On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:02 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: > Il giorno mar, 24/07/2007 alle 11.48 +0200, Alexander Larsson ha > scritto: > > On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 10:35 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: > > > Il giorno lun, 23/07/2007 alle 16.21 +0200, Alexander Larsson ha > > > scritto: > > > > On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 17:46 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Alex, honestly I agree with the idea to have, for example, 22x22 pixels > > > icons under 22x22/<role>/ directories, at least from icon designer/theme > > > creator point of view. > > > > So, what pixel size should nautilus use for emblems for e.g. 48x48? If I > > have to hardcode a size (or more useful, a percentage of the full icon > > size), what should it be? > > Currently gnome-icon-theme is following tango guidelines, i.e. is > providing icons at 16, 22, 24 and 32 pixels (plus, of course, 48x48 > pixels but using SVG). Some emblems should be available at 8x8 pixels > too. > > Maybe something like this could work > > Zoom | Icon size | Emblem size > 100% | 48 | 32 > 75% | 32 | 22/24 > 50% | 22/24 | 16 > 25% | 16 | 8
Looking at the current gnome-icon-theme there are still 32x32 icons in the 48x48/emblems folder. Like for instance emblem-danger.png. It seems hard to do something sane when we're doing a little bit of both here... Also, this emblem size change will "break" everyones custom installed emblems. -- nautilus-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
