Closed
Bug 73712
(stopthewhining)
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Check in windows desktop/taskbar/start menu icons
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: UI Design, defect, P2)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.1beta
People
(Reporter: law, Assigned: kerz)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, )
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 9 obsolete files)
(deleted),
patch
|
bryner
:
superreview+
asa
:
approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
image/x-icon
|
Details |
This is an offshoot of bug 57576 which addresses the issue of giving each type
of window its own unique icon.
The code changes are being driven by that bug but we also need to ensure that
the proper set of icons are designed.
We need separate graphics for both Win32 and Linux/GTK.
The Windows icons need to be in native Win32 .ico format and include both
"large" (32x32) and "small" (16x16) image formats.
The Linux/GTK format is still TBD (probably .png, .jpg, or .gif, but I don't
know precisely).
We need separate icons for each window that is to have a unique icon. The list
of icons may have been compiled elsewhere but I don't know where. These are the
icons I know about off the top of my head:
default - Default icon to use if there isn't a more specific one
navigator
composer
mail (thread pane)
mail message
mail message compose
address book
Bookmarks
History
We also need to determine where to place these icon files in the source tree.
My guess is that they should go with theme stuff (i.e., there will be an icon
set for the "modern" theme and a separate set for the classic theme). Once we
decide where to put them, then we just need to tweak the build system to export
these files to the proper place.
We may also need to tweak the install manifests and installation/packaging code
to deal with these files.
Setting keywords and blocks fields to align with bug 57576.
This should be targeted for mozilla0.9 but since it's not my bug...
are we sure we need another bug for this?
putting my list of windows that need icons as the url:
http://timeless.student.umd.edu/mozilla/icons/wishlist.html
I think we need another bug. This way, the person who will actually create the
icons can have their own bug that shows up on *their* bug queries. Myself, if
the bug isn't on my personal "top bugs" list, then I just can't follow it
closely enough.
Thanks for the window/icon list again, BTW.
Comment 4•24 years ago
|
||
These icons are currently being designed by a third-party design shop.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Removing ns keyword since this is a mozilla bug, sending to endico.
Rather than requiring one set of icons in .ico format and another in .png/.gif/whatever, wouldn't it be better to use a single format for icons? I can just see a whole bunch of Windows users not bothering to include Linux icons in their themes, and Linux users not bothering (or unable, for lack of tools) to include Windows icons.
kelson@pobox.com: that's beyond the scope of this bug. I think we'll probably
try to make converters available, and ideally we'll be able to support
converting PNGs to whatever format is required.
Comment 8•23 years ago
|
||
OS Filetype icons (does this bug cover those? I think it does) should definitely
_not_ be theme-dependent - this would be very confusing to the user, and to
users who moved computers, or who were using someone else's, and so on. It's
hard enough coping with 2 icons for HTML files (Netscape's and IE's) without the
potential of a new and different one for each random skin the user happens to
use.
User recognition of filetypes via icons would be ruined if you couldn't depend
on a certain icon for a certain type. The current problems are bad enough
without adding to them.
Gerv
this is not for filetype icons (like the ones that show up when you ftp) this
bug is for the icons that show up that represent the browser, etc. on the
desktop.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
Taking. Futuring. Setting depends. We can't have icons until we have a
solution to licensing images. Until then, Mozilla.org doesn't want to make any
more defacto logos, as the throbber has become, so no icons will be checked in.
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Severity: normal → enhancement
Priority: -- → P5
Hardware: PC → All
Target Milestone: --- → Future
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 87450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 27746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 87450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
could we have some keywords here please: 4xp, mozilla0.9.2, nsCatFood
SPAM: The *best icons ever made*: http://www.crosswinds.net/~ggc/oldstuff/index.html
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
Copying the keywords from the new dup on the dup reporter request. BTW, this is
certainly 4xp and I do agree that this bug is a user satiscaction issue. However
I'm not sure whether it isn't too late for mozill0.9.2, But I think the icon
prolem should be solved long ago, even if the icons used would not be the final
ones. Anything (even plain squares of different colors for each type of windows)
would be better than the present situation.
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 43647 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
Won't happen for .9.2. Also, this is only for mozilla icons. Netscape has a
seperate bug tracking their icons in bugscape, so nzCatFood is not needed. I
agree with 4xp tho! :)
Keywords: mozilla0.9.2,
nsCatFood
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
Well, if it is 4xp it is not enhancement. That's what the documentation says.
Changing to severity to "normal". I am also not sure whether 4xp bugs can be
targetted to Future. Sorry for not noticing that when I setting the keyword.
Severity: enhancement → normal
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 89080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
What happened to the *nsCatFood* and *mozilla0.9.3* keywords?
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
Kerz: I do not believe the bug owner should delete keywords like nsCatFood and
mozillaxxx. The bug owners have Target and nsCatFood is a nomination for the
review team to agree with (+) or not (-). Restoring nsCatFood (mozilla0.9.2 is
already history)
Keywords: nsCatFood
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
Perhaps you didn't read my comment. This is a bug for MOZILLA icons. nsCatFood
is a nomination for bugs that people feel would make a NETSCAPE release better.
NETSCAPE has their own set of icons. nscatfood means nothing to mozilla.
Please don't readd it.
Keywords: nsCatFood
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
<QA_ignore>
Kerz: You may be right but then the definition of nsCatFood is wrong. The
definition says *nothing* about Netscape but claims snCatFood "indicates a bug
nominated as a serious user satisfaction issue with the product". The letters ns
are present also in most Mozilla variables without making them belong to Netscape.
If nsCatFood is about user satisfaction for Netscape product, where is one for
Mozilla users?
</QA_ignore>
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 89656 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•23 years ago
|
Blocks: advocacybugs
Updated•23 years ago
|
No longer blocks: advocacybugs
Updated•23 years ago
|
Blocks: advocacybugs
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Jacek: the nsCatFood keyword is defined as "indicates a bug nominated as a
serious user satisfaction issue for Netscape releases." See the keywords
definition page. It makes no sense on a bug that does not effect Netscape's
product.
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
Garth: The words "the Netscape releases" were added a few days *after* my
comment. I believe Jason Kersey (or someone else at Netscape) did that as a kind
of indirect answer to my comment. A pity he did not comment on the change here :-(
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Um, no. I don't even have access to change that. The keyword has always meant
that, hence the "ns" part, as explained before. I don't think any netscape
person can change keyword definitions, so someone at mozilla.org must have
changed it. There is no keyword conspiracy, the keyword just didn't fit the bug.
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
Jason: Sorry fr suspecting you. But I was pissed off seeing how someone made me
look really stupid by changing the keyword definition. It happened in the week
after my comment.
And sorry for the spam :-(
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 98936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 100955 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
I'm starting an effort to formalize an effort to revise the parts of Mozilla's
appearance outside themes, such as the icon suite, the installer, the splash
screen, and the Profile Manager dialog.
I've started a web page with some initial ideas and bug links at
[http://greg.tcp.com/mozilla/ui/Outside/introduction.html]. I welcome any and
all comments on it.
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 102761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
Why isn't bug 47779 a dup of this one?
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 105059 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 36•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 111129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 112976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 103840 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
Here there's a quick fix (with the old Communicator's icons):
http://www.consultanddesign.com/mozilla/
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
Andrea: Heheh - can you please add something to change them back in both NS6 and
Mozilla? :-) - I changed it in NS6 and now want it back :-)
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
how about using the mozilla icon instead of the Netscape icon?
(as seen in the favicon on mozilla org)
The same icons as Netscape are used, this is really confusing if you have both
Netscape and Mozilla open at the same time, but not many people are likely to do
something like that ...
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
These are Giovanni's icons for the different Mozilla modules (browser,
mail/news, composer, etc.). They are the best, most professionally done, and
most beautiful icons every created - for any application.
Since the developers are (deliberately?) dragging their feet on implementing
icons for the Mozilla modules, here is an easy way you can circumvent this
unfortunate defficiency:
Simply unzip the attached file into the "chrome" directory in the Mozilla
install directory (not your profile dir). That's it!!! Makes you wonder why
this hasn't been done a LONG time ago :(
The only 'argument' against implementing icons is that someone doesn't want to
create a 'defacto standard'. Well, at the pace things are currently moving,
namely 0 km/hr, I much prefer a defacto standard over the ugly and
one-icon-for-all-modules situation we now have. Especially, since Giovanni's
icons are so professionally done and beautiful.
You see how easy that is? Now doesn't that make the long-lasting lack of icons
for Mozilla extremely suspicious (and we've have Giovanni's icons for a *very*
long time now). Hopefully, he hasn't been turned off by this incomprehensible
neglect, and will complete his awesome collection of Mozilla icons.
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
For those who want a dino on their desktop, this icon replaces the "ship wheel"
of navigator with the red mozilla.
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
What fileformat (extension) is "octet-stream"??? When i click on your
attachment, it tries to download "attachment.cgi" :( :( :(
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
"application/octet-stream" is just a generic type for binary data. In this
specific case, I know Mozilla uses .ico files (at least under Windows), so that
seems likely.
Comment 46•23 years ago
|
||
Yup. just replace the ".cgi" with ".ico" and you're ready to go (unless you
want to actually /use/ it... then you'll have to rename it "main-window.ico" ;)
If anyone knows what the mime type is for .ico (if there is one?) feel free to
change the atachment type.
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 62370 [details]
A shameless rip of Giovanni's navigator icon
It's image/x-icon - see bug 110296 for proof
Attachment #62370 -
Attachment mime type: application/octet-stream → image/x-icon
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 119184 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 120807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
Okay, This is my attempt at tactfully getting the ball rolling on this bug (It's
#56 based on votes, and has been open for 10 months now) ...
I mailed Jason about this a couple weeks back and he says we're stuck between
waiting for final artwork to get produced, and not being able to do interim
artwork for fear of GPLing it.
In the meantime we're stuck with what qualifies as a "serious useability issue";
Using the same icon for all the components make super-common tasks like reading
mail noticeably harder (I need to find the mail window on my taskbar at least
20x a day, and it's currently hidden among 5-10 browser windows that look
identical to it.)
Can we please do something, *anything*, to distinguish the different application
components from eachother while we wait for the artwork to get finalized?
My suggestion is to simply recolor the existing icon - E.g. Blue for browser,
green for mail, yellow for composer, etc. This solves the useability issue
without compromising any artwork (it uses the existing icon, which is already
"out there" )
So, how about it?
Comment 51•23 years ago
|
||
we already have the icons. the ones on the status bar showing navigator, mail,
composer, address book, chatzilla, etc. They are good icons, and they
are "ours". Why arent we using them in the windows, it's an unknown answer for
me.
red hat packages on linux have the red dinasour in all windows, so at least it
is possible to implement without much trouble on that platform, and windows
also has the blue weird logo
Comment 52•23 years ago
|
||
In reponse to comments 50 and 51, in the meantime, why don't you use the fix in
comment 39 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73712#c39
It works a treat for me!
Comment 53•23 years ago
|
||
These work too, and there's even an xpi installer!
http://grayrest.com/moz/icons.html
Comment 54•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 127496 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 55•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 131112 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 56•23 years ago
|
||
Will this bug make it for 1.0? It'd be a shame to ship a 1.0 browser without a
decent icon set.
Comment 57•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 131117 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 58•23 years ago
|
||
yep , this really needs mozilla1.0 keyword. I mean you cant ship an end-product
and not have something as basic as icons to differentiate between a
browser/composer and the mail/news windows.
Comment 60•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 131669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 61•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 132530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 62•23 years ago
|
||
The Giovanni/grayrest icons set has recently been updated (and moved). Here is
the new link to the XPI: http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml
Mozilla 1.0 better not come out without these awesome icons (or I'll ...). :-P
Comment 63•23 years ago
|
||
Seriously, compared to the other options available, using these icons should be
a no-brainer. For real.
Comment 64•23 years ago
|
||
The resolution on these should go up at least to 48x48 for WinXP (that's the
default resolution, and these icons look rather blurry). They're great at 32x32
and 16x16 though.
Comment 65•23 years ago
|
||
I'd very much like to see the *same* image used for Mozilla's icons on
all platforms. Currently, of the three major platforms, no two of
them share the same icons for Mozilla, or even the same motif. That's
bad. Half the point of half Mozilla's technology (xml, xul, XPApps,
xsl, and so on) is the same experience on all platforms (as much as is
possible without violating each platform's conventions). When the new
icons, whatever they look like, are checked in, they should follow the
same approximate motif for all platforms.
If conversions are needed between .ico format and whatever format Linux
ends up wanting (png? xpm?), I'd be happy to do some conversions,
saving the trouble for someone who can do things I can't do. Someone
else would probably need to do the Mac ones.
Comment 66•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 139597 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 67•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 139936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 68•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 140152 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 69•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 140825 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 70•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 140827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 71•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 140905 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 72•22 years ago
|
||
Any progress on this?
This is the only reason I'm not using the Mail/News application, I just can't
find my mail between my browser windows :(
What are we waiting for? :D
BTW why is this bug still 'NEW', can't we upgrade this to ASSIGNED?
Comment 73•22 years ago
|
||
> Bart: Any progress on this?
NO :(
Go here to *do* what can't be done: http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml
Comment 74•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 143135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 75•22 years ago
|
||
You may want to take a look at my Mac OS X Mozilla icon set. I think they
might look good on any other platform too. I'd be happy to work with
somebody who can help me to convert the icons into the right format.
I'm still working on a lot of the details and on individual icons for every
window. The image is just to describe the basic design direction I've
taken. I've posted a more detailed description of what I've done and what I
will do in this comment:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58228#c62 . There's still a lot
of work to do for me until they're ready. The final icon set will be a lot more
polished, "lickable" and complete. I will publish it in about a week and a
half and I will send anybody who's interested the layered .psd source files.
You can find them here:
http://www.theparallax.net/sd/proposals/Mozilla-Icons.jpg
Comment 76•22 years ago
|
||
Personally, very pretty though the icons in comment 75 are, I prefer most of the
icons in comment 39 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73712#c39)
Of the ones in comment 75, only the first 2 are obvious to me as to what they
are. The rest don't inspire any notion of what they are meant to represent, and
the two icons with people in them would confuse. I assume one is for the
address book and one for the IRC. I've no idea about the jigsaw piece or the
down arrow (minimize maybe?).
I must admit that the original icon for IRC ( "cZ" ) looks more like an icon for
a spellchecker, and the ship's wheel would best be replaced by the mozilla M),
but the rest are obvious.
Hope that helps!
Comment 77•22 years ago
|
||
Thanks for your comment! There seems to be quite a bit confusion as to
which icon stands for what. All page icons stand for documents, not
program windows. The image I posted earlier didn’t contain the actual
icons; it should merely describe their basic style. The final icons will be
ready soon.
In the meantime you can take a look at the more polished and complete
icon set with descriptions and licensing information:
http://www.theparallax.org/sd/proposals/mozilla/icons.html
Comment 78•22 years ago
|
||
RE Simon's icons: NICE! Even though I still prefer Giovanni's/Grayrest's icons
(http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml); here are some suggestions:
1. Most of these icons will be hard to decypher when seen at actual icon size.
2. Addressbook should have the (boardgame) people symbol instead.
3. Editor should have a ruler and triangle or compass "/\" to symbolize "design".
4. Messenger should have the sender's and recipient addresses in proper locations.
5. Chat "nipple should be longer to be more clearly a "talk bubble".
6. Document symbols should have larger identifying symbols (i.e., puzzle piece,
checkmark, etc.) relative to the icon's size.
Comment 79•22 years ago
|
||
Is this bug really not going to get attention for 1.0 ?
You'd think different icons per app on the taskbar would be basic UI design
criteria. Nominated for addition to bug 143200
Comment 80•22 years ago
|
||
The big problem here seems to be the dependency on bug 28028
Since that doesnt look like its going to be resolved any time soon, perhaps we
can find out if the icons at http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml can
be officially donated to the mozilla project. Who created these, are they on the
CC list, how can we contact them to enquire about contributing them.
This way, the dependency falls away and this bug can be moved along a little
quicker. Drivers it would seem are refusing to look at this seriously because of
the dependency.
Comment 81•22 years ago
|
||
In the meantime, the Giovanni/Grayrest icon pack (the only one the 1.0 startpage
team could find in a week of searching, mind you) has a solid home on a hardened
site at http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/icons.html .
This is a Windows-only icon pack, so wouldn't quite solve the bug for Unix.
Even if they aren't in for 1.0, the above URL is presently listed in the draft
of the 1.0 startpage FAQ.
I'm sure Giovanni and Grayrest would be happy to donate them if they were
serious prospects to go into the build. Er, if we can find Giovanni ...
Comment 82•22 years ago
|
||
By the way, check bug 144488 - various theme sites are being set up for Mozilla
themes, icons and splash screens in preparation for 1.0, and even if new icons
aren't in the build by default, people will have places to look for the eye candy
you've worked so **** ...
Comment 83•22 years ago
|
||
Can we use some generic images that aren't affected by bug 28028 until that bug
is fixed? I think I remember Endico mentioning that for the splash screen. Can
we do the same thing for the icon files - temporary generic images?
Comment 84•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 150178 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 85•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 150494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 86•22 years ago
|
||
I agree with comment 51. What's wrong with the images in the component bar? They
are instantly recognizable and add a degree of consistency. Of course if you
need a different icon for mail inbox and compose, this becomes a problem, but I
wouldn't mind using the same icon for inbox and compose..
Comment 87•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 143391 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 88•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 151630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 89•22 years ago
|
||
I'm not sure if this is just for giovanni's icons or whether this should be
considered by all, but there are a few places in Microsoft XP where the icons
aren't showing up.
1. if sufficient mozilla windows are open so that they are grouped together, the
lizard icon is used.
2. in xp, you can show a default internet and a default email client on your
start menu. The lizard icon is used for both the mozilla browser as well as the
mozilla mail client. It is impossible to change the icons for these (as they
don't show up in the frequently used programs list or all programs list).
Comment 90•22 years ago
|
||
Liam:
Look at the following thread. You should find some of your answers here. Also
ask around in the newsgroups intead of in this bug.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&th=1f687fedbcfc8142&rnum=2
Comment 91•22 years ago
|
||
Thanks for the link, psolanki@netscape.net.
But there is still no solution listed to get an alternative icon for the lizard
winXP systray icon :( There should be a more appealing logo for this in the near
future.
Again I'd like to call for finally adding the XPI-Install-for-Windows for
Giovanni's/Grayrest's icons XPI-Install-for-Windows, shown at
http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml to the Mozilla sourcecode, maybe
to v1.1. This would be a lot better than all the awful blue lizard icons...
Thanks!
Comment 92•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 93•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 94•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 95•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 96•22 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the spam but I couldn't figure out how to make four attachments
in one go.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=87682&action=view
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=87683&action=view
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=87684&action=view
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=87685&action=view
are regular 16 color windows icons, in 16x16, 32x32, 48x48 and 64x64 px
resolution respectively.
The 16x16 version is based on the mozilla.org .png icon (the one you see in
the location field when you visit mozilla.org). A sample of how this looks in
real life is at http://fb14.uni-mainz.de/~cyp/moz/16x16sam.gif
All others are based on the 'dino logo' at http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/
and elsewhere. In these larger images there is enough room in the image for
someone to add (say) an envelope symbol for Moz Mail, or whatever.
Assignee | ||
Comment 97•22 years ago
|
||
We have plenty of icons to use. Hundreds or maybe even thousands. Read the bug
before going and attaching 4 things that won't be used. DON'T ATTACH THINGS TO
THIS BUG. WE CAN'T USE THEM.
Comment 98•22 years ago
|
||
#1, as far as Giovanni's icons are concerned; are we even allowed to use the
Navigator icon (the one with the ship's wheel, main-window.ico)? isn't that
netscape's property, seperate from mozilla?
#2, do we need a seperate image for the window that pops up for downloading a
file (seperate from the download manager)?
#3, in response to comment 81, it seems that the links for installation and
download are broken. a quick google search brought up
http://www.deskmod.com/?show=showskin&skin_id=9673, which works.
Comment 99•22 years ago
|
||
Jason,
> Read the bug before going and attaching 4 things that won't be used.
I _did_ read the comments in this bug, and I was quite aware of the issues
(inasfar as you have documented them in this bug).
In your original report you stipulate:
a) > We need separate graphics for both Win32 and Linux/GTK.
b) > The Windows icons need to be in native Win32 .ico format and
> include both "large" (32x32) and "small" (16x16) image formats.
c) > We need separate icons for each window that is to have a unique icon
d) > there will be an icon set for the "modern" theme and a separate set
for the classic theme.
Response:
a) The icons I attached are Win32. I can't provide Linux/GTK for the simple
reason <quote> "The Linux/GTK format is still TBD (probably .png, .jpg, or
.gif, but I don't know precisely)".</quote>
b) The icons I attached are <quote>"in native Win32 .ico format and include
both "large" (32x32) and "small" (16x16) image formats."</quote>
c) Fine, ok. If nothing else, the icons I attached provide a baseline for
others (I'm not a graphics artist) to monikerize for navigator/composer/
mail/history/bookmarks/ etc.
As comment #50 suggested, perhaps just recoloring would suffice too.
d) I disagree. Desktop icons should NOT be theme things. Comment #8 says why.
In fact, as comment #65 suggests, all _platforms_ should have the same icon
set.
And as another comment stipulated - the icons I attached are _mozilla_ icons,
and are completely different from Netscape's icons.
> DON'T ATTACH THINGS TO THIS BUG. WE CAN'T USE THEM.
Now tell me why you can't use them even though they meet your own guidelines?
(any please don't yell. We're on the same side with respect to our interest in
resolving this bug).
Comment 100•22 years ago
|
||
this bug is dependent on bug 28028. I couldn't tell you why it's taken so long
as I'm not a lawyer, but until that bug is fixed, this bug can't really go
anywhere. I think that's what Jason Kersey is trying to say; the bug is not
dependent on submissions, but upon other bugs that need solving beforehand.
And I can agree with you on the "we're all on the same side" issue, but to those
who get 5 emails on a bug when there's not too much they can do about it, I feel
their pain too.
Comment 101•22 years ago
|
||
Liam,
The icons I attached are simply resampled versions of the images used on
mozilla.org. If the former aren't legally usable, then the latter
aren't either, but since the former _are_ being used, then the latter
could/should be too. (Incidentally, http://mozilla.org/banners/ has banners
with the red-dino. Heck, there are even red-dino gifs linked from
mozilla.org/start/1.0/ for people to make T-shirts with!)
Anyhow...
As I see it, its important that there be a baseline upon which new icons
could be designed. All the icons proposed so far in this bug report have
for one reason or the other been off the mark in terms of portability or
usability (or legality in the case of the extracted ns icons).
As was pointed out elsewhere in bug 28028, consistant use of the brand
(corporate identity) is critical. New baseline icons can always be made
if there is a change to mozilla.org's branding. The diffs to the baseline
(for example an envelope moniker for mail) could stay the same.
I apologize again for the spam that resulted from my attachments. Mea Culpa.
Comment 102•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 154563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•22 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.0 → mozilla1.1
Comment 103•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 154861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 104•22 years ago
|
||
The binary Win32 installer can be found at
ftp://132.229.96.157/projects/mozilla-icon-install/Mozilla-icon-install.exe .
The source of the installer can also be found on my FTP which is at
ftp://132.229.96.157/projects/mozilla-icon-install/ (*.iss is the script
itself). It also fixes the default mail client handling of Mozilla and it
creates (next to the window icons) last startmenu, desktop & quick launch
shortcuts with the NEW icons, if desired.
Comment 105•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 157049 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 106•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 157595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 107•22 years ago
|
||
Ok, the icons shown here seem pretty impressive, but you are missing a very
important icon.
Not only should there be a different icon for mail messages, but there should
also be one for mail folders ( eg: IMAP folders ) Eudora 5.1 does a fine job at
this....
Assignee | ||
Comment 108•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 98761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 109•22 years ago
|
||
Let's do it.
Alias: stopthewhining
Severity: normal → major
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
OS: All → Windows 95
Priority: P5 → P2
Hardware: All → PC
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.1beta
Comment 110•22 years ago
|
||
So is this bug XP, or what? Other OS's need icons larger than 64x64, such as Mac
OS X's 128x128, and Gnome does SVG icons now, I think.
Are these icons really what Mozilla.org wants?
Assignee | ||
Comment 111•22 years ago
|
||
This is now the bug for the windows icons. Bug 157830 is open for linux, and
bug 157829 is open for mac.
Summary: Need Win32 and Linux/GTK icon files for each window → Check in windows desktop/taskbar icons
Assignee | ||
Comment 112•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 105672 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 113•22 years ago
|
||
Giovanni's icons only go up to 32x32, and WinXP uses 48x48 as the default size.
These ones look pixelated.
Comment 114•22 years ago
|
||
Regarding Comment #111
IMO there should be one bug for all those icons. They should be kept in the
mozilla-source-tree at a high resolution and then just converted to an
appropriate format and size.
Until there are tools to archieve this it's OK to have seperate bugs but finally
there should be just one with the above goal.
Having several bugs about icons might make mozilla platform depended and in some
way splitted up to those platforms.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 115•22 years ago
|
||
The attachment adds all the current application icons to the build. Looking
for review for the makefile changes. The icons used are Giovanni's now.
Debate your favorite icons in npm.ui, not here please.
Attachment #62342 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #62370 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #87682 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #87683 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #87684 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #87685 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #90768 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 116•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 92125 [details] [diff] [review]
Add icons to the build
r=cls
Attachment #92125 -
Flags: review+
Comment 117•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 92125 [details] [diff] [review]
Add icons to the build
nits:
- rename _CHROME_DEFAULTS to something without a leading underscore.
- fix indenting on the last line you added in makefile.win.
you may want to add a matching install:: rule for the icons, but it's not all
that important for windows. sr=bryner with the first two changes I mentioned.
Attachment #92125 -
Flags: review+ → superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 118•22 years ago
|
||
Both issues fixed. now called DESKTOP_ICONS.
Assignee | ||
Comment 119•22 years ago
|
||
Also, afaik, we don't currently have support for using document icons, so until
we do, I won't check those in.
Comment 120•22 years ago
|
||
> Also, afaik, we don't currently have support for using document icons, so until
> we do, I won't check those in.
I think they should still be checked in. Some users may want to manually change
the icons for documents and it would one less thing to check in if/when Mozilla
does support document icons.
Comment 121•22 years ago
|
||
Lots of applications provide extra optional icons for users to select when
they create shortcuts and file associates. I think you should check in
anything you've got.
Assignee | ||
Comment 122•22 years ago
|
||
Those are good points. I still want to wait until they can be used, and
packaged, correctly. Right now we're dumping them all into
/bin/chrome/icons/defaults/, and I don't want to dump anymore than needed there,
as that will hopefully go away when we start packaging them properly in
mozilla.exe or whatever.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #92125 -
Flags: review+
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #92125 -
Flags: review+
Comment 123•22 years ago
|
||
Bug 105672, Need a 48x48 application icon for WinXP, got marked as a dupe of
this bug, and now this bug is going to be fixed without checking in a 48x48
icon? Should I re-open bug 105672?
Comment 124•22 years ago
|
||
I would really like to see that 48x48 icon. After all, I am the reporter of
that bug... ;-)
Comment 125•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 92125 [details] [diff] [review]
Add icons to the build
a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to 1.1
Attachment #92125 -
Flags: approval+
Assignee | ||
Comment 126•22 years ago
|
||
Fixed. Feel free to reopen the 48px icons bug, i couldn't find any in time to
check them in with this.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 127•22 years ago
|
||
Can these icons be checked in into the Mozilla 1.0.1 branch too? New icons alone
might make people to upgrade to 1.0.1 when it comes out. It’s going to be the
most visible enhancement on the branch for an average Mozilla user.
Comment 128•22 years ago
|
||
Filed bug 158665 for the missing Password Manager icon (failed to find a dupe,
so far).
Comment 129•22 years ago
|
||
I like these icons, but the quicklaunch icon in my taskbar (red dino head) looks
pretty ugly. I know what the icon usually looks like, but it's either corrupted
or needs to be reformatted for the taskbar. (id'd attach a picture but I'm at
work). Or it could be my system. Windows 98SE, 16bit color desktop.
Comment 130•22 years ago
|
||
Prior to Windows Me, Windows supports only 16 color icons in the taskbar
tray. As a result, a 256 color icon will be reduced down to its 16 color
equivalent, or lacking such an icon, will simply be decolorized appropriately.
This makes for ugly icons. I think this issue would be best addressed in a
new bug, since it's related specifically to the taskbar tray.
Comment 131•22 years ago
|
||
The 16-colors problem also arises on the desktop and Start Menu on all Windows
versions if "Show icons using all possible colors" isn't checked in the Display
Properties control panel, under "Effects" in Windows 98/ME/2000, or "Plus" in
Windows 95 with the Plus pack or the Font Smoothing extension.
Comment 132•22 years ago
|
||
Five of the icons have invalid transparency.
messengerWindow.ico, main-window.ico, editorWindow.ico have a highlight that
should not be transparent.
chatzilla-window.ico (16x16) and calendar-window.ico (32x32) are not transparent
around the edge when they should be.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Component: Themes → XP Apps: GUI Features
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 133•22 years ago
|
||
I also changed the main-window.ico to 256 colours (it was 16777216).
Comment 134•22 years ago
|
||
Dev Studio said that my new icons weren't transparent. Dev Studio was lying :-(
Please feel free to blame Dev Studio for the spam.
Attachment #92374 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 135•22 years ago
|
||
Mozilla 1.1b release notes state in the what's new section: "Distinct window
icons on MS Windows for the different Mozilla applications". Just tested it, and
it is not the case, still the old blue lizard (?? - whats that supposed to be
anyway) icon for all apps in task bar and start menu. (Mozilla 1.1b on Win2k,
full installer)
Build 2002072208 displays different icons in the task bar, but in the start menu
all icons are the same (red mozilla head) and differ from the respective icons
in the task bar.
Comment 136•22 years ago
|
||
In the windows installer we have an check-box for enabling quick launch. Here is
presented an screen shoot with the sys tray icon - the old blue sea monkey. The
screen shoot must be updated with the new red dino head.
Comment 137•22 years ago
|
||
yes one person came on irc late last night and reported that the installer
builds didn't have the icons. if you want them please use the talkback.zip
version for the moment. the problem is reported and hopefully new 1.1b installer
builds will be pushed. note that nightly installer builds do have icons.
Comment 138•22 years ago
|
||
About comment 136, that is Bug 159142.
Comment 139•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 47779 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 140•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 160252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 141•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 160553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•22 years ago
|
Summary: Check in windows desktop/taskbar icons → Check in windows desktop/taskbar/start menu icons
Comment 142•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 162347 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 143•22 years ago
|
||
The icons show terribly bad (just a blob) in my Solaris CDE... They show with 1
bit color depth (black on grey background -- no greyscale). Anyone looking into
this?
Comment 144•22 years ago
|
||
Can anyone explain to me why this bug got reopened? I think it's fixed. The
icons are checked in on all platforms, remaining issues should be filed in new
bugs (particularly comment 143).
Comment 145•22 years ago
|
||
Concerning the reopen:
I updated from mozilla 1.0 to 1.1 both on Windows (EXE) and Linux (SRPM) and yes
it's true on Windows there are now different icons for the mozilla windows. But
what did you do with Linux? I'd like to see also different icons here, but at
the moment even the old icon (red mozilla head) used for all windows is gone.
Now I have the standard X icon displayed for mozilla in the KDE taskbar.
Comment 146•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 165238 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•22 years ago
|
Attachment #92378 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #92378 -
Attachment is patch: false
Attachment #92378 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → application/x-zip-compressed
Comment 147•22 years ago
|
||
> I like these icons, but the quicklaunch icon in my taskbar (red dino head) looks
pretty ugly.
> ...
> Or it could be my system. Windows 98SE, 16bit color desktop.
It happens, too, in Windows 2000. The quicklaunch icon is ugly and the system bar is even worse, due to the fact that if Windows doesn't find a 16 color icon in the .exe -> it degrades the icon to 16 colors (horribly). I attach the Netscape icon to show that a 16 color good-looking one can be embedded in a .ico, next to the other X colors icons. The icon can be viewed with irfanview (www.irfanview.com, it's free). Thanks, let's make Moz a nice thing not an ugly one. It deserves this.
Comment 148•22 years ago
|
||
(aggh, please, excuse me if I have caused a spam, aggh)
I attach the "Netscape 6" icon. With Resource Hacker
(http://www.users.on.net/johnson/resourcehacker/, a free program) you can
replace the Mozilla icon (taskbar, executable, system bar) with the one you
want (like the Netscape I attach) and see Mozilla can have nice-looking icons.
Let's make it good-looking.
Comment 149•22 years ago
|
||
maybe I'm a little late, but I always thought that mozilla would drop the
netscape navigator 3 wheel when it came to including the icon pack in an
official release? for some reason, having the wheel in mozilla seems wrong to me.
Comment 150•22 years ago
|
||
I resolve this bug as fixed, since nobody answered my question in comment 144
why this bug remains open. The original issue of this bug ("Check in windows
desktop/taskbar/start menu icons) is fixed. If this bug gets reopened the
summary must be changed, but I suggest to leave this bug fixed and file
remaining issues in different bugs.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 151•22 years ago
|
||
Grayrest updated his icon pack (the one that got checked in) to include 48x48
icons. This update should be checked in to Mozilla, because the Windows XP uses
48x48 icons by default and the current ones only go up to 32x32 and look really
bad at 48x48. The updated iconpack is available at
http://www.deskmod.com/?show=showskin&skin_id=9673
Comment 152•22 years ago
|
||
scratch, can you file that as a new bug please.
actually, that might be bug 105672
Comment 153•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 110036 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 154•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 171087 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 155•22 years ago
|
||
Verified on windows 2k (netscape trunk build: 2002-12-04-08-TRUNK)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 156•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 184636 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Core → Mozilla Application Suite
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•