small portion of design is subjective. Objective means to judge something by pre-existing data, that are either facts or opinions based on the majority and/or by time. In design it goes by the majority, a forum with less than 1,000 members is not even a small fraction of the fraction of the majority.

[Jebusfathead]

But you can't define something if it is really subjective, because to the person it won't be by very definition 'bad'?

Art is fully subjective, only a very small portion of design is subjective. Objective means to judge something by pre-existing data, that are either facts or opinions based on the majority and/or by time. In design it goes by the majority, a forum with less than 1,000 members is not even a small fraction of the fraction of the majority.

Wtf. That's not what objective is. It's 100% not influenced by opinions, and I know that for definite. Being objective is the opposite of subjective, objective is where you look at something objectively, where you judge it without any pre exsisting bias.

[yokai]

I use http://all-free-download.com/free-vectors/ for the icons, I have permission to use ALL the vectors I used in this design. I also draw up my own icons if it's something very specific.

If I am correct, which I do think I am right now. Then 99% of the vectors on that site falls under the category of a "standard license" which means it can only be used for educational, informative and/or entrainment purposes.

---

Wtf. That's not what objective is. It's 100% not influenced by opinions, and I know that for definite. Being objective is the opposite of subjective, objective is where you look at something objectively, where you judge it without any pre exsisting bias.

It is what it is. First of all, "facts" as we state is only has a 99.9% chance of being accurate at best. Most "facts" aren't even close to that. Which is why objective views are based on what the majority agrees with. The majority agrees that the sky looks blue from the Earth, so we label it a fact. Even though we aren't certain, meaning it is not a fact. Its a agreed opinion by the majority. The only actual difference from subjective and objective is that one you use personal views, while the other you don't. Subjective being the personal one. When you look at say "whats good or bad" design, you go by what the majority believes if you want to use an objective view. Otherwise you'd be giving a subjective view.

Clashing design languages are noted by the majority to be a "bad choice" and generally a bad way to design. Tell me a single cooperation which uses clashing design languages in their apps, websites or anything really. My guess is that you cannot find one,as they avoid it seeing how it is "bad".

[Jebusfathead]

I use http://all-free-download.com/free-vectors/ for the icons, I have permission to use ALL the vectors I used in this design. I also draw up my own icons if it's something very specific.

If I am correct, which I do think I am right now. Then 99% of the vectors on that site falls under the category of a "standard license" which means it can only be used for educational, informative and/or entrainment purposes.

---

Wtf. That's not what objective is. It's 100% not influenced by opinions, and I know that for definite. Being objective is the opposite of subjective, objective is where you look at something objectively, where you judge it without any pre exsisting bias.

It is what it is. First of all, "facts" as we state is only has a 99.9% chance of being accurate at best. Most "facts" aren't even close to that. Which is why objective views are based on what the majority agrees with. The majority agrees that the sky looks blue from the Earth, so we label it a fact. Even though we aren't certain, meaning it is not a fact. Its a agreed opinion by the majority. The only actual difference from subjective and objective is that one you use personal views, while the other you don't. Subjective being the personal one. When you look at say "whats good or bad" design, you go by what the majority believes if you want to use an objective view. Otherwise you'd be giving a subjective view.

Clashing design languages are noted by the majority to be a "bad choice" and generally a bad way to design. Tell me a single cooperation which uses clashing design languages in their apps, websites or anything really. My guess is that you cannot find one,as they avoid it seeing how it is "bad".

What you're talking about it objectiveness not based on facts, but more pseudo facts accepted by the majority. Which is still subjective. And that 'what's good or bad' example is completely wrong. The concepts of good and bad are purely 100% subjective, that is impossible to be objective with, there's literally no way you can objectively define good or bad, they are concepts, they are not solid tangible things, they change over time, they cannot be objective.