the rant of the icon-obsessed
5 Mar 2003 08:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimorenesquare icons!
they're so very much more attractive that way.
not 50x100, not 62x40, not 80x90, but 100x100, 80x80, 50x50. i hope you're getting the picture. perhaps some of you are under the mistaken impression that icons taller than they are wide look good anyway.
note the use of the word 'mistaken.' in fact, in many friends page styles, non-square icons leave a highly unattractive uneven border around them. take pity on your friends' eyeballs.
next icon!rant: text: why less is more. if you're REALLY lucky i'll favor you with a treatise on the extremely limited virtues of bold serif fonts in neon colors.*
they're so very much more attractive that way.
not 50x100, not 62x40, not 80x90, but 100x100, 80x80, 50x50. i hope you're getting the picture. perhaps some of you are under the mistaken impression that icons taller than they are wide look good anyway.
note the use of the word 'mistaken.' in fact, in many friends page styles, non-square icons leave a highly unattractive uneven border around them. take pity on your friends' eyeballs.
next icon!rant: text: why less is more. if you're REALLY lucky i'll favor you with a treatise on the extremely limited virtues of bold serif fonts in neon colors.*
1. they show up.*
2. ...they show up.*wait! that's not a virtue. well, nevermind then.
