Closed kc-leung closed 2 years ago
perhaps more of a design aspect issue (@sallkall) --
ArrowUp
seems to be slightly bolder thanArrowDownRegular
while they seem to be symmetrical. perhaps the implementation of one of them can be another but turning 180 degrees through styling? this way they would be theoretically highly consistent(200% zoom)
perhaps more of a design aspect issue (@sallkall) --
ArrowUp
seems to be slightly bolder thanArrowDownRegular
while they seem to be symmetrical. perhaps the implementation of one of them can be another but turning 180 degrees through styling? this way they would be theoretically highly consistent(200% zoom)
@woozyking yeah the icon naming is a bit out of control...
@kc-leung in this case maybe also update the ArrowUp
icon name to ArrowUpRegular
to match your new ArrowDownRegular
perhaps more of a design aspect issue (@sallkall) --
ArrowUp
seems to be slightly bolder thanArrowDownRegular
while they seem to be symmetrical. perhaps the implementation of one of them can be another but turning 180 degrees through styling? this way they would be theoretically highly consistent (200% zoom)perhaps more of a design aspect issue (@sallkall) --
ArrowUp
seems to be slightly bolder thanArrowDownRegular
while they seem to be symmetrical. perhaps the implementation of one of them can be another but turning 180 degrees through styling? this way they would be theoretically highly consistent (200% zoom)@woozyking yeah the icon naming is a bit out of control...
@kc-leung in this case maybe also update the
ArrowUp
icon name toArrowUpRegular
to match your newArrowDownRegular
we will still need to keep it as ArrowUp if we want backward compatibility otherwise the projects that uses ArrowUp will need to update it but I think it is necessary the change
not great for maintenance but we perhaps can temporarily export both ArrowUp and ArrowUpRegular pointing to the same icon... 😬
yea aliasing it would do for the short-term
icons for https://github.com/EQWorks/lumen-table/pull/32