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