So I was wondering if the pans and the waitress were working....is she recognizable, simple enough, and stylistically congruent? Are the pans too obvious?
Yes she is recognizable. Good addition of the tray held up high. The level of abstraction is on target (e.g. no face, only utilizing the hair, body and tray to communicate). Perhaps try to utilize the apron again??
No she is not stylistically congruent. This needs attention. Namely, from your developing icons I can identify the following rules that must be followed:
(1) a "pure geometry" (e.g. the rectangular bottles, triangular coffee pot, circular gumball machine) (2) a "thick outlined shape" (e.g. the top of the coffee pot, the mustard bottle, the glass globe of the gumball machine).
Pans are a good direction (not too obvious). The only issue is that they are not following the above rule number 2.
Cameron, I want to see you add another 2 shapes. I want to see the napkin dispenser and breakfast.
Yes she is recognizable. Good addition of the tray held up high. The level of abstraction is on target (e.g. no face, only utilizing the hair, body and tray to communicate). Perhaps try to utilize the apron again??
ReplyDeleteNo she is not stylistically congruent. This needs attention. Namely, from your developing icons I can identify the following rules that must be followed:
(1) a "pure geometry" (e.g. the rectangular bottles, triangular coffee pot, circular gumball machine)
(2) a "thick outlined shape" (e.g. the top of the coffee pot, the mustard bottle, the glass globe of the gumball machine).
Pans are a good direction (not too obvious). The only issue is that they are not following the above rule number 2.
Cameron, I want to see you add another 2 shapes. I want to see the napkin dispenser and breakfast.
P.S. the coffee pot and ketchup/mustard are really great.
ReplyDelete