3 ms·
This is the reason common icon sizes are spaced in the increments they are: 16, 24, 48, 64, 72, 96, 144, 192, 256, etc. There isn't really a "good" solution to
by lucideer 7y ago
This is the reason common icon sizes are spaced in the increments they are: 16, 24, 48, 64, 72, 96, 144, 192, 256, etc.
There isn't really a "good" solution to this other than the above system (and it's not solved by rasters in any way)
- madeofpalk 7y agoThe problem is worked around with raster icons by just not providing the flexibility that a vector provides. Rasterise your icons to fixed sizes that you’ll use in your application. Of course, this has its own set of compromises (namely the inflexibility) that may or may not be acceptable for your use case.
- lucideer 7y agoTo rasterise your icons to fixed sizes, you need to scale the original source (possibly vector-based) image to that size. That scale operation, while one-off, has the same problem as the dynamic runtime scaling of vectors.
- madeofpalk 7y agoSorry, I meant creating each size 'manually', or at least pixel-pushing everything back into place.
- mlyle 7y agoYou can have a vector icon that doesn't have the smudge issue over a set of reasonably chosen rendering sizes (through specified pixel-exact rendering and alignment). And said vector icon will still look a whole lot better scaled from supported/optimized 16x16 size -> less favored 20x20 size than a raster icon, even if it isn't absolutely perfect. So I don't really see this as a "problem".
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]