On 03/05/11 10:31, Tim Cuthbertson wrote:
On May 3, 12:01 pm, Tony Mechelynck<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 02/05/11 12:03, Tim Cuthbertson wrote:
Hi all,
I love vim, but must admit to not being so fond of the fairly old
looking icon. I recently created a new logo for my own use, and would
be more than happy if you'd like to use it for an actual app icon or
logo.
I'm happy to release it under pretty much whatever licence is
required, if people want to modify / improve it.
The icon can be found here:
http://gfxmonk.net/2011/04/25/new-gvim-icon.html
svg:http://gfxmonk.net/images/vim-logo/vim-logo.svg
png:http://gfxmonk.net/images/vim-logo/vim-logo-128.png
Cheers,
- Tim.
What's wrong with that old icon?
Mostly subjective reasons, but the lack of antialiasing and the
limited colour use I think are concrete aspects that make the logo
look particularly outdated. And the subjective opinions are at least
shared by most who have participated in this thread (so far).
Doesn't anyone use low resolutions
and/or 256-colour terminals anymore (even in the deepest of the jungles
where Vim might be in use on 4th-hand computers even if Vista isn't
supported by them)?
Perhaps there is need for a fallback icon with safe colours for the
minority of users who run their graphical environment in 256-colour,
but I doubt it should be the default.
I have a 48x48 Vim icon on my desktop and it doesn't look out of place
next to SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, Adobe Reader and YaST.
I'm running fedora 15 w/ gnome-shell, which features pretty large
icons (~96px, I think). Vim looks extremely out of place. In my
applications list, there is not a single other application that lacks
antialiasing, nor one that sticks to any palette of "safe" colours. So
yes, I'm certainly viewing most of my icons larger than most folk
right now, but the trend is nonetheless for bigger icons.
I suppose it may depend on display resolution. Mine is 1024x768, and all
my desktop icons are 48x48px. My taskbar icons, hm, what size are they?
20x20 maybe? Or 16x16?
BTW, the HTML textbooks I have here still mention "safe" GUI colours,
which are colours where the red, green and blue components are each a
multiple of 0x33 (in #rrggbb notation) or of 3 (in "abbreviated"
3-nybble #rgb notation). This means there are 6^3 = 216 "safe" colours.
Is your point that there are plenty of safe colours to use, or simply
that conservative icons should stick to safe colours only? I haven't
read a HTML book for a long time, but I also don't know any web
developer who still actually sticks to safe colours.
Regards,
- Tim.
Well, nowadays I suppose it's no crime to "stray" away from these
so-called "safe" colours, and in fact most of the pictures I see use
colours outside these 216. OTOH, when creating flat-colour designs (or
selecting text background and foreground colours) with only a few
different hues, I try to stick to "safe" colours if I can get a nice
result that way (call me conservative if you wish); of course for
photographs, or even for drawings imitating round volumes with
progressive shading, the question is different.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
There are no games on this system.
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
