Re: Gnome Icon Pixmap Guidelines -- Request for Amendments

[mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)]

+++ Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 09:38:36PM -0400 +++
John Kodis e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 03:50:44PM +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> 
> > Gnome Icon Pixmap Guidelines
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > FIRST VERY ROUGH DRAFT -- mawa, September 29th, 1999
> > 
> > Gnome icons
> > 
> > - are 48x48 pixels in size, PNG format
> > 
> > - are easy to recognise when scaled down to 20x20 pixels
> 
> I think that these two requirements tend to clash with one another.
> Far better than scaling a large icon down to get a small icon would be
> to draw two icons, each optimized (or whatever the proper graphics
> arts term would be) for their final size.  The KDE folks have a
> full set of 16x16 pixel mini-icons for use in menu lists (in
> /usr/[local]/share/icons/mini), and IMHO, the KDE menu entries are
> much sharper looking and easier to distinguish from each other than
> are the Gnome icons.

This is not an issue for now. We are looking for icons to fill up the
menu in a short term (weeks and months). It's OK by me if you want to
make this scheme possible, but for now we need icons that scale
because they will get scaled.
 
> Sorry for proposing doubling the workload for our already overloaded
> artists, but I don't think that we can get really great looking small
> icons by simply scaling down large icons.
> 
> BTW, what sizes will be used in various circumstances?  You've called
> out 48x48 and 20x20, but the menu list icons seem more like 16x16, and
> this seems to be the size that KDE has settled on for their small
> icons.

You can believe me. It's 20x20. Yes. I've read the code.

mawa
-- 
Back in the dark ages BC (Before Computing), there existed a magical
device called a Teletype Model 33. This amazing machine contained a
shift register out of a motor and a rotor as well as a keyboard ROM
consisting solely of levers and springs.             -- Steve Oualline