631020 - Display 24x24 icons when user has chosen large icons

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Firefox :: Theme, defect)

Description

[Jez]

At the moment with the Firefox 4 betas, the theme is set to scale icons down to 16x16 *even when* the user has unchecked the 'use small icons' checkbox in the customize window.

This results in toolbar buttons looking like this:
http://www.game-point.net/misc/ff4-1.png

rather than this:
http://www.game-point.net/misc/ff4-2.png

Note that in the 2nd image, the 'view source' and 'work online' button icons are being displayed at their proper 24x24 size, instead of being scaled down.

I know that an argument for scaling them down is to make them the same height as the default theme icons, but I just think this is the wrong decision.  The right way to do things, of course, is to actually ship default theme icons of 24x24 to be displayed, instead of padding them out like I did in the 2nd image.  However, lacking those icons, padding them out is the next best thing.  It is unreasonable IMHO to scale down an extension's 24x24 icons when the user has chosen to display large icons.  The extension developer intended those icons to be displayed at size 24x24.  If it looks inconsistent because there aren't any default theme 24x24 icons, then I would suggest introducing 24x24 icons for the default theme.  Until then, padding the default theme icons is the best solution.

I have a relatively simple patch to browser.css that can give this behaviour available.  I think it should be applied, for Firefox 4 final as well as trunk.

By the way, this is what the toolbar looks like with the padding applied:
http://www.game-point.net/misc/ff4-3.png

Again, the 'view source' and 'working online' icons are being displayed at 24x24 instead of being scaled down.  I think things look a lot better this way, and scaling the icons down really ruins the look of them.

Comment 1

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

This appears to be a regression from the check-in for bug 547419 which forces the icon size to be 16x16.

Comment 2

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

I was worng there.  that bug specifically only applied the 16x16 in the icon size is small case still looking.

Comment 3

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

Actually regression from bug 616472.

Comment 4

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

From reading through the bug it appears that the UX team decided that having a large/small icon choice actually exposed to the UI that does not actually change the icon size, but merely changes the padding was the correct behavior here.

Comment 5

[Jez]

And I'm saying it's a bug.

Comment 6

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

I think what happened here is that a decision was made to change the large icon size under windows from 24x24 to 18x18 and so that rather than forcing theme authors to come up with 3 sizes of icons, a way around this was deemed necessary.

The problem is that the solution implemented results in if you select small icons, you get an icon designed to display well in 16x16 displayed 16x16, but if you select large icons you get a 24x24 icons scaled down to display in 16x16 so it is not only no larger, but might not even look as good.

I think what should be done is that the 16x16 clamping should be only applied if the size is small and the default style should clamped to 18x18.

Comment 7

[Jez]

That decision is ludicrous.  If an icon is designed to be displayed at 24x24, then display it at 24x24.  Otherwise, display the 16x16 icon and NEVER display the 24x24 icon.  Any solution that results in scaling the 24x24 icon down is a bad one.

For that matter, why not scale the 16x16 default theme icons up to 24x24?  If it's OK to scale an extension's icon down, why isn't it OK to scale the default theme's icon up?  Oh, it makes it look bad?  Well that's what scaling down does too!

Comment 8

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

OK then i guess I will unassign the bug since my solution was to scale the 24x24 icon to 18x18 because that is what I thought the UI designers intended.

Comment 9

[Jez]

Yep.  I don't agree that that's an acceptable solution.

Comment 10

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

(In reply to comment #9)
> Yep.  I don't agree that that's an acceptable solution.

Since you have now changed your position to no icons should ever be displayed, I am resolving this bug as invalid.

Comment 11

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

By way of explanation for anyone else following this bug who might think this action is a bit harsh, this individual is currently pontificating on the #firefox channel about how even the 16x16 icons are a waste of space and Firefox should not be displaying icons at all as it is bad UI.  So, kind of in a bug trying to get us to display bigger icons so he has something even bigger to pontificate against.

I have no idea what his agenda is, but it is certainly not int he interest in making the product better.

Comment 12

[Jez]

I don't see how what you've seen on #firefox has anything to do with this bug.  This big is primarily about displaying 24x24 extension icons at their intended size.  Please explain how the two are related?

Comment 13

[Pardal Freudenthal (:ShareBird)]

I'm wondering if Bug 626382 will solve this.

Comment 14

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

Because you are arguing on #firefox that icons oof any size are a waste of space, so exactly why are you filing bugs to make them bigger.  Please explain that.

I understand there is an issue here but based on your rant against all icons as being a waste of space, it is NOT going to happen in this bug.

Comment 15

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

Which, unfortunately, since you rejected the reasonable solution I proposed means it will not be in Firefox.

However, I suspect that this not making Firefox 4 is what you were actually looking for all along so you had something else to bitch about.

Comment 16

[Bill Gianopoulos [:WG9s]]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Which, unfortunately, since you rejected the reasonable solution I proposed
> means it will not be in Firefox.
                          ^^^^^^^
                          Firefox 4.

Comment 17

[:Gijs (he/him)]

We've stopped having multiple icon size modes, and webextensions will use correctly-sized icons based on the UI space and display density, so going to mark this wontfix in the sense that we do not (and will not) support icon sizes that differ from the standard sizing in the toolbar.