[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Time to install the new icons

From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: Re: Time to install the new icons
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:11:42 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:14:51 +0100
From: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>
CC: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden, "Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden>

1) Which 16x16 icon should be used? There are two versions on the last row of Andrews contributions. I myself prefer the second of those because it is more close to the bigger versions, but I know others have offered different opinions.

I was specifically asking about the only .ico file sent by Andrew.  It
looks exactly like the 16x16 .png icon we now have in etc/images/icons
directory.  Do I understand correctly that you don't like it?
My personal opinion is not most important here. Andrew asked for our opinions about this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg00974.html

And unfortunately I can not look at the png files in etc/images/icons. The copies I have downloaded from CVS are perhaps broken on my. I am using w32 and cvsnt from Oct 9 2005. Must something special be done to download the images on w32?

2) Andrew asked if the darker or lighter variant should be used. I think the darker version is in the top row and the lighter in the bottom row. 3) Some people (including myself) ask for these icons in different colors. I know it is rather easy to handle on w32 and I guess that it is easy to handle on other platforms too.

Let's for now settle for the same scheme as we had before: 32x32 and
48x48 for size, and for each size one icon on dark background and one
on light background.
I do not understand your comments about colors. Do you mean that we should have one version for light and another dark backgrounds? Or, do you say that we have that now? Maybe you misunderstood Andrew here?

I do not understand your comments about sizes either. Did you perhaps forget 16x16? I was just asking about 24x24 to be sure. Was that size perhaps needed on another platform than w32?

A) Which different sizes do we want in the icon file for w32? I believe at least 16x16, 32x32 and 48x48. How about 24x24, is that commonly used? B) What color resolutions do we want? I believe low color resolution (256 colors) is necessary (because scaling down the color resolution does not give good results sometimes). How about high resolution? Should that look exactly the same? Higher resolutions gives a bit more possibilities. Maybe you want to use that Andrew?

Again, I'd say let's for now have the same color resolutions as we had
before.  Let's not complicate the issue by too much creeping
featurism; that will come later.

The icon from Andrew actually include versions for 256 colors and 32-bit colors (which I believe is for xp), but no 24-bit color version.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]