icons/accessibility.svg looks like a pixilated ॐ. #2776
Comments
|
See https://accessibleicon.org/ Personally, I think your association is a stretch. |
|
I hate that we have this icon with a passion
But the real problem is that we have tried and failed to come up with a nice alternative. |
|
@karsa-mistmere did you grow up seeing ॐ everywhere? If not, respectfully, I'm not sure if your personal experience is relevant to my point, as it is to almost 18% of the worlds population. The similarity is even more pronounced when used as button icons at high resolutions (so the icon is small). Try zooming out this page and looking at these two: The similarity is exacerbated in hand writing because the little loop on the right is often abbreviated with a straight line angling first to the right then down like the legs of the person in the wheelchair in our standard handicapped symbol (though if I recall correctly this would change the pronunciation considerably so is incorrect.. still the common use is there). You can see examples of this practice being adapted to digital representations here:
Even the picture you posted shows an actual and clear accessibility symbol without the gap that introduced the visual similarity to ॐ, so why not improve the one in the library to match per @jguddas's additional points? (I liked the version by @jguddas but I'm not yet versed in why it doesn't qualify) |
|
Hi @Tejeev, Please refrain from using hostile language. Regardless of cultural differences, I maintain my original stance and retain that I personally think this association is a stretch. Please also look at the actual resource provided at https://accessibleicon.org/#use and you'll see that the gap is indeed there. This is a new version that's maybe a bit closer to the original accessible icon. While the gap remains, things have been moved around enough to mitigate any perceived likeness to ॐ: |
|
@karsa-mistmere my appologies, I am not sure what I said but I had no hostility. I do still maintain my stance that if you did not grow up seeing it your brain isn't programmed to see it like so much of the world is. This is just how the brain works and confirmed by many studies, so I don't believe you are qualified to tell if it is a stretch or not. You simply have the advantage of not being preprogrammed to see it. Regarding the original artwork with the gap, it is far far smaller so the perceived likeness is avoided, unlike in the lucide studio example cited in your last message. Please refer to my message prior. |
|
How about this? I've edited it to be more like the other Lucide icons and better represent the original ocon from accessibleicon.org with the benefit of it having a weaker resemblence: |
|
Actually, after looking at the original again, I see that the circle is bisected by the gap and the leg should be closer to the wheel, no? Are we avoiding a version like this for some reason I'm oblivious to? |
Does not meet our 2px gap design guideline: https://lucide.dev/guide/design/icon-design-guide#_8-distinct-elements-must-have-2-pixels-of-spacing-between-each-other Edit:
Yes, the same reason as above. We could make an exception, but even then the gap would be too small, I'd say we'd need a minimum of 1px, and even then it's pushing the limits of legibility at 1x 
|
|
aah, that makes a lot of sense. Oh that pixilated view is really good. I need to incorporate that if I make any edits. |
|
What about @jguddas suggestion above? it seems a lot more lucide-y to me:
(and yeah @jguddas, I get your point about invisible disabilities. My household lives with them so I get it. This is just the recognized symbol and I don't know what we could do better in that regard) |
|
Could throw an elbow in still. Maybe the circle should be smaller?
|
I really want to get this merged to have a more inclusive accessibility icon: I like this human, and would like to introduce this design consistently for all icons involving people. |
I maintain that this version goes against everything what Accessible Icon is about, since it looks very ragdolly and unhuman. 🫣 |
|
Yeah, I see your point. I think the head being so far out over the legs is part of what messes with my symbol recognition programming. What about just closing the circle and moving the head in a bit? I know it's pushing it, but it seems ok in the DPI
aah, yeah head is still filled. can open that up though. |
|
Just looked at the that convo and while I agree in liking the github-y accessibility of the general icon, I think if we have a wheelchair one, it's better to be sure it resembles the standard one to a greater degree than the example from that conversation. |
This one: 
Although the one with the elbow isn't any less ragdolly. |
|
yeah, I can't unsee it now, so I agree |
|
What about something like this but lower down (not yet sure how to move all elements as one but just scratchpadding anyway). Was going for something closer to that one pick from earlier with the actual handicapped sign. |
|
Before: ॐ The human bean going full speeeeeed, hehe funny but not really usable. |
|
Could use a little more speed, but what about this?
|
|
Moved it down and opened the head, but broke it apart into a real rainbow in doing so
|
|
unrelated and breaks some of the standards I'm learning for Lucide, but made some modifications to the earlier icon and made
... obv, a much closer representation of Om, but still can't unsee it in the original |
Package
Description
We could close the wheel of the wheel chair to make it more clear what we are looking at. My brain refuses to see the racing wheel chair unless I close that circle.
Use cases
For those of us of who grew up around Hinduism (and I guess all the hippies out there), ॐ is a symbol we see more often in our homes or communities, so it's what we might see first.
Checklist
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: