Re: 48x48
- From: Reboant <reboant@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: emelfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:49:21 -0500
tooar wrote:
hello,
and sorry for my late reply!
Reboant wrote on Fri, 10.09.2004:
Right now I'm working on a website for a local church (which is taking
up a lot of my time) but will still work on icons for you.So I guess
the next one should be a proper "move" icon if you haven't found one
yet.Any ideas on what you want it to look like so I'll have some place
to start?
you might want to take a look at the icons in the icons/ directory.
there are already 2 move icons and 1 copy icon. maybe that's a good
start. i thought it might be important to have bigger versions of the
icons but now that i know the bigger sizes are only scaled up small
versions, i'm not sure if the existing small icons are already
sufficient. what do you think?
regards,
tooar
I think you're right.Won't really match up if some icons are blurry and
pixilated while others aren't.You mentioned earlier that gtk allows for
a multitude of sizes unfortunately most of the icons only come in one size.
Gnome (like Kde) does and uses multiple sizes to a degree but a lot of
icons are still missing.Not sure if they haven't been created yet or
they just won't be added at all.On the other hand,Kde has a full
spectrum of usable icons in just about every needed size but won't match
the gtk look.
That kind of ticks me off because I don't use Kde.It is nothing but a
massive resource hog. Gnome isn't far behind unless you turn off
Nautilus (the biggest mistake the gnome devs ever made).Personally I
prefer Icewm with as many non DE related apps as possible.
Kde = 147 megs
gnome = 72 (using the rox pinboard for the desktop instead of Nautilus)
Icewm = 31 (with rox pinboard)
The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of folks using Emelfm2 will
probably be thinking the same way.Minimalistically.Is that even a
word?It is now. :D
They want something fast and dependable with a lot of useful features.
With all that in mind,they won't be using Gnome's extra icons because
they won't be using Gnome.Instead they'll be stuck with either the
gtk-stock or whatever comes with the gtk2 theme they use(if any at all).
I was never really any good at explaining myself so if that mess above
didn't make sense then just disregard it as another one of my crazy
philosophical rants.
Think that 24x24 icons are just fine for everyday use.If bigger ones
are needed then perhaps someone (like me :) ) will do their best to
creat them.
I don't know if you have Gnome installed but you might take a look at
stock_folder-move.png (see attachment).I think its a perfect fit.
hello,
and sorry for my late reply!
Reboant wrote on Fri, 10.09.2004:
Right now I'm working on a website for a local church (which is taking
up a lot of my time) but will still work on icons for you.So I guess
the next one should be a proper "move" icon if you haven't found one
yet.Any ideas on what you want it to look like so I'll have some place
to start?
you might want to take a look at the icons in the icons/ directory. there are already 2 move icons and 1 copy icon. maybe that's a good start. i thought it might be important to have bigger versions of the icons but now that i know the bigger sizes are only scaled up small versions, i'm not sure if the existing small icons are already sufficient. what do you think?
regards,
tooar
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 48x48
- From: tooar
- Re: 48x48
- References:
