You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Newly, there is the non-linear scaling. Orbit's icon usage is relying on the icon's box height to be the same height as the line height of the accompanying text. I.e. 15sp text with line-height 20sp fits nicely with 20sp tall icon.
The issue now appears when the non-linear scaling applies smaller enlargement on a bigger text. All this is calculated against a sp unit value.
Therefore, in the aforementioned example, this stops working:
text 15sp with 1.5 font-scale is ~23sp
text's 20sp line-height with 1.5 font-scale is ~26sp
icon's 20sp height with 1.5 font-scale is ~26sp
But, this produces a different ratio between the text size and the icon size, which should be/had been ~30sp before (non-linear scaling) and now it is "only" ~26sp.
So there are these options:
Ask Orbit designers to define baseline definitions for icons - this would help in many other cases and we could stop relying on the line-height calculation. But this change is a long shot.
Let it be. Scaled designs are not meant to be pixel-perfect.
Rework the calculation to somehow match the logic -> resolve the actual scaling for 15sp. and then rescale the icon to ~30sp.
Newly, there is the non-linear scaling. Orbit's icon usage is relying on the icon's box height to be the same height as the line height of the accompanying text. I.e. 15sp text with line-height 20sp fits nicely with 20sp tall icon.
The issue now appears when the non-linear scaling applies smaller enlargement on a bigger text. All this is calculated against a sp unit value.
Therefore, in the aforementioned example, this stops working:
But, this produces a different ratio between the text size and the icon size, which should be/had been ~30sp before (non-linear scaling) and now it is "only" ~26sp.
So there are these options:
Originally posted by @hrach in #564 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: