Re: Time to install the new icons

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:14:51 +0100
> > From: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>
> > CC: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>, 
> > address@hidden,  address@hidden, 
> > "Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden>
> >
> > 1) Which 16x16 icon should be used? There are two versions on the last 
> > row of Andrews contributions. I myself prefer the second of those 
> > because it is more close to the bigger versions, but I know others have 
> > offered different opinions.
> >    
>
> I was specifically asking about the only .ico file sent by Andrew.  It
> looks exactly like the 16x16 .png icon we now have in etc/images/icons
> directory.  Do I understand correctly that you don't like it?
>  
My personal opinion is not most important here. Andrew asked for our 
opinions about this: 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-11/msg00974.html

And unfortunately I can not look at the png files in etc/images/icons. 
The copies I have downloaded from CVS are perhaps broken on my. I am 
using w32 and cvsnt from Oct 9 2005. Must something special be done to 
download the images on w32?

>  
>
> > 2) Andrew asked if the darker or lighter variant should be used. I think 
> > the darker version is in the top row and the lighter in the bottom row.
> > 3) Some people (including myself) ask for these icons in different 
> > colors. I know it is rather easy to handle on w32 and I guess that it is 
> > easy to handle on other platforms too.
> >    
>
> Let's for now settle for the same scheme as we had before: 32x32 and
> 48x48 for size, and for each size one icon on dark background and one
> on light background.
>  
I do not understand your comments about colors. Do you mean that we 
should have one version for light and another dark backgrounds? Or, do 
you say that we have that now? Maybe you misunderstood Andrew here?

I do not understand your comments about sizes either. Did you perhaps 
forget 16x16? I was just asking about 24x24 to be sure. Was that size 
perhaps needed on another platform than w32?

> > A) Which different sizes do we want in the icon file for w32? I believe 
> > at least 16x16, 32x32 and 48x48. How about 24x24, is that commonly used?
> > B) What color resolutions do we want? I believe low color resolution 
> > (256 colors) is necessary (because scaling down the color resolution 
> > does not give good results sometimes). How about high resolution? Should 
> > that look exactly the same? Higher resolutions gives a bit more 
> > possibilities. Maybe you want to use that Andrew?
> >    
>
> Again, I'd say let's for now have the same color resolutions as we had
> before.  Let's not complicate the issue by too much creeping
> featurism; that will come later.
The icon from Andrew actually include versions for 256 colors and 32-bit 
colors (which I believe is for xp), but no 24-bit color version.