What is the absolute GOD TIER of app icons and why is it Apple's Weather app?
why is it god tier?
why are there tiers? they're app icons. do you really think about this that much?
>>54853667
That shit is Fisher-Price tier
>>54853683
This. The only thing I like about iOS icons is that they are mostly consistent, even for third-party apps.
>app
>>54853671
>Why is it god-tier?
Because it is elegantly designed to match the template of golden ratio used in ALL apple designs. It conveniently and simply tells you what the app is with subtle meaningful shapes and placements- everyone on this planet knows this is the weather app. The beautiful gradient is mathematically precise to convey the colors best. The subtle transparency ties in with the iOS main transparency feature.
>>54853722
oh good the autistic kid is here
>>54853731
https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf
>>54853731
can you illustrate how it matches the golden ratio? i hear about this a lot and in cases like this it sounds like you're just parroting a cliche.
>conveniently and simply tells you what the app is
is there a criteria for how conveniently an app icon does its job? and as for simplicity, don't the clock, calendar, phone, and a dozen other first-party apps (to say nothing of third-party apps) communicate the purpose of the app equally well?
>subtle meaningful shapes and placements
i would accept simple, but subtle? it's a sun, a cloud, and a gradient.
>the ... gradient is mathematically precise
is this calculated somehow? can you share that calculation? did you sample a few points and look at the color values?
i think it's a fine app icon but it doesn't stand out. i don't think anything in iOS stands out that much. that's a feature, though.
>>54853731
>m-muh golden ratio
Please kill yourself my man.
>>54853667
>>54853731
>being a spastic queer
Stockingfags in /bst/ are more straight than this.
>>54853667
>postulating an initial open ended question then changing the question to one that seeks validation for your own opinionated answer to the initial question disregarding that the initial question is open ended and has no definitive correct answer
>>54853667
It looks shit desu.
