Our icon style

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Our icon style

Hi guys,
I just took a look at the changes at text.svg and I'm not thrilled about
the changes. The Tango style that was once there is now partially gone --
the whole set is inconsistent, with some flat elements and some elements
with gradients, many icons taking up 24x24 instead of the prescribed 22x22
with a 1px border on each side, etc. This is a set quite different from the
Gnome set we base on.

That said, I don't hate the new style, but I would like to maintain a
Gnome-compatible version as well, so I propose this: let's rename the
current set to "default" or "full-color" (or something else -- your choice)
and either leave the Gnome-based icon set called "tango" or name it
"gnome". Would that be okay?

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
5v865bd64dvbv868b 5v865bd64dvbv868b
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
yphilips yphilips
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

Hi Mirek and Alex,

On 11/15/2014 07:31 PM, Alexander Wilms wrote:

> Hi Mirek,
>
> I and Jay agreed that the icons look much clearer without the candy-ish
> fill, especially the "T" and the omega. Currently, the icons bold,
> italic and underlined in master use the Gnome 2.20 style, with a rather
> flat gradient and highlights. Here's a SVG comparing the different
> versions: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12598822/bold%20icon.svg
>
> I didn't attend the last two hangouts, so we didn't make a decision
> regarding the text icon style, but I could attend next week.

We discussed the icon style in last week's hangout and we decided to go
with the style i've been using (i mentioned this in the redmine thread).

> Regarding the icon size, is it really that bad if a few icons make use
> of the 1 px margin? E.g. the text lines in the bullets and numbering
> icons look too slim if one leaves the margin untouched.

I normally only go over the margin width-wise when there is a major need
for it, like in the case of the bullets and numbering icons. The only
thing that i may let go over the margin height-wise is the shadow.

> Since we want to get rid of tango-testing and remove it after rescuing
> all icons good enough for tango, I don't think it's a good idea to add
> another theme. Many Gnome apps now use the -symbolic set, so the
> inconsistency won't be that apparent.

Definitely wont be apparent on the OS with the most LO users (i.e. Windows).

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

In reply to this post by 5v865bd64dvbv868b
Hi Alex,

2014-11-15 16:31 GMT+01:00 Alexander Wilms <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Mirek,
>
> I and Jay agreed that the icons look mu ch clearer without the candy-ish
> fill, especially the "T" and the omega. Currently, the icons bold, italic
> and underlined in master use the Gnome 2.20 style, with a rather flat
> gradient and highlights. Here's a SVG comparing the different versions:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12598822/bold%20icon.svg
>
> I didn't attend the last two hangouts, so we didn't make a decision
> regarding the text icon style, but I could attend next week.
>
> Regarding the icon size, is it really that bad if a few icons make use of
> the 1 px margin? E.g. the text lines in the bullets and numbering icons
> look too slim if one leaves the margin untouched.
>
> Since we want to get rid of tango-testing and remove it after rescuing all
> icons good enough for tango, I don't think it's a good idea to add another
> theme. Many Gnome apps now use the -symbolic set, so the inconsistency
> won't be that apparent.


The thing is, these changes, for better or worse, make this a different
theme with different rules. Rather than make half the icons flat with an
outline (as the new text icons are) and keep half the icons
Gnome/Tango-styled, I'd much rather if you could put together a coherent
set of new rules for the new icons, so that the new set is consistent.

As for keeping the Gnome-compatible set -- I'd like to keep it because it's
gotten pretty far, it was worked on a lot, it fits in better on desktops
that use the colorful Gnome icons (keep in mind some icon sets inherit from
it, like elementary), and it's more fit for reuse in apps that make use of
these Gnome icons. I get that maintaining it is not really an option right
now, so I'm thinking I'll create another repo with sources abandoned icon
sets, adding the sources from the LibreOffice repository as well.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

In reply to this post by yphilips
Hi Jay,

2014-11-15 20:52 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Mirek and Alex,
>
> On 11/15/2014 07:31 PM, Alexander Wilms wrote:
> > Hi Mirek,
> >
> > I and Jay agreed that the icons look much clearer without the candy-ish
> > fill, especially the "T" and the omega. Currently, the icons bold,
> > italic and underlined in master use the Gnome 2.20 style, with a rather
> > flat gradient and highlights. Here's a SVG comparing the different
> > versions: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12598822/bold%20icon.svg
> >
> > I didn't attend the last two hangouts, so we didn't make a decision
> > regarding the text icon style, but I could attend next week.
>
> We discussed the icon style in last week's hangout and we decided to go
> with the style i've been using (i mentioned this in the redmine thread).
>

OK, that's fine, and I kind of like its flatness.
As I mentioned in my reply to Alex, though, there need to be guidelines for
this new style, and it shouldn't be called "tango" anymore.

> Regarding the icon size, is it really that bad if a few icons make use
> > of the 1 px margin? E.g. the text lines in the bullets and numbering
> > icons look too slim if one leaves the margin untouched.
>
> I normally only go over the margin width-wise when there is a major need
> for it, like in the case of the bullets and numbering icons. The only
> thing that i may let go over the margin height-wise is the shadow.
>

22x22 is the size recommended by the Tango guidelines. It's the default
size for KDE and 22x22 with a 1px border is the default for Gnome. I don't
think a size increase was necessary in the numbering icons and, in general,
if we're able to make a 16x16 icon, a 22x22 version shouldn't be a problem,
and it'd be good for icon consistency to stick to a size limit.

That said, I'm fine with going for 24x24 with this new style, but if we're
going to do that, this size either needs to be the new norm or there need
to be guidelines on when this size is acceptable. (I'd go with the former.)

Since you're the one behind the new style, could you please give a name to
this style and change and expand GUIDELINES.md? Guidelines regarding
lighting and shadows in particular would be very useful. (The lack of
lighting in the new style clashes a bit with the old shadows, IMHO.)

Looking at GitHub, you don't seem to be a member -- could you send me your
GitHub username (make an account if you don't have one) and, after you get
access, add yourself to the AUTHORS file?
Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
yphilips yphilips
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

Hi Mirek,

On 11/16/2014 12:18 AM, Mirek M. wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> 2014-11-15 20:52 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     Hi Mirek and Alex,
>
>     On 11/15/2014 07:31 PM, Alexander Wilms wrote:
>     > Hi Mirek,
>     >
>     > I and Jay agreed that the icons look much clearer without the candy-ish
>     > fill, especially the "T" and the omega. Currently, the icons bold,
>     > italic and underlined in master use the Gnome 2.20 style, with a rather
>     > flat gradient and highlights. Here's a SVG comparing the different
>     > versions: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12598822/bold%20icon.svg
>     >
>     > I didn't attend the last two hangouts, so we didn't make a decision
>     > regarding the text icon style, but I could attend next week.
>
>     We discussed the icon style in last week's hangout and we decided to go
>     with the style i've been using (i mentioned this in the redmine thread).
>
>
> OK, that's fine, and I kind of like its flatness.
> As I mentioned in my reply to Alex, though, there need to be guidelines
> for this new style, and it shouldn't be called "tango" anymore.

Yes the gnome 2.20 style is alot better than the glossy gnome 3.0+ style
at the 24x24 icon size. We are only using the older style for the text
based icons like bold, italics, underline, etc. It is still tango as its
using the gnome 2.20 style.

>     > Regarding the icon size, is it really that bad if a few icons make use
>     > of the 1 px margin? E.g. the text lines in the bullets and numbering
>     > icons look too slim if one leaves the margin untouched.
>
>     I normally only go over the margin width-wise when there is a major need
>     for it, like in the case of the bullets and numbering icons. The only
>     thing that i may let go over the margin height-wise is the shadow.
>
>
> 22x22 is the size recommended by the Tango guidelines. It's the default
> size for KDE and 22x22 with a 1px border is the default for Gnome. I
> don't think a size increase was necessary in the numbering icons and, in
> general, if we're able to make a 16x16 icon, a 22x22 version shouldn't
> be a problem, and it'd be good for icon consistency to stick to a size
> limit.
>
> That said, I'm fine with going for 24x24 with this new style, but if
> we're going to do that, this size either needs to be the new norm or
> there need to be guidelines on when this size is acceptable. (I'd go
> with the former.)

Yes it always best to stick with the guidelines but we shouldnt be
willing to bend the rules when there are suitable cases to do so. I'm
not an icon designer, so all i'm doing is patching up icons which are
already present. I'll let the designers decide what best works for you
guys, as i dont have the skill to comment on this.

> Since you're the one behind the new style, could you please give a name
> to this style and change and expand GUIDELINES.md? Guidelines regarding
> lighting and shadows in particular would be very useful. (The lack of
> lighting in the new style clashes a bit with the old shadows, IMHO.)

I didnt create the style, i took the gnome 3.12
format-indent-justify-text.svg file, made the stroke a solid color,
changed the gradient to be similar to the 2.20 gradient and reduced the
shadow transparency by half.

> Looking at GitHub, you don't seem to be a member -- could you send me
> your GitHub username (make an account if you don't have one) and, after
> you get access, add yourself to the AUTHORS file?
> Thanks.

My github username is philipzae. I'd be honored to be included in the
file, though i wouldnt truly be able to contribute to the svgs. :D

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
yphilips yphilips
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

Hi Mirek,

On 11/16/2014 03:46 AM, Mirek M. wrote:

> 2014-11-16 0:24 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     Yes the gnome 2.20 style is alot better than the glossy gnome 3.0+ style
>     at the 24x24 icon size. We are only using the older style for the text
>     based icons like bold, italics, underline, etc. It is still tango as its
>     using the gnome 2.20 style.
>
>
> Could you point me to your source for the Gnome 2.2 icons?
> From a quick Google search, it seems as if that version used the old
> industrial icons, at least judging from e.g.
> https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.2/ , and those are
> definitely not Tango.

http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gnome-icon-theme/2.20/

> Also, quoting the Tango guidelines: "Having homogenous lighting across
> all icons also is important for visual consistency. Tango icons are lit
> from above, with the light source slightly to the left. Icons with /on
> the table/ perspective may cast a fuzzy shadow on the surface as if the
> light source came from the position of the observer. "
> If we have a flat icon set with no regard for lighting, then it
> shouldn't be called Tango.

Well if we need a gradient on the stroke to keep it inline with Tango,
then we can apply a suitable one to keep it in line with the guidelines.

>     Yes it always best to stick with the guidelines but we shouldnt be
>     willing to bend the rules when there are suitable cases to do so. I'm
>     not an icon designer, so all i'm doing is patching up icons which are
>     already present. I'll let the designers decide what best works for you
>     guys, as i dont have the skill to comment on this.
>
>
> The guidelines are there to maintain consistency, and icon size is a
> pretty important point.
>
> Also, the new icons don't present one or two exceptions to the rule -- a
> number of icons go over the margin. In this case, it's clearly better to
> change the guidelines.

Then i guess the guidelines should be to strive for 22x22 and worse case
23x23.

>     I didnt create the style, i took the gnome 3.12
>     format-indent-justify-text.svg file, made the stroke a solid color,
>     changed the gradient to be similar to the 2.20 gradient and reduced the
>     shadow transparency by half.
>
>
> You're creating the style by implementing it.
> Since we need a cohesive set and have more than one designer, there need
> to be some guidelines for creating icons with this new style.

Well i'll have you and Alex write up what is needed as i'm still a newb
at icon designing. :D

>     My github username is philipzae. I'd be honored to be included in the
>     file, though i wouldnt truly be able to contribute to the svgs. :D
>
>
> I just sent you an invitation. The file is there primarily for licensing
> reasons -- if the team needs to change the license, it needs to contact
> every contributor. You should contribute through GitHub directly, so
> that if you disagree with a relicensing, the team can simply remake the
> icons you worked on.

Didnt get any invitation on github, or is it i just dont know where to
look, but it isnt in my notifications inbox.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
mirek2 mirek2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Our icon style

Hi Jay,

2014-11-18 19:24 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Mirek,
>
> On 11/16/2014 03:46 AM, Mirek M. wrote:
> > 2014-11-16 0:24 GMT+01:00 Jay Philips <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
> >
> >     Yes the gnome 2.20 style is alot better than the glossy gnome 3.0+
> style
> >     at the 24x24 icon size. We are only using the older style for the
> text
> >     based icons like bold, italics, underline, etc. It is still tango as
> its
> >     using the gnome 2.20 style.
> >
> >
> > Could you point me to your source for the Gnome 2.2 icons?
> > From a quick Google search, it seems as if that version used the old
> > industrial icons, at least judging from e.g.
> > https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.2/ , and those are
> > definitely not Tango.
>
> http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gnome-icon-theme/2.20/
>
>
Those are the old Gnome icons, yes, but unlike the new ones we have, these
icons still employ lighting, though the material is a bit different from
the new ones. While the gradients and highlights are more subtle, the icons
are not flat.


> > Also, quoting the Tango guidelines: "Having homogenous lighting across
> > all icons also is important for visual consistency. Tango icons are lit
> > from above, with the light source slightly to the left. Icons with /on
> > the table/ perspective may cast a fuzzy shadow on the surface as if the
> > light source came from the position of the observer. "
> > If we have a flat icon set with no regard for lighting, then it
> > shouldn't be called Tango.
>
> Well if we need a gradient on the stroke to keep it inline with Tango,
> then we can apply a suitable one to keep it in line with the guidelines.
>

I was talking about the fill rather than the stroke.
Gradients aren't required, but correct lighting is, and that implies
gradients. Adding in any old gradient doesn't work though -- it should be
designed to look as if there was a light source lighting up the icons, as
described by the Tango Icon Theme Guidelines: "Having homogenous lighting
across all icons also is important for visual consistency. Tango icons are
lit from above, with the light source slightly to the left."

>
> >     Yes it always best to stick with the guidelines but we shouldnt be
> >     willing to bend the rules when there are suitable cases to do so. I'm
> >     not an icon designer, so all i'm doing is patching up icons which are
> >     already present. I'll let the designers decide what best works for
> you
> >     guys, as i dont have the skill to comment on this.
> >
> >
> > The guidelines are there to maintain consistency, and icon size is a
> > pretty important point.
> >
> > Also, the new icons don't present one or two exceptions to the rule -- a
> > number of icons go over the margin. In this case, it's clearly better to
> > change the guidelines.
>
> Then i guess the guidelines should be to strive for 22x22 and worse case
> 23x23.
>

No -- we should stick to just 22x22 icons. Just pretend that the bounding
rectangle is 22x22 instead of 24x24.

From the guidelines:
"'Small' is the common size for application toolbar icons.

Its bitmap size is 22×22 pixels. This size is common for toolbars in KDE
and the GIMP.
Gnome has been using a size of 24×24px (which is ¼ of 48×48); just adding a
1 pixel empty space on all sides can make Tango icons useful on the Gnome
desktop."

Why do we have 24x24 rectangles, then?
The main reason was compatibility -- since both industrial and the old
tango set use 24x24 for lc icons, we're less likely to accidentally break
things if we choose the same icon size. And 24 is a nicer number to work
with (it's nicely divisible, works well with grids).

>
> >     I didnt create the style, i took the gnome 3.12
> >     format-indent-justify-text.svg file, made the stroke a solid color,
> >     changed the gradient to be similar to the 2.20 gradient and reduced
> the
> >     shadow transparency by half.
> >
> >
> > You're creating the style by implementing it.
> > Since we need a cohesive set and have more than one designer, there need
> > to be some guidelines for creating icons with this new style.
>
> Well i'll have you and Alex write up what is needed as i'm still a newb
> at icon designing. :D
>

Unfortunately, as I noted on the forum, I don't have time for this.
However, if you decide to stick with tango (meaning consistent lighting and
22x22 icons wih 1px margin), guidelines won't be necessary. (Some
guidelines may be useful, perhaps, but not necessary.)

>
> >     My github username is philipzae. I'd be honored to be included in the
> >     file, though i wouldnt truly be able to contribute to the svgs. :D
> >
> >
> > I just sent you an invitation. The file is there primarily for licensing
> > reasons -- if the team needs to change the license, it needs to contact
> > every contributor. You should contribute through GitHub directly, so
> > that if you disagree with a relicensing, the team can simply remake the
> > icons you worked on.
>
> Didnt get any invitation on github, or is it i just dont know where to
> look, but it isnt in my notifications inbox.
>

Check your e-mail or https://github.com/libodesign .

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted