2014-11-18 19:24 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
On 11/16/2014 03:46 AM, Mirek M. wrote:
2014-11-16 0:24 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <email@example.com
Yes the gnome 2.20 style is alot better than the glossy gnome 3.0+
at the 24x24 icon size. We are only using the older style for the
based icons like bold, italics, underline, etc. It is still tango as
using the gnome 2.20 style.
Could you point me to your source for the Gnome 2.2 icons?
From a quick Google search, it seems as if that version used the old
industrial icons, at least judging from e.g.
https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.2/ , and those are
definitely not Tango.
Those are the old Gnome icons, yes, but unlike the new ones we have, these
icons still employ lighting, though the material is a bit different from
the new ones. While the gradients and highlights are more subtle, the icons
are not flat.
Also, quoting the Tango guidelines: "Having homogenous lighting across
all icons also is important for visual consistency. Tango icons are lit
from above, with the light source slightly to the left. Icons with /on
the table/ perspective may cast a fuzzy shadow on the surface as if the
light source came from the position of the observer. "
If we have a flat icon set with no regard for lighting, then it
shouldn't be called Tango.
Well if we need a gradient on the stroke to keep it inline with Tango,
then we can apply a suitable one to keep it in line with the guidelines.
I was talking about the fill rather than the stroke.
Gradients aren't required, but correct lighting is, and that implies
gradients. Adding in any old gradient doesn't work though -- it should be
designed to look as if there was a light source lighting up the icons, as
described by the Tango Icon Theme Guidelines: "Having homogenous lighting
across all icons also is important for visual consistency. Tango icons are
lit from above, with the light source slightly to the left."
Yes it always best to stick with the guidelines but we shouldnt be
willing to bend the rules when there are suitable cases to do so. I'm
not an icon designer, so all i'm doing is patching up icons which are
already present. I'll let the designers decide what best works for
guys, as i dont have the skill to comment on this.
The guidelines are there to maintain consistency, and icon size is a
pretty important point.
Also, the new icons don't present one or two exceptions to the rule -- a
number of icons go over the margin. In this case, it's clearly better to
change the guidelines.
Then i guess the guidelines should be to strive for 22x22 and worse case
No -- we should stick to just 22x22 icons. Just pretend that the bounding
rectangle is 22x22 instead of 24x24.
From the guidelines:
"'Small' is the common size for application toolbar icons.
Its bitmap size is 22×22 pixels. This size is common for toolbars in KDE
and the GIMP.
Gnome has been using a size of 24×24px (which is ¼ of 48×48); just adding a
1 pixel empty space on all sides can make Tango icons useful on the Gnome
Why do we have 24x24 rectangles, then?
The main reason was compatibility -- since both industrial and the old
tango set use 24x24 for lc icons, we're less likely to accidentally break
things if we choose the same icon size. And 24 is a nicer number to work
with (it's nicely divisible, works well with grids).
I didnt create the style, i took the gnome 3.12
format-indent-justify-text.svg file, made the stroke a solid color,
changed the gradient to be similar to the 2.20 gradient and reduced
shadow transparency by half.
You're creating the style by implementing it.
Since we need a cohesive set and have more than one designer, there need
to be some guidelines for creating icons with this new style.
Well i'll have you and Alex write up what is needed as i'm still a newb
at icon designing. :D
Unfortunately, as I noted on the forum, I don't have time for this.
However, if you decide to stick with tango (meaning consistent lighting and
22x22 icons wih 1px margin), guidelines won't be necessary. (Some
guidelines may be useful, perhaps, but not necessary.)
My github username is philipzae. I'd be honored to be included in the
file, though i wouldnt truly be able to contribute to the svgs. :D
I just sent you an invitation. The file is there primarily for licensing
reasons -- if the team needs to change the license, it needs to contact
every contributor. You should contribute through GitHub directly, so
that if you disagree with a relicensing, the team can simply remake the
icons you worked on.
Didnt get any invitation on github, or is it i just dont know where to
look, but it isnt in my notifications inbox.
Check your e-mail or https://github.com/libodesign .
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy