Jakub Steiner wrote: > I don't know how much time exactly went into gnome icon theme over the > years, but I do feel like we failed to provide a good icon theming > platform for distributions. Back then we had old Gnome 1.0 styled icons > inconsistency. Then I tried to create an icon for every single random > mimetype people requested. Yes we had all the various CD media icons. > But there's less artists than there are free software hackers, and there > isn't too many of those either. Ad-hoc naming, missing sizes and thus > blurry icons for small sizes and a general mess was the result.
In my opinion, while 1.x was horribly inconsistent with icons, you guys did an amazing job for the early 2.x days, which had a good balance of icons. > So yea, a specific tiff icon would be nice, but does it have to come > now? Does it have to be in the core icon theme? Before we make sure all > icons are named properly, have all the sizes provided, include the > artwork "source" I don't think we should worry about those yet. I'm > talking about the filetypes now, I'm going a bit soft on the device > icons now.. :) In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons that were "consistent enough" to my 2.12 desktop where I've lost information that was presented to me before. I agree that the old way was not maintainable. --Pat _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
