Removing icons from KDE 4 Menus

[Kenneth Wimer]

* Nicolas Goutte <nicolasg at snafu.de> [Sep 02. 2005 22:26]:
> On Friday 02 September 2005 22:06, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 2. September 2005 21:34, schrieb Nicolas Goutte:
> > > On Friday 02 September 2005 20:19, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > > On Friday 02 September 2005 12:37, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > > > Well, as the document about the new KDE4 icons seems to want to
> > > > > *remove* the icons from the menus in KDE4, I am not sure about to
> > > > > enable by default the icons on buttons in KDE 3.5, as long as this is
> > > > > not clear.
> > >
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > > But why would they just up and remove all the icons?
> > >
> > > As far as I have understood multiple discussions, SVG icons in small
> > > sizes are not very nice and the current small KDE icons made from SVG are
> > > corrected by hand.
> >
> > Is this still state of the art? I use Umicons recently and cannot really
> > see too much problems with the surely not handtuned 16x16 icons. And my
> > eyes really first scan the icons in the menu, than reassure with the text,
> > I just checked.
> 
> Then why is there a refusal of the artists (or at least the ones making 
> Oxygen) to do 16x16?

Well, we haven't refused anything (yet) but yes, making 16x16 pixel
icons is a lot of work. As long ass we do not need to make a lot more
new actions than exist in crystal it should not be too hard because
crystal doesn't have very good ones either.

> >
> > Dpis are getting higher, so the used pixel sizes increase from 16x16. One
> > of my desktops has a 1400x1024 screen, with dpi of 116x116. There I use
> > 22x22 for the small icons and enjoy everything being as large in RL (on
> > physical display) like with my 1024x768 but being more smooth.
> 
> However not everybody has a state-of-the-art computer and also it has been 
> stated a few times that there exist users (not even with eye difficulties) 
> that prefer 800x600 even if their video card and their monitor could do a 
> much higher resolution. ("Everything is so nicely big".)

I have several systems with big displays etc, and they don't look any
better to me.

> >
> > > So I suppose that the artists want to avoid the manual correction.
> >
> > Which is understandable. But what about simply dropping that complicate
> > size then (optionally)?
> 
> There is also the alternate question: should small icons really be extra-nice?
> 
> As for being optional, I do not think that it is possible. Either there are 
> such icons in KDE (be it in "stock" or be it drawn at run-time) or there are 
> not such icons. (Icons are not Schrödinger's cats.)

artists are cats, art maintainers are cat herders and icons are the
little pieces of funny smelling stuff that cats leave behind.

> >
> > What about e.g. the taskbar? The size of the icons used there will hardly
> > be larger than the ones in the menu bar. And still we keep them as they
> > help to separate the different entries, don't we?
> 
> The default icons in the taskbar are 32x32 as far as I know. If this size is 
> at disposition, then we will really have a crisis in KDE.

As I understand it the now is 22x22 but will be 32x32 in the future (4)

-- 
Kenneth Wimer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scheinbare Rechtschreibfehler beruhen auf einer individuellen
Rechtschreibreform