Jakob Petsovits | 1 Jun 01:25 2008
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [Fwd: Icons for: FitToPage, FitToWidth, & FitToHeight revisited]

On Sunday, 1. June 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> > > One proposed solution for this is to rename "viewmag" to "page-zoom".
> > > This appears to be a poor choice since:
> >
> > i would agree.

It's the general feeling that "page-zoom" is not an ideal name, and after 
having seen some more examples of how applications use a generic "zoom" icon, 
I do agree with that.

I also talked with dobey (naming spec maintainer) about this issue, and one of 
the conclusions for me is that the root problem here is the usage of a single 
icon for two different use cases:

a) as a "zoom tool", like in drawing applications such as Krita or Inkscape.
b) as icon for the "Zoom" menu which does not do anything by itself but
   just contains a set of concrete zoom actions ("Zoom in", "Zoom out",
   "Zoom to original size", etc.).

In order to make sane icon naming possible here, we need to distinguish 
between those different concepts and look at them separately.

The "zoom tool" use case is relatively easy from a naming point of view, and 
after talking to dobey there is little doubt that "tool-zoom" should be the 
right name for such an icon (next to other drawing tools that will also be 
prefixed with "tool-*").

The menu use case is the one that causes all the confusion. It would be worth 
(Continue reading)

Jakob Petsovits | 1 Jun 01:31 2008
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

On Saturday, 31. May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> pinheiro wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > James, couple of things .... we usuly put the x on the side, we dont use
> > the shadow under action any more, and we do special versions for 16, 22,
> > and 48.
>
> I hope that these are OK for "view".  If OK, I can commit them.

If I'm correct, the icons that you attach for "view" are the same ones that 
are currently in use as "view-close". We already have small versions for 
those icons, so there is no need to post them again for "view" as it's the 
same icon.

So Nuno meant that we need small versions for the version with 
additional "X" - the other icon can just simply be moved away 
from "view-close" (or be replaced altogether).

> Perhaps Jakob has something to say about the red "X" for "view-close".

As always, it depends on how the icon is being used. As far as I know, 
view-close is being used primarily as counterpart for view-split-*, that is, 
to close one side of a split view and blow the remaining view up to the full 
window size (slightly simplified).

The problematic thing for the metaphor aspect is that a view in itself is not 
something that can really be drawn... it's just the thing inside the window 
frame. So "split views" can be visualized by adding the splitter inside the 
window that tears the single view apart into two new views. "Close view" 
(Continue reading)

Jakob Petsovits | 1 Jun 01:46 2008
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

On Sunday, 1. June 2008, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> So before you commit an additional icon to Oxygen, please gather the use
> cases for that icon.

You could see http://lxr.kde.org/search?filestring=&string=%22view-close%22
as a starting point, or wcgrep your trunk checkout for less false positives 
(in case you have a full checkout).
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists <at> kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

James Richard Tyrer | 1 Jun 02:04 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [Fwd: Icons for: FitToPage, FitToWidth, & FitToHeight revisited]

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday 29 May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> and, therefore, the third should logically be named:
>> 
>> zoom
>> 
>> This results in a (possibly) valid issue that if an icon: 
>> "zoom-fit-*" is not available that the icon loader will fall back 
>> to "zoom".
> 
> which is why themes must simply provide a zoom-fit at minimum.

An interesting suggestion.  The problem is that there is no icon name
"zoom-fit"

> the fallbacks are not there to replace proper themes, otherwise it 
> would be possible to create a usable theme with a dozen or so icons 
> ;)

I see a need for fallback icons where KDE has added icons that are not
in the name spec.  This is the case with "view".  Whether or not that is 
relevant with the question of the "zoom" icon depends on what the icons 
for FitToPage, etc. are named.  If they are named, "view-fit-*" then it 
is not relevant.  However, IAC, the icon named "viewmag" in KDE3 is 
needed and the simplest and most logical name for it is simpy "zoom".

> the fallbacks are there for where it makes sense and the mechanism is
>  defined in a generic way (as opposed to explicit per-use-case 
> fallback paths) so that the solution can be used wherever it may make
>  sense now and in the future.
(Continue reading)

James Richard Tyrer | 1 Jun 02:30 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Saturday, 31. May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> pinheiro wrote: <SNIP>
>> 
>>> James, couple of things .... we usuly put the x on the side, we
>>> dont use the shadow under action any more, and we do special
>>> versions for 16, 22, and 48.
>> I hope that these are OK for "view".  If OK, I can commit them.
> 
> If I'm correct, the icons that you attach for "view" are the same
> ones that are currently in use as "view-close".

Actually, that is the case with other themes, but, if you check you will
see that the present Oxygen version of "view-close" has a red button
which is not suitable for the generic "view" icon [see attached].

> We already have small versions for those icons, so there is no need
> to post them again for "view" as it's the same icon.

Actually, He said that the small ones were not satisfactory and after 
looking at them closely, I agreed, so I worked on the small icons after 
making a slightly modified SVG that renders better in small sizes.

Note that there is still a problem with PNG rendering of SVGs.  Even a 
boundary between the icon and the background that falls exactly on a 
pixel boundary still has an Alpha of other than 255 which makes the icon 
less visible in small sizes.

IAC, I was a bit surprised that the sharp small icons aren't much (if 
any) better than the existing fuzzy ones in the smaller sizes.
(Continue reading)

James Richard Tyrer | 1 Jun 02:55 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [Fwd: Icons for: FitToPage, FitToWidth, & FitToHeight revisited]

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> On Thursday 29 May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>>> and, therefore, the third should logically be named:
>>>
>>> 	zoom
>>>
>>> This results in a (possibly) valid issue that if an icon: "zoom-fit-*"
>>> is not available that the icon loader will fall back to "zoom".
>> which is why themes must simply provide a zoom-fit at minimum. the
> 
> never mind.
> 
> i just caught up with kde-core-devel mail finally and read about this issue 
> there where there was a pointer to this discussion:
> 
> 	http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-artists&m=121062526701465&w=2
> 
> in the second mail, Jakob says:
> 
> "That's what my original idea (and even proposal for the ArtLibreSet) was as 
> well, but when thinking about this once more, it appears better to have an 
> icon that is not in the current theme but has an accurate metaphor, as opposed 
> to have a row of plain magnifier glasses that all look the same."

While this probably wouldn't actually occur, we are using it as an 
example.  Having multiple magnifier glasses would be preferred over 
having multiple "?" icons.

> he then gives some pretty compelling reasons for that position, namely 
(Continue reading)

James Richard Tyrer | 1 Jun 03:20 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] Resolving icon naming conflicts

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday 26 May 2008, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
>> I ask you, "immediate supervisors" (quote JRT) to take a look at this
> 
> urg. we're immediate team members, not immediate supervisors =)

That was a facetious remark made to emphasize the fact that there are no 
'immediate supervisors' in a project composed of peers.

>> kdelibs? handles icon loading and the technical side of icon fallbacks.
> 
> kdelibs really has nothing to say about the names of the icons, just the 
> mechanism for loading an icon given an arbitrary name.

Well, yes and no.  If you mean the actual choice of words for the names, 
you are 100% correct since the code doesn't care about the words used to 
name icons.  However, there is also the issue of the logical structure 
of the names (which is the way the code parses the names).  As I said, 
the names are for people and the logical structure of the names is for 
the code.  Obviously, if the names are not logically arranged into tree 
diagrams, then fallback will not work.

>> oxygen? is what i work on, but also affects other themes.
>> kdebase/runtime? has oxygen just as a "minor" part amongst other large
>> pieces of concrete code.
> 
> oxygen is a project of the kde artwork project, and it seems that icon naming 
> as well would fall within the kde artwork project scope.
> 
> as for how to bridge it over to the developers, this is something that affects 
(Continue reading)

Kenneth Wimer | 1 Jun 21:25 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

On Sunday 01 June 2008 02:30:02 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Note that there is still a problem with PNG rendering of SVGs.  Even a
> boundary between the icon and the background that falls exactly on a
> pixel boundary still has an Alpha of other than 255 which makes the icon
> less visible in small sizes.

Not true, you must be doing something wrong.

--
Ken
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists <at> kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

James Richard Tyrer | 1 Jun 23:07 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2008 02:30:02 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> Note that there is still a problem with PNG rendering of SVGs.  Even a
>> boundary between the icon and the background that falls exactly on a
>> pixel boundary still has an Alpha of other than 255 which makes the icon
>> less visible in small sizes.
> 
> Not true, you must be doing something wrong.
> 
The problem occurs with both Inkscape and The GIMP.

--

-- 
JRT
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists <at> kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

Kenneth Wimer | 1 Jun 23:31 2008
Picon

Re: [kde-artists] [RFC] Icons "view" & "view-close"

On Sunday 01 June 2008 23:07:23 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 June 2008 02:30:02 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> >> Note that there is still a problem with PNG rendering of SVGs.  Even a
> >> boundary between the icon and the background that falls exactly on a
> >> pixel boundary still has an Alpha of other than 255 which makes the icon
> >> less visible in small sizes.
> >
> > Not true, you must be doing something wrong.
>
> The problem occurs with both Inkscape and The GIMP.

I do about 99.99% of my work with inkscape and am pretty sure that it works 
just fine. Look at the attached png file, the lines are nice and crisp - that 
is exported from inkscape.

--
Ken
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists <at> kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists

Gmane