Michael Barton wrote: > >> OK. I see Michael's points. One thing though: > >> > >>> Also, while the GRASS icons may seem large to some, > >> > >> They are too large. > > > > That depends upon your monitor resolution. Icons need to have > > sufficient pixels and also need to be physically large enough on > > screen. On a low resolution monitor, the pixel size tends to be the > > limiting factor; on a high resolution monitor, the physical size is > > the limiting factor. > > > > Ideally, you would have icons available in a range of pixel sizes, and > > select the size based upon the monitor resolution, monitor size and > > your eyesight. Windows has 16, 24, 32 and 48-pixel versions of most of > > the shell icons, while Gnome/KDE apps tend to have 16, 22, 24, 32, 48 > > and 64 pixel versions. > > In fact, wxPython can resize icons, within reason given their base > resolution, on the fly. I originally had the 'classic' icons resized > because of a bug in earlier versions of wxPython. That has been > dropped but looks like it could easily be reimplemented.
Ugh; rescaling icons tends to be ugly. You either get artifacts or a blur, depending upon whether anti-aliasing is used. It's much better to select from a set of icons which are either hand-tuned, or rendered from scalable (e.g. SVG) artwork with hinting. If you are going to rescale images, it's best to just have a single set of large (e.g. 64x64 or larger) icons, rather than rescaling e.g. a 32x32 icon which was itself generated by rescaling a 64x64 icon. Or use SVG icons, if they are supported. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
