unity-design team mailing list archive

[Conscious User <conscioususer@xxxxxxx>]

Jason, while we're at this subject, could you please tell if Unity is going to
follow the WM_CLASS "emergency fallback" that Docky currently uses?


Since Unity is going to use those big icons, I'm particularly worried
whether it will always ensure overriding small icons with large enough ones,
even when the window is not directly associated to a .desktop file.




-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Smith <jason.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Martín "A. Casco" <martincasco@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ayatana <ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Ayatana] Launcher' icons size to big


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