+label: Proj-MaterialDesign-NativeUI

Extension icon designers are told to create icons with a few pixels of space around them. As a result, some icons are about 16x16 with padding, while others take up the full 19x19. Scaling all icons down to 16x16 reduces the 19x19 icon sizes, but causes the 16x16-with-padding icons to be super small.

Rather than scaling down 19x19 icons, the code should ideally determine if an icon has padding, and if it does not, scale it down. 

Evan, do you think this would be something worthwhile to implement cross-platform?

well our 16x16 chrome icons (such as the bookmark star) actually don't take up the full 16x16. The square ones seem to be about 12x12, so I think scaling down the ones that are already 16x16-plus-padding is probably the right thing to do, and the ones that don't have any padding built in are probably still bigger than we want.

Also, I don't think we can programmatically determine the right thing to do here because whether the icon should include padding or not depends on the shape of the icon, AFAIK. Solid squares should be 12x12 or so but a circle would want to have a larger diameter.

I personally haven't noticed any problems with the scaling we're doing on Views and I haven't seen anyone file bugs for particularly bad examples of scaling (after that whole initial poor scaling algorithm debacle).

As I mentioned, scaling 16x16-with-padding icons down makes them too small. The MD toolbar icons are simple shapes, so using them at 12x12 is no big deal, but for complex extension icons you lose important detail.

Re: scaling icons that have content outside of 16x16, they should simply be scaled down. If a round icon extends beyond the 16x16 box, that counts as being larger than we want (that's my thought until I see an exception).

> As I mentioned, scaling 16x16-with-padding icons down makes them too small.

It's my understanding that when we worked on this last November, sgabriel didn't think so. Regardless, if my understanding is wrong or if someone's opinion has changed (or could be changed), this is something to loop a lot more people into.

(By the way, this message[1] somehow never made it out to the mailing list, whoops.)
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1By8Oq96imzsmCX1gFqnAoj_90TQCkhYj-P9TMP5SmRE/edit?ts=56672b99

bettes@ looked at this yesterday and agreed the small icons would be a problem. See the attached screenshot.

Digging into this a bit further, it looks like the cast icon is a 2x icon measuring 19x19, and the rest are 2x icons measuring 24x24. The Chrome web store icon in particular has 16x16 of actual image within its 24x24 bounds.

I'm no longer sure what the right answer to this problem is.

Deleted: Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 2.45.39 PM.png 14.2 KB

	Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 2.45.39 PM.png 14.2 KB View Download

Deleted: image0.tiff 11.4 KB

image0.tiff 11.4 KB Download

Deleted: image103.tiff 15.6 KB

image103.tiff 15.6 KB Download

Deleted: image95.tiff 15.6 KB

image95.tiff 15.6 KB Download

something funky is going on here because this is what CrOS looks like (1x and 2x). As you can see, the hangouts extension icon is bigger than in your screenshot.

Deleted: actions.png 16.4 KB

	actions.png 16.4 KB View Download

Moving this nonessential bug to the next milestone.

For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot

My screenshot in # 7 is not what the extension icons look like - that's me trying to adjust things, but it turns out nothing needs adjusting. The extension icons are being rendered correctly.