Re: Icon love

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

>On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
>> 
>> It is hard to tell what should be done without doing some
>> research/testing on it.
>
>I've had bugs about this filed against gnumeric.  Abi does support
>it.  It looks like Hancomm uses 'A'.  I would lean toward 'A'
>because it will match the font colour selector.
>
>Of more pressing concern is how well the black icons fair in dark
>themes.  There was a proposal to give them white rims ? and to pray
>to the gtk-2.1 gods that 'monochrome' is added an icon flag.

Generally icons should be themeable... I believe that we should have at least the 
mechanics for doing this in 2.0, so that if resources are found we can provide 
themed icons for 2.0.1.

It's important for accessibility (icons need to be available in larger sizes, for 
instance).  Also accessibility requires that high-contrast and low-contrast 
versions of icons be available.  As Jody points out there can be problems with 
icons that have transparent backgrounds - one solution is to theme the icons which 
solves the problem for dark backgrounds...

however for the high-contrast accessibility case you have problems when the state 
of the host object changes, since the background colors for various states must be 
pretty much near-black and near-white, so a high-contrast icon without the 
suggested contrasting border will be invisible against one or the other... for 
instance if the 'selected' fg is black (as it is in the high contrast 
accessibility theme) then a high-contrast icons will disappear if the host object 
is selected.  Ugh.

In the absence of the 'monochrome' flag the only solution I see is to allow for 
different icons for different states/

-Bill


>_______________________________________________
>gnome-hackers mailing list
>gnome-hackers gnome org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
>

------
Bill Haneman x19279
Gnome Accessibility / Batik SVG Toolkit
Sun Microsystems Ireland