Closed Bug 878288 Opened 8 years ago Closed 1 year ago

Create high resolution icon set for Windows

Categories

(Firefox :: Theme, defect)

All
Windows
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED WORKSFORME

People

(Reporter: edwardsgreg, Assigned: shorlander)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Whiteboard: p=0)

Attachments

(1 file)

Currently when Windows is set to high DPI, Firefox upscales the existing icons to the new scale, making them fuzzy. Instead, we should have new, higher resolution icons to use instead.

The "standard" UI scales we should support are 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200%. Providing icons for all of these sizes may not be necessary if the next size up downscales acceptably.

See also Bug 781327 and Bug 795665 on OSX. Some 2x assets may be borrowed from OSX like we did with Bug 818940.
Blocks: win-hidpi
Depends on: 818940, 844795
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
About the favicons, is there a plan? Because upscaled favicons are fuzzy too.
Work on favicons is being done in Bug 854956. The norm being followed by other browsers right now (Safari, IE) is that website owners need to provide high resolution favicons by including larger sizes in their .ico files.

The burden falling on website owners is no different than with other kinds of images.
So what's new about this bug? 1 month after...
Considering the many possible zoom levels, I suspect we'll eventually want to use SVG. Bug 764299 should close the performance gap.
Depends on: 764299
Version: 22 Branch → Trunk
Duplicate of this bug: 923987
Are we at the point where we can submit higher resolutions versions and/or SVG versions of icons? And would this be the proper place to submit them?

(I plan on working in SVG, but I can always rasterize if necessary.)
(In reply to Terrell Kelley from comment #6)
> Are we at the point where we can submit higher resolutions versions and/or
> SVG versions of icons? And would this be the proper place to submit them?
> 
> (I plan on working in SVG, but I can always rasterize if necessary.)

Technically, I think bug 764299 being fixed means that we should be able to use SVG. What exactly this means for our actual plans, I don't know. I expect however that we will want to move to SVG at some point as the number of scaling factors to support increases (it's already kind of out of control on Windows).
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
With Aurora landed, Nightly is now showing fuzzy tabs. Any plans to get this finished before it makes it to release?
I also noticed that lots of the toolbar icons already have 32x32 versions being used in the new right menu and full-window Customize Toolbar.
Sorry, I meant to say Australis, not Aurora...
(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #7)
> (In reply to Terrell Kelley from comment #6)
> > Are we at the point where we can submit higher resolutions versions and/or
> > SVG versions of icons? And would this be the proper place to submit them?
> > 
> > (I plan on working in SVG, but I can always rasterize if necessary.)
> 
> Technically, I think bug 764299 being fixed means that we should be able to
> use SVG. What exactly this means for our actual plans, I don't know. I
> expect however that we will want to move to SVG at some point as the number
> of scaling factors to support increases (it's already kind of out of control
> on Windows).

I agree moving to SVG might be the best bet here because of the different scaling stops in Windows. Probably going to require some experimentation though to figure out how well it works. I will work on an SVG icon set but not sure when I will get to it.
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Whiteboard: p=0
Could we use the same approach that is used for OSX and just downscale 2x icons for 1.5x and other 1<x<2 scale factors? We would be able to get something out to users much quicker if we added an @2x PNG of the icons. It looks really bad on HiDPI Windows without it.
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
(In reply to Jared Wein [:jaws] (please needinfo? me) from comment #11)
> Could we use the same approach that is used for OSX and just downscale 2x
> icons for 1.5x and other 1<x<2 scale factors? We would be able to get
> something out to users much quicker if we added an @2x PNG of the icons. It
> looks really bad on HiDPI Windows without it.

Possibly… downscaling bitmaps doesn't usually work out that great. It might be better than nothing though.
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
If someone wanted to create a proof-of-concept, taking the OS X  @2x assets and writing some rules for a few of the Windows scaling stops would be a good indicator of how it would look.
Adding some tracking flags, since we really can't release Australis without
having high-res tabs and icons. The UI looks absolutely horrible, and large
portion of the new laptops are with highres displays.
Depends on: 946987
(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #14)
> Adding some tracking flags, since we really can't release Australis without
> having high-res tabs and icons.

We can and likely will, since updating the full set of UI bits to include hidpi assets is a ton of work (not to mention the nightmare that Windows has created by supporting multiple hires multipliers), and we already don't support this pre-Australis. It's fair to selectively target a few high-visibility things (like tabs, bug 946987), but it's far to late to try target this bug for Australis.
As I've mentioned in comment 8, a lot of the 32x32 assets have already been made but just aren't being subbed for small icons.
Tracking but as Justin said, we might release even if we don't have them...
Madhava and Gavin don't consider this a high priority item. It will not be addressed in 29 or 30 but will be prioritized in the regular backlog. Marking as tracking-.
No longer depends on: 946987
Duplicate of this bug: 943147
Attached image screenshot.PNG
This is what it looks like at the moment for me. Sad that it won't be fixed in 29. :(
Depends on: 986665
Duplicate of this bug: 996381
Depends on: 1013360
No longer blocks: fxdesktopbacklog
Flags: firefox-backlog+
Any news on this? Just booted to Win8 first time for ages and realized FF looks still very odd. Tabs are a bit better than few months ago, but icons are blurry.

Chrome seems to have some blurriness too, but IE has clear icons.
(In reply to Olli Pettay [:smaug] from comment #22)
> Any news on this?

The current state is that research needs to be done to see what kind of perf impact and code complexity will come from using SVG for our icons. On OSX we have 1x and 2x icons, but for Windows and Linux we will need to allow for 1.25x, 1.5x, and more. See bug 1054016 which was filed to investigate doing this for Linux, but much of the same approach/results can probably be shared with Windows.
An interim fix using the 2x icons would be better than nothing. Most of our users (unlike us developers) are on Windows, not OSX -- I just did a fresh install on Windows 8.1 and Firefox does look absolutely awful there.
Christmas holidays, visiting family and doing family IT. I thought my in-law Firefox was just broken with blurry Firefox icons and after investigation I see that we actually ship that broken stuff to our users... 

What is the status of that bug that affects most of our user base? I am going to +1 what protz said in comment #24, this looks like a serious Windows UX integration bug likely to affect our market share and this shouldn't IMO be categorized as an "enhancement". 

What is the status of this bug? I don't see any dependency related to the use of SVG on Windows. Wouldn't an interim solution with sets of high resolution icons for at least 1.25 and 1.5 scaling would mitigate that bug until a long term solution is found? Bug 1013360 filed as a dependency seems to be related to that but hasn't had any activity since it was filed 8 months ago.
(In reply to Pascal Chevrel:pascalc from comment #25)
> I thought my in-law
> Firefox was just broken with blurry Firefox icons ... 
Yeah, similar reaction whenever I see Firefox on any modern Windows machine.

How could we prioritize this?
Flags: needinfo?(shorlander)
Flags: needinfo?(gavin.sharp)
(In reply to Pascal Chevrel:pascalc from comment #25)
> What is the status of that bug that affects most of our user base?

Most of our user base uses Windows HiDPI? That would surprise me. That said, it's a growing portion of our user base and we should prioritize it.
Flags: needinfo?(gavin.sharp)
(In reply to :Gavin Sharp [email: gavin@gavinsharp.com] from comment #27)
> (In reply to Pascal Chevrel:pascalc from comment #25)
> > What is the status of that bug that affects most of our user base?
> 
> Most of our user base uses Windows HiDPI? That would surprise me. That said,
> it's a growing portion of our user base and we should prioritize it.

Does anyone know if we have a telemetry probe or fhr data related to this we can user to get an accurate picture? Searching through the about pages for both I don't see anything related to dpi settings.
(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #28)

> Does anyone know if we have a telemetry probe or fhr data related to this we
> can user to get an accurate picture? Searching through the about pages for
> both I don't see anything related to dpi settings.

Yes, I added telemetry specifically for this question. :) See DISPLAY_SCALING_MSWIN (and _OSX, _LINUX).

Looking at the Nightly 37 data...

On Windows, 91% of reports are for 1x scaling, 7% are for 1.25x scaling, 1% for 1.5x.

For OSX, the split is 70% for 1x scaling, and 30% 2x scaling (i.e. Retina).

The trends are increasingly towards normal (1x) scaling as the channels progress towards release. Well, for the most part. There's a jump in the percentage of Windows users @ 1.25x on Release 34. Not sure why.

Aurora 36:
  Windows -- 94% @ 1x, 5% @ 1.25x, 1% @ 1.5x
  OS X ----- 74% @ 1x, 26% @ 2x

Beta 35:
  Windows -- 96% @ 1x, 4% @ 1.25x
  OS X ----- 91% @ 1x, 9% @ 2x

Release 34:
  Windows -- 90% @ 1x, 9% @ 1.25x, 1% @ 1.5x
  OS X ----- 92% @ 1x, 8% @ 2x

[Note that Windows allows a range of scaling factors, and so there is a lot of "noise" outside the most common three. But even the total of the noise is still < 1%, the common three factors dominate by far.]

[Linux is at 99%+ @ 1x scaling across all channels.]

Still, I do strongly believe we should prioritize this work. HiDPI is increasingly common, and scaled UI looks very crappy. Ditto for finishing the HiDPI work where it hasn't been completed even on OS X.
> [Linux is at 99%+ @ 1x scaling across all channels.]

We don't have hidpi support for Linux at all at the moment. And we won't until we switch to Gtk+3 (aiui).
(In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #29)
> There's a jump in the
> percentage of Windows users @ 1.25x on Release 34. Not sure why.

My Lenovo laptop came with 1.25x scaling out of the box, so maybe there are a good number of business users (but non-wizards) who are on Release and running Lenovos like mine?
(In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #29)
> (In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #28)
> 
> > Does anyone know if we have a telemetry probe or fhr data related to this we
> > can user to get an accurate picture? Searching through the about pages for
> > both I don't see anything related to dpi settings.
> 
> Yes, I added telemetry specifically for this question. :) See
> DISPLAY_SCALING_MSWIN (and _OSX, _LINUX).

Awesome! :)

> Looking at the Nightly 37 data...
> 
> On Windows, 91% of reports are for 1x scaling, 7% are for 1.25x scaling, 1%
> for 1.5x.

Doing a little data munging on my own I see:

Nightly
Windows: 9% ^
Windows 8: 11% ^
OSX: 30% ^

Beta
Windows: 4%
Windows 8: 5%
OSX: 8%

Release
Windows: 11%
Windows 8: 12%
OSX: 8% ^

This probe hasn't been around for long so it's hard to spot long term trends, but the newer versions of Windows and OSX both look to be on the uptick. Also, it's clear that adoption of higher dpi settings is wider on Windows than Mac for the release channel.

I've updated my telemetry dashboard to include these probes, if you're curious. The display probes count anything with dpi setting higher than the 108%.

http://www.mathies.com/mozilla/telemetry.html
(In reply to (Limited availability until January 6) Jared Wein [:jaws] (please needinfo? me) from comment #31)
> > There's a jump in the
> > percentage of Windows users @ 1.25x on Release 34. Not sure why.
> 
> My Lenovo laptop came with 1.25x scaling out of the box, so maybe there are
> a good number of business users (but non-wizards) who are on Release and
> running Lenovos like mine?

Ah, I was wondering if it was somehow being set automatically set (or preset), since otherwise it seems like a surprisingly high percentage for something users would need to manually set. [This is where being able to do some FHR-like analysis could be interesting, by drilling down into that population to understand what else it's correlated with.]

My only other guess was that Release is more likely to have, say, older users with poorer vision. But that would still seem like a surprisingly high percentage, and for a fairly minor effect at that (given 1.25x is the bulk of the bigger scaling). Maybe it's just that a _lot_ of Windows users really really wanted bigger text than the OS default -- ISTR this being a point of contention when we switched Firefox to use this OS setting for global DPI control (i.e., users complaining that they only wanted bigger text, and everything else to stay the same).


(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #32)

> Release
> Windows: 11%
> Windows 8: 12%

Curiously, on your link and TMO I see Windows 7 as also being ~12% (88% @ 1x). Which implies to me that whatever is happening with hidpi usage on Windows isn't an effect of having newer, higher-resolution hardware. (At least so far as Windows 8 is a proxy for "new hardware").
As of Windows 7, it automatically picks a display scale based on the monitor EDID.

Is there more of a correlation between Windows 8 and the 150%/200% scaling options? I would be surprised if there isn't.
(In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #33)
> > Release
> > Windows: 11%
> > Windows 8: 12%
> 
> Curiously, on your link and TMO I see Windows 7 as also being ~12% (88% @
> 1x). Which implies to me that whatever is happening with hidpi usage on
> Windows isn't an effect of having newer, higher-resolution hardware. (At
> least so far as Windows 8 is a proxy for "new hardware").

Certainly possible, I had my system dpi tweaked on windows 7 for while before I bought a new pair of glasses about a year ago. :) (I was using a custom value, vs. one of the presets.) I think win8 and up though are much more likely to have these set higher for high resolution displays. For example I just bought a new lenovo yoga with 250% set as a factory default.
I have a razer blade and use windows at 200% scaling. Aren't there vector versions of the icons somewhere so reexporting shouldn't be a big deal. Is the problem that there isn't support for picking the icon based on dpi? If that's the case couldn't we just load the higher res icon by default in the meantime? I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker but it's certainly distracting having low-res icons all over my address bar.
Severity: enhancement → normal
OS: Windows 7 → Windows
Version: Trunk → unspecified
From the bug 1163636:

High-DPI Downloads button gets Low-DPI once pressed:

Firefox 40 finally adds some High-DPI toolbar icons (e.g. used at 200% system-level scale) for main GUI (Australis menu is still entirely Low-DPI though).

But the Downloads button is buggy:

by default, the Downloads button is High-DPI, but once pressed/clicked, it immediately gets blurry Low-DPI as in previous Firefox versions.

Tested with the latest nightly build 20150511030203.

High-DPI icons themselves have been added in the build 20150410030204.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 1 year ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.