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

Hi Bernhard, all!

Let's continue with the icon topic ... anybody, feel free to jump in as
well.

Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 21:00 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
[...]
> > > > * 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...

I'm fine with anything that suits our needs :-) Originally, I didn't
need the middle pixel when I created the small website icon that was
meant to "fill" the available space.

> > > 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.

As I said, I don't have any hard feelings here ... but since the smaller
icons are already there, we might start to use 13:16 for the other
icons. One thing I am still unsure is, whether the icons will look good
(in terms of their size and position) on all the platforms; but maybe we
have to accept compromises here.

The other way round, I do think that the "symbolism" is the bigger
challenge ;-)

[...]

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

Good thing!

> > > Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner
> >
> > Fine with that.

Okay, so similar to: http://odftoolkit.org/pages/ODF-Icons#ODF_Icons

> > > 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...

Okay. If we do have even more space, we might even symbolize a data
project, which should be rather distinctive ...

> > > 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 ? ;-)

Oh, I thought about even simpler things like triangles, circles,
rectangles, ...

> > > 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

That is indeed rather detailed ... having in mind that some people "see"
databases via input fields and custom dialogs, maybe this would be an
alternative. The good thing about dialogs is, that they do have a
rectangular shape - that should help us to "fit in" this object.

> > > 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...

Oh, that was some time that made my hands feel dumb ... because the main
elements in Math are curly braces. No problem on an English keyboard,
but on a German one this requires some artistic skills.

However, I made up a very rough draft ...
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xzucK_ybZDoBqpdb9jrbBQ?feat=directlink

Does that suit?

We may start with the sum symbol on small sizes, then add the additional
elements, and finally add the drawing guide lines.


> > > 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.

I don't mind that much ... I've never seen any user having such kind of
document on the desktop (which doesn't mean that this won't happen). So
I'm a bit relaxed, here.

> > > [...]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.

Mmh, although the creation might be rather simple for us.

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

You mean, if we can skip the export of the graphics to PNG (or some
other pixel based format)? As far as I know - no. Okay, I'm a bit unsure
with regard to Windows 7 ...

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 ***