bulia byak wrote:
>Sorry it's me ranting again. Do we HAVE to have those large buttons? I
>find them clumsy at this size. Up to now, there was:
>- a meaningful hierarchy of sizes: main tool buttons large, tool
>control buttons small.
>- a coordination of the sizes of the buttons and the rest of controls
>Both these are now broken. Why? What for? Can we return the small size
>at least as an option?
>I'm aware of the "other apps do it this way" argument, and I'm
>generally sympathetic, but I don't think it has the priority over the
>"yuck, it's ugly" argument. That is, when what other apps do looks
>nice or at least decent, borrow. When our own solution is demonstrably
>better, stick with it.
Well, it was I that poited out the bug/feature in the chatroom. Before=20
the change the stock items seemed blurry because they were scaled down=20
from 24x24 (the normal resolution for buttons) to 20x20. As you might=20
notice they are much crisper now.
The other thing I encountured, and the real reason I brought the issue=20
up, was because I was trying to make the icons in the menus bigger, from=20
13x13-14x14-something to 16x16. This was because the current size of the=20
icons was making them very hard to differ from eachother (especially the=20
zoom icons). I rezised them a bit and got them up to 16x16, but then the=20
icons in the toolbar got clipped in a very strange way, and therefore I=20
asked around for it.
I haven=B4t properly tested if the clipping still occur yet, but hopefull=
it don=B4t. I=B4ll send a mail tomorrow.
I=B4m sorry if my request has upset you, because I was only trying to=20
solve what I thought was a bug.
The Gimp has an approach where you can choose between small and default=20
icons for the toolbar.
Maybe something like that would work?
Nice to see your improvments on my icons.