Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Multiple sizes for the Apple Touch icon package #211
Currently, RFG creates something like 10 Apple Touch icons:
These pictures are built and declared after Apple specs.
Naive solution: two policies, the "light package" and the "full package". Sounds good. However, this is not that simple. For example, if files are in the root directory, I would like:
This leads to two settings:
These settings depend on the location of the files (root or not) and possibly the scaling algorithm that was chosen by the user of RFG. Some testing must be done in this area.
Note: declaring the precomposed icons is quite useless. It was useful before iOS 7 when you didn't want iOS to manipulate your icon (the gloss effect). RFG doesn't (and won't) let you play with this deprecated feature.
The implementation must meet a requirement: all this must be kept as simple as possible. Most users just want icons that work, not tedious choices.
To do this, we add an "Options" tab in the iOS section of the icon editor. In this tab, the default selection matches current RFG behavior, or maybe a lighter package (to be decided after the experiments with the scaling algorithm).
Right now I'm not comfortable with the next steps until I know more about the scaling algorithm issue. So I consider these experiments as the next TODO to go.
This was referenced
Jan 5, 2016
Done. Conclusion: you can usually provide a single, 180x180 icon. iOS scaling is fine. The only exception is when the wanted scaling algorithm is particular (eg. Nearest Neighbor). But even in this case, although iOS scaling is not perfect, it's okay.
referenced this issue
Apr 20, 2016
@phbernard Thanks for the efforts!
I've noticed, that not a while ago RFG yielded following:
<link rel='apple-touch-icon' href='/apple-touch-icon.png'>
but recently it started to add
<link rel='apple-touch-icon' sizes='180x180' href='/apple-touch-icon.png'>
I wonder, is it really needed? What reason stands behind that change?