"Design" is a bit tricky. I've hesitated between a font design diagram and a golden ratio icon, and I eventually went for the Vitruvian man because to me it's a good metaphor for both aesthetics and user-centered design. We can obviously discuss this further, but I didn't want to leave 1 icon on How to contribute that wasn't consistent with the set. guillom 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- A ruler? --Qgil (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer something more simple. I took the architect one and made this quick adaptation to make it a bit more MediaWiki specific (and replace #000 with #111). I made a screenshot of the result in the page to see the icon in context. Pginer (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- We'll take it. Can you upload it to Commons? Thank you!--Qgil (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, concerns about gender stereotypes have been raised . The best way to avoid getting there is to keep avoiding antropomorphic icons, using objects or semi-abstract metaphora as we have been doing so far. This means that this ruler is the only candidate for Design so far. Any other proposals?--Qgil (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The hammer isn't very straightforward imho. I've replaced it with an icon of a checklist, which to me better conveys Features testing. (I'm not planning to change icons very often, but I think it's ok to be bold during this initial phase, as we figure out a good set of icons that can be more stable in the future.) guillom 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the hammer is at least as straightforward as a checklist, plus it has an attitude. The testing guys like it and I think it reflects with a blink the idea of manual / prospective testing. Can we have it back? I like the checklist icon though. I can see it serving a good purpose for Product development (as in planning & checking requirements, for instance).--Qgil (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree :) When arguments have been made and it comes down to preference, we just need to choose one and stick to it. The hammer doesn't scream "features testing" to me, but a checklist is closer to "testing" imho. Similarly, for Product development, I think the bullet list with a star for the first item better conveys "prioritization". Now, that said, my personal opinion isn't better than anyone else's, so feel free to revert if you think the hammer icon is better. guillom 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I took some time to check around. The hammer works for the testing people and others that are being involved in the QA activities. Testing is not only going through a list of defined cases. Testing is also prospective testing: letting users unaware of the written requirements to play with a piece of software at will, letting them bang and torture a product and see what happens. Besides, those lists for this icon and the one used for product development were close. This hammer has an attitude and is not confused with anything else. Conclusion: the hammer is back.--Qgil (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The plug icon is not bad for API but Kaganer had a good argument for using . This is why we de-assigned it from Browser testing. Unless there is a better argument I still think the gears work better.--Qgil (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Same as above: I think the plug is better, because (to me) it means "connecting" whereas gears usually just means "tech stuff", but my personal opinion isn't better than yours or Kaganer's, so feel free to revert if you think the gears icon is better. guillom 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
At some point we will have a Promotion page and section at How to contribute. There is also Groups/Promotion. The icon proposed is a megaphone: http://thenounproject.com/noun/megaphone/#icon-No10303 (alternative: http://thenounproject.com/noun/megaphone/#icon-No9214 ).--Qgil (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Either one works for me. guillom 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. In this edit, I pulled back a deployment of the proposed new coding icon (File:Source code project 1171.svg). I think this could use some further thought. It makes me immediately think that the page is broken (that it's exposed HTML markup, basically) when I see this icon. Particularly when it's enlarged, it kind of punched me in the face a little. It's completely possible that it's just me, though. I'd be interested in what others think about this icon.
I realize that reducing concepts down to icons isn't an easy task and most of the other proposed icons seem fine. I just think this particular icon could use a bit more thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there is something wrong with the icon, but also thought that something was not completely right when posting it. I believe it has to do with the fact that the other two icons for User and Sysadmin also need to belong to the same family. Revert taken and I will propose something once I finish a couple of things.--Qgil (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Arguably most of these icons are public domain, as they lack basic creativity and are simply shapes, which fall outside copyright. But there's an interesting note at the top of the page:
This allows us to use the
|link=parameter to hijack the image's link (that would otherwise have led to the image credits). Icons can therefore be used to link to the activity they refer to; this navigation is more natural for many readers than landing on the image's description page.
Is there precedent for this practice within Wikimedia wikis? On some wikis (I have no idea how many), there's a requirement that only public domain images be able to override the link parameter. I think this is the rule on the English Wikipedia and probably Commons as well. And, of course, there's kind of a deeper history here as to why the behavior is the way that it is. On its own wiki, MediaWiki generally ought to behave how MediaWiki behaves. It wasn't as though the current image linking behavior was accidental, really. As a means of providing attribution, I'm not sure how common an index page like this is. I guess certain wikis have citation pages. And others have bibliographies. That's not quite the same, though.
I'm unsure about continuing to include the quoted lines in the subject-space page. Perhaps a link to Meta-Wiki or some other page with a fuller explanation of image linking behavior would be better here?
It'd also be nice to note the benefits of using SVGs. I guess it kind of depends on who the intended audience is, but I assume most intended audiences of this page are still unfamiliar with vector v. raster images. That could also be an opportunity to link to other resources.... :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there are precedents on other Wikimedia wikis; I set up the credits page because
|link=was already being used for these icons and I wanted to be sure we provided appropriate credit (especially as the Noun Project has strict attribution guidelines).
- I agree that the current image linking behavior works that way for a reason, but there's also an argument to be made that it was designed more for content images than for presentational items (that usually belong to the CSS). This credits page is the best solution I could find to provide proper credit while using
- I've made a few edits to address your suggestions, but feel free to edit the page if you have other ideas :) guillom 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)