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

[Diana Fong]

I think the jist of your original message(s) was whether there should be 
multiple vector versions per icon...and my response was/is yes.  I was 
saying at least 2...but doesn't preclude an icon from having 3, 4, 
5...etc.  Or as you are suggesting now, at least 3.  As a matter of 
fact, I've just uploaded a few by MikeLanglie which has 3 svgs because 
the line weight, gradient, and shape was simplified/changed. 

Diana



Máirín Duffy wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-art-list mailing list
> Fedora-art-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list