It may just be the habit of seeing it a certain way for so long. Please give feedback what you think.
Comments:Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 8:59 by happypuppy
k126.96.36.199 is out
Quick bugfix release
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 8:08 by 01micko
Height is ok, looks fine
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 10:18 by foo
Much depends on the user and theme bias (desktop/lap/netbook and even tone values) - I was fine with 24/16 in jwm, even 16/16 or variable scaling in other wms on a desktop. 24s seem to take up a bit much height in long second tiers (granted it's only momentary for as long as the menu is up but :| ), it's fairly subjective in relation to text/weight/clarity and how distinct the 'signal flags' are for visual recognition (rather than read or just know where in the menu-stack an item is).
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 11:34 by dogone
My preference is for spacing somewhere between the top and second tiers of 412. You could therefore tighten 417 somewhat. This would also help on small displays.
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 14:18 by eprv
Yes it was much better with the small icons, I made some comparison with other distros trying to understand why. The puppy second level menus have long text, this is OK, but they become wide, in this manner it is different from other distros. The extra width should be compensated with smaller hight, the 24 size takes the entire screen, when you don't see behind you may momentary wonder - what program I was looking for.
This is an issue of a man-machine interaction, I am not an expert but read about it.
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 15:07 by ttuuxxx
Hi guys, I sent Barry a new 24/24 menu icons for him to try about 2 weeks back, I'm not sure if he included them yet in the latest release, when I was testing the the new 24x24 icons, the menu height wasn't higher than than the default menu, So it that means its doesn't change the actual menu height at all, sure its a bet higher but it doesn't exceed the main menu height. The older 16x16 icons looked terrible on 24x24, so with the updated package I provided it should look a lot nice, I also provided him update mimes that are smaller in file size but look very nice and modern.
Anyways I'm 100% for 24x24 icons.
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 17:43 by disciple
like software, smaller is better
Smaller icons are better. You only need big ones if you have badly designed (blurry - not nice and crisp with good contrast) modern icons like everyone is obsessed with :)
I'm not sure what you're on about Ttuuxxx - in previous puppies the second level menu entries are definitely not tall enough to fit 24x24 icons.
I don't think anyone would suggest using 16x16 icons and scaling them to 24x24. Icons should be pixel art that isn't scaled - just like small screen fonts shouldn't be antialiased.
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 17:57 by BarryK
I think what ttuuxxx means is the second-level icons in 417 look a bit crappy because they are scaled to 24 pixel height. I did that in anticipation of putting in ttuuxxxes 24x24 icons, but haven't done it yet. So JWM scales the 16x16 to fit the height.
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 19:57 by eprv
We are aware that the 24 icons are not final, yet the question is the hight not the specific set of icons
Posted on 26 Jul 2009, 21:15 by ttuuxxx
Almost all applications these days use 24x24, or at least 22x22, Well How about when.If Barry installs the icons/mimes I sent him, then we'll all have a better grasp on the overall looks of things, Its kind of hard to tell right now due the the stretched 16x16 icons to 24x24. The icons in general are smaller in file size, plus I removed a bunch of redundant icons from when X11 provided Icons, Linux in general uses gtk2 and tango icons for applications, If anything we should rename Our icons 24x24 to the same naming convention as gtk2 icons, That way they would be used more menus/programs. I did add some system links to gtk2 names in the icon theme, so we'll enjoy a few new menu icons in some applications.