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
_______________________________________________
@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/
