Re: Re: Icons checked in with faulty transparency settings

On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 13:39 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Donovan Baarda wrote:
> 
> > I've fixed the transparency, and shrunk them heaps by reducing the
> > pallet to 32 colors. Let me know if they are OK now... 
> > 
> > They should be fairly consistent with the existing icons... ie 20x20,
> > similar colors etc, though they might be slightly larger... I cropped
> > them from 23x22 gifs (the old epoz icon size), so they have only a
> > 1pixel left/top/bottom border and 2pixel right border.
> > 
> 
> Before your changes image.png looked like a picture frame with an picture 
> inside it. Now it looks like some geometric shapes. I think the picture 
> frame was much more appropriate as people are likely to be inserting 
> photographic images rather than drawings of circles triangles and squares.

Sorry... from our end it looked like an indistinct blob of color. Our
icon/interface guy felt that given the size constraints, geometric
shapes would more clearly be identified with "image".

I probably should have submitted them for approval via the list first. I
did discuss this on the list ages ago and only just did something.

> Please can you compare the images before and after your changes and you'll 
> see what I mean about their being no resemblance. I know I can fix this by 

I know... that was kind of the point :-)

In particular, the old table.png looked like a box drawing tool.

> restoring the old file into Plone's separate image folder but my memory 

BTW, from what I could see of trunk, Plone already has a full copy of
the old gif images in its separate image folder.

> (which could be wrong) was that the switch from an icon like the one you 
> now have to the picture frame was driven by user request: i.e. the end 
> users understood the picture frame much better.

I wasn't aware of that... the impression I got from my last discussion
was that people generally felt the icons needed work, and someone...
anyone... should do it. I finally did something... bad by the sounds of
it :-(

> BTW, your image icon still doesn't 'look right' to me on the toolbar. It 
> stands out in black whereas the other icons are all greyish. This makes the 
> toolbar look unbalanced.

Hmmm... they look the same to me, what browser and background do you
have for them?

I vaugly recall seeing something about a gamma setting on the images. At
the time I assumed I was just miss-understanding something, as I thought
gamma was bad for browser compatibility. Perhaps the existing icons are
grey because they have 50% gamma, in which case you will probably see
different things on different browsers.

The other thing is these two icons are using most of the 20x20 png
image. Some of the others are only using a fraction of it (9x9 for "B"),
so they will look larger. 

I submitted table.png and image.png as improvements, and also as
examples of a slightly different "style" that perhaps the others could
follow (ie, using more of the 20x20 space). Doing it by committing to
trunk was probably a bad idea...

If nobody like them, just revert them...

-- 
Donovan Baarda <abo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Obsidian Consulting Group