>>1744473(Second part of my post (
>>1744575))
The icons look great and match your set-up very well, but the background holds them back. I don't have a problem with their size like
>>1744479 has, but another one instead. Just putting the icons straight onto the photo-like wallpaper like that gives the same impression as the clock and battery bar when the contrast is that low. It is again just unnecessarily hard on the eyes. I also find it to be a problem how they look so out of place when you put them straight onto your wallpaper like that. It wouldn't be as big of a problem if your wallpaper just was a simple background, because icons belong on backgrounds. The problem originates in the fact that your background is an image you can't clutter however you'd like and still have it look good rather than a simple background meant to fill with icons. The simplest way of showing what a huge difference there is is probably by reminding you of the banner trend we had for some time. Comparing the rices before and after people added banners or banner-like features to their screens shows what I mean. Take a look at this image. Before banners were added the user's icons tended to look out of place on their walls - something that banners fixed.
I'm not saying you need a banner or even that I ever thought the majority of banners in these kinds of threads ever looked good, but I am saying you either need to get a new background or to add something else to the set-up to help enhance the contrast between the background and the icons as well as separating the icons from the background more clearly.
