Re: New icon proposals.

Ralf Angeli <[email protected]> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-02-18) writes:
>
>> I toned the stuff down (listening to Miguel's suggestions, though
>> not in the degree he suggested), used my own secret technique to
>> generate the manikin, ignored the total horrible smudgy looks at
>> larger magnifications and came up with the following.
>
> Here's what I produced last night:
>
> I think yours look a little bit more consistent and detailed.

I've checked them in, anyway.  Maybe the red is still too flary, but I
won't change that again right now.

As to the "technique" I employed for the manikin: I started with for a
good picture of the original sign in high resolution, then used
potrace with some suitable settings to generate directly PGM files
with the necessary pixel widths.

The "error" signs somebody else will have to do: I have fought
Metapost forwards and backwards, with the result that

a) if I use graphic commands for filling in the exclamation mark, the
rasteriziation is too horrbole and inconsistent to believe.

b) if I use text (Courier Bold seems like a reasonable choice), I
simply can't get the thing centered.

Probably someone would again need to fiddle with bitmaps.  I'd have
thought that sign the easier of the two -- ptooey.

If anybody does the sign: use the Metapost triangle I sent out
earlier, with a saturation of 0.8 of the red color.

Anyway, I have now turned to munging the autoconf scripts instead.
What a large bunch of stuff that is not there to stay...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click