Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Stephan> If my view is worth anything, I would say that in case one
>> Stephan> can select theicon size they should look sensible after doing
>> Stephan> so. If that is possible with scaling it is ok. If it is not,
>> Stephan> then the only sensible option is to provide the hand crafted
>> Stephan> icon sets to chose from in parallel to the freedom of choice.
>>
>> Yes, the right way of doing this is to provide an alternative set of
>> icons that are properly scaled. I do not know any program that allows
>> one to choose any icons size ("hmm, shall I pick 17 or 18?")
>>
>> KDE allows to choose among 5 or 6 sizes, but this is because they have
>> SVG icons for the large sizes (and proper bitmap icons for the small
>> ones). Firefox has big and small. I doubt that small is less than 22.
>>
>> What happens with typical windows apps? What happens with OSX apps?
>>
>> JMarc
>
> OSX typically has 2 icon sizes that can be selected -- normal and small.
>
> By my lights, the trouble with the icons in 1.5 is not that the icons
> themselves are too big or small, but that there is too much empty space
> around each icon. It looks as though that could be reduced significantly
> without altering the substance of the icon.
>
> Bennett
>
The Qt docs states:
"QIcon can always generate a smaller pixmap from the set of pixmaps it
is given, but it never scales them up, because this rarely looks good.
This is why we get the 48 x 48 pixmap when we request a 64 x 64 pixmap."
Maybe on the Mac the tool bars are too big for the the icons.
You could try to change the icon size in the session file
(IconSizeXY) and then starting LyX again and see what happens.
Peter
