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

[G. Allegri]

>
>
> There may be a simpler means of using QtStylesheets to adjust the
> spacing between other icons and toolbar edges [2].
>

I've always kept the QTStylesheets in my to-read list. It seems a very
flexible choice.
I suppose that setting up its support in QGis would let us keep UI theming
loosely coupled from code. Is it right?

giovanni


>
>
> [0] http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/qtoolbar.html
> [1]
> https://github.com/qgis/Quantum-GIS/blob/master/src/app/qgisapp.cpp#L1483
> [2]
> http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/stylesheet-examples.html#id-756de882-8623-4e88-81b7-eb5bb800d3ca
>
> Larry
>
> >
> > 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/20120729/8fecfe8d/attachment.html>