RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

Icon sizes required

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

6 of 6 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Icon sizes required Kevin Payne 21 Feb 08:27
  Icon sizes required Michael Schumacher 21 Feb 10:39
   Icon sizes required Kevin Payne 21 Feb 12:23
    Icon sizes required Jehan Pagès 21 Feb 17:24
     Icon sizes required Kevin Payne 21 Feb 22:52
      Icon sizes required Jehan Pagès 23 Feb 16:17
Kevin Payne
2016-02-21 08:27:00 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

Continuing on from the discussion on IRC earlier this week about pixel-aligned icons, I re-drew the gimp-gravity-* icons to align for the current 24x24 size.

However, when then trying them on 2.9.3.2cd687a I found that the icon-theme is requesting size 20x20 and therefore the 24x24 are being re-scaled, loosing the pixel alignment.

So my question is this: Is there a way to get a correct list of all the required icon sizes as the current reference, icon-list.mk file, is inaccurate?

Kevin

Michael Schumacher
2016-02-21 10:39:00 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

Am 21.02.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Kevin Payne:

So my question is this: Is there a way to get a correct list of all the required icon sizes as the current reference, icon-list.mk file, is inaccurate?

IMO our next step should be to restore the previous colored icons and work on the new ones as a new icon theme.

We should be able to determine the correct sizes from the previous icons.

Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD
Kevin Payne
2016-02-21 12:23:44 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

But that is partly my point - The original icons are apparently the wrong size, so my question stands: How to determine what sizes are required?

--- Original Message ---

From: "Michael Schumacher" Sent: 21 February 2016 10:39
To: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Icon sizes required

Am 21.02.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Kevin Payne:

So my question is this: Is there a way to get a correct list of all the required icon sizes as the current reference, icon-list.mk file, is inaccurate?

IMO our next step should be to restore the previous colored icons and work on the new ones as a new icon theme.

We should be able to determine the correct sizes from the previous icons.

-- Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD

Jehan Pagès
2016-02-21 17:24:23 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Kevin Payne wrote:

But that is partly my point - The original icons are apparently the wrong size, so my question stands: How to determine what sizes are required?

I had already noticed this discrepancy in our code. We are actually requesting for a GTK_ICON_SIZE_BUTTON which is 20x20 in GTK+2 (interestingly in GTK+3, it is a 16x16). Yet the icons in the legacy color icon theme are 22x22 (not 24x24); and since the default acceptable "threshold" is 2 pixels, when requesting a 24x24 icons, GTK+ gets the available 22x22 tool icons instead.

I'm not sure icons are actually re-scaled though. I think GTK+ simply uses the smaller 22x22 icons as is, instead of the expected 24x24, that's all. Not trying forcingly to match expectations. Though I actually wondered as well, since if they were in fact rescaled, that basically means our default theme had been providing definitely not-pixel-perfect all along.

Jehan

--- Original Message ---

From: "Michael Schumacher" Sent: 21 February 2016 10:39
To: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Icon sizes required

Am 21.02.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Kevin Payne:

So my question is this: Is there a way to get a correct list of all the required icon sizes as the current reference, icon-list.mk file, is inaccurate?

IMO our next step should be to restore the previous colored icons and work on the new ones as a new icon theme.

We should be able to determine the correct sizes from the previous icons.

-- Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Kevin Payne
2016-02-21 22:52:42 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

________________________________________

From: Jehan Pags
Sent: 21 February 2016 17:24
To: Kevin Payne
Cc: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org

Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Icon sizes required

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Kevin Payne wrote:

But that is partly my point - The original icons are apparently the wrong size, so my question stands: How to determine what sizes are required?

I had already noticed this discrepancy in our code. We are actually requesting for a GTK_ICON_SIZE_BUTTON which is 20x20 in GTK+2 (interestingly in GTK+3, it is a 16x16). Yet the icons in the legacy color icon theme are 22x22 (not 24x24); and since the default acceptable "threshold" is 2 pixels, when requesting a 24x24 icons, GTK+ gets the available 22x22 tool icons instead.

I'm not sure icons are actually re-scaled though. I think GTK+ simply uses the smaller 22x22 icons as is, instead of the expected 24x24, that's all. Not trying forcingly to match expectations. Though I actually wondered as well, since if they were in fact rescaled, that basically means our default theme had been providing definitely not-pixel-perfect all along.

Jehan

Just to be clear, I'm only referring to the gimp-gravity-* icons when I say they are 24x24

As for scaling - in 2.8, I agree that scaling doesn't take place and that icons are used the size they are provided at, which is where the problem in this bug comes in: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=739469

However in 2.9, using the icon theme mechanism, if an icon isn't provided at the required size (+/- the tolerance, thanks I didn't know about that) then scaling of a different size is performed: http://imgur.com/98D3SLA

And the size of the GTK named sizes is still controlled by the theme (until the change to GTK3): gtk-icon-sizes = "panel-menu=10,10 : panel=10,10 : gtk-button=20,20 : gtk-large-toolbar=24,24 : gtk-menu=16,16 : gtk-small-toolbar=18,18 : gtk-dnd=32,32 : gtk-dialog=48,48" So it's outside the control of the creator of the icon theme.

At this point I think I might have to give up on the idea of pixel aligned icons as it looks like the icon theme mechanism is creating an unmanageable mess, which is a pity because it's a nice idea.

Kevin

Jehan Pagès
2016-02-23 16:17:50 UTC (about 8 years ago)

Icon sizes required

but Hi Kevin,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Kevin Payne wrote:

________________________________________

From: Jehan Pagès
Sent: 21 February 2016 17:24
To: Kevin Payne
Cc: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org

Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Icon sizes required

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Kevin Payne wrote:

But that is partly my point - The original icons are apparently the wrong size, so my question stands: How to determine what sizes are required?

I had already noticed this discrepancy in our code. We are actually requesting for a GTK_ICON_SIZE_BUTTON which is 20x20 in GTK+2 (interestingly in GTK+3, it is a 16x16). Yet the icons in the legacy color icon theme are 22x22 (not 24x24); and since the default acceptable "threshold" is 2 pixels, when requesting a 24x24 icons, GTK+ gets the available 22x22 tool icons instead.

I'm not sure icons are actually re-scaled though. I think GTK+ simply uses the smaller 22x22 icons as is, instead of the expected 24x24, that's all. Not trying forcingly to match expectations. Though I actually wondered as well, since if they were in fact rescaled, that basically means our default theme had been providing definitely not-pixel-perfect all along.

Jehan

Just to be clear, I'm only referring to the gimp-gravity-* icons when I say they are 24x24

Indeed these icons are requested as GTK_ICON_SIZE_BUTTON too (cf. app/tools/gimpalignoptions.c).

As for scaling - in 2.8, I agree that scaling doesn't take place and that icons are used the size they are provided at, which is where the problem in this bug comes in: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=739469

However in 2.9, using the icon theme mechanism, if an icon isn't provided at the required size (+/- the tolerance, thanks I didn't know about that) then scaling of a different size is performed: http://imgur.com/98D3SLA

Yes the tolerance thing is written in the spec. The default value is 2 (I had not checked the code, but it seems to be the case here), but an icon theme creator can set another value in the index.theme if wished.

And the size of the GTK named sizes is still controlled by the theme (until the change to GTK3): gtk-icon-sizes = "panel-menu=10,10 : panel=10,10 : gtk-button=20,20 : gtk-large-toolbar=24,24 : gtk-menu=16,16 : gtk-small-toolbar=18,18 : gtk-dnd=32,32 : gtk-dialog=48,48"

Oh so if I write this down in the gtkrc of a theme, then the meaning of "button size", "menu size", and so on, changes? I think I read something about the fact that the meaning of these constants may change in the API doc, but there was no detail how this was done. Thanks for telling. If that was not what you meant, then I'd love an explanation. :-)

So it's outside the control of the creator of the icon theme.

Yes. And it's also a little annoying for us, in my opinion. Well not really since in most case, nobody would change this. But they could.

At this point I think I might have to give up on the idea of pixel aligned icons as it looks like the icon theme mechanism is creating an unmanageable mess, which is a pity because it's a nice idea.

If it needs improvement, maybe it could be possible to update the spec for icon themes (in some distant future, then it's better to start soon :p). In any case, I think it is possible to do a little better. Even though "perfect" is maybe too much work, we can already make "much better". :-)

Jehan

Kevin
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list