On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com> wrote:

At the moment applications have to provide an icon >= 32x32px in size
to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software
center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all
applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally, 128x128/64x64@2 also) icon for
the shell and gnome-software, or should I just pad+scale icons for the
HiDPI case and make them look ridiculous?

I don't think we can, or should, design a software center to accept
the lowest common denominator when it comes to icon sizes; we're doing
really well now with AppData coverage[1] and I think we can raise the
quality of upstream and packaged icons in the same way.

My proposal would make 64x64 the smallest icon size we show in the
software center, and this will still be slightly blurry[2] in the
HiDPI case. This would affect 539 (over half of all desktop
applications) packaged in Fedora. It's clear we can't just do nothing,
as more and more devices will have HiDPI screens, and more and more
icons will look crazy small and fuzzy.

I don't think it's a good idea to mass-file 539 bugs, nor do I want to
contact 539 upstream maintainers. 127 packages only ship a 32x32 icon,
and that might be a good starting point for contacting upstreams or
filing bugs.

Ideas? Comments? Affected packages attached as a text file.

Richard

[1] http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2014/09/25/appstream-progress-in-september/
[2] https://ryanlerch.fedorapeople.org/software-blurry2.png

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Is it only me, that is thinking, that all there rules to make things looks prettier in Gnome Software or you package will get excluded if you dont live up to the rules

is a little hostile for packagers.

It is good to have some guidelines to make your application present itself in the best possible way if you care, but may people are more interested

in functionality and not so much about eyecandy.

I understand that Richard, want his application to look so good as possible, but in the end it upstreams project there decides if they want to ship at buttugly icon in 16x16

and they should not be excluded for that.

Gnome software could workaround it by have some kind of cool frame to put around the icons if they are to small to look good in the context of Gnome software.

Tim