Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px
tim.lauridsen at gmail.com
Wed Oct 1 16:15:20 UTC 2014
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com>
> 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 at 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 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 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.
>  https://ryanlerch.fedorapeople.org/software-blurry2.png
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel