Thanks and Great work <li>Download and extract the repository</li>
<li>Copy the <code>devicons.css</code> to your project</li>
<li>Copy the <code>fonts</code> folder to your project</li>
Fonts were a problem in Chrome before it started using DirectWrite, but in this case, DirectWrite seems to be unable to render the font properly as the issue is present in IE too.
The author instructs loading the entire font package, which is 35KB, onto you website. I don't think this is a good approach from a performance perspective. I recommend using tools like Fontello to create custom font files with just the icons you need.
The problem is that, until <svg use> is standardized and supported, the only way to style svg elements is if you include them in your markup (or use something like Iconic's SVG Injector).
There's a tradeoff between inlining (or rather, including them server-side) and calling them as <img>, background-image, or fonts. The size, http requests, caching , and styling all play a role.
I don't think you can re-style a SVG with CSS if you embed it with IMG. CSS styling has to be inline with the SVG, so you can embed it directly, or you can change CSS with JS.
You can change the color and size without having to change or edit an image. Plus things like pixelation dont happen with fonts but you could use canvas in a similar way. I've seen some cool logos done with canvas.
On mobile, yes. Even on good networks, you don't always have a strong signal. Download size is always a factor on mobile. 35kb isn't a big deal if it were needed but if 90% of the download is wasted then you probably don't want that.
If you had a closer look on the page and the FAQ section you would have noticed that there is a manifest file that you can load into IcoMoon and select your desired fonts to use, minimising the size of the fontset.
PS Font awesome is much much more big in size.
The creator of the collection is using the logo by putting it on the web page. Also, the logo is licensed under MIT, which he probably cannot do, if he doesn't hold the rights.
'Using the logo' is different from 'using the logo in a manner infringing the holder's trademark'.
Simply displaying an Apple logo, for example, and saying 'this is the Apple logo' is perfectly valid. Pretending to be Apple or Apple-endorsed is a different matter.
I think it's all about context. It's been my experience that "developer" is mostly applied to web developers and "programmer" is most often used when talking about desktop application development. In this context I don't think adding the word "web" before "developer" makes it any more clear as it's web developers who mostly use icon fonts and web developers who are the target audience here.
I'm not convinced that's how the split works - I don't think I've ever heard the phrase ".NET programmer", for example, and it was originally a desktop tech.
See also: "App developer", "Java developer", "mobile developer", etc.
Contrast: "assembly programmer", "COBOL programmer".
Has anyone cleared the corporate logo use with a lawyer? In particular, keep in mind the following regarding the Apple logo:
# NOTE: The graphic image associated with the Apple logo character
# is not authorized for use without permission of Apple, and
# unauthorized use might constitute trademark infringement.
I am aware of that. As the developer of Devicons I am not claiming any rights upon the logos.
Also take a look at the note at the very bottom of the page:
Note: All brand icons are trademarks of their respective owners. The use of these trademarks does not indicate endorsement of the trademark holder by the author, nor vice versa.
I wish icon fonts used ligatures to select the right glyph, rather than meaningless codepoints (e.g. you can make font automagically replace characters "git" with the Git logo).
Otherwise these fonts end up being used in a non-accessible way (I browse with webfonts disabled and keep seeing boxes instead of images, with no fallback or a useless display:none'd fallback).
Although private use area is technically a proper way to add a custom symbol to Unicode font/text, it's not the best way from accessibility perspective.
For users who can't see the font the character will be completely meaningless. Instead of getting e.g. "Compatible with Linux!" they'll get "Compatible with reserved symbol U+E001!"
I was disappointed this was just logos, rather than an icon font for developers. I was expecting useful icons that aren't a part of sets like Glyphicon (databases, servers, etc.).
79 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadScreen: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/490104115826270208
Why would I want to use someone else's icon ?
Depending on the complexity I imagine fonts would also be smaller than corresponding bitmaps although I never actually checked.
http://www.pixelambacht.nl/2014/multicolor-icons/
http://caniuse.com/#feat=svg-img
You do miss out on the recoloring and any other font styling options though.
There's a tradeoff between inlining (or rather, including them server-side) and calling them as <img>, background-image, or fonts. The size, http requests, caching , and styling all play a role.
http://www.rubyinside.com/david-heinemeier-hansson-says-no-t...
That said, fair use applies.
The creator of the collection is using the logo by putting it on the web page. Also, the logo is licensed under MIT, which he probably cannot do, if he doesn't hold the rights.
Simply displaying an Apple logo, for example, and saying 'this is the Apple logo' is perfectly valid. Pretending to be Apple or Apple-endorsed is a different matter.
I am not disagreeing that this is possible, but the parent wasn't sure of the correct position, either.
Urgh. Why do people do this?
See also: "App developer", "Java developer", "mobile developer", etc. Contrast: "assembly programmer", "COBOL programmer".
Also, this guy is the authority, and he was talking to desktop devs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE
Also take a look at the note at the very bottom of the page:
Note: All brand icons are trademarks of their respective owners. The use of these trademarks does not indicate endorsement of the trademark holder by the author, nor vice versa.
Otherwise these fonts end up being used in a non-accessible way (I browse with webfonts disabled and keep seeing boxes instead of images, with no fallback or a useless display:none'd fallback).
For users who can't see the font the character will be completely meaningless. Instead of getting e.g. "Compatible with Linux!" they'll get "Compatible with reserved symbol U+E001!"
Isn't it most likely that people don't do this because they simply don't know about it?