[Qgis-developer] Cast your vote: Default icon theme for QGIS 2.0

[Larry Shaffer]

Hi Robert and Giovanni,

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Szczepanek <robert at szczepanek.pl> wrote:
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> On 28.07.2012 16:07, G. Allegri wrote:
>>
>> I've voted for the GIS theme, though I share my opinion on icon size.
>> I work with various GIS and CAD software (both OS and commercial) and
>> I've always found a bit strange the default 24x24 icon size of QGis.
>> Most of the other softwares use 16x16 icons.
>
>
> 24x24 icon size is result of some preliminary discussion and research.

My experience from Mac apps is the opposite from Giovanni's. Most apps
default with 32x32 (or sometimes larger) icons, with the standard OS X
Cocoa app toolbar customization of 'use small size'. That option
usually drops it down to 24x24, though the developer decides the size.
There is usually not a third choice.

So, for me, on my iMac with its too-large 27" screen, the opposite
scaling issue up to 32x32 also exhibits the poor Qt scaling (blurry).

>> I know that one can change the icon size, but having just the 24x24
>> icons the scaling produces blurs and keeps the icon padding proportions,
>> while with 16x16 it could be reduced to provide more room.
>
>
> Rescaling is not good idea, even from SVG. At this size scalability is very
> limited.
>
>> Here are two screenshots of Qgis with 16x16 icons [1] and one from a
>> commercial software with the same icon size [2]. Notice the different
>> spacing, and the crisp icons.
>>
>> I suggest to package 16x16 version for the icons, and revise the icon
>> padding
>
>
> You are absolutely right. There should be additional 16x16px version. With
> very limited spare time my options are:
> 1/ Try to keep project's progress (GRASS and QGIS) and design missing icons.
> 2/ Make them nicer - more colourful, 2.5D, etc.
> 3/ Prepare icons for 16x16 and 32x32px

In my own experimentation with Qt icon scaling, I have found scripting
ImageMagick or Photoshop to do the up/down-scaling, with or without a
bit of sharpening applied afterword, to produce better quality icons
than the Qt scaling. It may be good enough quality to preclude
re-creating your icons for the other sizes.

Another option is to design icons with fewer details and higher
contrast so that they still look OK when scaled (see MSSQL icon in
Giovanni's QGIS example). I believe this would also address the issue
of some icon groups looking too busy due to too much detail, example:
the 'Add * Layer' icons of your set.

Having multiple size sets for icons means some naming conventions and
coding to switch between the sets; whereas now, the code simply asks
Qt to handle the scaling by setting a toolbar's icon size in one call
(as an example). Another good reason to go with icons that can cope
with Qt's scaling: no code changes.

Switching between size sets also means any third party icons (e.g.
plugins), that don't provide multiple icon versions, will have their
icons scaled. This would end up with users seeing different quality
between core and plugin toolbars, though I don't know how much this
can be avoided regardless of scaling issues. If moving to multiple
icon size sets, there might have to be an additional requirement of
multiple icon sizes for third-party plugins in the official
repository, if overall higher icon quality is desired.

So, my vote here for your icon set would be to go with only the 24x24
size, reduce the complexity of the most complex icons, increase
overall contrast where needed, and add any 2.5 effects to make them
pop a bit more (but not if such an effect causes the blurry scaling
problem or poor quality to occur).


Regards,

Larry


> And I decided to follow this priority: 1 -> 2 -> 3.
> I hope you understand my point of view.



> regards,
> Robert
>
>> giovanni.
>>
>> [1] http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1442/qgis16x16.png
>> [2] http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2697/other16x16.png