Subject: icons

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 22 Feb 1999 17:00:10 -0500

I think we're already starting to lose our resolve a bit here :)

We just had button-close.xpm, button-horiz.xpm, etc. added to the icons
directory, and to me those look like mini-icons and should be
"mini.something.xpm" by our naming convention... right?  If not, what's
the distinction being made here?

Post 2.2 we should clean out the icons directory and merge as many of
the fvwm95 icons as we think are interesting, esp. the miniicons.  Also,
some of the existing ones can be removed, I think.  We don't want to
provide the be-all, end-all icon library, we want to provide a suite of
basic window-manager-y icons; things you'd see on window buttons, button
bars, side pixmaps, etc.

For example, is world.xpm something we really want to see distributed
with fvwm?

Also, we have a few dups.  Do we really need _both_ mini.bomb.xpm and
mini.destroy.xpm?  And there are a few more bombs, too.  Etc.

We can add some pointers to other archives of pixmaps, like AIcons,
etc.  And if/when the themes stuff takes off, they can either include
their own pixmaps or reference where they can be found.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:14:38 +0100

> the distinction being made here?

Yes, I know. The reason I didn't rename them was that they are even
smaller than 'mini' (which usually is 16x16 pixels). I didn't want
to start a discussion about that for 2.2 anymore.

> the fvwm95 icons as we think are interesting, esp. the miniicons.

Yes, agreed.

> Also,

Agreed again.

> their own pixmaps or reference where they can be found.

If someone were going to ask me: I have *so many* icon packages on my
machine/distribution. I can live comfortably without most of them. I
need no icons at all in the fvwm distribution.

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 23 Feb 1999 00:22:02 -0500

>> their own pixmaps or reference where they can be found.

  dv> If someone were going to ask me: I have *so many* icon packages on
  dv> my machine/distribution. I can live comfortably without most of
  dv> them. I need no icons at all in the fvwm distribution.

In an ideal world, all software would come with at least a "normal" size
icon and a mini-icon.  Then we could do away with most of the current
fvwm icons and just distribute a collection of "window-manager-y" icons
(window border buttons, side pixmaps, etc.)

As it is, though, I think it's appropriate for fvwm to come with a wide
range of "application icons", too.  However, we don't need a huge
selection in any given application category: a couple of editor icons;
one calculator icon is plenty; a variety of terminal icons is nice (but
that BSD icon we have is really bad! ;), etc.  Also, we seem to have a
few styles of min/max/move/etc. pixmaps.  I must confess some of those,
to my eye, look kind of ... cheezy :).

If we can come up with a nice new logo, some of the existing "fvwm"
pixmaps should be punted, too: how many do we need, really?

At any rate, we at least need enough icons to provide for our nice set
of sample config files, right? :)