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

[G. Allegri]

Mantaining the autoscaling would certainly be the best option.
We need to find the right compromise to obtain sharp and clear icons for
all the scales. A hard task!
I don't know well the graphics features of Qt with SVG. I wonder if it
would be possible to obtain the scaling of icons spacing too. Whatever icon
size one chooses, the horizontal space between icons is 11px and the
vertical space between toolbars is 15px. It fits well for 24x24 but not for
16x16...

giovanni


2012/7/29 Larry Shaffer <larrys at dakotacarto.com>

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20120729/55d71c33/attachment.html>