Subject: Re: wm-icons suggestion

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:51:08 +0200

On 20 Sep 1999 19:13:56 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 05:25:39PM +0200, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > On 20 Sep 1999 12:14:39 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > A while ago I started to create a small, simple icon set
> > > for window managing functions.  Then I had a look at the
> > > template icon set and was overwhelmed by the sheer amount
> > > of icons I was supposed to draw.  I suggest to split the
> > > icon packages in application icons and window management
> > > icon packages.  I see no close connection between the two
> > > anyway since virtually everybody uses window management
> > > icons somewhere, but application icons are a different
> > > story.
> > 
> > This is reasonable. But it requires having two separate icon lists
> > and two different sets of icon aliases, which makes configuring harder.
> > I would really like to have one icon set with both application icons
> > and wm icons. I too see no close connection between both, but noone
> > can say there is no connection at all. I can use both types in the
> > same menu/buttons and thus I want to have the same icon style for them.
> > 
> > I am open about these issues and would like to hear what others think.
> > 
> > Currently you can implement your suggestion by providing only one type
> > of icons in a set. You don't need to draw all icons, in fact you only
> > need to provide empty.xpm or/and todo.xpm. All others can stay symlinks.
> 
> Well, I guess the point about that is that you'll find more people
> willing to do only one half of the work than doing both.  For me
> drawing all the application windows is a waste of time.  I don't
> even know all these applications I would be supposed to provide
> an icon for.

Writting descriptions for icons is on the todo list. Are these names
really so un-understandable? (I want to fix this.)

I am not sure about "how many people willing to do only one half of the
work". It is very difficult even to compose an icon set from existing
icons, creating is yet more difficult, I think. It is not my purpose to
make creating easier, my purpose is to provide ready icon sets and make
usage easier.

So, if someone describes the design where such split makes the usage
easier, we will discus it. There are more than just 2 groups of icons
here - window manager, software, hardware, filesystem, dialog icons etc.
and they all can be put together (menu, buttons).
So I think the split is not appropriate here unless we restrict a user.

> Dominik ^_^

Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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, 11 Oct 1999 04:47:37 +0200

> really so un-understandable? (I want to fix this.)

I don't have a problem with the names, it's simply that I didn't
ever start about one half of the classes of applications.

> make creating easier, my purpose is to provide ready icon sets and make

I guess the biggest problem with the existing icons is that there are
virtually no complete sets of icons.

> So I think the split is not appropriate here unless we restrict a user.

Whatever.  I'm sure you spent much more time thinking about this.  I'm
happy if I can ever finish the ten to twenty icons necessary for WM
operations.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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]