kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 25/10/2013 14:08, Fabrizio Tappero a écrit :
> Dear Jean-Pierre,
> I agree, updating documentation is such a pain when icons change and I
> actually remember spending a long time on it. That is why I actually
> let 2 years pass. I think 26px icons changed and improved a lot how
> KiCad looks.
> 
> The thing is that from a graphical point of view the current KiCad
> icons are a little bit a mishmash of colors and styles, I think it
> would be good to make them belong to the same theme. More or less the
> same thing was done with Tango icons for Linux.
> 
> Original Icons are vector-based SVG icons but unfortunately that does
> not mean that they can be resized on any resolution. when you do a svg
> to 26px png conversion and the svg icon has a vertical line that is
> larger than 1/26 the width of the svg icon the result is a fuzzy
> vertical line. This is a very well known problem in the graphic design
> world and re-touching manually the PNG is always a must.

I know that.
However I am still thinking using vector-based SVG icons is better than
using fixed bitmap icons.

Most of time we have to choose between disadvantages, not advantages.

And for me, to be able to easily change the icon size is a bigger
advantage than having good vertical lines.
(In fact, SVG icons are not so bad)
And sometimes you have to create a set of 16,32,64 ... bitmaps of the
same icon.
I also am thinking modifying SVG icons with inkscape is (by far) more
easier than modifying bitmaps icons

I am also pretty sure many icons used in Linux world are most of time
created in svg format (see
http://openiconlibrary.sourceforge.net/downloads.html, full package)
Using only bitmap icons come from Windows world, not from Unix world

> 
> In the work for KiCad I did adjust each of the 460 icons but I have
> not really done a great job because of the limited time (=large number
> of icons). So some icons need to be fixed. However, what I cannot
> really do is to maintain 460 icons, that is why I proposed to drop the
> drop down menu ones.

I fully understand 460 icons to maintain is a lot of work.
Thanks you for the great work you did.

But like you said only some icons need to be fixed, not 460!.
Most of them are quite good, therefore no need to recreate all icons:
Recreating *all* icons, when most of them are good is just wasting you time.

Of course, enhancing some icons (the bad ones) is good.

> 
> So here we have two problems: 1) some icons are fuzzy, 2) many icons
> are a mishmash of styles. Fixing both is hard but possible and would
> give to KiCad was it is often perceived as a professional looking
> software tool (like gEDA for instance)

I agree: I would like to see these fuzzy icons, and mismatch style fixed.

But I really thinking most of icons are quite good.

Still believe me:
A professional looking software tool needs to have some icons in dialogs
which explains the purpose or the effect of some options
(in dialog zone for instance to show thermal reliefs, and many other
dialogs).
Have a look to Pcb Calculator and its Transline dialog:
without icons, it is not usable.

A professional looking software tool needs this kind of icons:
This is more important than recreate all icons in toolbars.

> 
> To ease this transition I am offering to update some of the English
> documentation too. I would ask the people who appear as maintainers of
> the various non English docs to take care of their portion.
Thanks.

For icons which are enhanced, if the new look is not very different from
the old one, doc does not always require to be updated.
Update is needed when icons are fully different.

> 
> Regarding the icons in the drop-down menus, I of course see the
> advantage of having additional info next to the menu item. I am a
> great fan of it but if you like it to be done, it is necessary to do
> it as it is normally done, for instance, in inkscape, see attachment.
> icons in the drop down menues are smaller.

I am fan of icons in menus. In many case they help (see mirror/rotate
commands for instance).

But I do not understand the meaning of "it is necessary to do
 it as it is normally done".
Smaller icon sizes in menus is only a convenient way to have smaller
menus (16x16 icon is roughly the size of a letter and its margins).
Until now I never read anything about the best icon size in menus, there
is also not a better size for fonts: the better size is the size you
like and it depends on you screen size, and how old you are (believe me,
this is not a joke).

> 
> Some of the icons that Konstantin has made are much better than what we have.

Yes, they could be used to replace some icons.
> 
> In my opinion we could start by slowly update 5 or 10 icons each time
> beginning from the most critical ones (e.g. Pcbnew left side)
> 
> Cheers
> Fabrizio

I do not know if you want to recreate icons using SVG format (Inkscape)
or a bitmap format to avoid fuzzy icons.

I am thinking using a bitmap format is a very bad idea:
I experimented the 2 methods, and I can say SVG format + Inkscape is by
far the best way to create and maintain icons.
And yes, sometimes SVG icons converted in bitmaps are slightly fuzzy,
but this is the price we should pay to have easy to maintain and easy to
use icons.

Thanks for you involvement.

-- 
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS