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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] OpenDocument MIME icons
From:       jos poortvliet <jos () mijnkamer ! nl>
Date:       2007-05-15 18:29:14
Message-ID: 200705152029.43336.jos () mijnkamer ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Op Tuesday 15 May 2007, schreef James Richard Tyrer:
> David Vignoni wrote:
> > Il giorno 15/mag/07, alle ore 10:35, James Richard Tyrer ha scritto:
> >> Robert Knight wrote:
> >>>> I was going to work on this but now I have been insulted by an
> >>>> Oxygen developer.  He called my HiColor icons prehistoric. Actually,
> >>>> that isn't an insult since they are not supposed to be artsy, they
> >>>> are generic.
> >>>
> >>> Are we talking about a mailing list or an IRC conversation?  Just to
> >>> make sure that there are not two separate discussions going on in
> >>> different mailing lists about this topic.
> >
> > this was not an insult, did I insulted you any way? Don't think I have
> > used a bad language against you?
> > Your icon was really old style and not compatible with the oxygen icon
> > theme, I wanted to emphasize that.
> >
> >> This is a migrating discussion.  It started on KDEArtist and moved over
> >> here.
> >>
> >>> Plus, it isn't clear from your email whether this is the view of just
> >>>  one particular contributor to Oxygen ( who you haven't named ) or a
> >>>  consensus.
> >>
> >> Don't know.  The remark is on the other list.  IIUC, it was from a major
> >> contributor.
> >
> > yes, it was me, the art director of the project for the icon part. Is
> > this important regarding what are the issues here?
> >
> >>> Does this person agree that there is a problem with the current icons?
> >>
> >> No, he thinks that there is nothing wrong with the highly detailed
> >> icons.
> >
> > In fact I think that the icon at >32x32 size *must* be detailed icons. I
> > also said that the small icons will have special versions which are not
> > done right now.
> > For this reason you should talk about that issue only when you see the
> > small icons when they will be availble. Current 16x16, 22x22 and 32x32
> > most are placeholders.
> >
> >>> I agree on the basic point about the current mimetype icons for ODF
> >>> not working well at small sizes.  My main concern is that the colours
> >>>  used are pale and cannot be used to tell them apart.
> >>
> >> The colors become pale as they are mixed with the background color.
> >>
> >>> Here is a very common use case:  I have 20 or so documents of varying
> >>>  types in a folder, I am interested in the spreadsheets in
> >>> particular, and want to open one to make changes.
> >>> http://www.robertknight.me.uk/files/kde/oxygen-odf-mimetype-problem.png
> >>
> >> So, as a better illustration, I made a Oxygen style icon [attached]
> >> which is rendered in 64x64.  Compare this with the 6x64 Oxygen from
> >> SVN.  Note that even in 64x64 that this is blurred.  The text in the
> >> actual Oxygen icon is black (000000) with 80% opacity which is
> >> actually darker than the lines representing text in my icon (9B9B9B).
> >> However, this 80% black is mixed with the background color and results
> >> in a lighter shade in the rasterized image.  The smaller the size, the
> >> lighter it gets.  I note that with the similar HiColor icons that I
> >> needed to make hand optimized PNGs for 48x48 and smaller to maintain
> >> the contrast.
> >
> > James, reading the concerns Robert is explaining above, in which way do
> > you think that icon you attached fix the pale colours he is talking
> > about. Comparing your icon to the rest of the mimetypes, where everything
> > has a more realistic look and feel, I may think this is a sheet with some
> > lines drawed on it, because it doesn't look like real text. The "lines"
> > as "text"  approach is for small icons, like 16x16.
> >
> > I know I already told you many times there will be versions for the
> > small sizes, but since you still reference the current placeholder
> > icons, here you can see a new version of the text mimetype as  complete
> > set, inlcuding optimized 16x16 and 32x32 version:
>
> I think that you don't exactly understand my point.  My point is about
> contrast.

You think the large ones also have too much detail, aren't clear enough? What 
is the problem of having a lot of detail in 128x128 icons, if you can point 
out what the problem is there, maybe it is more clear what you mean.

I mean, if the smaller ones are all hand-optimized, and the large ones are 
just beautiful (they are, imho) then what is the problem?

As long as our interface isn't fully SVG anyway, and we're just using PNG 
icons, I don't see what is the problem. Maybe in the future we WILL have a 
problem here, and there needs to be some work to solve the problem, but 
currently, it just looks good.

@David: Love the icons,  I really do. At first, I went with James' critique, 
the icons indeed became fuzzy at small sizes, but you showed that with some 
work on the smaller ones, you can have detailed AND clear icons... Great job!

grtz

Jos

-- 
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb. 
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld wat 
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf. 
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

   A: Because it destroys the flow of the conversation
   Q: Why is top-posting bad?

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


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