Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Tools project should standardize feature/plug-in provider name and provide an icon. | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Tools] Tools | Reporter: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> | ||||||||
| Component: | Releng | Assignee: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | ahunter.eclipse, akurtakov, david_williams, dennis.huebner, ian.skerrett | ||||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 370003 | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Alexander Nyßen
Seems like nobody cares about... :( Maybe we just should reuse our itemis logo and provide it as "Eclipse Tools Project" vendor image!? :) There was a bug report, reported by David Williams, about an "About dialog" with more then ten different icons, after installing all the features from the indigo repository. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore. However I think it's very important that the Tools project provides a common providerName and icon. I found an interesting discussion: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/tools-pmc/msg01659.html But without any suggestion what icon should be used for tools subproject branding. Nobody interested in this? (In reply to comment #3) > Nobody interested in this? Maybe just a wrong inbox... .-/ I think its been decided that Tools Projects, such as GEF, CDT, Orbit, etc., are all distinct enough that it did not make sense to have one "Tools" brand/icon/name, etc., and that each subproject was free to do their own, if they desired an icon. And the Provider name should be thinks like "Eclipse Orbit", "Eclipse CDT", "Eclipse GEF", etc. Is this helpful, or am I missing the point? And it did not make sense for a separate category for GEF to show two features, two plugins and one new icon in products about dialog. So we went with using Eclipse Modeling Project in 3.5. So GEF shows up with EMF and GMF and products about dialog is a little cleaner. (In reply to comment #5) > I think its been decided that Tools Projects, such as GEF, CDT, Orbit, etc., > are all distinct enough that it did not make sense to have one "Tools" > brand/icon/name, etc., and that each subproject was free to do their own, if > they desired an icon. > > And the Provider name should be thinks like "Eclipse Orbit", "Eclipse CDT", > "Eclipse GEF", etc. > > Is this helpful, or am I missing the point? As Anthony pointed out, we do not want to ship an own icon for GEF, as this makes no sense (its a base technology, no end-user tool). However, GEF does not belong to Modeling but to Tools, so using modeling icon seems to be not helpful (if people search GEF, they should search it under Tools). So my actual concern was that Tools should provide a default icon (as modeling does) for those tools sub-projects that do not want to provide their own icon. We (Xtend) would also like to reuse an existing common Tools Vedor/Icon, currently we participate to Juno with Vendor="Eclipse Xtend" and the modeling icon. ... or we need a horizontal scroll bar in "About eclipse SDK" for all the custom providers. Yes, I forgot to mention it. I would also like to re-use a common vendor (maybe "Eclipse Tools") for those who don't want to provide their own icon, as the about dialog evaluates it and only groups those entries that share a common vendor and icon. Excellent. I think if "you build it they will come". :) Tools of course is an umbrella-only project ... i.e. has no committers per se or repository location. My first suggestion would be for one of you to provide one (with feedback from the others and PMC) and once done, my first choice would be for that one project, such as GEF or XTENDS to provide what's necessary in their repo and point others to it. If you really need a common location on "downloads" for one or two icon files, I'm sure we could do that. So, sorry we, Tools, have no designers to throw on the work, but there's nothing wrong with what you are suggesting. Again, feel free to say if I'm mis-understanding. (In reply to comment #10) > Excellent. > > I think if "you build it they will come". :) > > Tools of course is an umbrella-only project ... i.e. has no committers per se > or repository location. > > My first suggestion would be for one of you to provide one (with feedback from > the others and PMC) and once done, my first choice would be for that one > project, such as GEF or XTENDS to provide what's necessary in their repo and > point others to it. > > If you really need a common location on "downloads" for one or two icon files, > I'm sure we could do that. > > So, sorry we, Tools, have no designers to throw on the work, but there's > nothing wrong with what you are suggesting. > > Again, feel free to say if I'm mis-understanding. I will check whether itemis (Dennis and I both belong to the group) can "donate" such an icon. We usually have a designer at hand... Maybe he can create something in the style of the modeling icon as a proposal. Do you know where the image sources for it can be found? Created attachment 220192 [details]
Draft for Tools project logo
Well, it has taken some time (because of the holidays period), but our designer has created a first draft of a tools project logo. What do you think?...
(In reply to comment #12) > Created attachment 220192 [details] > Draft for Tools project logo > > Well, it has taken some time (because of the holidays period), but our > designer has created a first draft of a tools project logo. What do you > think?... Looks cool! +1 :) I too think it looks great. Just right for "tools". If I had one suggestion, it would be for the word "eclipse" to be moved slightly to the right, so it was completely inside the "nut". Perhaps aligned with the center of the "T" in "Tools", instead of the left edge of that "T". For a couple of reasons, but partially because it kind of gets "lost" in a white background. Plus, I'd assume, that "outside" part of the icon would normally be "transparent", so having 'eclipse' completely inside the "nut" makes is more independent of what ever other colors or backgrounds a user might set for their display. That said, its great. It could be used as it, so just take my comments if you find them helpful. I am not dictating it has to be changed. Greatest thanks! Adding Ian for awareness, since he's aware of many images at Eclipse. Ian, this doesn't rise to the level of a "Tools Branding Effort" ... we just trying to simply and improve some UI details for projects in Tools. Re-reading this, I think we are (nearly) done here. The icons/images look nice. Can you make them available in a "consumable" form for those that would like to use it? Either in Eclipse app ... and perhaps we could put one on http://www.eclipse.org/tools/ I'm not exactly sure what the "requirements" are ... but, hopefully you know more about that than I do already (you know, tools.icn, tools.xcom ... svg? bmp? ... all the various resolutions. "Source" format would be helpful as well as final consumable icons. Or ... would you rather close this as "won't fix"? (In reply to David Williams from comment #16) > Re-reading this, I think we are (nearly) done here. > > The icons/images look nice. Can you make them available in a "consumable" > form for those that would like to use it? Either in Eclipse app ... and > perhaps we could put one on http://www.eclipse.org/tools/ > > I'm not exactly sure what the "requirements" are ... but, hopefully you know > more about that than I do already (you know, tools.icn, tools.xcom ... svg? > bmp? ... all the various resolutions. "Source" format would be helpful as > well as final consumable icons. > > Or ... would you rather close this as "won't fix"? Well, if you find out the "requirements" I will promise to contact our designer and see if he can still remember what he has done a year ago... (In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #17) > (In reply to David Williams from comment #16) > > Re-reading this, I think we are (nearly) done here. > > > > The icons/images look nice. Can you make them available in a "consumable" > > form for those that would like to use it? Either in Eclipse app ... and > > perhaps we could put one on http://www.eclipse.org/tools/ > > > > I'm not exactly sure what the "requirements" are ... but, hopefully you know > > more about that than I do already (you know, tools.icn, tools.xcom ... svg? > > bmp? ... all the various resolutions. "Source" format would be helpful as > > well as final consumable icons. > > > > Or ... would you rather close this as "won't fix"? > > Well, if you find out the "requirements" ... I wasn't volunteering my work. So, if you aren't willing to find out requirements for Eclipse icon "packages", let's just close as "won't fix". Thanks for the ideas and apologies for the slow responses in this bug. I'm speechless... Is that how we handle contributions? (In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #19) > I'm speechless... Is that how we handle contributions? I'm not sure how to interpret your question, but if its a serious question, we love contributions ... but not mere suggestions for others to "do the work". So if you research it and find out what resolutions/formats icons need to be in, for Windows, Linux, and Macs, please re-open. I suspect you can google it ... or ask on cross-project list? I just thought you were saying you were unwilling to do that and expected me to ... so me closing as "won't fix" might have been based on a miscommunication? (In reply to David Williams from comment #20) > (In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #19) > > I'm speechless... Is that how we handle contributions? > > I'm not sure how to interpret your question, but if its a serious question, > we love contributions ... but not mere suggestions for others to "do the > work". I like sarcasm, but please let's discuss this without. If you recall the history of this bug it should get quite clear that we pretty much wanted to support this. Actually we mandated a designer to do the first sketch (with the mere result that our proposal was simply ignored for more than a year). > So if you research it and find out what resolutions/formats icons need to be > in, for Windows, Linux, and Macs, please re-open. I suspect you can google > it ... or ask on cross-project list? > I just thought you were saying you were unwilling to do that and expected me > to ... so me closing as "won't fix" might have been based on a > miscommunication? I don't think there is any miscommunication. I have the fear its more a different attitude on how to handle contributions. If a contributor tells me "I am willing to provide what is needed, please just tell me what exactly do you need." I usually don't answer "You will have to find that out on your own. Maybe ask on the cross-project list...". Well I've some how given the wrong impression here (and/or gotten the wrong impression) ... perhaps in part because I was assuming you knew 100 times more about "Eclipse graphics" than I do! Plus, it was you that opened the bug ... so I was assuming you "knew what you wanted", so to speak. But I may have done too much skim reading to fully understand the issues? I guess if it was me, I'd state the requirements as "icons of appropriate sizes and resolutions that can be used by RCP apps on all platforms supported by Eclipse ... and (optionally) one appropriate for web pages". Or ... perhaps, if your intent is this be used only for the "about box" the requirement(s) would be slightly different? I do not know. Sorry I don't know more specifics, but I did a few google searches and found this page http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform-releng/Updating_Branding which might help you state what you'd like to contribute? Apologies if I seemed sarcastic or rude. Sincerely, Ok, let's forget the quarrel...
My primary concern for opening this bug was the need for an icon that could be used in the about.ini (i.e. Feature icons for about dialog) to be used for our GEF features (and I assume its the same use case for Dennis w.r.t to Xtend), so a 32-bit PNG would be sufficient, as far as this is concerned.
Nevertheless, while other use cases do not directly come to my mind it would (according to the link you provided) probably make sense to produce the following icons:
Png - 32 bit: (all sizes) 16, 22, 24, 32, 48, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024
Gif - 8 bit / 256 colors 16, 22, 24, 32, 48
4 bit / 16 colors 16,22,24,32,48
I will see what I can do...
Created attachment 238251 [details]
Tools Logo in GIF4, GIF8, and PNG format
Attached please find the logo files as produced by our designer. We have included GIF4 and GIF8 (which do not look as nice due to restrictions of the GIF format), as well as PNG versions, each with and without a text label.
(In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #24) > Created attachment 238251 [details] > Tools Logo in GIF4, GIF8, and PNG format > > Attached please find the logo files as produced by our designer. We have > included GIF4 and GIF8 (which do not look as nice due to restrictions of the > GIF format), as well as PNG versions, each with and without a text label. Thanks very much! They look cool to me. I'll look at them closer, send appropriates notes, and decide "where to put them" soon, but in the mean time, in the zip is a folder named __MACOSX which appears to have "quarantined" attributes or something. Is that something that will "make sense" if I unzip on my mac? Or something included in the zip file by accident? (In reply to David Williams from comment #25) > (In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #24) > > Created attachment 238251 [details] > > Tools Logo in GIF4, GIF8, and PNG format > > > > Attached please find the logo files as produced by our designer. We have > > included GIF4 and GIF8 (which do not look as nice due to restrictions of the > > GIF format), as well as PNG versions, each with and without a text label. > > Thanks very much! They look cool to me. > > I'll look at them closer, send appropriates notes, and decide "where to put > them" soon, but in the mean time, in the zip is a folder named __MACOSX > which appears to have "quarantined" attributes or something. Is that > something that will "make sense" if I unzip on my mac? Or something included > in the zip file by accident? Hmm, I don't see any such folder, also if I download and unzip it on my other mac. Don't know where that comes from... > > Hmm, I don't see any such folder, also if I download and unzip it on my > other mac. Don't know where that comes from... On my mac, if I use "unzip" from command line interface, I see the directory created, but if I use the "native" Archive Utility App on the mac, then I do not see it ... presumably because it knows how to incorporate those "extended file attributes" back into the file system. In short, all is well. I put these icons in our "website git" repository, see http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/tools.git/tree/EclipseToolsLogos And while know the "website" is nothing to brag about ... I put one of the logos (128x128) on the main page: http://www.eclipse.org/tools/ I'll send a note to tools project leads that the icons are here, and ready to use. I honestly don't know if other formats such as "icns" or "xcom" are required or if but assume what we have can be "converted" to those other formats if needed. If there's no other comments/feedback, and if you agree, I think this can be closed as fixed, right? As already mentioned in my first comment, what is still missing is an agreement about a default provider name (e.g. Eclipse Tools) that is to be used by the tools sub-projects, as the about dialog groups features by icon as well as provider names (and we want to have them all grouped together by default). Also, I think it would be a good idea to provide this information (icons as well as provider name) at a prominent place somewhere in the wiki. Do you have an idea about an appropriate place? (In reply to Alexander Nyssen from comment #28) > As already mentioned in my first comment, what is still missing is an > agreement about a default provider name (e.g. Eclipse Tools) that is to be > used by the tools sub-projects, as the about dialog groups features by icon > as well as provider names (and we want to have them all grouped together by > default). > > Also, I think it would be a good idea to provide this information (icons as > well as provider name) at a prominent place somewhere in the wiki. Do you > have an idea about an appropriate place? I think you could create a page under wiki.eclipse.org/Tools/CommonToolsIcons or, similar. I'll assume you'll create this page? > Provider name: Under the "Tools" Top Level Project, we've said each project can have their own name, such as "Eclipse <projectName>" which seems most appropriate for those tools such as "CDT" which people would install as "users of the tool", but others such as GEF could use "Eclipse Tools". I think the question comes up if projects from other top level projects want to use a common name, to be counted in this common category (and use the common icon). I think fine if they wanted to use "Eclipse Tools", but if something less project-specific was desired, by them, I'd suggest "Eclipse Common Tools". Could you please drive that discussion ... perhaps with a bug in Cross Project component and a note to Cross-Project list? > Location: I think "in Git", where they are is fine and most would prefer to get versioned controlled ones from Git. If you wanted to include samples or even a zip from wiki, I think that's fine to have that redundancy, but I think the "official set" should be in Git. Hope that helps, So nothing happen and it's even less likely to happen. |