Re: [lmi] Showing better icons in high DPI

[Greg Chicares]

On 2022-02-19 17:53, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:42:13 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> GC> Okay, so that would constitute useful incremental progress: the text
> GC> is much more legible. Text rendering is important; icons, not so much.
> GC> The second screenshot, modified to magnify the icons (however crudely),
> GC> is optimal: you've improved the text clarity, and costly further
> GC> changes to retouch the icons don't seem worth the effort.

Let me restate this clearly, because I'm getting confused.
Your 2022-02-16T20:03Z email had three attached screenshots:
 1st  lmi_orig.png
 2nd  lmi_dpi_aware.png
 3rd  lmi_svg_icons.png
So "1st" is where we are today--i.e., what we want to improve;
"2nd" improves the text, but shows tiny icons; and "3rd" is
fancy, but IMO would take way too much time and effort. And
what I meant to advocate above was "2nd", with larger icons,
though I didn't say that clearly.

Unfortunately, you did what I said, in new screenshots
 mth lmi_menu_2x.png
 nth lmi_toolbar_2x.png
, magnifying the icons "however crudely". Only now do I see
that what I should have asked for is
 - text as in "2nd", and
 - icons as in "1st".
IOW, I think the "original" icons, which were apparently
just a 2:1 zoom, mapping each 1x1 pixel to a 4x4 superpixel,
are less unobjectionable than magnifications that make them
fuzzy as in "mth" and "nth". Thus, can we easily have icons
exactly as in "1st" == lmi_orig.png, along with DPI-aware
text as in "2nd" == lmi_dpi_aware.png?

If that's not easy, then I think "2nd" = lmi_dpi_aware.png
is good enough.

Of course, I'm assuming that default-DPI users will see
no change, regardless--right?

>  For me, personally, it's the bitmap blurriness which looks ugly. But
> unless you dramatically change your mind [...]

I guess I've dramatically changed my mind, then.

> GC> If I never edit another icon as long as I live, that'll be too soon.
> 
>  I do still wonder about whether we should at least allow using new icons
> in bigger sizes. I.e. suppose we want to add another toolbar icon --
> wouldn't it be nice to be able to use 48x48 size for it?

If I never add another toolbar button, that'll be too soon.