Preview of new scaled down icons (was Re: New Icon Set...[echo]...)

[Diana Fong]

The way I see/saw it was to have at least 2 vector versions for each 
file.  One for the Larger sizes (following the isometric grid) and one 
for the Smaller sizes (which is a simplified version and at a head-on 
view).  As to where the break down point is, I did not know whether it 
was at 24 or at the next size down...so my plan was to create "small" 
for 16x16.  With the two ends of the spectrum, we could then either 
enlarge the smaller vector or shrink the larger one.

If the icon's shape is changed at any point along the way (which some 
will probably have to)...meaning that it is not merely some pixel 
cleanup...then a vector file should also be provided to accompany the 
.png. 

I was also not sure why Tango only had one vector file (of the large 
size per icon) when some of their icons looks very different at the 
three sizes.  So, NO, we're definitely not doing that.

Bluecurve does have vector files at it's various sizes but a large 
number are just a resizing of the larger icon vector.  This is something 
that I would like to do eventually.  But given the time and resource 
constraints now, I don't see the point in saving several versions of the 
same vector file, but just smaller. 

This is not to say that it shouldn't be done...but perhaps after we get 
a good set going.  Post-release, I do plan on cleaning up the .svgs, 
creating various sizes, and also adding in the shadow in the svg file (I 
just can't get it to look good now). 

In conclusion...each icon should have at least one large vector and one 
small vector version.  If you feel that icon sizes in between need 
special attention resulting in an altered vector file, please do so and 
post that. 

Diana




Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Máirín Duffy wrote:
>> Diana Fong wrote:
>>> This is a mockup.  Took the icons and put them in the screenshots 
>>> found on OSDIR.com  The other mockups are at [1]
>>>
>>> As with almost all if the icons, bitmaps were cleaned up.  The 
>>> vector files were the same. The process used was, copy vector, paste 
>>> into bitmap app, clean up, insert shadow and flatten.
>>
>> So is the purpose here to create a vector-based icon theme like tango 
>> and bluecurve?
>>
>> Because if so this isn't the way to go about doing it.
>
> Ah let me qualify this since I think it came off entirely the wrong 
> way... that is what I get for sending emails with a phone to my ear. :-p
>
> Do we need vectors of the icons scaled down for various sizes? Is 
> there a use for this? It seems as if it would make it easier to create 
> the icons at various small sizes to at least have a large vector and a 
> small vector copy. Tango seems to just have one vector per set of icon 
> with multiple sizes. With Bluecurve, I'm pretty sure the vector source 
> files are actually different on a per-size basis.
>
> My assumption was that it was better to have vector formats whenever 
> possible, as it would help make the scaled-down versions of different 
> icons more consistent across icons as well as within a single icon of 
> various sizes. At least for the icons whose perspective will be 
> changed from isometric to flat, it seems as if it would be useful to 
> have a flat as well as isometric version of the icon whether or not 
> the flat vector was specifically optimized for small sizes.
>
> Another reason to have vector formats whenever possible is that the 
> more programmatically the icons are produced, the more leverage we 
> could get with making changes across the set in one step with a 
> script. So if one day we decide the drop shadow is too wide, for 
> example, with one simple script we could decrease it by a point or two.
>
> Also, it does not seem right to be adding the shadows bitmap-wise. 
> They should be in the SVGs.
>
> Make sense?
>
> ~m
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-art-list mailing list
> Fedora-art-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list