I played a bit more with F-User icons and duplicate icon. Plus some tweaks here and there…
5 Likes
I like the pin, however this header still looks to me like hieroglyphics, as if to say a mess.
spacings are making things even more cryptic.
And IMHO the three-axes icon for “object” doesn’t work, really, the old good cube was way better.
8 Likes
Let me disagree.
However the Breadcrumbs are indeed mysterious and terribly composed.
2 Likes
I don’t like a lot of things on that header. The most interactive thing is the “pin”, yet it looks disabled because its “unselected” state is colored like a disabled item. Yet all the other icons, mostly uninteractive, are full-white. Well, mostly, as some brighten a bit when you hover over them for little reason. But the “pin” is the only thing you can click on. You can drag the “scene” icon, but I’m not sure why. The “view layers” icon does nothing, but the cube’s object icon (but not name) can be dragged to the 3d viewport to make a new cube. Similarly the material icon (but not the word “Material”) can be dragged to a different object.
None of it makes a lot of sense…
7 Likes
I didn’t touch anything there with exception for changing the Pin icon, which is in inactive (OFF) state in this mockup.
Yes, I sure realize that. It has been a cryptic mess for a long time.
Yes, that is a collision between two reasons for dimming an icon. It makes perfect sense to dim it when in the inactive (off) state, but other times (and in other programs) icons are dimmed when not enabled or not currently available.
1 Like
I don’t mean to debate about it, I know it’s just a matter of personal taste here, though, to explain, my brain refuses to associate the concept of ‘object’, which implies something solid, to the three axes which rapresent something of void, abstract, and are naturally associated to the concept of empty space.
I’ll got used to it anyway, if I have to.
9 Likes
I agree on this: despite the “Object” concept in Blender is actually a matter of LocRotScale and a mesh datablock assigned (so the new icon makes sense), still now it resembles too much another Blender entity that is “Empty”. For the common use Object is better depicted with a solid imho, even a suzanne icon would make the job, i guess
4 Likes
Let me just point out the obvious: not all objects are cubes either.
In fact, a cube has the bigger problem that it represents a specific type of common mesh object, which creates a confusing UI when you have a Sphere selected, but is represented by a cube icon.
3 Likes
I don’t think anyone here forgets that objects can be curves, empties, armatures, cameras or non-cube meshes etc etc.
The difference is an empty is a bespoke thing, a cube isn’t. There’s no cube entity, only a preset mesh in the shape of a cube.
It’s a very abstract thing to put into an icon. Would it not be better to try and use the most common example of the thing you’re trying to turn into an icon, rather than trying to put it’s entire abstract concept into a symbol? A symbol where the meaning ends up ambiguous anyway, clashing with other icons anyway, and as an abstract concept the icon itself goes over people’s heads because they’re not thinking about the icon abstractly?.
Personally I’d prefer a cube or something similar purely because the ‘empty’ icon we have right not is too thin and line-y.
1 Like
My biggest problem there is that I have NO IDEA WHERE AM I until I hit New and test it.
I’m getting used to the new icons but even with the old ones I don’t want to rely on an icon (far away now) or a tooltip hovering above said icon to know what tab I’m seeing.
Where am I? I’m lost! (Now imagine a first time user…)
Shouldn’t it look like something like this?
I don’t need a full hierarchy there. I’d like to know what the f’ I’m looking at 
(same for all of them… these are all scenes?
11 Likes
Well, both have tradeoffs.
If you represent the object icon with a specific object shape (be it a cube, sphere or anything like that), then the problem is that it doesn’t represent all the possible object shapes, and it also creates confusion when you do actually want to add a cube, it then does represent it.
<-?
<-?
The axis icon chosen by @jendrzych has the advantage that it actually more accurately represents what an object is: A container that can be any object type, any shape, even a lamp.
An object is a point in space that has a transformation, can be hooked up with mesh data, curve data and have things like modifiers and constraints applied.
Additionally, the axis also represents well what the Object Properties allow you to set: Transform & Relations. There are no mesh or shape settings here.
4 Likes
I’d love to have something like this for objects:
I don’t like the axis either.
With it my bad feeling is coming from the fact it doesn’t feel solid.
This does. It still resembles a cube too. BUT it is an abstract container.
What do you think?
(also could you please check my post just above yours, I’m really curious what you think about that!)
5 Likes
I’ve given myself some time with the new icons to see if I get used to them. I think the team have been doing a fantastic job so far on something which is pretty difficult.
My observations so far:
State: With the default theme I find it difficult to determine state consistently. There is a combination of methods used to show state. The select mode in Edit mode is represented by coloured backgrounds. On other items, state is shown by switching the icon between an active and inactive icon. The toolbar is shown with a blue background when selected, however the vertical icons in the properties editor have a light grey background when selected.
Low contrast: 
Low contrast and light background on properties editor: 
Inactive or disabled ambiguity: 
Object icon: If you do a Google image search on ‘object icon’, predominately a cube is used. I think this is because the word object implies something that can be held or has volume. The three-axis icon in this instance is too abstract. It is also similar to the ‘particles’ and ‘transform’ icons.
9 Likes
I have to agree with the other voices here: My brain is simply not able to draw a connection between the concept of an object and the coordinate axes. I do acknowledge that having a specific shape like a cube is also not optimal, but IMHO the axis is worse. It simply feels wrong and while the explanation sounds logical, it requires quite an abstract thinking. I would never have guessed it from the icon… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I really like kynu’s suggestion with the cube outline. It’s a vague cube that tells me this is meant to be symbolic rather tan a complete actual depiction. But it still conveys to me “this something like a cube, an object”.
7 Likes
maybe something like this for ‘Object’?
5 Likes
I have to agree with both sides.
I do not think that the icon should represent what “technically” is the definition of an object in 3D. Blender is used by artists, the icon must represent what the artist identifies as an object.
And I also think that the cube is very related to a single object… The cube.
Could the icon represent an amorphous shape?
https://www.google.com/search?q=amorphe+shape&tbm=isch&source=hp
But probably hard to achieve for small icons…
Hi, folks!
Not an icon designer here, but I thought I would throw an idea I had for the Object icon:
Rationale:
To indicate that “it’s about the properties of the thing, not the thing itself.”.
Not sure if it delivers, though.
7 Likes
There should be no coordinate System as an icon for objects. An UCS means something with origin, coordinates and so on but has nothing to do with objects.
1 Like