On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:03:02 +0200 Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote: > > I know at least two dozen people who use 48x48 icons, even though > > they're not in the menu. (They're in a panel or somesuch.) > > This document apply onlys to icons in /usr/lib/menu for application > menu. Icons specifically designed for use with an application (window > manager, file manager) can be of any size. Don't you think it would be nice if they could be used for both? (After all, application icons on a panel are menus in their own right.) > > Instead of adjusting this to "48x48" to match current common > > practise, upping it to 128x128 will give us a bit more leeway. > > > > (I know one person whose icons are 64x64, so even that's not > > adequate.) > > The problem is that some window managers do not rescale icons, so > icon of widely different size make menu pretty ugly. For that reason > I would let 32x32 be the norm with a tolerance up to 48x48. 32x32 is *huge* in a menu, and 48x48 is insane. At least for common use today :) If it's going to be changed, there has to be the basic assumption that the Right Thing(tm) will be done, either via dynamic resizing on the part of the menu app, or conversion in the menu method (the latter will always work). Otherwise, it needs to be left as-is.
Attachment:
pgpqz1CPcl9Pn.pgp
Description: PGP signature