<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> ï¿½tienne Bersac <bersace03@laposte.net> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> Hello, > -Tango was supposed to mix with Human, not the other way around Tangerine is a tangoish Human theme that blend very well with other Tango icons. </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I don't know what happen there but aren't all three are supposed to follow the same guidelines and palette? Can't imagine otherwise. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> > While it's best that icons have text labels (gnome/hicolor ignore > gnomeHIG that says otherwise) small icons should not. Tell me, can > you distiguish the 24x24 and below icons in tangerine of the same > name you caomplain in Human? No, you can not. See : http://bersace03.free.fr/pub/captures/dapper-artwork/compare- human-tangerine.png . 16x16 tangerine icons are very clean and readable while Human are juste unreadable (see home, desktop, disk, ssh and ftp). </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I agree the fonts are very bad but you can't say Tangerine is very clean and readable (there's nothing to read!). It's one and the same icon for three types and that is not useable. So while the font needs to be cleaned up in Human at least its there, and is somewhat useable. Not true for Tangerine. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> Even big icons are cleaner : see the network icon ("Rï¿½seau Windows"). </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I see 2 diff icons that are very similar. Nothing is clean or dirty about either. If anything the Tangerine is too small. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> > In fact, some are much better in Human (not ones with text). Small > icons require tasteful experience to make. They can't just be > exported then shadow added, they have to be completely redone to be > effective. That takes a lot of time when free of charge. See the 24x24/status/mouse-power-low.png , 24x24/places/desktop.png , 24x24/places/gnome-fs-network.png , 24x24/places/gnome-fs- server.png , etc. These icons are problematic. Other icons aren't consistent with Tango. </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see any inconsistencies but I do see blurry icons. Tango doesn't have this problem at small sizes because it doesn't use shadows at small sizes. I agree that if it is not done right, that is the best route to take. However a lot of the small Human icons look good so, picking out a few means nothing when it is a WIP. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> > To avoid conflict, Human was wise enough to let Tango be its base. Obviously Tangerine is based on Tango, not Human. Tangerine use consistent color according to Tango specs. Human just herits icons from Tangerine which herits from Tango. Tangerine is a tangoification of Human which is mean to be mixed with Tango. </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Not true. They were to be Humanified Tango. You got it backwards. Human inherits first from Tangerine and then from Tango. Human looks fine with Tango, so perhaps your issue is that Human inherits from Tangerine and shouldn't. I could live with that. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> > Overall I like the Human icons and it's probably because of the > shadows. Human shadow for directory is better than Tangerine one. But than far less important than readability and overall consistency. </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Hunam shadows everywhere are better than Tango and Tangerine, but that is because they are png. As an themer, I care more about realistic shadows than a minor consistency issue that is bound to change over time. If I can't enjoy my desktop....if I don't feel the icon is a realistic interpretation of what it represents, I won't notice the color inconcententcies because I won't be using the icon theme! <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <BLOCKQUOTE> Definitively, Tangerine is far better than Human, just because its goal is to improve Human. ï¿½tienne. </BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> People make things all the time to improve someone elses work. That doesn't make it so. You can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. There are definitives in icon graphics. The most important is to be realistic, whether that be a cartoonish (or whatever) feel doesn't matter. What matters is that we feel like we are looking at what the artist wanted us to. So how does a square folder or a square piece of paper look like such, with a round thing protruding out from under it? Ever see that before? Is your shadow a flat line? Wouldn't you be alarmed if it was? That's what these svg 'shadows' (dots...circles) do. Alarm the user and make them take a double take as to what they are looking at. So, minor color diff is null at this point. Billy </BODY> </HTML>