Oops...forgot to add link [1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/BluecurveAndBeyond?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=iso01_29.png
Diana Fong wrote:
I believe there might be a few things confusing the matter...hopefully
this will help to clear it up a bit.
[Bluecurve, Tango, Echo...etc]
For those that like Bluecurve, don't fear it will still be included in
our next releases. However, this should not stop us from trying to
creating a new icon set. Perhaps Echo might not be THE icon set ...
but maybe by exploring this together we can come up with something
better than it's starting point. By opening its development early on,
it is hoped that through the input of various people, the new set
could somehow be better.
By saying that you just don't like it...is valid but perhaps by
creating a few examples with modifications, the rest of us can follow
your example to creating something better. If you say further that
it's just not an improvement over the others and efforts should not be
spent on this...perhaps you could suggest better alternatives...even
if you've got a great idea in a completely different look, it would
also be great...and this start would have been all worth it...for echo
to serve as a starting point to something more usable. At this point
no icon set is without faults, echo is an icon project intended at
creating, what I had hoped to be a better style, but more importantly
to really develop an icon theme that is from the collaboration of the
community. If small sized icons are what's dear to you, please do
help with the creation of them. By getting involved, you can
influence the direction of things rather than ...perhaps feeling a bit
antagonized by what other people create and throw at you. If you
believe it is beyond help then...well...there are other icon sets, not
everyone has to use the same one. However, I have seen some useful
suggestions even in the many emails this weekend and ask that perhaps
you can think of it as it's own project. Bluecurve, Tango and others
aside, how can we improve echo.
[smaller icons]
Some people's overall dislike of the set was a bit confused with the
issue of it looking bad in smaller sizes. My question is, therefore,
at it's current size...do you like it? At this point...I'm looking
for feedback on the look and feel of the icons. The angle, the
colors, the shadow. Previous messages of the shadow being a bit too
dark was useful as well as someone's current mention of the "grave
cross" "add" icon. With the shadow, this icon set is no longer a
simple copy and paste of icons into a square, accommodations have to
be made for the shadow, and therefore, with different shapes, icons
such as the "pause" might seem larger than the "skip forward" and
whatnot it's placed next to. But these are exactly the kinds of
consideration that are useful when brought up.
Each smaller sizes will have to be either cleaned up at the .png or
the vector stage to make it more readable. Currently, smaller sizes
have not been created. Help is greatly appreciated in this area. The
package created by Leon was a quick test of the icons and should not
be criticized. Even with this package, we learn that the icons cannot
simply be scaled down, work has to be put in to clean up the smaller
versions...but maybe we can see which icons did work by simply
shrinking and thus lessen the amount of work. At the smaller size I do
realize that the current perspective will cause trouble and thus the
suggestion for them to be head on and definitely simplified.
Something I found interesting/useful was the small icon
discussion...when does the icon start to break down? I had originally
thought of only the 16x16 as requiring the simplified version and was
on the fence for 24x24...but from the feedback, it seems that the
icons need to be simplified even before that size. So, instead of
saying that it's just horrible and unusable at smaller sizes, if we
can figure out at what point the icons need to be fixed, then that
would be constructive. I know in the Leon's package, there included
22 and 24 in addition to 48...and the 22 was probably horrendous...but
there's also 32 and 36 versions that are used as well...how do those
look?
I've also posted some of the early icons in the fc5 screen setting
[1]...those are actually cleaned up smaller icons. Is that _still_
bad...or maybe better? A few pixels cleaned here and there can really
make a difference. =)
[svg file size]
Yes, they are large...horribly so. Nicu's example of slimming it down
is awesome and I really hope someone could perhaps run through them.
I wish my original wasn't so large to begin with but at this point I
am trying to create as many as possible to provide for better coverage
and to also get to the smaller icons in time for release. Maybe it's
wishful thinking...I dunno, but must be hopeful. Attached is an
example from Andy Fitzsimon...when he first saw my svgs he laughed at
the ridiculous sizes...but instead of criticizing them...he went ahead
and showed what could actually able to get it down to 1.9k! If you
want to check it out...fyi. it came with the warning of...
"Warning: it uses an svg filter for the drop shadow ( gnome's librsvg
displays this fine but Inkscape will only display it on our next
release )"
So while he might not be interested in populating yet another icon
set, he is interested in optimizing svg files...and that's awesome.
It does make me hopeful to see this and really contributes to the
evolution of the icon set. But this is what I mean...with the
feedback and talents of various people the set can evolve into
something more.
There is, of course, always personal preference so while it might be
better for some, it might not be for others. We all have different
needs and are entitled to our opinions...let's just try to focus and
make what we write here useful to this project.
Sorry about the long email, was just trying to address the many points
brought up over the weekend.
Thanks,
Diana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/
_______________________________________________
@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/
