4 ms·
I believe the best idea is to have “hand-crafted” bitmaps for (96 ppi) sizes 24 px and less. Especially 16 px icons are very hard to get right. For 32 px and a
by fuzzy2 7y ago
I believe the best idea is to have “hand-crafted” bitmaps for (96 ppi) sizes 24 px and less. Especially 16 px icons are very hard to get right.
For 32 px and above, vector images are a valid choice.
Now we just need a file format that combines all this. :)
- DagAgren 7y agoAt sizes like 32 px, you still want more control over line widths and details than a regular vector format grants you. For images that small, you still want to emphasise some things more than others.
- saagarjha 7y ago> For 32 px and above, vector images are a valid choice. Well, that depends on your screen's density and how much you care that your design is aligned to the pixel grid. For a very long time most iOS icons were hand-aligned to the pixel grid, and when they switched to vector icons in iOS 13 they looked awful because they were aligned poorly.
- ac42 7y ago> Now we just need a file format that combines all this. :) TTF?
- taneq 7y agoYeah, dedicated raster 16x16 and 32x32 versions and then a vector version if larger icons are required seems like the best approach. I understand what they're trying to do with including the icon as metadata, but since they control the filesystem format as well, couldn't they just increase the storage available so they could store an extra kb or so? I'd expect that on modern hardware, reducing the number of reads by stuffing bytes into odd corners of each file's metadata is far less effective than just arranging a block of data to be read all at once.