[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: Some concerns
From:       Torsten Rahn <rahn () astrophysik ! uni-kiel ! de>
Date:       1999-08-06 18:18:44
[Download RAW message or body]

Rik Hemsley wrote:
> 
> Hi folks.
 
> If you don't see what I'm saying, it's that icons should be worked on in
> a format that supports layers. The format that everyone can have access to
> for no cash is .xcf (gimp). The only problem with this is that I don't know
> of a tool that converts .xcf -> another format. Perhaps someone with some
> gimp knowledge could write a plugin to read a dir full of icons, flatten
> them, and save as png.

Great idea. As most of us develop with gimp we should stay with XCF.
As soon as KIS is ready for basic usage I would like to encourage people
to use it to push the development of KIS (= KimageShop).
Then we should convert the icons to the new KIS-file-format.
 
> 2. Why aren't we putting all icons in a central store in CVS ? I want to be
> able to cvs up and see exactly what the current icon situation is.

Because when I began to work on the HiColor-Icons there were quite a lot
of
advantages doing it the current way. 
Right now we should think about an easy way to use CVS for development.
 
> 3. The current 48x48 icons are a mixture of photo-realistic and 'iconic'
> representations.

If you look at the style-guide it says that the icons should look almost 
photorealistic. Of course you can´t make sure that all icons look
exactly as 
almost-photorealistic as others (How do you make a GUI-Window
photorealistic?)
 
> I would like to propose that for KDE 2 we could do with more consistency.

Yes we should try to improve the consistent look.
we should evaluate some icons that already have the default look and
measure 
others on these icons. 
 
> I think the KDE icons are generally more 'iconic' than 'photorealistic'.
> They are slightly prettier than your standard flat-looking icon due to nice
> shading, but they retain clean lines and are easily recognisable.

Yes, that should be the aim.

> Therefore, I think adjusting some of the icons that look out-of-place is in
> order, e.g. 'trashcan' and 'kfm_home'.

The only problem that I have with kfm_home is that it looks way too
simple if 
painted in another way. That´s why it looks like it looks right now!
If you have an icon that looks better /more consistent don´t hesitate to 
send it to me ...

> Using trashcan as an example, I think it could benefit from looking more
> like a 'wastebasket' (which might be a good plan considering we will have to
> change the name). With flat, angled sides and some shading it would fit in
> much better with the folders, etc.

We still need a new wastebasket for KDE 1.x (I would like a round
Wastebasket 
though)!
As I´m not sure if ´Wastebasket´ is already used and trademarked by
another
Desktop (QNX uses Garbage e.g.) I would prefer to call it ´Bit Bucket´.
 
> I'm allowed to complain about the trashcan because I made it, eh ? ;)

Yepp! May I complain, tooż?  ;-)
 
Have a nice weekend,
Torsten 

> Cheers,
> Rik
> 
> --
> KDE - Colour Outside The Lines - http://www.kde.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]