500414 - New icon for OS/2 needed

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Peter Weilbacher]

Now that the new Firefox icon for the other platforms is landed (see bug 500033) we can also create a new .ico file for OS/2. I guess one could either take the Windows .ico file from attachment 384726 [details] as a base or start from higher or matching resolution PNG images as published at <http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/06/18/the-new-firefox-icon/>.

Stefan, you did great work to adapt the SeaMonkey icon, do you still have the means to do this again now?

Comment 1

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow

Source is from 
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/06/18/the-new-firefox-icon/

Comment 2

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=385172) [details]
> Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow
I took a look at it, the 24bits look nice in all resolutions, all other color depths are black...

Comment 3

[Walter Meinl]

They updated document.{ico,png} as well. Another source for the ico files (if they are of any help for you) is:
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/file/d4681ff6dfb8/other-licenses/branding/firefox/{firefox,document}.ico

Comment 4

[Alex Faaborg [:faaborg] (Firefox UX)]

Out of curiosity what size and formats do you need to generate OS/2 icons?

Comment 5

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Out of curiosity what size and formats do you need to generate OS/2 icons?

We have a different ico format than windows, but there are programs available to convert, so that is not big deal. In part, we have the same formats than windows 32x32 and 16x16, and these convert fine from the windows ico. In addition we need 40x40 and 20x20. Anything bigger would display as well, e.g 48x48, but doesn't fit to our overall layout. Color depth is 24bit, 8bit, and 4bit.

Comment 6

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: v2 of Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow [Checked in comment 10]

Version 2 of Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow

Now checked every color depth and resolution ( had some invalid display masks in previous version ).
Source is from 
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/06/18/the-new-firefox-icon/

Comment 7

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #3)
> They updated document.{ico,png} as well. Another source for the ico files (if
> they are of any help for you) is: http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/file/d4681ff6dfb8/other-licenses/branding/firefox/{firefox,document}.ico

Any possibility to get the files directly from the web interface ?

Comment 8

[Peter Weilbacher]

Yes, when displaying the file (where you just see "(binary:application/octet-stream)") use the "raw" link at the top. Or just download

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/raw-file/d4681ff6dfb8/other-licenses/branding/firefox/document.ico
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/raw-file/d4681ff6dfb8/other-licenses/branding/firefox/firefox.ico

Comment 9

[Peter Weilbacher]

Comment on attachment 385335 [details]
v2 of Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow [Checked in comment 10]

Thanks, Stefan. This looks great. I'll get this in soon.

Comment 10

[Peter Weilbacher]

Comment on attachment 385335 [details]
v2 of Firefox icon scaled down from 512 png without shadow [Checked in comment 10]

Pushed:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c8808dd65f45
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/443e352ba424

BTW, the bug for the document icons was bug 473343. I'll leave this bug open for that.

Comment 11

[Stefan Schmohl]

> BTW, the bug for the document icons was bug 473343. I'll leave this bug open
> for that.
Should I place document-os2.ico here or at bug 473343 ?

Comment 12

[Peter Weilbacher]

Here, please. (I just wanted to post a reference to the other bug.)

Comment 13

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: v1 of document-os2.ico apapted from document.png

Comment 14

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: v4 of firefox-os2.ico

Not very important but I remembered 4-bit should use system colors. ( So the user interface on 256 color devices leaves 240 colors for displaying pictures. ) Corrected this for completness.

Comment 15

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: v5 of firefox-os2.ico [Checked in comment 26]

Imho a little bit smoother and clearer.

Comment 16

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: png with comparison of firefox-os2.ico v4 and v5

Comment 17

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Created an attachment (id=385631) [details]
> v5 of firefox-os2.ico
> 
> Imho a little bit smoother and clearer.
I agree, v5 looks very nice in 24 and 8bit, but the 4bits of v4 and v5 look a bit strange (e.g. yellow pixels all over), 4bit was nicer in the v2.
Another comment on document-os2.ico. It appears you took the "linux" png as a template where the logo is put aside of the "page". In the windows version of document.ico, the firefox logo is centered on the "page", 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=382681
Nevertheless, your icons look way better than that we had up to now, thanks.

Comment 18

[Peter Weilbacher]

Walter, I think Stefan is right in that one should use the system palette for 4bit icons. And there you are limited with what colors are available. This is the same for the current SeaMonkey icon, too (just that there the available colors match the icon colors better). I should have seen that when I looked at the icon that I checked in.

As for document-os2.ico I don't think it matters, if it is built from the original Windows or Linux version. We should just be consistent when the Thunderbird icon needs to be redone (later this year?).

Stefan, if you are still happy -- after thinking it over for three days -- with the current state of firefox-os2.ico v5 and document-os2.ico, I would check them in.

Comment 19

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #18)
> Walter, I think Stefan is right in that one should use the system palette for
> 4bit icons.

The background ( so far I understand it ) : 4-bit icons are for 8-bit environments ( like some mobile devices - less data transfer, more operation time ).
The general idea is to restrict colors of the user interface to 16 system colors. So 240 colors remain available. Those colors sensibly adapted, your can achieve pretty good results in diplaying content - like pictures or rendered font with different font and background colors.
Otherwise 16 icons with differently adapted colors would eat up all palette colors. Nothing left for content. 

> As for document-os2.ico I don't think it matters, if it is built from the
> original Windows or Linux version. We should just be consistent when the
> Thunderbird icon needs to be redone (later this year?).

The other is already in work. But I don't have much spare time, so it might take two or three days until I find the time.

> Stefan, if you are still happy -- after thinking it over for three days --
> with the current state of firefox-os2.ico v5 and document-os2.ico, I would
> check them in.

I think both are "technically" OK and the best compromise achievable ( between black and white background without alpha channel ). If you want the matter be closed, take them. Otherwise I provide a document-os2.ico v2 apdapted from the Windows source.

Comment 20

[Peter Weilbacher]

I realized that I have never seen document.ico used anywhere on OS/2. It is used on Windows (through toolkit/xre/nsNativeAppSupportWin.h) but on OS/2 the DOCUMENT_ICO property indeed seems to be unused. We do use FIREFOX_ICO in browser/app/splashos2.rc to link it into the resources of firefox.exe but not the document. Does OS/2 actually have a mechanism to have one icon for the app but another icon for documents that are associated with that app (or program object)?

Comment 21

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: v2 of document-os2.ico apadpted from Windows png [Checked in comment 26]

Comment 22

[Stefan Schmohl]

Attachment: comparison of document-os2.ico v1 and v2

Comment 23

[Stefan Schmohl]

(In reply to comment #20)
> ... Does OS/2 actually have a mechanism to have one icon for the app but
> another icon for documents that are associated with that app (or program
> object)?
Two program objects would be a possibility. One without ( firefox.ico ) and the other with ( document.ico ) assignments to extensions and classes.

Comment 24

[Peter Weilbacher]

Comment on attachment 385631 [details]
v5 of firefox-os2.ico [Checked in comment 26]

OK, so I convinced myself that this is the best version of firefox.ico.

Comment 25

[Peter Weilbacher]

Comment on attachment 386806 [details]
v2 of document-os2.ico apadpted from Windows png [Checked in comment 26]

...and this one is the nicer one for document-os2.ico. While I like v1 better on dark backgrounds, the fox looks a bit ragged on bright backgrounds. On 16x16 the fox is hardly recognizable, but I guess we can live with that as the colors still give a good hint.

I'll get both in.

Comment 26

[Peter Weilbacher]

Pushed to trunk and 1.9.1:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/910b07444baf
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/7b9cc253bcb8

Let's mark this resolved and discuss possibilities of using document-os2.ico in bug 502350 that I just filed for this purpose.

Many thanks, Stefan!


(Hmm, this should be fixed1.9.1.1 but that doesn't exist yet, so I'm using fixed1.9.1.)

Comment 27

[Tony Chung [:tchung]]

Can someone that has OS/2 here verify this fix on trunk and a 1.9.1 nightly?  Please change the status and keyword to verified also.   Thanks.