When clicking the browse button for an icon field in Sitecore Rocks, the icon browser displays and selects the 16x16 versions of icons. This is inconsistent with the Content Editor icon browser, which displays and selects the 32x32 versions. This means that depending on whether Rocks or the Content Editor was used to select an icon for, say, a template, the item will either end up with the 16 or the 32 size icon. Anyone with a moderately-sized project using some kind of serialization, like TDS, could make a find-in-files for "32x32" or "16x16" in their serialized .item files and will likely see the inconsistency for themselves.
In my opinion, the Rocks browser should mimic the Content Editor browser and choose the 32x32 version of the icons. Is the 16x16 used for some kind of legacy compatibility reason?
When clicking the browse button for an icon field in Sitecore Rocks, the icon browser displays and selects the 16x16 versions of icons. This is inconsistent with the Content Editor icon browser, which displays and selects the 32x32 versions. This means that depending on whether Rocks or the Content Editor was used to select an icon for, say, a template, the item will either end up with the 16 or the 32 size icon. Anyone with a moderately-sized project using some kind of serialization, like TDS, could make a find-in-files for "32x32" or "16x16" in their serialized .item files and will likely see the inconsistency for themselves. In my opinion, the Rocks browser should mimic the Content Editor browser and choose the 32x32 version of the icons. Is the 16x16 used for some kind of legacy compatibility reason?