Em Qua, 2006-08-02 às 13:57 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist escreveu: > On 8/1/06, Rodney Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 16:45 -0400, Pat Suwalski wrote: > > > 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. > > > > You haven't lost any information, you only think you have. You're > > looking for the information in the wrong place. > > > > If you have a suggestion for how exactly one might show the difference > > between tiff, jpeg, svg, wmf, gif, png, tga, and whatever else there is, > > without using meaningful text in the icon, I am all ears. Until then, we > > Use different images for different file types. The yellow-black > savannah icon for png files, another type of image for jpeg files. It > doesn't really matter what icons are used, as long as the icons for > png and jpeg images are DIFFERENT. Adding text to the icon just makes > it more explicit. I have read the GNOME HIG and I can't find where it > says that using text in icons is wrong and that different kinds of > images must share the same icon. And if it is written there, then the > HIG is wrong, IMHO. >
While I don't mind having text with the file extension on the icons, different icons for the same type of file (image, audio, video, etc) is a nightmare in GNOME pre-2.14 that I'm glad to see fixed in 2.15. Cheers, Evandro _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
