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.

These icons are currently being designed by a third-party design shop.

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.

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.

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.

*** Bug 87450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 27746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 87450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

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.

*** Bug 43647 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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! :)

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.

*** Bug 89080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

What happened to the *nsCatFood* and *mozilla0.9.3* keywords?

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)

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.

<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>

*** Bug 89656 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Marking mostfreq (9 dups including 2 in last week)

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.

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 :-(

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.

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 :-(

*** Bug 98936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 100955 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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.

*** Bug 102761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Why isn't bug 47779 a dup of this one?

*** Bug 105059 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 111129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 112976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 103840 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Here there's a quick fix (with the old Communicator's icons): http://www.consultanddesign.com/mozilla/

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 :-)

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 ...

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.

For those who want a dino on their desktop, this icon replaces the "ship wheel" of navigator with the red mozilla.

What fileformat (extension) is "octet-stream"??? When i click on your attachment, it tries to download "attachment.cgi" :( :( :(

"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.

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 on attachment 62370 [details] A shameless rip of Giovanni's navigator icon It's image/x-icon - see bug 110296 for proof

*** Bug 119184 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 120807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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?

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

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!

These work too, and there's even an xpi installer! http://grayrest.com/moz/icons.html

*** Bug 127496 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 131112 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Will this bug make it for 1.0? It'd be a shame to ship a 1.0 browser without a decent icon set.

*** Bug 131117 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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.

nominating for drivers

*** Bug 131669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 132530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

Seriously, compared to the other options available, using these icons should be a no-brainer. For real.

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.

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.

*** Bug 139597 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 139936 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 140152 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 140825 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 140827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 140905 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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?

> Bart: Any progress on this? NO :( Go here to *do* what can't be done: http://grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml

*** Bug 143135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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 **** ...

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?

*** Bug 150178 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 150494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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..

*** Bug 143391 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 151630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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).

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

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!

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.

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.

#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.

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).

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.

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.

*** Bug 154563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 154861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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.

*** Bug 157049 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 157595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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....

*** Bug 98761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Let's do it.

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?

This is now the bug for the windows icons. Bug 157830 is open for linux, and bug 157829 is open for mac.

*** Bug 105672 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Giovanni's icons only go up to 32x32, and WinXP uses 48x48 as the default size. These ones look pixelated.

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.

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.

Comment on attachment 92125 [details] [diff] [review] Add icons to the build r=cls

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.

Both issues fixed. now called DESKTOP_ICONS.

Also, afaik, we don't currently have support for using document icons, so until we do, I won't check those in.

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

I would really like to see that 48x48 icon. After all, I am the reporter of that bug... ;-)

Comment on attachment 92125 [details] [diff] [review] Add icons to the build a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to 1.1

Fixed. Feel free to reopen the 48px icons bug, i couldn't find any in time to check them in with this.

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.

Filed bug 158665 for the missing Password Manager icon (failed to find a dupe, so far).

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.

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.

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.

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.

I also changed the main-window.ico to 256 colours (it was 16777216).

Dev Studio said that my new icons weren't transparent. Dev Studio was lying :-( Please feel free to blame Dev Studio for the spam.

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.

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.

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.

About comment 136, that is Bug 159142.

*** Bug 47779 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 160252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 160553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 162347 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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?

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).

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.

*** Bug 165238 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

> 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.

(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.

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.

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.

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

scratch, can you file that as a new bug please. actually, that might be bug 105672

*** Bug 110036 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 171087 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Verified on windows 2k (netscape trunk build: 2002-12-04-08-TRUNK)

*** Bug 184636 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***