On Aug 4 06:49, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 2 August 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > I tried your icons on my desktop and the standalone icon looks good. In > > the terminal icons the beveled C looks better than the fatbuttlarry C, > > cleaner, crisper. > > I think it would be better to stick to one. I don't particularly mind > which, in principle anyway.
Ok. > Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more > tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably > based on. It does need to lose that shadow though, and have the bottom > edge fixed. Also, the bottom half of the green triangle is a bit on > the dark side. I agree. I think the dark side of the wedge is a result of the shadowing. > > It's also easier to distinguish from the dark > > background, but that's probably just because you used a darker shade > > of grey for the frame. In the terminal window, a lighter grey really > > doesn't hurt. > > It's pretty much the same grey actually (~220), at full size anyway. > But the border is thinner and/or partially transparent in larry's. > Therefore, when scaling it down, it blends into the background more. Right. In my icons (which somehow nobody cared to comment upon) I tried to use a lighter grey for the C frame for smaller icons. > > Generally it looks like your C's are a pixel or two smaller, except in > > the smallest sizes. Gimp shows that you're always leaving a transparent > > frame of at least one pixel. Any reason for that? > > Not really. Just seemed a prudent thing to do when cutting it out of > the original, but you're right, there's no need for this, and I'd be > happy to redo it. Sure! I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though. That's really a big plus of Warren's version. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
