From: Sylvie G. <sgr...@gm...> - 2008-08-22 13:11:31
|
Some little examples with the help.png Attached screen1 with tiki2.0 and tikitrunk Both are bad... (tikitrunk is dither+png8 ... tiki2.0 do not know where it comes from) screen2 is the original help.png from famfam (the transparency does not work on IE6) So it is true we lost quality with converting dithering/png8 - I use gimp - perhaps other tools can do a better job But the icons from pics/icons (the famfam ones) that are 'squared' are fine. Sept7, do you agree? I like the png format - because you can keep the layers and build new icons very easily What about keeping the good looking icons in png - and changing the bad one like help into gif.. Btw, the star icons on screen1 are old icons - that must be replaced because of license problem. I repeat - each icon must be ours or with a suitable license and an identified source. famfam does not have star? Any volunteer to draw icons? On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 08:54 +0200, Stephane Casset wrote: > Le Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 03:18:34PM -0400, Pete Jalajas écrivait : > > Or, egads, a simple transparent GIF? Sorry if that was discarded as > > an option higher in this thread? > > Well yes, PNG was used back in the days where GIF had patents on it, now > that the situation is cleared up, may be we can use GIF with > transparency instead of PNG, as GIF is well supported ? > > Well having looked more and more, the CSS solution is not that great in > the end for certain of our pages where you can have dozens of icons. So > my apologies to Sylvie. > > Now we have two options : > o go with GIF > o assure a very good convertion of PNG > > A+ |