Fixed image size problem with application icon in launcher

Fixed image size problem with application icon in launcher


BUG=222782, 222899
TEST=visual

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=189751

[Mr4D (OOO till 08-26), 2013-03-22 00:10:10]

Please have a look!

[oshima, 2013-03-22 02:28:12]

On 2013/03/22 00:10:10, Mr4D wrote:
> Please have a look!

lgtm. can you run build/sanitize-png-files.sh on them?

[James Cook, 2013-03-22 02:57:52]

lgtm

[Mr4D (OOO till 08-26), 2013-03-22 03:36:53]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r189751 (presubmit successful).

[benwells, 2013-03-22 03:47:38]

On 2013/03/22 03:36:53, Mr4D wrote:
> Committed patchset #2 manually as r189751 (presubmit successful).

Why have you changed the app_list_tools images? And why the browser_action badge
icons? They have nothing to do with the bugs referenced.

[Mr4D (OOO till 08-26), 2013-03-22 14:21:47]

The applist tool images were smaller (32x32) then all other launcher items
(48x48). As such there were many different code specials needed. With the latest
"launcher alignment" many problems showed up - and somehow it seems not to be
reasonable to add a lot of special work for one icon instead of simply adjusting
its size.

For the other icons: Oshima asked me to run the compressor and these files were
compressed a bit more then they have been in the past. As such I was also
checking them in - I think less memory is always better?

[benwells, 2013-03-24 05:26:27]

On 2013/03/22 14:21:47, Mr4D wrote:
> The applist tool images were smaller (32x32) then all other launcher items
> (48x48). As such there were many different code specials needed. With the
latest
> "launcher alignment" many problems showed up - and somehow it seems not to be
> reasonable to add a lot of special work for one icon instead of simply
adjusting
> its size.
> 
> For the other icons: Oshima asked me to run the compressor and these files
were
> compressed a bit more then they have been in the past. As such I was also
> checking them in - I think less memory is always better?

OK, I'll assume the app_list_tools icons were part of the compression effort as
they have nothing to do with the launcher: they appear in the app list on
Windows.

They are also pretty fresh. Before adding them i ran pngcrush on them with the
default settings. Is there a better way to crush them?

[Mr4D (OOO till 08-26), 2013-03-25 16:00:53]

Hello Ben!

I have seen your eMail on Sunday but I got swamped with other stuff (a beta
blocker crasher and family matters) so that I was not able to answer
yesterday.

See comments inline below!

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM, <benwells@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2013/03/22 14:21:47, Mr4D wrote:
>
>> The applist tool images were smaller (32x32) then all other launcher items
>> (48x48). As such there were many different code specials needed. With the
>>
> latest
>
>> "launcher alignment" many problems showed up - and somehow it seems not
>> to be
>> reasonable to add a lot of special work for one icon instead of simply
>>
> adjusting
>
>> its size.
>>
>
>  For the other icons: Oshima asked me to run the compressor and these files
>>
> were
>
>> compressed a bit more then they have been in the past. As such I was also
>> checking them in - I think less memory is always better?
>>
>
> OK, I'll assume the app_list_tools icons were part of the compression
> effort as
> they have nothing to do with the launcher: they appear in the app list on
> Windows.
>

That is correct. I simply run the compressor tools and it crunched
apparently more.


>
> They are also pretty fresh. Before adding them i ran pngcrush on them with
> the
> default settings. Is there a better way to crush them?
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/12893005/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

I used the png crunch utility (build/sanitize-png-files.sh) as directed. It
installed a lot of things. Maybe it got recently an update.