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

Hi Christoph, all,

Christoph Noack schrieb:
> 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 ;-)

I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you directly - but I read your mails 
and used them as basis for my last mail.

Björn, just one comment on your idea about inverting template icons: I 
had mainly the same thoughts, but this means that one set of icons 
(document or template) would be darker in color. As I believed the 
document icons to be more important, I created the templates in lighter 
color. But they looked more clear than the document icons, so we used 
their color as basis and searched for another element to discriminate 
the different sets.
> Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 15:18 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
> > [...]
> > 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.

Even the 16px size would permit it, but we would lose one pixel in width 
(13x16 px instead of 14x16 px). I don't think that this pixel is 
important in recognition, but causes the imbalance look of the Calc 
icon, because there is no middle pixel...
> > 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.

If we go with 14x16 px icons (relation 14:16), the next size (32px) 
could be 27x32 (relation 13,5:16) and larger scales (from 48 px) would 
fit better and better with the original 13,2:16 relation.

An alternative approach would be to stay with 13:16 for all sizes (if we 
can live with the smaller 16 px icons), thus modifying the official TDF 
symbol a (nearly invisible) bit by reducing it's width by about 2 px in 
128 px size.
> 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.

With a 13:16 approach we wouldn't need to align the icons with the 
screen pixels in all common scales, as they are a multitude of 16...


> > >         * Larger and more detailed document/application symbols
> >
> > Did you already create some of them?
>
> No, sorry.

Didn't think you should have to, so no need to apologize - I just wanted 
to avoid double work.
> > 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?

Yes please.

Perhaps we can create raw drafts of the symbols to present them?
> > 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.

We can use different levels of bullet points instead...
> > 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.

But it work ;-)
> How about some drawing primitives?

I want to show that it is a vector based application - the present 
symbol doesn't contain this at all.

3D-Effects, wireframes: These are not the primitives you have in mind ? ;-)
> > Base: a relational database model
>
> Aehm, how does that look like? ;-)

Just the present symbol with some additional arrows, file stacks and 
other symbols (forms, reports) - something like this: 
http://www.itnomy.com/images/image002.jpg
> > 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 ...

+1
> > 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?
I did never use Math for any real task, so please help me with the idea...
> > MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons
>
> Yep. Or, 4 miniaturized versions of the symbolism (only.)

Depends on how they look like. If the symbols contain the cut-off 
corner, I'm fine with them.
> > Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window
>
> Might work - if the text window is distinctive with regard to the
> Impress symbol.

Should be - as the icon has grey borders, we could add the color coding 
from the macro window.
> > [...]but having something that
> > is not required rather feels like a luxury at the moment.

Same might be true for larger scale high contrast icons: OOo 
(ODF-toolkit) doesn't provide them in scales larger than 32x32 px.

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: Does anybody know if we can use vector graphics for the larger scales?

--
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 ***