Hi Nico, 2009/1/25 Nico Weber: > > 1.) Here's how the 16x16 variants currently look: > > This looks like the 16x16 docicons of most other apps (which is a > plus, in my eyes). However, the extension text is much too small to be > readable, and the MacVim icon is not really discernible, either. I'm > pretty sure the latter could be fixed by making the V a bit lighter, > though.
Yeah, I can't tell them apart at all... > 2.) The first experiment is to leave out the extension text and > instead make the vim icon a bit larger: > > Now, the icon is a bit more visible (again, I think this can be > improved by making the V a bit lighter). However, now all small > docicons look the same, so this is probably not a good idea. At first sight (before looking at the others) I thought: not too bad. No worse than 1 at least. > 3.) The next experiments all drop the icon and instead increase the > extension text. The good news is that I found a font that makes it > possible to pack up to 3 characters into a 16x16 icon and keep the > text at least somewhat readable: > > The bad news is that for some file types it's not obvious what these 3 > letters should be (e.g. "diff", "fscript", ...). Still, this looks ok > to me – the text might not be completely readable, but at least the > icons look a bit different from each other. The font in this version > is Envy Code R bold. Wow! I think this is pretty awesome...I can quite easily distinguish between different icons and looking closer I can read the extension. > 4.) Next up is the same, but with different colors for the different > file types: > > This makes it easier to distinguish the file types, but it's a bit > weird that all higher-resolution docicons look similar and greenish > (because of the vim icon) but some 16x16 variants are red or pink. > Furthermore, since the 16x16 icon is displayed as proxy icon in the > title bar, these icons might be a bit distracting. Again, I really quite like these! The different colors remind me of the Xcode icons (which I think are great). If the colors were chosen more carefully I think this could be a winner, but I would not mind option 3 if lots of people _did_ find the colors distracting. > 5.) This is the same as the first text-only version, but with Envy > Code R non-bold: > > 6.) Finally, this is with a non-monospaced font that Damien Guard, the > creator of Envy Code R, is currently working on (this font has no bold > style yet): These are ok (i.e. better than 1 and 2 by far), but I prefer 3 and 4 because of the boldness gives them more contrast. Björn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_mac" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
