Re: [w3c/manifest] icon density should be supported (#118)

> @marcoscaceres What do you mean by "poisoned"?

Most instances included the wrong value (e.g., `"density": "4"`), making the value so unreliable that only the lowest quality icon could be used, even though all the icons would have been perfectly suited for the task.   

>  size and density?

A bit, yes. They think "this is the density that I designed it at" ... not, "please only display this at, or above, this density". 

> Both of these assets would be 64x64 pixel images, and in many (most?) cases they would in fact be the same image. But they have a subtle semantic difference that is the former is intended to be displayed larger on screen, so the former may contain more detail while the latter contains less.

Yep - that's the bit people sometimes don't grasp... so, we figured single density is going away anyway on mobile... and anything over 3x really doesn't matter. In which case, just treat everything as 1x and use "real pixels" to do the conversion for density (i.e., I'm on 2x, so I'll only grab anything 64x64 and above). 

The case where developers would make custom icons for single density and double density is rare (although nice when it happens)... but most people don't notice such tiny details, so in the end it doesn't really matter.  
 
>  almost all icons are going to look the same in "large size" as they do in "high DPI", so only a single axis (that we already provide in the manifest) is sufficient.

Yeah, that's the conclusion we reached originally.  


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/118#issuecomment-323256593