# Talk:Frutiger Aero

Just posting here to reach consensus on a few edits before publishing:
(1 - Introduction) It's hard to find a definitive source on when the style was popular, but just saying "2000s" is a bit misleading. "Mid-2000s" would be better, because most sources say 2004 as a starting point.
(2 - Introduction) "Frutiger Aero works" is a bit of a weird phrase, I think "examples" or "imagery" would make more sense.
(3 - History) Citing the PS3 as an example of Frutiger Aero is better than the Wii, the usage is more obvious on the former. The source that mentions Wii also mentions PS3, so that can be changed. Wii's usage of Frutiger Aero is (in my opinion) a bit inconsistent.
(4 - Themes and characteristics) The section about characteristics is more so about analysis and public opinion. It would be better to call it "Themes and analysis" or rewrite it to be more about the characteristics (which could be redundant).
(5 - Themes and characteristics) The whole "lack of humans" things is pretty subjective, if not outright false. Most users on social media cite humanism as a key characteristic of the aesthetic. This article mentions it in a description that uses the most commonly accepted definition of the aesthetic. It's not a good source, but it does show public opinion.
Thoughts? AvatarNeo (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the conversation here, AvatarNeo. Could you please provide reliable sources that support the points you've mentioned above, especially the third and fifth ones? It's important to remember that our personal experiences as editors have no bearing on the content of the article: Wikipedia only reports what the sources say. I'm less firm on my stances for the specific instances of phrasing you brought up, but I'll lay out my rationales anyway. "Frutiger Aero works" is perfectly grammatical, if a bit academic-sounding, but I've switched it to "Frutiger Aero art", which should read better. "Themes and characteristics" seemed like a reasonable title for the section after I had written it; the themes — nature, optimism, technological harmony — are discussed alongside the characteristics — bright colors, skeuomorphism, and other idiosyncratic elements. I don't think the section is in need of a rewrite just because of that phrasing (and the tail shouldn't be wagging the dog). Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Medium is not a reliable source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
"Frutiger Aero art" is definitely a better term there, and "themes and characteristics" works well, now that I read the section again.
It's not really possible to find a source on humanism in Frutiger Aero but I still believe that part should be removed, as it goes against popular definitions.
As for the seventh-gen console thing, maybe it would be best to not mention any console in particular. The article linkedmentions all three of the consoles, and they all have traits of the style. AvatarNeo (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I do think it would be detrimental to have no example, since I don't expect the layperson to know what a "seventh-generation console" is. I think I had a slight preference for using the Wii as an example since a few other sources (Bramley and Holliday) specifically mention Wii Sports as an example. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I always thought PS3 was a better example, because it has the aurora and glossiness that are always brought up as part of the aesthetic. AvatarNeo (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Although the text explains the design language and aesthetic very thoroughly and I have no issues with it, I feel like there needs to be more images of how frutiger aero was during it’s prime, since I feel like the images provided don’t really give a mainstream view on how it was.
To be clear, I’m not talking about those stock images with fish flying out of computers, I’m talking user interfaces like Windows Aero, PS3, Xbox 360’s NXE dashboard, windows live messenger and many other examples, mainstream and niche from the mid-2000’s. 
Although I feel that the KDE picture is good enough to be the picture header, there’s no other pictures like it in the page, and it doesn’t go deep into how the interface’s windows looks up close. I also feel that the picture with the colored people doesn’t really show glass-like gloss and transparency, since they are very deeply colored, almost like there’re jelly-like and pretty opaque.
Lastly, there’s only 2 images in this article, and I feel like this is way too small considering the amount of examples we see back then, hardware and software-wise. Also, I feel like Windows Aero has to be in this article, since that’s usually the main reason the design language was so mainstream back then, even with its controversies in mind. I also feel like an image of the font Frutiger could deserve it’s place in the history section, since the font also inspired further fonts such as Segoe UI and Lucida Grande, and it’s design aimed toward readability and gentler curves, which emphasized humanism and made text look good on our interfaces today.
I feel like adding more images really improves the article quite a lot in terms of visualizing how the aesthetic and design language really looked like back then, and explaining how the gloss, transparency, use of color, shadows, gradients, and others were used in action back then for people who can’t visualize too well. Dylan240 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Dylan240, the bottleneck with images is that they generally need to be freely licensed in order to be used on Wikipedia. A screenshot of proprietary software, for example, cannot be used without it being released under a compatible license. With that in mind, do you have any specific suggestions for things on Wikimedia Commons or elsewhere that can be included? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Well I've seen many niche examples of the design language from the 2000’s that’s open source or discontinued, but I haven’t bookmarked or saved them all, though the examples I’ve seen utilize glossiness, transparency and colorful designs very effectively in the context of this article’s text, so it may take some time to include some suggestions I could share. Dylan240 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The well certainly isn't dry when it comes to icons, as we have the Crystal Clear icon set designed by Evan Coelho. In fact, one of these icons is already featured in the article (though personally, I think this one fits better, as it features the "blob people" I've observed many individuals associate with the design style. I do realize this reasoning falls in line with WP:OR than anything concrete, but it's the talk page and I found it worth mentioning) Cawfeecrow (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I do think adding more images would greatly improve the article. The 2 images alone aren't a good representation of the frutiger aero aesthetic, and I feel that a section with images could give a good example of what it is to people that don't know what it looks like. ✧𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒂✧【💬】 22:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, I feel like the front image also could be a better image as the front image is quite cluttered. ✧𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒂✧【💬】 22:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
How about one of these two images of KDE(/KDE fork, as one of them is TDE) desktops as the main image? I personally prefer the former as it features aurorae and glossy (and skeuomorphic) icons, two features mentioned in the definition of Frutiger Aero. Unfortunately, neither of these images feature nature, but they're much less cluttered than the current main image and does a similar job at representing the aesthetic.
Theres also this image but I feel like it has a harder time portraying the optimism that Frutiger Aero typically is described as having, despite it being the only image out of these three to actually feature nature. Cawfeecrow (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
the Frutiger typeface could be linked in ''See Also'' by the way :-) ✧𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒂✧【💬】 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
@Matchacloudss and Dylan240: Just noting that I undid your edits to add this link in § See also — the Frutiger typeface is already mentioned and linked earlier in the articles, and per this Manual of Style section it's better to reduce repetition of that kind. Let me know if you have any questions, and to the topic of illustration, let me know if you have any specific images in mind if you'd like to see them added. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)