Re: [lmi] Showing better icons in high DPI

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 22:06:45 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

GC> On 2022-02-19 17:53, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:42:13 +0000 Greg Chicares 
<gchicares@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
GC> > 
GC> > GC> Okay, so that would constitute useful incremental progress: the text
GC> > GC> is much more legible. Text rendering is important; icons, not so much.
GC> > GC> The second screenshot, modified to magnify the icons (however 
crudely),
GC> > GC> is optimal: you've improved the text clarity, and costly further
GC> > GC> changes to retouch the icons don't seem worth the effort.
GC> 
GC> Let me restate this clearly, because I'm getting confused.
GC> Your 2022-02-16T20:03Z email had three attached screenshots:
GC>  1st  lmi_orig.png
GC>  2nd  lmi_dpi_aware.png
GC>  3rd  lmi_svg_icons.png
GC> So "1st" is where we are today--i.e., what we want to improve;
GC> "2nd" improves the text, but shows tiny icons; and "3rd" is
GC> fancy, but IMO would take way too much time and effort. And
GC> what I meant to advocate above was "2nd", with larger icons,
GC> though I didn't say that clearly.
GC> 
GC> Unfortunately, you did what I said, in new screenshots
GC>  mth lmi_menu_2x.png
GC>  nth lmi_toolbar_2x.png
GC> , magnifying the icons "however crudely". Only now do I see
GC> that what I should have asked for is
GC>  - text as in "2nd", and
GC>  - icons as in "1st".
GC> IOW, I think the "original" icons, which were apparently
GC> just a 2:1 zoom, mapping each 1x1 pixel to a 4x4 superpixel,
GC> are less unobjectionable than magnifications that make them
GC> fuzzy as in "mth" and "nth".

 I agree that the icons scaled by wx look even worse than the icons scaled
by MSW itself. Mind you, the latter are far from perfect, especially for
the icons with the magnifying glass, where the circle really doesn't look
very much like circle at all, but comparing them side by side now I see
that they're still preferable to the latest version.

GC> Thus, can we easily have icons
GC> exactly as in "1st" == lmi_orig.png, along with DPI-aware
GC> text as in "2nd" == lmi_dpi_aware.png?

 Yes, I can think we should add a way to upscale icons in exactly the same
way MSW does, i.e. by just replacing each pixel with a 2x2 pixel. 

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

 I'd like to object here: ugly icons being ugly is bad enough but it still
remains a cosmetic issue. Making icons too small is much worse, as it's a
usability issue and can make it difficult for the users with less than
perfect mouse control to accurately hit the right icon at all. IMO we
should absolutely avoid this, as it would be even worse than the current
version.

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

 Yes, absolutely.

 I'll try to make the new version a.s.a.p., thanks for your feedback, I
should have realized that we need to do scaling better on my own, but I
hadn't, until you pointed it out.

 Thanks again,
VZ

pgpLge637KdZc.pgp
Description: PGP signature