A cool idea. But are all these icons free for people to use, i.e. is it okay to use these images here? --JanneJalkanen

I feel right in my shoes about this, because..

and last, but not least,
  • they look nice, but those icons are nothing original and/or that anybody with a decent tool could produce, based on bigger images, already available on the net.
--AlainRavet

My fear concerns mostly the "Windows", "Mac", "Playboy", and "Java" icons, since they are all trademarks of the said companies. Regardless of who actually made them, they still are registered trademarks and unless we actually find confirmation that it's okay to use these, we should remove them.

Just trying to steer clear of any possible problems...

--JanneJalkanen

What's next : http://www.dontlink.com?

Trademark laws are clear and well-established. Prohibiting deep linking equals shooting oneself to the foot, so I really don't mind if some company prohibits that. On the Web, links are everything - if you forbid them, you do not exist. But seriously - trademark infringement is something that has to be avoided. --JanneJalkanen, who is already dancing around some intellectual property issues...

Cool. Now if someone could only design a decent "paper clip" icon... -- KenLiu

Agree about the clip ;). About icons in general.. well, in my absolutely not at all humble opinion, sprinkling icons among body text serves the complete opposite of what they're supposed to do. It's too easy to clutter up and complicate the view, instead of offering intuitive shortcuts.
Now, this isn't to say icons are bad; for example, Slashdot's example uses large, colorful symbols to liven up the visual feel, and it offers coarse categorization information, as well. Likewise, icons as logical GUI elements are fine - but you have to have a GUI scheme to work with, first. But cute icons for their own sake? Um. No. --ebu

Agree. Icons are very useful in the blog context for providing visual cues for categories, although it really only works with icons that already have a well known meaning (like Duke or the infamous bunny). In keeping with the spirit of wiki, it's fine to make these available to everyone, but I would prefer to keep them off of main pages unless we have comprehensive set of them. The fact that there was only an icon next to the Problems? link kind of drew my eye to it. It made me kind of mentally associate "problems" with the first thing I thought about JSP wiki - not a good thing. I know that sounds like of like touchy-feely designer talk, but UI design has a lot to do with psychology. No offense, AlainRavet Pic/smile.png --KenLiu

Icons are visual clues (?cues) that help
. locate info (like the now late new_bug_link associated one)
. identify/classify info (like in the source blog).

In other words : Make it easy on your eyes, make it easy on your brain.

- The first icon I added is in the JSPWikiDownload page, because each time I wanted to check the change log of the nightly build, I first had to find (locate) the damned place. Now, it takes no time : just spot the bright yellow "update"; the link is around.
- In the same page, you'll see a little window, and a little pinguin. They categorize (identify) the info next to them. I think they play their role. (Do I need to explain?)
- BTW, how long does it take you now, without the icon, to click the link to file a new bug? Much longer, because you have to read, and recognize that "problem" could be a synonym of bug. Same for "new idea" : it used to be just under the icon. Download used to be above the icon. No more icon. No more clue. Pic/grouchy.png --AlainRavet

How about a bug icon instead of a "grouchy" icon? That's more intuitive to me --KenLiu

Good idea --AlainRavet.

I have several (many) sets of icons, predominantly of the desktop theme variety, that have been made freely available. We use some of them on my internal wiki sites. I will be happy to post these to this site, if folk feel they would be of use. -- PaulDownes, 01/06/2003


Paul, can I grab your paperclip icons and include them in the JSPWiki distribution? They look very nice :-).

-- JanneJalkanen, 11-Feb-2003.

I concur! Out with the old and in with the new! Pretty please? :-)

--MichaelGentry

Most certainly.

--PaulDownes, 02/12/2003

The icons are now included in 2.0.28. Thanks a lot!

--JanneJalkanen, 14-Feb-2003


05-Nov-2004

Note that jpg image names are case sensitive.

  • Pic/INFO.jpg [Pic/INFO.jpg] works
  • Pic/info.jpg [Pic/info.jpg] does not

Also note that GIF images that are attached to the Pic page are not supported as inline images (see SystemInfo). Only JPG and PNG image types are supported.

Add new attachment

Only authorized users are allowed to upload new attachments.
« This page (revision-27) was last changed on 17-Nov-2011 10:31 by Janne Jalkanen