Missing icon name: "preferences-?-?

Jakob Petsovits wrote:
Monday, 16. June 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>I made this point because it might be better to have:
>>
> preferences-browser
> preferences-browser-web
> <- or whatever
>>
>which would have fallback.

I think that's neither required nor desirable. The concepts of browsing and
managing files are different ones and should not have a common fallback -

This isn't about browsing and managing files but rather about
configuring applications. more to the point, what to use for the
icon to indicate such configuration.

for example, Dolphin doesn't do the browsing part and concentrates on the
management aspect. Besides, I can hardly imagine an icon that conveys a
fitting metaphor for both web browsing and file management at the same time.

So "don't use fallbacks where they don't make sense".

Probably better to fallback to the "?" icon. :-S

>The real issue is that we do need the preferences-* icon since the
>"system-file-manager" icon is being misused.

In theory yes, but I wonder if that doesn't put additional burden on themers
without real benefits that we get from that separation. Say, which icon would
you use for preferences-file-management (or whatever it's called)?

I am not unnecessarily talking about having more icons

>I also wonder if we need:
>>
> system-file-manager-dolphin
> system-file-manager-kfm
>>
>so users can tell which app is which from the icons.

Nah, we decided long ago that we don't do fallbacks to generic app names,

What? If an app is an app that has a generic app name then a specific
app specific icon name *must* fall back to the generic name. It would
be incorrect in this case to use the icon names:

dolphin
kfm

because there is only one basic application that should use the generic name.
That's Dolphin as file manager,

Problem: we are using the icon "konqueror" for KFM.

KWrite as text editor,

Icons for KATE and KWrite are so similar that we might as well be using
the same icon.

KCalc as calculator,

KDE only ships with one calculator so, it isn't an issue.

etc.

where KDE ships more than one app with the same generic
classification is this an issue. There aren't very many cases, so
considering them individually is probably best.

All other apps use only their respective app names without fallback -
"kate" for the "other" text editor, "krusader" for the "other" file manager,

The question here is about Dolphin vs KFM. The current "solution"
doesn't seem to be appropriate here.

etc.

Leaving out on fallbacks here enables us to rely on those applications to keep
their icon branding (which is what we want for all but the most basic
applications with generic icons) and furthermore avoids having the same icon
for two different applications in the application launcher.

Yes, that is what I am worried about NT "having the same icon
for two different applications in the application launcher" and we do
have the same icon for WebBrowser and KFM.

So, system-file-manager is the icon for the basic file manager that is shipped
with KDE (= Dolphin), and other applications are expected not to use this
icon as fallback for their application icon.

And the problem is as I originally said. The "system-file-manager" icon
is being misused for other purposes.

Wishes,
Jakob

P.S.: kfm is no more, and therefore doesn't require an icon.

No wonder users are complaining. Even a developer has it wrong.

SVN:

ls k*.desktop -1

kfmclient.desktop
kfmclient_dir.desktop
kfmclient_html.desktop
kfmclient_war.desktop
konqbrowser.desktop
konqueror.desktop
konquerorsu.desktop

Doesn't look very much like it "is no more" to me.

NW, getting back to the original problem. Note in the attached screen
shot for the "Settings -Configure Konqueror" dialog.

Notice the icon for "File Management". This is clearly a problem. The
icon name "system-file-manager" is being misused. This also points up
that we might need a Dolphin specific icon name:
"system-file-manager-dolphin". Either way would probably solve the
problem, but I suggest that we use both.

I suspect that there are other possible examples of misuse of icons here
as well.

IAC, this screen shot shows where the three suggested "preferences-*"
icon _names_ should be used.

"General" should use "preferences-browser"
"File Management" should use ""
"Web Browsing" should use "preferences-browser-web"

This does not mean that we need more icons. However, we should have
more names to prevent misuse of icons. Note that the icons:


preferences-browser-web

do not have to exist in a theme because they will fall back to:

preferences-browser

Simillarly, the icon:

system-file-manager-dolphin

does not have to exist although the name needs to exist so that an icon
that is branding will not show up in the wrong places.

To be more specific. If the Dolphin 'desktop' file uses:

system-file-manager-dolphin

and the KFM 'desktop' files use:

system-file-manager-kfm

there will be no problem if there are no icons with these names as long
as there is something with a file cabinet metaphor named:

system-file-manager

That same actual icon could be used for the name:



The problem comes when the icon:

system-file-manager

is used where you should use an icon named:



AND, the icon is the image of a Dolphin rather than a file cabinet.

--
JRT

James Richard Tyrer wrote:

I suggest that it would be better for the 'desktop' files:

kfmclient.desktop
kfmclient_dir.desktop
kfmclient_html.desktop
kfmclient_war.desktop

to have:

Icon=system-file-manager-kfm

and the 'desktop' file:

dolphin.desktop

and the "main.cpp" file.

to have:



If these icons doen't exist, there will be fall back to the icon:

system-file-manager

The issue of the "Configure" dialog is a bit more complicated. But, it
appears that we are misusing the icon name: "system-file-manager" in 4
'desktop' files in:

SVN:

where we need a "preferences-*" icon names and I don't think that it is
a good thing for this working correctly to be dependent on the image for
that icon name.

--
JRT