GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 347168
Nautilus should use 32x32 icons for 75% view mode
Last modified: 2007-09-04 17:36:11 UTC
Nautilus currently uses 36x36 icons for 75% view mode under "view as icons," however 36x36 is not a natural dimension for an icon. 32x32 is a common (and recently added to the Tango desktop project) dimension for icons. Nautilus should draw from the 32x32 icon repositories from an icon set. This would make icons under the 75% view as icon mode "pixel perfect." Other information:
This is what we currently use: /* Nominal icon sizes for each Nautilus zoom level. * This scheme assumes that icons are designed to * fit in a square space, though each image needn't * be square. Since individual icons can be stretched, * each icon is not constrained to this nominal size. */ #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLEST 12 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLER 24 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALL 36 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_STANDARD 48 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_LARGE 72 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_LARGER 96 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_LARGEST 192 Which of them don't fit into the tango sizing scheme? Is there an (xdg?) paper describing the suggested icon sizes?
#define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLEST 12 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLER 24 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALL 36 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_STANDARD 48 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_LARGE 72 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_LARGER 96 http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines (Look under Sizes) So , it should be: #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLEST 16 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALLER 22 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_SMALL 32 #define NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_STANDARD 48 ... If you look at their online library: http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Icon_Gallery you will see the 3 sizes in use. That is the best I can do for documentation, but hope it's enough. Thanks for your attention.
The general idea is that icon sizes should be divisible by 8. The 22x22 size is a fluke so that we can improve compatibility with KDE, but this size actually makes things look much better on the panel as well. Lokheed's suggested sizes are probably the ones we should be using. The 24 vs. 22 is debatable, as we can easily automate the process of generating most all of the 24x24 versions of icons from the 22x22 anyway, as we do in the Tango Icon Theme at "build" time.
Created attachment 80845 [details] This is what 25% looks like in nautilus now quite blurry, hard to see what they are.
Created attachment 80846 [details] This is what 25% would look like if it used 16x16 Sharp and clear! No icon set that I know of uses anything below 16x16.
Seems #327709 is about the same issue.
Any progress on thit one? As you can see from Andreas screenshoots it improove the look and feel quite a lot.
Created attachment 84718 [details] [review] Well reasoned, attaching proposed patch This one will change 12 -> 16 and 36 -> 32.
Sounds good to me. Commited.
Changing icon size values unchanged since 7 years without giving old users a chance to have the old setting after upgrade does no sounds like a good idea. IMO it's a regression (filled as #472263)
Almost forgot: 48*0.75=36 != 32
Um, "the old setting" was that your icons was blurry instead of sharp and we're just talking about a couple of pixels here. Are you sure this is a issue?
Yes, they are not sharp as 32px ones. But they have a perfect 36px size, present on my GNOME desktop since few years.
I don't understand how they can be perfect, when nobody actually provides icons in that size.
I never saw icons with such size, but that's not the point. After upgrade, I want to have same desktop as before (probably I'm not alone). That's all. If sombody prefers better look/size can always use new provided setting. I know, that's not a big issue for new GNOME users, but I'm the old one and I want keep my prefered settings.
Fryderyk, this patch correct a long standing nautilus issue, we never had nice icons at that zoom level, I don't think anybody will notice the difference in spacing since we are really talking about a bunch of pixels. Having all blurred icons is obviously bogus to my eyes, to me it's sounds like you want a bug back.