Diana Fong wrote:
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 feel the need for a very punctual question: what is the size for our small icons, 24x24 as in GNOME HIG (http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/icons-types.html) or 22x22 as in Tango (http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines#Small) ?
-- nicu Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/ Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro _______________________________________________ @xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/
