Mike Abbink

I see what you saying. I misunderstood. I think your suggestion is a good one. **I wonder how it would effect the 64px size** recommendation? It would also likely improve....

@dudley-ibm Yes it would. If we do what @janhassel is suggesting it would require all the outlined bit to be renown. The live stoke elements would be an easy change....

@dudley-ibm The dots/circular outlines would not have to change though. Minor detail but would save a bunch of time. Only outlines based on stroke weight would have to be adjusted...

Thanks @janhassel This would require a complete redraw of over 1000 pictograms. I’m more in favor of adjusting the source stoke weight at 32 to achieve a better result at...

so 2/3px at 32. We need to translate to pt stroke weight.

It would also require us to change the guidance. Currently it’s not pixel based but rather vector stroke driven. The stroke line snaps to the grid line and sits directly...

Agreed

@janhassel Based on this image above https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/issues/6245#issuecomment-776741104 I would recommend we do one of two things. a) Nothing since at 48 the fuzziness is livable for many pictograms and use...

@dudley-ibm Can you give me an estimate of your time to refactor all the pictograms with new stroke weight? I think the weight needs to still be specified at 32px...

Oh, that is. good question. If just adjusting the stroke weight does not improve the issue then we will not make any adjustments. We cannot do any redrawing.