> > > There may be a simpler means of using QtStylesheets to adjust the > spacing between other icons and toolbar edges [2]. >
I've always kept the QTStylesheets in my to-read list. It seems a very flexible choice. I suppose that setting up its support in QGis would let us keep UI theming loosely coupled from code. Is it right? giovanni > > > [0] http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/qtoolbar.html > [1] > https://github.com/qgis/Quantum-GIS/blob/master/src/app/qgisapp.cpp#L1483 > [2] > http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.7/stylesheet-examples.html#id-756de882-8623-4e88-81b7-eb5bb800d3ca > > Larry > > > > > 2012/7/29 Larry Shaffer <lar...@dakotacarto.com> > >> > >> Hi Robert and Giovanni, > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Szczepanek < > rob...@szczepanek.pl> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Giovanni, > >> > > >> > On 28.07.2012 16:07, G. Allegri wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I've voted for the GIS theme, though I share my opinion on icon size. > >> >> I work with various GIS and CAD software (both OS and commercial) and > >> >> I've always found a bit strange the default 24x24 icon size of QGis. > >> >> Most of the other softwares use 16x16 icons. > >> > > >> > > >> > 24x24 icon size is result of some preliminary discussion and research. > >> > >> My experience from Mac apps is the opposite from Giovanni's. Most apps > >> default with 32x32 (or sometimes larger) icons, with the standard OS X > >> Cocoa app toolbar customization of 'use small size'. That option > >> usually drops it down to 24x24, though the developer decides the size. > >> There is usually not a third choice. > >> > >> So, for me, on my iMac with its too-large 27" screen, the opposite > >> scaling issue up to 32x32 also exhibits the poor Qt scaling (blurry). > >> > >> >> I know that one can change the icon size, but having just the 24x24 > >> >> icons the scaling produces blurs and keeps the icon padding > >> >> proportions, > >> >> while with 16x16 it could be reduced to provide more room. > >> > > >> > > >> > Rescaling is not good idea, even from SVG. At this size scalability is > >> > very > >> > limited. > >> > > >> >> Here are two screenshots of Qgis with 16x16 icons [1] and one from a > >> >> commercial software with the same icon size [2]. Notice the different > >> >> spacing, and the crisp icons. > >> >> > >> >> I suggest to package 16x16 version for the icons, and revise the icon > >> >> padding > >> > > >> > > >> > You are absolutely right. There should be additional 16x16px version. > >> > With > >> > very limited spare time my options are: > >> > 1/ Try to keep project's progress (GRASS and QGIS) and design missing > >> > icons. > >> > 2/ Make them nicer - more colourful, 2.5D, etc. > >> > 3/ Prepare icons for 16x16 and 32x32px > >> > >> In my own experimentation with Qt icon scaling, I have found scripting > >> ImageMagick or Photoshop to do the up/down-scaling, with or without a > >> bit of sharpening applied afterword, to produce better quality icons > >> than the Qt scaling. It may be good enough quality to preclude > >> re-creating your icons for the other sizes. > >> > >> Another option is to design icons with fewer details and higher > >> contrast so that they still look OK when scaled (see MSSQL icon in > >> Giovanni's QGIS example). I believe this would also address the issue > >> of some icon groups looking too busy due to too much detail, example: > >> the 'Add * Layer' icons of your set. > >> > >> Having multiple size sets for icons means some naming conventions and > >> coding to switch between the sets; whereas now, the code simply asks > >> Qt to handle the scaling by setting a toolbar's icon size in one call > >> (as an example). Another good reason to go with icons that can cope > >> with Qt's scaling: no code changes. > >> > >> Switching between size sets also means any third party icons (e.g. > >> plugins), that don't provide multiple icon versions, will have their > >> icons scaled. This would end up with users seeing different quality > >> between core and plugin toolbars, though I don't know how much this > >> can be avoided regardless of scaling issues. If moving to multiple > >> icon size sets, there might have to be an additional requirement of > >> multiple icon sizes for third-party plugins in the official > >> repository, if overall higher icon quality is desired. > >> > >> So, my vote here for your icon set would be to go with only the 24x24 > >> size, reduce the complexity of the most complex icons, increase > >> overall contrast where needed, and add any 2.5 effects to make them > >> pop a bit more (but not if such an effect causes the blurry scaling > >> problem or poor quality to occur). > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Larry > >> > >> > >> > And I decided to follow this priority: 1 -> 2 -> 3. > >> > I hope you understand my point of view. > >> > >> > >> > >> > regards, > >> > Robert > >> > > >> >> giovanni. > >> >> > >> >> [1] http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1442/qgis16x16.png > >> >> [2] http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2697/other16x16.png > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer