> The problem is the same for the psd file icon (attached): why putting a > Photoshop logo? The user only has to know it is an image, with the psd > extension. The photoshop logo is a nonsense here.
I was under the impression that a PSD file was a PhotoShop Document. Is this not a proprietary format? As for the mime-type icons, I'm rather of the impression that using the text "PSD" or "DOC" in the thumbnail is best - most people will understand the meaning - and it's consistent and easy to implement. Colouring can imply a specific application or association, and give more differentiation amongst mime types if needed.. Just my two cents :) -Chris -- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
