unity-design team mailing list archive

["Mirek M." <mazelm@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,
Personally, I just don't like the look of these icons.
I really, truly didn't care about fuzzy icons in Maverick and I won't care
going forward. All the other docks with variable icon sizes (Docky, AWN,
even the Mac OS X dock) have had the same problem, and nobody seems to mind.
To me, Unity right now seems much uglier that it used to be in Maverick, and
that's only because of the way the launcher looks.

2010/12/6 Jason Smith <jason.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 21:47 -0300, Martín A. Casco wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I wrote docky, trust me, it happens :)
>
> >
> > 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..
>
> Compared to the old launcher you lose an extra 2-4 pixels horizontally.
> I understand then point about horizontal space. I believe a better
> hiding mode may be useful for you. I hope to have intellihide ready
> soon.
>
> >
> > 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..
>
> 52x52 vs 48x48 makes no difference in terms of number of vertical
> applications on the launcher in a standard netbook screen. The last once
> folds a tiny bit sooner is all.
>
> I should note the code is completely flexible in icon sizing so we can
> do resolution independent UI in the future.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> Jason Smith | Desktop Experience Team
> GNOME Developer
> Canonical USA Inc.
> T. +1.248.756.6266 | jason.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>