Images RRS feed

  • Question

  • I understand the naming convention for images and how to call them but when I add the image it's not good

    I don't get the scaling thing. Yes I know you scale down for better results but if I create a image from one of the asset folder default images I have to offset the image changes in my image software to get it looking right.

    So I though scaling meant: scale-80 would be 40 x 40 pixels but that don't work.

    So I'm trying inkscape at the moment buts still having problems.

    Does someone have a good resource link for windows app image creation for dummies?

    Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:16 AM


  • I haven't found a single reference, but there's some information here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/windows/apps/xaml/Hh779669(v=win.10).aspx and here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh781198.aspx and I found this helpful: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh965372.aspx

    The actual pixel sizes for most of the image assets are shown on the manifest designer for that type. As far as I know, the only exceptions to that are for the xml-schema based updates (tile and toast notifications and whatnot) and file association logos. But fair warning: I haven't tried every possible declaration and capability, so there might be others.

    File association logos use the same size and format as the target-sized (as opposed to scaled) small logos. I haven't found any documentation on image assets for the xml-schema notifications except for a maximum image file size, but I'm afraid I've lost the reference and can't remember the exact value. (I do remember thinking that it was way bigger than one would reasonably need for a png or jpg displayed in those circumstances.)

    But I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "offset the image changes". Yes, you will probably need to adjust each image. That's a good thing. It means you don't have to worry about pixilation at large scale or what happens to your logo when it's reduced to 16 pixels square.

    FWIW, my practice is to start big, because eliminating visual information generally provides better results than interpolating it. I design the assets at 180% and then scale them down in Photoshop using Edit->Image Size. (I just happen to use Photoshop. I'm quite sure there are plenty of apps out there that would handle this just fine.) Sometimes that requires altering the actual image as well--I remove shadows and sometimes serifs at small sizes--then save each version with either .scale-whatever or .targetsize-whatever qualifiers.

    Does that help at all?

    Rebecca M. Riordan

    • Marked as answer by kvic Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:27 PM
    Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:21 PM