XYplorer Beta Club

TsunamiZ wrote:anyone know if this issue is fixed in the 8.80.x beta? i read something about icons changes but not sure if it's this problem...

It's easy to be a perfectionist when answering this question. What I do think is that light beige background to CTBs may result in pixelation being more evident to the eye. This is because a fair few icons have a black border "stroked" around the outside for better definition. Not sure if having that blurry glass background ala Vista/Win 7 would "hide" the imperfections. Personally, I pay more attention to type of image file that I use for icons, its size, colour channels, etc. i.e. I try to make an icon the best it can be and as close to the requirements as possible.

TsunamiZ wrote:anyone know if this issue is fixed in the 8.80.x beta? i read something about icons changes but not sure if it's this problem...

No, the recent changes did not touch this problem.

if this gets added, it would be good to have the smaller 16*16 icon sizes so that we can fit more on the toolbar for favorites shortcuts, custom buttons, etc. currently, the toolbar icons space is limited on lower resolution screens.

TsunamiZ wrote:if this gets added, it would be good to have the smaller 16*16 icon sizes so that we can fit more on the toolbar for favorites shortcuts, custom buttons, etc. currently, the toolbar icons space is limited on lower resolution screens.

There is already a "small icons" mode, just untick "Large Icons" in TB's configuration window. Perhaps those too small? Ideally, their size should be freely resizeable, but implementation of such may have technical and priority obstacles.

thanks for the tip. any idea if those are 16*16?

btw: small icons would go well with an option for button captions.

TsunamiZ wrote:thanks for the tip. any idea if those are 16*16?

btw: small icons would go well with an option for button captions.

To the eye, they look 16x16.

As for captions, what advantage would on-a-button captions present over a good icon + mouseover caption combination?

always on labels dont require a mouseover to see. also useful for identifying buttons that have the same icon.

TsunamiZ wrote:always on labels dont require a mouseover to see. also useful for identifying buttons that have the same icon.

Perhaps it'd be better to change icons to avoid confusion? Also, if the same-icon commands are related, one can be given to left-click and one to right-click? Just a thought, as I think that consolidation and efficiency improvements are better than giving Don more work

in some cases, like in my screenshot, the icons have to be the same, so labels can help.

Yes, the small icons are 16 x 16.

I have no plans to add captions to the toolbar.

would it be hard to add an option for the more standard 32x32 icons?

i dont want to be bothered to make custom 24x24 icons to avoid the bad icons problems. because i add and remove favorites buttons for folders frequently--so it wouldn't be practical to make 24x24 every time.

admin wrote:Yes, the small icons are 16 x 16.

I have no plans to add captions to the toolbar.

captions may not seem like a big deal to some people. but they also have the additional benefit of making 16x16 icon buttons bigger and easier to click--since the click area enlarges with the caption. so it can fix the bad icons problem with 16x16 icons and still keep the buttons big enough for easy clicking.

TsunamiZ wrote:would it be hard to add an option for the more standard 32x32 icons?

Yes, very hard. And very unusual. Far too big for a toolbar.

admin wrote:And very unusual. Far too big for a toolbar.

I respectfully don't agree with that 100%. One needs to take monitor screen resolution into account when determining a suitable icon size. 24x24 icons on a 1280x800 (my XP laptop) screen and 24x24 icons on a 1920x1200 (my Win 7 desktop) screen use the same amount of screen space, but impacts of their visual footprints differ. Personally, I encounter more and more applications that deal with files that provide large toolbar icons by default: WinZip, WinRAR, Office 2007 suite (except for Outlook and Visio, but in 2010 the exception doesn't apply) to name but a few. I'm sure it has nothing to do with progress in touch screen computing...

zer0 wrote:

admin wrote:And very unusual. Far too big for a toolbar.

One needs to take monitor screen resolution into account when determining a suitable icon size. 24x24 icons on a 1280x800 (my XP laptop) screen and 24x24 icons on a 1920x1200 (my Win 7 desktop) screen use the same amount of screen space, but impacts of their visual footprints differ.

And if we were to keep icon size in sync/proportion with screen size, a 16x16 icon on my ole 1024x768 would translate into a 25x25 on a 1920x1200...

Given that a 1024x768 is a 4:3 ratio, so we'd first define equiv area as 1604x1200 (ignoring the wide screen aspect)...and 1200 to 768 is 1.56 times as large...thus 16 x 1.56 = 25...making 24x24 almost a perfect match.

That's part of the problem I'm having with my newer laptop...it's a bit higher res than this w2K one and with curr eye status, not as easy to see so I'm not using it much...I can definitely see zer0's point and even say that while 24x24 icons on a 1024x768 may be large, for someone with visual issues, it might be of help to them as well.