That wouldn't look good in most of the places where we are using icons.
Raevol has a point though. These icons are ordered in hierarchical groups (namely: all icons, IDs and referenceable IDs). It would be nice if all icons of the same group can easily be recognised as being from the same group.
@sirherrbatka: Can I convince you to familiarize yourself a bit with git? It would be a lot easier if you could add the icons to the repository yourself (and update them as required). After you have set up git (for which github has a large amount of help), you would only need four commands (git add, git commit, git status and git push).
@sirherrbatka: Can I convince you to familiarize yourself a bit with git? It would be a lot easier if you could add the icons to the repository yourself (and update them as required). After you have set up git (for which github has a large amount of help), you would only need four commands (git add, git commit, git status and git push).
I think that In case of problems I can always bother werdanith on IRC
Raevol has a point though. These icons are ordered in hierarchical groups (namely: all icons, IDs and referenceable IDs). It would be nice if all icons of the same group can easily be recognised as being from the same group.
I didn't thought about this but It really makes sense. Maybe some sort of emblem? Even simple color in corner would work.
I think that In case of problems I can always bother werdanith on IRC
Good
The icons go into files/opencs and please try to be consistent with the naming scheme.
Maybe some sort of emblem? Even simple color in corner would work.
That sounds like an interesting idea, at least for IDs and referenceable IDs. And probably for resources too, once we get to that. Won't work for modification status icons though.
I think there is one more group to consider. So we have:
- all icons
- of which some are for IDs (e.g. gmst)
- of which some can have a reference to it (e.g. activator)
- of which some can have a reference to it that can be put into a container (e.g. weapon)
1. all icons
2. of which some are for IDs (e.g. gmst)
3. of which some can have a reference to it (e.g. activator)
4. of which some can have a reference to it that can be put into a container (e.g. weapon)
All icons in 4 are part of 3, 2 and 1.
All icons in 3 are part of 2 and 1, but there are some that are not part of 4.
All icons in 2 are part of 1, but there are some that are not part of 4 or 3.
Then we need to indicate that:
-icon is 4 (blue squre?)
-icon is 3 (red circle?)
--icon is 3 and 4 (blue circle?)
-icon is 2 (green rectangle?)
--icon is 2 and 3 (red rectangle?)
--icon is 2 and 3 and 4 (tricolor stripe)
--icon is 2 and 4 (blue rectangle)
Am I right?
I would say this would be cryptic to someone who does not know how to read this.