XDG Icon Spec: requesting new icons for headsets, speakers, headphones

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 02:02 +0200, Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:40:48 -0400
> Rodney Dawes <dobey.pwns at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 23:19 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Sat, 02.05.09 16:14, Lennart Poettering (mzkqt at 0pointer.de)
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 21.04.09 01:41, Lennart Poettering (mzkqt at 0pointer.de)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I am still convinced that having these four (or five) icon
> > > > > names for all things audio woul be sufficient:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     audio-card          --- the generic icon for everything
> > > > > audio that has no or an unknown form factor audio-headset
> > > > > --- Mono/Duplex audio devices that are attached to one's head
> > > > > audio-headphones    --- Stereo/Playback only audio devices that
> > > > > are  attached to one's head audio-speakers      --- Standalone
> > > > > speakers. Black boxes audio-handsfree     --- handsfree
> > > > > devices, no priority
> > > > > 
> > > > > That would only require the addition of three (or four) new
> > > > > icons. That's it. No renaming. No discussions about
> > > > > hierarchies. 
> > > > 
> > > > Rodney, please, can we agree on these icons now?
> > 
> > I really would like input from someone other than you. Someone else
> > that would be using the same icons in their software. People that use
> > the icons that I recommended renaming. But apparently the community
> > just doesn't care. Developers will either use what's available, demand
> > something else be added, or just use whatever they want anyway. The
> > latter 2 seem to be the common case, unfortunately.
> 
> Refusing to improve a specification unless a high number of people
> give their opinions (even if the improvement is obviously reasonable)
> will only make the specification die. Icon names are used everywhere
> and the specification is not complete at all. On the one hand I think
> that only few people dare to request new names in general (because
> fd.o seems like a big authority to them). But on the other hand I've
> heard quite a few times that people don't request new icon names
> because they are disappointed with the reluctant way you deal with
> requests. 
> 
> This thread once again showed why people feel that way. I clearly hope
> that the situation can be improved. Otherwise more and more people will
> use their own non-standard icon names for icons that should really be
> added to the spec. And then we're back to the old everyone-does-his-own-
> thing kind of crap. Standardized icon names are important for modern
> desktops so that would be a disastrous state ... and sad one as well.

Especially when the icon names being proposed can have fall backs, as
the ones Lennart proposed can.

If you have better names, Rodney, feel free to mention them, and add
those to the spec. Otherwise, you're just stalling for time, and making
the spec more irrelevant each day.

Cheers