Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

Em Qua, 2006-08-02 �13:57 +0200, BJ�Lindqvist escreveu:
> On 8/1/06, Rodney Dawes <dobey novell com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:45 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> > > In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is
> > > already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer
> > > the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons that were "consistent enough" to
> > > my 2.12 desktop where I've lost information that was presented to me
> > > before. I agree that the old way was not maintainable.
> >
> > You haven't lost any information, you only think you have. You're
> > looking for the information in the wrong place.
> >
> > If you have a suggestion for how exactly one might show the difference
> > between tiff, jpeg, svg, wmf, gif, png, tga, and whatever else there is,
> > without using meaningful text in the icon, I am all ears. Until then, we
> Use different images for different file types. The yellow-black
> savannah icon for png files, another type of image for jpeg files. It
> doesn't really matter what icons are used, as long as the icons for
> png and jpeg images are DIFFERENT. Adding text to the icon just makes
> it more explicit. I have read the GNOME HIG and I can't find where it
> says that using text in icons is wrong and that different kinds of
> images must share the same icon. And if it is written there, then the
> HIG is wrong, IMHO.

While I don't mind having text with the file extension on the icons,
different icons for the same type of file (image, audio, video, etc) is
a nightmare in GNOME pre-2.14 that I'm glad to see fixed in 2.15. 


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