Re: Setting window icons

[Peter Korn <korn sun com>]

Hi Havoc,

> ...
>
> I just really question the value of an undifferentiated list - if we
> have semantically distinct icons, should be multiple functions:
> 
>  set_icon()
>  set_mini_icon()
>  set_accessible_icon()
> 
> or whatever. But it would be nice to set the mini icon automatically
> from the regular icon if it isn't explicitly set, and I'm not clear
> exactly how many kinds of accessible icon there might be (big?
> contrasty? no idea).

This is tough.  One big question still to be figured-out is how to best address
magnification.  One approach is to ask apps to render themselves larger (e.g.
130%, 160%, 200%), which is ideal for a lot of folks who consider themselves
not disabled, just "getting on in life" and needing things a big bigger.  This
includes virtually all of the "baby boom" generation here in the U.S. who are
finding themselves considering glasses for the first time.

For people with more serious visual impairments, rendering things 200% larger
is nowhere near sufficient.  Commercial software magnification products
typically will magnify from 2x to 16x, so one pixel becomes 4 or 9 or 16 or...
(and many of these products use "font" smoothing algorythms so the pixels
aren't so blocky) - see Windows 98/2000 "Magnifier", or Macintosh CloseView for
some examples.  For these users, they won't be that interested in applications
re-rendering themselves - instead they will rely on their deskto/system-wide
magnification product.

So I think we should determine a small range of larger sizes, and also consider
allowing the option of vector-based icons that render themselves as appropriate
to the rectangle they are given.  Then a nicely behaved program could display
larger icons as desired, either doing a best-fit with what's there, or
generating from vectors.


Also, I wouldn't call them "accessible" icons, but rather icons of various
sizes.


Peter Korn
Sun Accessibility team