Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard,

before I start: Jaron and Björn (if you might read this), thanks a lot
for your feedback some days ago. I'll try to answer within the next
hours after having finished to work on my mail stack ;-)

Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 15:18 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
> Hi Christoph, all,
>
> when I finally started working on the icons again, I got a few questions 
> we should solve:

Great (the working, not the questions *g*)! My basic question is, how we
can work together to come up with a complete set - since I may have
missed some activity: is there anybody else working on the set at the
moment? Or, are all other guys busy to improve the website ;-)

> Christoph Noack schrieb:
> > [...]
> > * Graphical Design *
> >
> > My changes address most of my concerns I've stated in one of my last
> > mails, so here some summary:
> >        * Slightly larger icons in general
>
> Your icons are broader by keeping the height.

Yep, I did that for the 16px version to improve the clarity. Here, each
pixel counts :-) In general, I'd like to keep the original aspect ration
if the size permits.


> This means that we will have to decide, if larger icons (from 32x32px) 
> will keep the relation of the 16px icons (now 14:16 in width:height) or 
> the relation from the TDF symbol (13,2:16). My icons have been 13:16, 
> allowing to have a middle line on the sub-application symbols.

The latter sounds good! I think it is acceptable to (since the document
symbol within the logo is somehow set at the moment) slightly adapt the
representation for the application/document icons to align with the
screen pixels.

> >        * Larger and more detailed document/application symbols
>
> Did you already create some of them?

No, sorry.

> If not, what do you think about the following ideas (just repeating some 
> of them):

So, this is about the characteristic symbol for each of the documents? I
assume (please correct me, if I'm wrong) that highly detailed symbols
are only used for larger versions of the icons? The smaller will contain
less details, or?

I'm basically fine with all of the proposals below. Might this be a good
point to talk to Björn to check some of the symbols (variations) with
some users?

> Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner

Fine with that.

> Calc: a chart in the right lower corner

Also fine with that.

> Impress: a detailed slide (header, sub-header, a few bullet points and a 
> chart?)

Well, we don't support automatic sub-headers along with "normal" slide
content ;-) And, I'd skip the chart ... to avoid misinterpretations with
regard to Chart.

> Draw: a floor plan with measurements

Mmh, this sounds very detailed ... and Draw does not work that well with
measurements, because it lacks (or let's say: it does not fit to a
drawing program) page size independent measurements.

How about some drawing primitives?


> Base: a relational database model

Aehm, how does that look like? ;-)


> Chart: two or three different charts along with a small table

Yep. But, I think it would be helpful to omit the table ... although it
is based on structured data, most people won't be aware of the fact that
Chart does incorporate own table data. So we focus on the visual
representation ...


> Math: more mathematical symbols (integral, root, log ?)

Fine with that - but we should somehow incorporate that it is only the
visual representation and not the calculation. So how about adding
"drawing lines/guides" around/within the elements?


> MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons

Yep. Or, 4 miniaturized versions of the symbolism (only.)


> Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window

Might work - if the text window is distinctive with regard to the
Impress symbol.


> Details should only be present on 128px and 256px, perhaps somehow 
> reduced in 64px.

Oh, sorry, forget my question above ;-) But, I keep it in the text.


> I don't know how much I can work on them, but perhaps someone else has 
> similar / different ideas and is willing to join in?

That would be - indeed - great! Anybody who might jump in to help here?
(I know that we do have several interesting tasks at the moment, but it
I'd feel much better to know who is working on what).

> >        * Template icons now feature some "college block binding"
>
> I like these binders, they have to be created in detail for the larger 
> icons.
>
> For the small 16px icons I prefer Jaron's smaller binding because they 
> seem to be a bit better to discriminate.

I will have a look at it, again.

> >        * Some more icons (Chart, Printer Setup, Installer, ...)
>
> Thanks for them.
>
> By the way: Are you sure, that we need templates for Base?
>
> They are not contained in the ODF definition (v. 1.2), where we can find 
> other template mime types that might come one day (Chart, Math, Writer/web):
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/OpenDocument-v1.2-part1.html#a_Appendix_C_
> (huge page, long loading, not moving to Appendix C)

Oh, maybe I missed that we don't need it ... but having something that
is not required rather feels like a luxury at the moment.

Bernhard, thanks for your work!

Cheers,
Christoph


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***