On my quasi-blog: "Iconography of the PuTTY tools"
The icons used by the PuTTY tool suite; some discussion of the design, the technical constraints, and the progression from hand-drawn to script-generated. Inspired by a user sending me email asking about it recently.
Colin Watson reshared this.
Zeno Rogue
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •Stuart Langridge
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •mal3aby
in reply to Stuart Langridge • • •Simon Tatham
in reply to mal3aby • • •@mal3aby @sil I still have a working Win95 virtual machine (I make sure the special backwards-compatible builds of PuTTY still run on it before every release). So I booted it up to see what happens if you drag an icon. The dragged icon is still shown in colour, but made semitransparent by removing half the pixels in a chessboard pattern – effectively halftoning the 1-bit alpha channel.
But of course that's just the _most obvious_ way to drag an icon in Win95. You said "under some circumstances" – I can't rule out there being a weirder situation in which something different happens.
mal3aby
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •@sil Haha, indeed I chose my words carefully - I knew "normal" icon dragging didn't use the B&W icons in 95 but couldn't remember if there were other cases where it did!
Apparently my memory was correct and dragging in 3.x does set the mouse pointer to the B&W icon; here's the "Write" icon being dragged...
mmu_man
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •Michael Knudsen %n%n%n%n
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •great read!
I don't mean this as something negative, but I always thought the icons were some of the standard stuff that Windows or MSVC provided. I think that shows that your icons fit the design language of Windows very well.
Simon Tatham
in reply to Michael Knudsen %n%n%n%n • • •@mk I'll take that in the spirit it was meant!
Like calling something "the invisible art", indicating that the sign of it being done well is that it goes unnoticed. (I think I've heard that about film editing, though it's probably been said of more than one thing.)
gaydar jammer
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •And is there a way to see the ugly upscaled bitmaps?
Simon Tatham
in reply to gaydar jammer • • •@joes the SVG script only generates one version of the SVG, with a fixed line thickness relative to the rest of the image. It's possible that making it a parameter could have uses, but I haven't done that. (Yet.)
If you want to experiment with the icon script yourself, you can clone the PuTTY git repository and run it with a command like "mkicon.py putty_icon 96 output.pam". (Name of icon-drawing function inside the Python script; pixel size; output file name.) The output is in the very simple PAM bitmap format, because I didn't bother to import PIL and make it directly output the PNG I really wanted.
Here's an example of particularly terrible rendering: when the pixel-based script scales up the Pageant icon, the hat looks awful _and_ is in completely the wrong position. Use the SVG version in preference to this!
WOMUMP
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •Simon Tatham reshared this.
Misty
in reply to Simon Tatham • • •