GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 124872
bitmap icons are small and indictinct
Last modified: 2003-10-20 09:15:32 UTC
Please refer to my postings in: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/msg00363.html and http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/msg00371.html which has attachments: Screenshot-TaskList-RH7.jpg Screenshot-Panel-RH9.png Each one shows a list of 25 windows, of which 12 are identical windows with what should be identical bitmap icons, and it's these with which I am having difficulty on RH9 with Gnome-panel 2.2. Please read the rest of those postings for details. I suppose my question is really: what can I do to make my RH9 windowlist/tasklist look like my RH7 TaskList?
Links to the screenshots: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/jpg00000.jpg http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/png00000.png From the mail: Each one shows a list of 25 windows, of which 12 are identical windows with what should be identical bitmap icons, and it's these with which I am having difficulty on RH9. I hope you can see which are the "matching" 12 - the icon of each is some very simple cartoon-like "drawing" in black on white bg. On RH7 the icon fills the cell and the contrast between the black drawing and the white bg is very clear. In the RH9 windowlist they are shrunk into a half-size box in the cell and also they are reversed, black foreground on dark-grey background. The overall effect is that they are almost indistinguishable from each other, at least with my eyes. As I have to frequently switch from one to another. this is a serious obstacle for me. I have looked for ways to alter them but don't see anything.
I guess there are too problems here: colours of the icons are wrong and size of the icons should scale to the button size. First is a dup of bug #113507 and second is a dup of bug #110705. I'm marking this bug as a dup of #113507 as it seems the most urgent problem. (Feel free to reopen the bug if you think there is another problem) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 113507 ***