unity-design team mailing list archive

[Martín "A. Casco" <martincasco@xxxxxxxxx>]

I understand your point. But just an example, since I use Ubuntu (from
Hardy), I always used AWN and 32 x 32 pixels for icon's launchers and
never have fuzzy problems... Even with Cairo and Docky.

But, if we use 52 x 52 small screens will loose to much space on
launcher, and auto-hide can't be the solutions, for many users like me,
auto-hide is not used..

Even more, with 52 x 52 icon's size, we can't add more apps to the
launcher, I know the option  arrange icons when we have a lot of apps on
launcher or to many apps open, but this option is very unusable, it's
look nice, but it's unusably..

Bets,

El dom, 05-12-2010 a las 18:53 -0500, Jason Smith escribió:

> There are unfortunate limitations on icon sizing in Linux. We are
> stuck
> with 24px, 32px, 48px, and 64px icons. We can interpolate in between,
> however this will make it fuzzy. Further 32x32 is not a good option
> since a lot of applications only ship a 24, 48, 64 set of icons.
> Further, svg's while scalable, do not scale all that well either. What
> are designed to be 1px lines end up being fractions of pixels, making
> them fuzzy as well.
> 
> For the compiz version of Unity it was then decided to use 48x48
> icons,
> with a 2 pixel border in the tile. This represents a growth in tile
> size
> from mavericks 48x48 to Natty's 52x52. The icons do *look* a lot
> bigger
> though because the icon fills a lot more of the tile now. In reality
> however, the icons are only 8% bigger. Some of this loss can be made
> up
> for by a smaller padding on each side of the launcher.
> 
> If you look at the launcher in Maverick you will see the icons are
> fuzzy. Be warned though, once you notice this, you can never
> un-notice!
> 
> To be truly scalable, Icon authors need to make svg's, and svg needs a
> way to denote a line has a fix pixel size. Until this is both possible
> and completed, we are stuck in the world of fixed icon sizes... or
> shipping lots of icons.