On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 14:46, Jakub Steiner wrote: > On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 13:13, Luca Ferretti wrote: > > * shadow (should) follows the table prospective > > That makes little sense to me. A paper would rarely stand up like that True, but folders too ;-) Note that current gnome-folder is using a similar shadow (IMHO Industrial one seem more cool and realistic, but there are more pixels :-P) OK, it's not realistic, but it can add consistence to the Desktop and it's the HIG suggestion... > > * no tray holes (are they needed?) > > Against the HIG I always thought adding detail is good. Maybe it's not. > Well, it's really cool in old fs-regular-72 and fs-regular-96, but I can't see any good reason to keep it in at 48x48: I'm not saying "details are evil", but "this detail is unuseful". Or am I totally wrong and it's used for text related MIME? > > Troubles: > > * we need to rebuild all mime icons using this one as base > > (removing extension label as HIG said?) > > Because we'll be redoing all this, I'd rather go for doing 32x32 > mime-emblems, and use imagemagick or something to overlay it on a > document base, eventually having nautilus do that. I'll think about it > and start doing that and file appropriate bugs. Do you mean, conceptually, something like Gorilla icons, using, i.e. a gnome-globe-32.png over gnome-fs-regular.png to have gnome-mime-text-html (see attach)? I vote for it, but I'm not so sure that it should be managed via some code (you have to use in all apps that needs mime icon: search tool, file roller, eventually file selector and so on..) > > > To use a 48x52 icon is an HIG violation? If don't should we build a > > 48x52 folder icon? > > Tuomas introduced the weird size because the text label (another bad > decision) wouldn't fit. It should be 48x48. If I remember well old Eazel icons was 48x52 too, so Toumas is partially innocent :-) > > tada! -- Luca Ferretti <elle uca libero it>
Attachment:
gnome-mime-text-html.png
Description: PNG image
