[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion
- Subject: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion
- From: Bernhard Dippold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:00:25 +0100
- To: email@example.com
Hi Christoph, all,
Christoph Noack schrieb:
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
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?
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
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
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
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
I did never use Math for any real task, so please help me with the idea...
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.)
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
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.
PS: Does anybody know if we can use vector graphics for the larger scales?
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
|Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion||Christoph Noack <email@example.com>|
|Re: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion||Björn Balazs <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [libreoffice-design] Fwd: LibO-3.3-rc1 download icons still mentions "beta"
- Next by Date: [libreoffice-design] Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
- Previous by thread: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion
- Next by thread: Re: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion