XnView Software

Dreamer wrote:Maybe it's right time for a poll now... What you think Helmut?

I don't like polls very much. I'd prefer to continue the discussion a bit and then come to a decision.

I don't know, maybe for choosing iconsets it might be a good idea to have a poll.

ckv wrote:Dreamer sorry this little rip-off.
I used Dreamers idea here.

Think that's o.k.

ckv wrote:Maybe 48 x 48 looks too blunt.

Yep. But the 48 x 48 is not so important, I think. Does anyone know in which cases it can be displayed? Is it for the thumbnail view of MS Explorer? If so, it will never be seen, since the thumbnail of the image and not the icon will be displayed.

ckv wrote:Dreamer mod

Nice. I'd like to keep the full XnView icon in the larger sizes. Think the 16x16 size has the problem that in some cases not all letters fit fully in (see "JPG" icon).

ckv wrote:Off topic: Why I cant upload avatar? I use currently off site avatar.

Currently a known problem, see group "Info".

ckit wrote:I don't know, maybe for choosing iconsets it might be a good idea to have a poll.

Maybe you're right. But let's keep collecting "candidates", then choose 3-5 of 'em and then make a poll.

Also, before making the poll the "candidates" should be in a form that allows for easy comparison. ckv has a good way of presenting all sizes, whereas my samples show the real life usage. Think for making a decision both is needed. But this comes a bit later. Let's keep collecting...

helmut wrote:

ckv wrote:Dreamer sorry this little rip-off.
I used Dreamers idea here.

Think that's o.k.

No problem

helmut wrote:

ckv wrote:Maybe 48 x 48 looks too blunt.

Yep. But the 48 x 48 is not so important, I think. Does anyone know in which cases it can be displayed? Is it for the thumbnail view of MS Explorer? If so, it will never be seen, since the thumbnail of the image and not the icon will be displayed.

I think we could create better looking large icons (48 x 48 and 32x32) some shades, effects, maybe more red colour - like in Helmut's 16x16 icons - anyone?

helmut wrote:

ckv wrote:Dreamer mod

Nice. I'd like to keep the full XnView icon in the larger sizes. Think the 16x16 size has the problem that in some cases not all letters fit fully in (see "JPG" icon).

I agree.

I don't know how you feel about it, but I personnaly prefer the simple icons without the "white page" design on it.
It looks more 'professional' to me: clear and efficient ...and a lot of cheap applications keep using this damn old 'white page' design...

So far, my preferred version is this one: (latest "previous" version by Dreamer: bmp2)
Notes:
- I didn't find the "difficult assignment" to be a problem at all
- I tend to prefer the 'full logo' + text in Helmut's version

Your opinion on the 'white page' old-fashioned design ?

Olivier

helmut wrote:

ckv wrote:Maybe 48 x 48 looks too blunt.

Yep. But the 48 x 48 is not so important, I think. Does anyone know in which cases it can be displayed? Is it for the thumbnail view of MS Explorer? If so, it will never be seen, since the thumbnail of the image and not the icon will be displayed.

My friend uses 48 x 48 icons as default. Switch to use big icons is somewhere in desktop properties.

helmut wrote:

ckv wrote:Dreamer mod

Nice. I'd like to keep the full XnView icon in the larger sizes. Think the 16x16 size has the problem that in some cases not all letters fit fully in (see "JPG" icon).

Thats true. Because of this Dreamer made two types of 16 x 16 icons I didn't notice the difference between these before.

First off, again thank you all for the lively discussion with samples. I have the feeling that ckv, Dreamer, Olivier and me all draw small tiny icons and set pixel by pixel

We should make sure that we do not set our targets too high. We are all hobby artists, so I think that we should not try to completely change the larger icons (32x32 and 48x48). There's surely potential for improvements, too, but one after the other. And we still need "work" for the 1.76 .
Sure enough introducing colouring and making minor changes for the larger icons is o.k..

Also, the 16x16 pixel icons in XnView 1.74 are the ones which look worst. And I think with any of the suggestions which we had so far we are much better than that.

So let's mainly focus on the 16x16 pixel icons:
As written before, I think that there might be two versions of the small icons, one using 16 colours of the standard palette, another one with 256 colours.

Below a sample what the 16x16 icons could look like in 256 colours. One can clearly see that the files are documents (images) and which type they are (colour + three letters of extension).

Sample of Iconset (HEL3):

Olivier_G wrote:I don't know how you feel about it, but I personnaly prefer the simple icons without the "white page" design on it.
It looks more 'professional' to me: clear and efficient ...and a lot of cheap applications keep using this damn old 'white page' design...
...Your opinion on the 'white page' old-fashioned design ?

I don't like it too, but as you written - it's a standard, and I like "system"...
...therefore, my new icons are also with the "white page"

helmut wrote:We should make sure that we do not set our targets too high. We are all hobby artists, so I think that we should not try to completely change the larger icons (32x32 and 48x48). There's surely potential for improvements, too, but one after the other. And we still need "work" for the 1.76 .
Sure enough introducing colouring and making minor changes for the larger icons is o.k..

Yes, at least introducing colouring (I guess you mean "format" colours) is needed, I think.
Maybe some graphic expert read this and create new large icons for us

BTW - 1.76 ?

helmut wrote:As written before, I think that there might be two versions of the small icons, one using 16 colours of the standard palette, another one with 256 colours.

Yes, I agree, but with the same main "format" colors (same blue for bmp, same green for gif...)

helmut wrote:Sample of Iconset (HEL3)

Very nice, could you place a link to that icons? I want to test it in my "dark blue background" file manager

Dreamer wrote:

Olivier_G wrote:I don't know how you feel about it, but I personnaly prefer the simple icons without the "white page" design on it.
It looks more 'professional' to me: clear and efficient ...and a lot of cheap applications keep using this damn old 'white page' design...
...Your opinion on the 'white page' old-fashioned design ?

I don't like it too, but as you written - it's a standard, and I like "system"...
...therefore, my new icons are also with the "white page"

Yes, icons without the "white page" look a bit like program icons (icons for applications).

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:We should make sure that we do not set our targets too high. We are all hobby artists, so I think that we should not try to completely change the larger icons (32x32 and 48x48). There's surely potential for improvements, too, but one after the other. And we still need "work" for the 1.76 .
Sure enough introducing colouring and making minor changes for the larger icons is o.k..

Yes, at least introducing colouring (I guess you mean "format" colours) is needed, I think.

Exactly, "format colours".

Maybe some graphic expert read this and create new large icons for us

That is a bit my hope. As written before, the large icons are o.k. and can be almost left as they are at the moment.

BTW: Which graphic program do you use for icon editing? I found that Axialis IconStudio cannot edit the 16 colour icon with custom colours. When saving the custom colour palette is lost. Axialis support said that this is a problem which cannot be fixed and asked me to use 256 colours. So currently I'm using an evaluation version of Microangelo, which will expire, soon.

Dreamer wrote:BTW - 1.76 ?

Version after 1.75.

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:As written before, I think that there might be two versions of the small icons, one using 16 colours of the standard palette, another one with 256 colours.

Yes, I agree, but with the same main "format" colors (same blue for bmp, same green for gif...)

If we use the same "format" colours for 16 colours and 256 colours, this means that we have to use the colours of the standard colour palette (pure blue, pure pink, ...). So the colouring used in XnView browser and the icons will differ. Not sure whether this is a big problem or not.

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:Sample of Iconset (HEL3)

Very nice, could you place a link to that icons? I want to test it in my "dark blue background" file manager

You can find the two icons here and here. Please note that only the 16x16 format has been edited.

helmut wrote:

Maybe some graphic expert read this and create new large icons for us

That is a bit my hope. As written before, the large icons are o.k. and can be almost left as they are at the moment.

BTW: Which graphic program do you use for icon editing?

No special "icon" program, just Photofiltre.

helmut wrote:

Dreamer wrote:BTW - 1.76 ?

Version after 1.75.

What version will be the next? I'm just confused. Not really important.

helmut wrote:

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:As written before, I think that there might be two versions of the small icons, one using 16 colours of the standard palette, another one with 256 colours.

Yes, I agree, but with the same main "format" colors (same blue for bmp, same green for gif...)

If we use the same "format" colours for 16 colours and 256 colours, this means that we have to use the colours of the standard colour palette (pure blue, pure pink, ...). So the colouring used in XnView browser and the icons will differ. Not sure whether this is a big problem or not.

I understand it now, so the possibilities are:

1. same colours for all icons, but different in the browser
2. same colours for browser and all icons (except 16 colours 16x16 icons)
3. same colours for browser and all icons (colours change in the browser is needed - to the standard colour palette)

I prefer 2nd or 3rd alternative - because in the most cases 16 colours icons are not used.

helmut wrote:

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:Sample of Iconset (HEL3)

Very nice, could you place a link to that icons? I want to test it in my "dark blue background" file manager

You can find the two icons here and here. Please note that only the 16x16 format has been edited.

Thanks, but after renaming bmp to ico this problem occured (white colour is missing)

Dreamer,

Dreamer wrote:What version will be the next? I'm just confused. Not really important.

Next version is 1.75. My sentence "And we still need work for the 1.76" should have been a sort of joke. I simply wanted to say that it's o.k. and good still to do some things later.

Dreamer wrote: I understand it now, so the possibilities are:

1. same colours for all icons, but different in the browser
2. same colours for browser and all icons (except 16 colours 16x16 icons)
3. same colours for browser and all icons (colours change in the browser is needed - to the standard colour palette)

I prefer 2nd or 3rd alternative - because in the most cases 16 colours icons are not used.

Right, that's the options. I'd also go for option 2. Think we have to play around a bit and find out whether the colours used in the browser work well with the icons. It's quite possible that it's too hard to distinguish.

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:...
You can find the two icons here and here. Please note that only the 16x16 format has been edited.

Thanks, but after renaming bmp to ico this problem occured (white colour is missing)

You must not click on the link 'here' and save the image. Instead you have to right click on the link and save the .ico files directly.

helmut wrote:

Dreamer wrote: I understand it now, so the possibilities are:

1. same colours for all icons, but different in the browser
2. same colours for browser and all icons (except 16 colours 16x16 icons)
3. same colours for browser and all icons (colours change in the browser is needed - to the standard colour palette)

I prefer 2nd or 3rd alternative - because in the most cases 16 colours icons are not used.

Right, that's the options. I'd also go for option 2. Think we have to play around a bit and find out whether the colours used in the browser work well with the icons. It's quite possible that it's too hard to distinguish.

I just want the same colours for icons and browser - this is important - no matter how we accomplish it...

helmut wrote:You must not click on the link 'here' and save the image. Instead you have to right click on the link and save the .ico files directly.

Thanks, it does work...

Dreamer wrote:I just want the same colours for icons and browser - this is important - no matter how we accomplish it...

O.k., let's try to achieve that.

Dreamer wrote:

helmut wrote:You must not click on the link 'here' and save the image. Instead you have to right click on the link and save the .ico files directly.

Thanks, it does work...

Good to read that it works. Think the icons look good on dark background, too.

Until now I haven't found the time to draw new icons, I guess that I find the time in the next 2-3 days. If someone else wants to go ahead, here's some of the colours used in the XnView browser:

jpeg: RGB( 237, 237, 202 )
gif: RGB( 220, 235, 220 )
bmp: RGB( 227, 227, 255 )

My guess is that it will be a bit hard to distinguish the colours. Increasing saturation of the colours a bit might help.

helmut wrote:

Dreamer wrote:I just want the same colours for icons and browser - this is important - no matter how we accomplish it...

O.k., let's try to achieve that.

...here's some of the colours used in the XnView browser:

jpeg: RGB( 237, 237, 202 )
gif: RGB( 220, 235, 220 )
bmp: RGB( 227, 227, 255 )
...

- not very nice

Another option is to change the colours in the browser to:

- appropriate light colours
- dark colours - same as icon colours (change of the font colour to light is needed)
- both - light and dark colours