Note, it doesn't matter what size the actual icons are, JWM sizes them to fit. The sizes are specified in /root/.jwmrc, however the menu is generated by a utility in rarsa's 'xdg_puppy' package (via 'fixmenus' script).
I have modified the source of 'jwm-xdgmenu' (located at /usr/bin) in the 'xdg_puppy' package to generate an icon height of 24 bits for the submenus. So, it becomes permanent, and I hope everyone else is happy with that move.
Ttuuxxx reported that he had alternative 24x24 icons to replace those in /usr/local/lib/X11/mini-icons that appear in the submenus.
When I release 416, as the height of submenus is now set to 24, all the 16x16 icons will be enlarged to fit, so they won't look too good.
'jwm-xdgmenu' needs libgnome-menu, from the 'gnome-menus' package. Puppy 412 has gnome-menus version 2.14, however I found that the 'dev' component was missing from the 'devx' file.
So, I compiled gnome-menus version 2.14.3 and this is now in Puppy 415+.
Comments:Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 15:37 by disciple
Icons only need to be 24x24 if they are badly designed... which most are these days because they're not proper pixel art and they're aimed more at 64x64 or something similar :)
Really we should have nice clean icons that match whatever icon shows up in an app's titlebar...
Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 17:14 by ttuuxxx
Hi Barry, If you package up the 16x16 icons in like a tar.gz and pot a temp link to them, I could download them and have about 24hr or less turn around for 24x24 set and i could upload the newer 24x24 icons for you next release for you to use.
Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 17:28 by zigbert
I have 225 icons in my /usr/local/lib/X11/mini-icons.
16x16 is 57kb and some icons looks bad.
24x24 is 128kb and some gets trouble with tall menus on small screens
0x0 is 0kb and have none of the above problems. :)
Have you tried to delete all 16x16 icons. It both gives a clean menu, and it saves some space.
Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 18:46 by eprv
There must be a user choice here at least by downloading a PET package for 16x16 icons.
Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 22:15 by dogone
16 versus 24 pixels
It occurs to me that this has everything to do with screen size and resolution. Perhaps users should have a choice of several menu icon sizes. Should/could desktop (pinboard) icon size be selectable? The latter could help to avoid the "toy" effect on small displays.
Posted on 10 Jul 2009, 23:34 by ttuuxxx
Well Zigbert the last time I checked 4.2 there were 138 .desktop files in usr/share/applications, so that would mean 138 icons for the 16x16 plus maybe a couple in usr/local/applications. Then about 15 or more are actually reused like the wizard icon, or cd icon, ftp icon etc, actually probably a closer figure would be 110 16x16 icons for the menu, also there has never been a complaint by anyone with a small screen that 8 pixels higher/wider make a lick of difference. Ever tar.gz those 110 or so icons up? your talking nothing in space. Your just voicing an opinion due to I have a interest in this, we both know it. You didn't seem to mind adding over 200 new system links in 4.2? and breaking the desktop icons anytime you move a window. That was ok, how about we'll let the masses decided once its done up good and proper.