413535 - Add even better OS/2 icons for SeaMonkey

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: General, defect)

Description

[Peter Weilbacher]

Attachment: improved set of icons

Stefan sent me an improved set of SeaMonkey icons for OS/2 a while ago but I keep forgetting to test them. So I better add them in a bug entry...

Instead of 20x20 icons that are really 16x16 icons with lots of space around them, these have real 20x20 versions. But no 4bpp and 8bpp versions any more because they won't be used.

Comment 1

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: Screenshot of Frames with new and old icons

Tested new icons with seamonkey trunk of 2008-02-01 05:00. Top = new, bottom = old. As expected, window bar shows the 20x20 24bit version without up-/down-scaling. ( Up-/down-scaling makes the old versions a little bit grainy ).
Note : In the new set of icons, 4 bpp and 8 bpp versions with standard palettes are currently included. The way I understand it, the "palette manager" philosophy of Os/2 makes the existence of 4 bpp versions with adapted colors or any 8 bpp version unfavourable. If someone can confirm this, I will remove the 8 bpp versions.

Comment 2

[Peter Weilbacher]

Stefan, thanks for the clarification. As we don't support 8bit displays for OS/2 any more, we don't really need to worry about those low-color versions of the icons. Just leave then there.

KaiRo, do I need to get reviews before checking them in or is it good enough if I checked the files and no other OS/2 user has complained?

Comment 3

[Robert Kaiser]

Well, if the basic look of the icons is the same as for the Windows icons we currently have, it should be OK to check them in without further review.
My only concern here is in terms of trademark review (the SeaMonkey logo is trademarked), but if you're using the same imagery as Windows icons, just in a different icon format, everything's alright from that perspective.

Comment 4

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #3)
> ...
> My only concern here is in terms of trademark review (the SeaMonkey logo is
> trademarked), but if you're using the same imagery as Windows icons, just in a
> different icon format, everything's alright from that perspective.

That's the case - they are based on "new GTK icons, v1 (checked in)" of bug 321927 ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=291672 ) ...

Comment 5

[Robert Kaiser]

OK, then the only OK that's needed for checkin is one of the OS/s port owner or a peer :)

Comment 6

[Peter Weilbacher]

Attachment: screenshot with problem

Stefan, I was about to check the new icons in when I finally noticed one drawback that can be seen in this screenshot.

There is a thin line of gray pixels around the blue part of the icons and on a black background (as in this screenshot of my task switcher) this doesn't look nice. The current icons don't have that problem. Could you fix that?

Comment 7

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #6)
OK, will be done till tomorrow.

Comment 8

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: icons suitable for any background

Should now be suitable for both white and black background.

Comment 9

[Peter Weilbacher]

Thanks Stefan, now the borders looks better in my task switcher. But something else has changed, I'm not sure what. Because now I see the versions with the low color depth in my system menus, like the version with the grey shrimp from main-window.ico. Could that be because the 8bit deep version are gone now from the .ico files?

Comment 10

[Peter Weilbacher]

Oh, I'm running PM at 1400x1050 resolution with 16bit depth, in case that makes a difference. (I don't really know how PM decides which icon to use.)

Comment 11

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Oh, I'm running PM at 1400x1050 resolution with 16bit depth, in case that makes
> a difference. (I don't really know how PM decides which icon to use.)
OK. You live and learn ( man lernt nie aus ). Have here a system with same features. Will test it and provide a new version. Tomorrow.

Comment 12

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: icons for any background and color depth ( hopefully )

Sorry, I'm late ! ( Because I didn't want to modify again bitmaps pel for pel, I wrote a little program. Needed some time. )
Checked the icons with 24 and 16 bpp device color depth on black and white background. Seems to be OK. ( Still a weak shadow at the 20x20 versions on black background, but I had to find a compromise between the appearance on black and white. )

Comment 13

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: screenshot of mzIco4 icons on 24 bpp device on black

Comment 14

[Peter Weilbacher]

Comment on attachment 312633 [details]
icons for any background and color depth ( hopefully )

Thank you, Stefan, they are really beautiful now. :-)

Comment 15

[Peter Weilbacher]

Checked them into trunk.

Stefan, could parts of your program perhaps be used for the enhancement request in bug 169773?

Comment 16

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #15)

Hmm, currently the program needs a 24-bpp, >= 40x40 bitmap as input. ( Out of it, 40x40, 32x32, 20x20, 16x16, 24-, 8-, and 4-bpp images are generated and packaged in the Os/2 icon format. )
I think when converting from Windows or Linux icons, we have one basic problem : Most times, the largest provided image is 32x32. Upscaling the size would be one solution. Surrounding a 32x32 image with transparent area another one. Either way the result won't be really great.
I don't know whether it would be worth the effort. What do you think ?

Comment 17

[Peter Weilbacher]

No, if it's a big effort then it's probably not worth it. But in case you are bored ;-) and your code already does some of this maybe you could explore that. I could never make sense of the OS/2 bitmap/icon formats so I never tried it.

Comment 18

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #17)
> ... But in case you are bored ;-) 
OK. I will notify you :-) ...
> and your code already does some of this maybe you could explore that.
... if it yields satifactory results.