Jump to content



Photo

Gnome 3.8 to get new folder icons

gnome folder icons

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 15 March 2013 - 00:03

That large icon example is about 10 times bigger than a large icon should be, at one fifth of that it would still be more than big enough for any icon usage.

The icon is 1024 x 1024 pixels. At ten times smaller it's maximum size would be about 102 x 102 pixels. That isn't enough for Quick Look or full Dock magnification on non-Retina Macs. Never mind the MacBook Pro with Retina screen which requires (off the top of my head) 128 x 128 pixels for the default icon size in Finder. At 205 x 205 pixels you won't have enough to support Dock magnification on said MacBook Pro with Retina screen either.

Feasible? Sure, why not. It's all up to how much time and skill you have when drawing your icon set.

I meant is it feasible for the OS to render an icon that detailed as a vector? The more details a vector image has the longer it takes to load in Adobe Illustrator (per example). I imagine something similar will happen within the OS when you have to load a complex vectorized icon. That said Adobe Illustrator isn't exactly fully optimized for today's hardware, so maybe it's different in software that is. :p


#47 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:50

wouldn't matter, the OS at the core while it supports vectors would probably rasterize the icon anyway. for something like the dock, it would probably rasterize a dock size and a magnified version to keep in memory, and simply scale the large rasterized version. looks the same and is a lot less resource intensive.

as for details, the OS could probably handle it, it might take some resource during the loading of the vector and possibly during the scaling, but should be manageable, especially for more realistic examples of iconography, like the folder icon, even with the silly recycle spots included as vectors. though it makes more sense to package them as a texture.

#48 .Neo

.Neo

    Generic User

  • Joined: 14-September 05
  • OS: OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 15 March 2013 - 09:28

What you're saying, I see no gain whatsoever over just including rasterized icons and increasing the maximum image size once in a while like Apple has been doing. In fact it's seems like more trouble.

#49 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 15 March 2013 - 09:31

Because vector icons are as I've said and as the link I gave earlier showed, impractical on several levels, and because as you change size, you simply can't use the same vector for every size. And the rasters use less resources to do the same and look the same.

#50 +Jack Unterweger

Jack Unterweger

    devoted fan of the us-armed forces

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 19-January 03
  • OS: Snapshot-Linux x64 1149 0.3
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted 15 March 2013 - 14:58

Still poopy brown instead of the nicer yellower folder in windows 7/8


and so what? if you don't like it then use windows. or change the icons. globally. it's no big deal with linux but i am not so sure about that crappy windows. it probably still needs a costly software or heavy tweaking to change the icons globally. :s

also there are so many awesome icon sets out for linux. i think the windows icons look lame instead.

#51 Syanide

Syanide

    From here to infirmary.

  • Joined: 05-February 03
  • Location: /home

Posted 16 March 2013 - 22:43

Actually, most icons in Linux come as both vectors and predefined raster sets. This is because at smaller sizes, you can't just scale down as the icon becomes blurry due to lack of pixels, so the best option is to manually rework the icons for specific sizes (16x16, 24x24, even up to 32x32). The vector set is included and used where the icon size goes beyond the predefined and turns to unconventional values.

I know the point .Neo is trying to make is that the raster graphics can use more photorealistic detail, so this is not an argument against that, as raster sets in Linux are usually derived from the vector set directly, except for the smaller sizes as I mentioned, but I'd argue that the level of detail is not really important either way. That texture added to the folder icon really isn't noticeable at conventional sizes, and it can actually be done as a vector fairly easily. It's an icon, not a 1:1 representation, it's meant to be simpler. Vectors are perfect for icon design imo.