Require Icons to be "actual size" in base layouts

[chaosraven]

Title:
Require Icons to be "actual size" in base layouts

Area:
styles, icons

Summary:
Icons on entries should be set to "actual size" in all layouts instead of letting the original creator change the size of the icons.

Description:
There is at least one layout (brittle) and possible others which force icons to around 2/3 of their actual size. On a large monitor, this makes viewing the icons difficult and is overall not very aesthetically pleasing.

I think having icons set to 100% or actual size for all layouts will provide an overall better experience, especially for users (like myself!) who don't have the CSS skills needed to make that kind of adjustment to their journal style.

For users who dislike full sized icons on their reading pages, perhaps an option can be included in the customize style section for scaling down icons? That would eliminate the need to fiddle with CSS in order to get icons the size that people prefer.

Poll #4875 Require Icons to be "actual size" in base layouts

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 51

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (54.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (3.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
5 (9.8%)

(I have no opinion)
16 (31.4%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[zaluzianskya]

Just checking, but do you mean only in site-provided official layouts -- would designers still be able to make icons smaller in unofficial layouts?

[matgb]

The suggestion os for base layouts, so yes. I'd vote no otherwise, I prefer actual size icons but wouldn't want to force that on everyone.

[chaosraven]

Yeah, just for official layouts. If I'm using an unofficial layout, then I expect the author to exert total control over it.

[ninetydegrees]

My 'with changes':

I think designers should be allowed to rezize icons but an option should be provided to restore them to full size.

[chaosraven]

That was basically what I was thinking by my last paragraph. Whether or not a designer is required to keep icons at 100% is less important to me than being able to change them to 100% if they're smaller than that.

The reason I structured my suggestion the other way was simply on the assumption that it would make things more accessible and that is one of the guiding principles of DW, as far as I can tell.

[ninetydegrees]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you suggest the opposite: keep icons to full size but provide an option to make them smaller. I'm not favorable to this.

[chaosraven]

Right, that's what the suggestion says. I'm just clarifying my reasons for stating it that way. Overall, I don't care so long as there *is* an option for changing what size the icons are, if icons are allowed to be changed to whatever size the designer wants.

[azurelunatic]

My "with changes": As long as there's the ability to restore icons to full size in one's style, I'm not particular about whether official base layouts have scaled-down icons.

[azurelunatic]

In fact, having the ability to re-scale icons in any position in any style would be a valuable setting. I'm thinking mostly about when one is viewing the site from a mobile device, and the icons are scaled down by the mobile device, and one wants to see them larger; that would be an excellent use case for setting icons to display at say 200% size in one's style.

[cesy]

There are already plenty of styles which have full size icons. Some users might need smaller icons for accessibility. It would be good to add it as a customise option, but I don't think it should be forced on official layouts.

Changing my vote

[susanreads]

You've changed my mind: it would be better to have it as part of the customisation wizard. If somebody else's style has tiny illegible icons I can reload in my-style.