On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:52:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jul 27 16:15, Andy Koppe wrote: >> On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote: >> >> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote: >> >> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote: >> >> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> >> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g> >> >> >> >> >> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I like that one, too. ??we could use it as the default 48x48 and >> >> > 64x64 icons. ??Per the MSFT guidelines in >> >> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller >> >> > sizes should stick to a 2D look. ??Maybe we can simply use the old >> >> > icon for these sizes? >> >> >> >> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use >> >> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer" >> >> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but >> >> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have >> >> some depth to them. >> > >> > Well, ok. ??I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing >> > as edginess. ??And at that size an icon should make a rather clear, >> > simple impression. >> >> FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least >> because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the >> upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this >> correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7 >> taskbar. > >Fine with me.
I haven't really been following this discussion but I'm fine with whatever you all decide. cgf
