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

[Máirín Duffy]

Diana Fong wrote:
> 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.

This won't address the sized-down versions of the large icons which have 
fine details that would never stand out with straight-up scaling. So it 
looks like for most icons there should be at least 3 SVGs:

- full size, isometric
- small, straight on
- small, isometric

> Bluecurve does have vector files at it's various sizes but a large 
> number are just a resizing of the larger icon vector. 

The Bluecurve icons do take to being straight-up scaled a lot better 
though. Probably because of their strong outlines. But I know I have 
worked with a few Bluecurve icons that at different sizes appeared to 
have modifications on the line thickness in the different sizes at the 
very least.

 > 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.

I'm not following. Are you saying it will save time now to scale down 
the large versions via touching up the bitmap, and that at some point in 
the future we should make scaled-down vector versions of the touch-up?

Again, when I'm suggesting multiple size versions of the vector, I'm 
*not* suggesting the same exact vectors merely scaled down. (If you 
really had a desire to do this, it could be scripted easily.) I'm 
suggesting the vectors scaled down with manual modifications *in the 
vector* to clarify the bitmap output. Common tweaks would be line 
thickening, shape simplification, gradient modification, etc.

This would not take any extra time, as it would replace touching up the 
icons bitmap-wise. You wouldn't have to do that if you 'touched up' the 
vector. And, it takes about the same amount of time to do either.

> 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.

I just don't think, across the whole set, 2 SVGs would be sufficient 
since the icons are changing perspective. If they were not changing 
perspective, then it might not be too much of a stretch to scale the 
small size vector up to create larger-sized bitmaps. But in this case, 
it's just not going to work because of the perspective differences. Even 
in your mockup you had to touch up the larger sized icons.

~m