You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Generally there is a lack of consistency among the mimetype icons.
Some icons have pronounced shadow, others don't. Some icons are square (archive), others are rectangular.
The mimetype icons lack a "folded corner" which is an industry standard. I understand that it might be a deliberate design choice, however this makes it really hard to distinguish application icons from mimetype icons.
Very few mimetypes have small size icons (<=32px). Icons don't look sharp and are less readable when rendered at small scale.
When there is a small version of the icon, it usually stands out, which is also distracting.
Opinions
application-x-bittorrent icon looks too abstract and makes no sense.
application-x-executable icon looks out of style (and I hate it)
Thanks and keep up the good work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Generally there is a lack of consistency among the mimetype icons.
Some icons have pronounced shadow, others don't. Some icons are square (archive), others are rectangular.
That's a stylistic choice, and this is not changing. Not all icons have to be the same shape, form, and size to achieve consistency.
The mimetype icons lack a "folded corner" which is an industry standard. I understand that it might be a deliberate design choice, however this makes it really hard to distinguish application icons from mimetype icons.
It was deliberate not to use a folded corner in the mime types; this is also not changing.
Very few mimetypes have small size icons (<=32px). Icons don't look sharp and are less readable when rendered at small scale.
I'm aware. As I mentioned in the README, this isn't complete.
application-x-bittorrent icon looks too abstract and makes no sense.
When you download something through a torrent, you get the file(s) piece by piece. It's a literal representation of that. Anything else like, for example: using a down-facing arrow is doing lazy design work.
application-x-executable icon looks out of style (and I hate it).
It makes sense in the context of the style used in the theme.
Only application/mac-binhex40 and application/x-spss-sav are missing. The rest were added in 6e2aea7
For the former, I'm not sure what it is. I can see that "BinHex, originally short for "binary-to-hexadecimal", is a binary-to-text encoding system that was used on the classic Mac OS for sending binary files through e-mail." But it's not clear to me in the sense that, is it an email message? a binary file?.
For the latter, what I've found is that it's some kind of statistics software and the images that I checked were of a spreadsheet, so it probably makes sense to use a spreadsheet icon.
Issues
These mimetypes have no icons:
Generally there is a lack of consistency among the mimetype icons.
Some icons have pronounced shadow, others don't. Some icons are square (archive), others are rectangular.
The mimetype icons lack a "folded corner" which is an industry standard. I understand that it might be a deliberate design choice, however this makes it really hard to distinguish application icons from mimetype icons.
Very few mimetypes have small size icons (<=32px). Icons don't look sharp and are less readable when rendered at small scale.
![iconissue11](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5281988/18611385/e48f666c-7d3f-11e6-95e4-136b78e82fd7.png)
![iconissue22](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5281988/18611387/0f36c5ae-7d40-11e6-9918-6374f4c1abae.png)
When there is a small version of the icon, it usually stands out, which is also distracting.
Opinions
Thanks and keep up the good work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: