On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Kévin PEIGNOT <[email protected]>wrote:
> Sure we need ones, at least for designing the icons. I think we all agrea
> on this. We should descuss what the guidelines should be for the flat icon
> set. I think what I proposed earlier would be a good start, but we need to
> discuss it.
>
It'd be good to stick to Gnome's icons so that we could push our icons
upstream.
Barbara (aka. stereotype) lays out some good guidelines [1]:
(1) make shapes nice and clean (align to the grid)
(2) stick to the unifying look (metaphor if possible should be the same
as in the full-color set, unless revision of the metaphor is desired)
(3) omit the details if they are not crucial for the distinction of the
icon (exaggerate only the defining detail)
(4) use standard icon names (for example use dashes for separate levels
of specificity)
(5) balance between the outcome in 16x16 and scaled up dimensions
(6) simplify for readability (in the 16x16, the same icon may change
from perspective to straight-on)
Also, Jakub Steiner has a good video on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpTHXEUTesA .
[1]
http://gnome-stereotype.tumblr.com/post/24527823550/symbolic-icons-week-two
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
