Resolution independance and icon sizes
Sandman
is having big consequences with icon designers. We are going to have
to recreate all icons, which can be a pain in the ass if the icon
original isn't made in an resolution independent format (such as
illustrator).
I'm in the process of rendering most of my icons to 512x512, and I
realized that it's pretty hard to call these "icons" any more.
See the difference here:
http://www.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=117713
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
It's easy to call them icons. Watch:
They're still icons. <G>
And as such, why are you changing your design? I like the more stylize
original better. <g>
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Sandman
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-0CD162.08...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > With Leopard, icon sizes will be bumped from 128x128 to 512x512. This
> > is having big consequences with icon designers. We are going to have
> > to recreate all icons, which can be a pain in the ass if the icon
> > original isn't made in an resolution independent format (such as
> > illustrator).
> >
> > I'm in the process of rendering most of my icons to 512x512, and I
> > realized that it's pretty hard to call these "icons" any more.
> >
> > See the difference here:
> >
> > http://www.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=117713
>
> It's easy to call them icons. Watch:
>
> They're still icons. <G>
>
> And as such, why are you changing your design? I like the more stylize
> original better. <g>
Because, with larger icons, black borders become a lot bigger. Which
is a bad reason, of course, since they're not meant to be watched at
512x512. But working with them made it obvious that the borders, which
makes it easier to see the icon at smaller sizes made it look clunky
at larger sizes. I have to find a middle path.
There are more examples of this at:
http://www.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=116997
Wheere you see the new ("NYA") having a more refined look, but lack
the stylizing that defines them better at smaller sizes. This is also
one of the problem we're facing with this new resolution independence.
But one way or another, I'm sure I'll solve it. I'll keep you posted
:-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
alangbaker-C70CD...@news.telus.net on 11/15/06 1:29 AM:
> In article <mr-0CD162.08...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> With Leopard, icon sizes will be bumped from 128x128 to 512x512. This
>> is having big consequences with icon designers. We are going to have
>> to recreate all icons, which can be a pain in the ass if the icon
>> original isn't made in an resolution independent format (such as
>> illustrator).
>>
>> I'm in the process of rendering most of my icons to 512x512, and I
>> realized that it's pretty hard to call these "icons" any more.
>>
>> See the difference here:
>>
>> http://www.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=117713
Side notes:
* The background is not consistent on the page...
* You *finally* got your CSS to validate!
* You *finally* got your HTML to validate!
> It's easy to call them icons. Watch:
>
> They're still icons. <G>
>
> And as such, why are you changing your design? I like the more stylize
> original better. <g>
Sandman does not take suggestions in a friendly way. When I suggested he
get his CSS to validate he corrected it than claimed I was lying about it
not validating in the first place - even though the Google archive and the
WayBackMachine proved it had not validated before then.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Well, I assume Leopard will still allow for multiple icon sizes, so you
have have smaller versions optimized for display at smaller sizes.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > Because, with larger icons, black borders become a lot bigger. Which
> > is a bad reason, of course, since they're not meant to be watched at
> > 512x512. But working with them made it obvious that the borders, which
> > makes it easier to see the icon at smaller sizes made it look clunky
> > at larger sizes. I have to find a middle path.
> >
> > There are more examples of this at:
> >
> > http://www.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=116997
> >
> > Wheere you see the new ("NYA") having a more refined look, but lack
> > the stylizing that defines them better at smaller sizes. This is also
> > one of the problem we're facing with this new resolution independence.
> > But one way or another, I'm sure I'll solve it. I'll keep you posted
> > :-D
>
> Well, I assume Leopard will still allow for multiple icon sizes, so you
> have have smaller versions optimized for display at smaller sizes.
It will, but the edges get blurry. In a resolution independent system,
what is small? On a 200DPI screen, a 128x128 icon would seem like a
48x48 icon, but use the definition detail of what we consider to be
large today. A 400x400 icon would, on the same screen, appear roughly
the size of a 128x128 does today, only crisper.
So, what is a small icon? When do we use the icon with the less detail
and more stylizing? Maybe there should be two 512x512 icons in each
file, one which is displayed for "big" and one for "small", with
"small" being actual millimeters on the screen, as determined by the
resolution of the interface.
--
Sandman[.net]