Re: To answer your question about the upcoming Style-Guide...

["Ben 'The Con Man' Kahn" <xkahn cybersites com>]

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Dan Kaminsky wrote:

> >> >important reason is that gnome panel is not just a launcher .. it can
> also
> >> >host applets ... and most applets require more space ...
> >>
> >> Ah.  Gnome panel's gotta become a wee bit more forgiving...
> >>
> >> >plus if they were any smaller they would be hard to hit with the mouse
> ...
> >>
> >> Uh?  You kidding?  If they were any bigger they'd be hard to miss.  :-)
> >> Seriously, small icons in Win32 are 16x16 pixels and they're completely
> >> clickable.  It's not hard to select lines of text, and they're about this
> >> size if not smaller.  Almost everything you've said is valid, but not
> this
> >> :-)

> >i, for one, stand with george in that i think the icon size is perfect
> >for my desktop.
> 
> They're significantly too large for mine.  Both you and George have your
> preferences, and that's fair, but 24x24 is a much better size than 48x48
> as-is for at least a sizable minority of the computer population.

> >i'll concede again, however, in that this should be a little more
> >flexible: i'm looking forward to running gnome on my palm-pilot, and i
> >think the panel should be no wider than about sixteen pixels on that...
> >just wide enough to contain recognizable icons. :)

> Honestly, the gnome bar, and *maybe* every window should shrink and zoom
> according to some user controllable preference.

	An interesting idea for this can be found on the SGI.  They have
an icon size dial.  When you move the knob the icons change size.  It
makes it very easy to get the sizes right.  :^)

						-Ben

------------------------------------ |\      _,,,--,,_  ,) ----------
Benjamin Kahn                        /,`.-'`'   -,  ;-;;'
(212) 924 - 2220                    |,4-  ) )-,_ ) /\
ben@cybersites.com --------------- '---''(_/--' (_/-' ---------------
          Meet Linux: Forrest Gump as an operating system.