> > > I have just one more suggestion: In my humble opinion
it would be
> > > better blue .gretl icons and gray .inp icons. What do you think?
Then Allin said:
> I don't really have an opinion on that -- if you'd
prefer to have
> the colors switched I can do that.
And Henrique replied:
> I think the color of the session file (.gretl) icons file
> should have more emphasis, since this type of file is (I
> think), more often used. So, in my opinion, the .gretl icons
> should be blue and the .inp icons should be gray.
> But this is just a matter of aesthetics, ok? ;)
From the perspective of someone who uses icons rarely (I'm a
shell diehard), I reckon the could be an issue of backward
compatibility. It's not unlikely that at least some of the users
think in terms of "blue icon does so-and-so".
And by the way, I'm not quite sure the session file is what
people click on most often. But it's just a shot in the dark, I
don't really know.
I'm like Jack in that I mostly work from the shell, and when I do
work with file icons I'm more often opening script files than
session files. Henrique may be right that most people use session
files more frequently; I don't know.
Anyway, I think Patricio's suggestion of distingishing the icons
for the two types of files was a good one. And since we have a
history of using only one icon, the least disruptive/surprising
change is probably what he recommended, namely just varying the
color. Which leaves the question of which type gets to retain the
I don't have strong feelings on that. I guess it makes sense to
keep the original color for the file type in which users are on
average most "invested". Any more votes on this?