Re: Life after the GNOME freeze

[Nathan Heagy <linuxnathan heagy com>]

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, John Karcz wrote:
>> - Nice icons for the file manager.
>> 
>> We need 48x48 icons that are suitable for file types in the
>> file manager. A complete list of the icons we need is on
>> the gnome-icons CVS module. 
>>
>> Currently the file manager is using some very ugly and old
>> icons I found, and they need to be replaced. 
>>
>> We would like to have the icons keep the spirit of the
>> current gnome icons.
>>
>> If you have artistic talent, please let us know and share
>> your icons with us.
> 
>I've been lurking around, thinking of using Gnome as a front end to
>some of my simulations.  It looks great!  I like the api.
>
>Well, I have no artistic talent, but I've been playing with
>a couple of icons out of boredom, and have a couple of
>questions.
>
>The first is this:  Do people want to have separate icons for
>things like *.png, *.xpm, and *.jpg files, rather than one
>general "image" icon?  I noticed in the gmc sources that there
>is a little label on the icon for *.ppm, say, to differentiate
>it from a *.jpg.  My opinion on this is that the label in the
>icon is redundant... the filename already clearly says the
>type of the image.  (I suspect, though, that there are cases
>where the extension on the filename is wrong, but I've personally
>never run into an image like this.)  I guess I feel that if the
>image is the same for each of the extensions, adding a copy
>of the extension to the icon won't clarify the view of the
>directory.
>
>I was also wondering if there are any palette issues I should
>worry about if I cook up an icon.  Can I make images with
>huge palettes and have Imlib sort it out, or should I restrict
>the number of colors used?
>
>My suggestion for the "image" icon is that we use a tiny copy
>of a painting or picture that is in the public domain, or that
>we can get permission for.  If we have separate icons for each
>image type, maybe each should have a different painting. The
>paintings probably won't have any connection with their
>corresponding image extension.  The would, however, provide
>people who work with a lot of images a quick way to notice the
>different file types.
>
>I threw one example up at my site at
><a href="http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jsk29/icons.html">Cornell.</a>
>Does this look like a cool way to handle images?  If anyone can
>think of a copyable piece of artwork they'd like me to throw into
>the pile of icons, let me know...  I'll gimp up some icons.
>
>(I truly am clueless on the copyright issues involved with this.
>I think it would look great, though, and I'm hoping that some of
>the classical pieces of art of freely reproducible... I can probably
>talk to some of the intellectual property people around campus to
>find out how to deal with this, if people think it's an interesting
>idea.)
>
>Anyway, let me know if this looks like a good plan or not.

Are icons part of a theme? It would be nice if they were. Anyways, I love
cooking up icons, and could do it easily, but I haven't completed my switch to
Linux and would make them in win. What is an .xpm?

--
Nathan Heagy - Linux Style
-- -- http://heagy.com -- --
Transmission sent from Linux.
- Don't you feel liberated? -