Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create(app.streamlinehq.com)
app.streamlinehq.com
Show HN: Open-core icon sets that took me 12 years to create
https://app.streamlinehq.com/icons
134 comments
I have learned to stay away from open-core icon sets. It seems like they are doing a very nice balancing act where the icons you need later on happen to be in the paid section.
I also dislike this is promoted as an open source icon set. This is a commercial product providing free samples. By design, it has a funnel of free / 'open source' users of which some will be turned into customers.
Finally, it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech. It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version. But basically this is how graphics / icons / page templates / etc are being marketed.
I guess this is where any kind of 'community' helps. If a library has a community, it would be forked the 2nd day if it tries to pull something like this. But icons / templates / graphics are generally the work of a single person or small group of persons. There is no community that may philosophically decide they disagree and thus fork the project on new license terms.
All in all, quite depressing. But, I understand, we all need to eat.
I also dislike this is promoted as an open source icon set. This is a commercial product providing free samples. By design, it has a funnel of free / 'open source' users of which some will be turned into customers.
Finally, it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech. It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version. But basically this is how graphics / icons / page templates / etc are being marketed.
I guess this is where any kind of 'community' helps. If a library has a community, it would be forked the 2nd day if it tries to pull something like this. But icons / templates / graphics are generally the work of a single person or small group of persons. There is no community that may philosophically decide they disagree and thus fork the project on new license terms.
All in all, quite depressing. But, I understand, we all need to eat.
> it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech
While the criticism of this being called "open source" is somewhat valid. The suggestion that people creating usable graphics for the community should do so for free is a little frustrating. It's a bit like the memes where designers/photographers/ect are asked to do work for "exposure". The devaluation of creative output is quite sad, people who go out of their way to create something you can use for small fee should be held up as examples of the best of the community.
The vast majority of people who "create" (rather than contribute to) an open source projects are doing so for some sort of "commercial" reason. Wether it's an ambition to built a business around it, promote themselves as an expert, or being done as part of study to further themselves, its all about personal growth which translates to an income.
I fear we are all becoming too used to building upon the "free" foundations of open source and it blinds us to the creativity that goes into these types of projects.
> If a library has a community, it would be forked the 2nd day if it tries to pull something like this
I also find this frustrating as an attitude towards open source, the "open core" concept is completely valid and isn't an argument to fork. With most open source projects the majority of the work is contributed by a very small group of people, true if you frustrate a core contributor they may justifiably fork the project. However we should champion open source projects where the core team find a way to commercialise it in a sustainable way, when done well it only benefits the community.
When picking a foundation to build a business on, the advantages of picking one where there is a commercial organisation supporting the project as a core of their own business model is well known. Examples I can think of:
- Ionic Framework and Capacitor from Ionic
- Tailwind (actually a brilliant counter example with Tailwind UI being the commercial upgrade)
- Wagtail from Torchbox
- Wordpress and Automattic
- Docker
- HashiCorp
While the criticism of this being called "open source" is somewhat valid. The suggestion that people creating usable graphics for the community should do so for free is a little frustrating. It's a bit like the memes where designers/photographers/ect are asked to do work for "exposure". The devaluation of creative output is quite sad, people who go out of their way to create something you can use for small fee should be held up as examples of the best of the community.
The vast majority of people who "create" (rather than contribute to) an open source projects are doing so for some sort of "commercial" reason. Wether it's an ambition to built a business around it, promote themselves as an expert, or being done as part of study to further themselves, its all about personal growth which translates to an income.
I fear we are all becoming too used to building upon the "free" foundations of open source and it blinds us to the creativity that goes into these types of projects.
> If a library has a community, it would be forked the 2nd day if it tries to pull something like this
I also find this frustrating as an attitude towards open source, the "open core" concept is completely valid and isn't an argument to fork. With most open source projects the majority of the work is contributed by a very small group of people, true if you frustrate a core contributor they may justifiably fork the project. However we should champion open source projects where the core team find a way to commercialise it in a sustainable way, when done well it only benefits the community.
When picking a foundation to build a business on, the advantages of picking one where there is a commercial organisation supporting the project as a core of their own business model is well known. Examples I can think of:
- Ionic Framework and Capacitor from Ionic
- Tailwind (actually a brilliant counter example with Tailwind UI being the commercial upgrade)
- Wagtail from Torchbox
- Wordpress and Automattic
- Docker
- HashiCorp
Tailwind UI is not an upgrade is a choice.
I built wickedblocks.dev ( acquired) and it was completely free.
Some stuff, were better coded than TUI.
Definitely not an upgrade,...
I built wickedblocks.dev ( acquired) and it was completely free.
Some stuff, were better coded than TUI.
Definitely not an upgrade,...
> While the criticism of this being called "open source" is somewhat valid. The suggestion that people creating usable graphics for the community should do so for free is a little frustrating.
It's a weird balancing act. At the end of the day though, everything on the internet is a race to the bottom; nothing beats free. Of course, you don't have to make your work freely available, if you think that your contributions stand on their own merits then you can of course charge a fee. Here's the thing, though: 99% of the time, developers will completely skip over your product even if the free alternative is decidedly worse. For example:
> The vast majority of people who "create" (rather than contribute to) an open source projects are doing so for some sort of "commercial" reason.
Au contraire, just look at Linux, an OS that was designed as a passion project by One Guy and the Internet. It was developed by people who cared, and thought they could create a better system for free. Commercial purposes appropriated it, not the other way around. This is the case for a number of OSS: before people even contribute to an open-source project, it has to be someone's proof-of-concept, someone's toy project. History simply doesn't align with this claim, it takes a lot of Freudian contrivances to make it true.
> I also find this frustrating as an attitude towards open source, the "open core" concept is completely valid and isn't an argument to fork.
Then use your own license. Of course, then it likely wouldn't be considered open-source, but if you're not comfortable letting your community take control of your project then you probably shouldn't use a license that explicitly allows for exactly that. Source-available licenses will assuage your security-minded customers while deterring those pesky contributors and passionate freeloaders from appropriating your hard work.
> When picking a foundation to build a business on, the advantages of picking one where there is a commercial organisation supporting the project as a core of their own business model is well known.
Of course it is. Money follows money. Your priorities as a software salesman are not the same as your priorities as a software user. That disparity is what drives the misery that makes up the modern commercial software landscape. It's the reason why the whole dream of "open source projects where the core team find a way to commercialise it in a sustainable way" doesn't really exist, and certainly isn't championed. Your goal can either be to empower your users at all costs, or to monetize your product. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
What makes me mad is watching people appropriate the ideals of Free Software for commercial purposes. The only people you're fooling is users, the developers worth their salt won't even give you the time of day if you're peddling some contrived licensed crapware. Every piece of software you listed at the bottom has openly-licensed alternatives, explicitly because there are droves of people who have nothing to gain from paying for the same thing they could get for free.
It's a free world, and ultimately your choice how you choose to license your work. Truly great work transcends these petty concerns with what your users will think and what commercial alternatives exist. Nothing, and I mean *nothing* beats free.
It's a weird balancing act. At the end of the day though, everything on the internet is a race to the bottom; nothing beats free. Of course, you don't have to make your work freely available, if you think that your contributions stand on their own merits then you can of course charge a fee. Here's the thing, though: 99% of the time, developers will completely skip over your product even if the free alternative is decidedly worse. For example:
> The vast majority of people who "create" (rather than contribute to) an open source projects are doing so for some sort of "commercial" reason.
Au contraire, just look at Linux, an OS that was designed as a passion project by One Guy and the Internet. It was developed by people who cared, and thought they could create a better system for free. Commercial purposes appropriated it, not the other way around. This is the case for a number of OSS: before people even contribute to an open-source project, it has to be someone's proof-of-concept, someone's toy project. History simply doesn't align with this claim, it takes a lot of Freudian contrivances to make it true.
> I also find this frustrating as an attitude towards open source, the "open core" concept is completely valid and isn't an argument to fork.
Then use your own license. Of course, then it likely wouldn't be considered open-source, but if you're not comfortable letting your community take control of your project then you probably shouldn't use a license that explicitly allows for exactly that. Source-available licenses will assuage your security-minded customers while deterring those pesky contributors and passionate freeloaders from appropriating your hard work.
> When picking a foundation to build a business on, the advantages of picking one where there is a commercial organisation supporting the project as a core of their own business model is well known.
Of course it is. Money follows money. Your priorities as a software salesman are not the same as your priorities as a software user. That disparity is what drives the misery that makes up the modern commercial software landscape. It's the reason why the whole dream of "open source projects where the core team find a way to commercialise it in a sustainable way" doesn't really exist, and certainly isn't championed. Your goal can either be to empower your users at all costs, or to monetize your product. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
What makes me mad is watching people appropriate the ideals of Free Software for commercial purposes. The only people you're fooling is users, the developers worth their salt won't even give you the time of day if you're peddling some contrived licensed crapware. Every piece of software you listed at the bottom has openly-licensed alternatives, explicitly because there are droves of people who have nothing to gain from paying for the same thing they could get for free.
It's a free world, and ultimately your choice how you choose to license your work. Truly great work transcends these petty concerns with what your users will think and what commercial alternatives exist. Nothing, and I mean *nothing* beats free.
> Finally, it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech.
That comes from the roots of programming and computer science in general, where it's part of the old-school "academic spirit" is making stuff available for others to experiment with and advance on. Universities paid their professors, doctors and other academics to work on all that stuff like compilers, programming languages, communication standards or operating systems - wherever you look in open source projects dating prior to the 2000s, all of them have a strong foundation somewhere in academics or the military.
Only when computers became household items, commercialization really took off, as suddenly the market for software was no longer restricted to fellow academics, a few very ambitious hobbyists and even fewer megacorporations.
UI/UX design, in contrast, never had that "golden age" of third-party funding everything that the people wanted to work on in that moment.
That comes from the roots of programming and computer science in general, where it's part of the old-school "academic spirit" is making stuff available for others to experiment with and advance on. Universities paid their professors, doctors and other academics to work on all that stuff like compilers, programming languages, communication standards or operating systems - wherever you look in open source projects dating prior to the 2000s, all of them have a strong foundation somewhere in academics or the military.
Only when computers became household items, commercialization really took off, as suddenly the market for software was no longer restricted to fellow academics, a few very ambitious hobbyists and even fewer megacorporations.
UI/UX design, in contrast, never had that "golden age" of third-party funding everything that the people wanted to work on in that moment.
It is open source, and it's commercial. It's both. The word "Upgrade" is right there at the top of the page. It's not in the last surprising, or hidden, and thousands of businesses here promote themselves with a freemium product.
That doesn't detract from the generosity of giving something away - the only reason it's not been forked and improved by others (for free) is that nobody blinkin' wants to without payment.
Just take what's free, or pay for what's not! I don't know why that's depressing at all.
That doesn't detract from the generosity of giving something away - the only reason it's not been forked and improved by others (for free) is that nobody blinkin' wants to without payment.
Just take what's free, or pay for what's not! I don't know why that's depressing at all.
Well you clearly feel strongly, but it came off as a bit harsh when the creator spent 12 years on these. How is this different than shareware or 30 day software trials or feature limited trials? Free stuff shows the quality, nature, general function. If you need more or need to use it commercially (to make money yourself), you have to pay to upgrade. Seems pretty much like this approach is analogous.
This is more of a reason. I've never heard of somebody writing software alone for 10 years and the releasing it.
If anything open source should encourage early open sourcing, doing work in the public, accepting contributions, etc.
I think it's more like a shareware, ie. not open source.
If anything open source should encourage early open sourcing, doing work in the public, accepting contributions, etc.
I think it's more like a shareware, ie. not open source.
> It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version.
Unfortunately this is frequently the case in programs and libraries: GraalVM has commercial-only optimizations, Qt has commercial licensing and proprietary modules, SQL/NoSQL/caching databases, search indexers, etc.
Unfortunately this is frequently the case in programs and libraries: GraalVM has commercial-only optimizations, Qt has commercial licensing and proprietary modules, SQL/NoSQL/caching databases, search indexers, etc.
> Finally, it's amazing to me as a programmer how commercial minded designers are in tech. It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version.
Open-core (open source with enhanced commercial version or commercial first-party add-ons) model is not uncommon in software (libraries, applications, etc.)
Neither is having a downstream commercial derivative vendor being a major contributor of work and resources to an open source project, which is essentially the same thing. (e.g., EnterpriseDB & Postgres.)
It's not something that the design industry does but software doesn't.
Open-core (open source with enhanced commercial version or commercial first-party add-ons) model is not uncommon in software (libraries, applications, etc.)
Neither is having a downstream commercial derivative vendor being a major contributor of work and resources to an open source project, which is essentially the same thing. (e.g., EnterpriseDB & Postgres.)
It's not something that the design industry does but software doesn't.
By the way, is it right to call these free sets "open-source". From the GPL:
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Unless the designers from Streamline are working directly with the SVGs, which is possible, but unlikely. To be truly open-source, it would have to include, for example, Illustrator files.
Otherwise, it is free, libre, permissive or just open. But I wouldn't call it open source unless we have the source.
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Unless the designers from Streamline are working directly with the SVGs, which is possible, but unlikely. To be truly open-source, it would have to include, for example, Illustrator files.
Otherwise, it is free, libre, permissive or just open. But I wouldn't call it open source unless we have the source.
Great point, actually source files are available in Figma
https://www.figma.com/@05466272_9382_4 as well as github
https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R...
>It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version.
We can say that this exists for the wireless networking drivers.
Generally IC is marketed with the features enabled with commercial driver, but shipped with open-source driver.
We can say that this exists for the wireless networking drivers.
Generally IC is marketed with the features enabled with commercial driver, but shipped with open-source driver.
> It would never occur to me to create a programming library where you have the 'basic' open source version and the 'optimized' commercial version.
It's occurred to plenty of others - look at the GPT-3 libraries or a few of the more advanced Deep Learning ones.
It's occurred to plenty of others - look at the GPT-3 libraries or a few of the more advanced Deep Learning ones.
Deep learning libraries are free; GPT-3 is not a library, it's a pretrained model. It's offered (for a fee) through an API. The company offering it (as much as I dislike their naming OpenAI, while being all but open) spent considerable amount of money training it, and is paying more in hardware costs for each instance you send through their API.
Actually, even though training models is very expensive, most models are even available online for free! A large collection is on HuggingFace (including GPT-2, which is essentially a smaller GPT-3), and there are studies proving that the quality is essentially the same. You can literally just download and run them, pretty much like... a free library.
Actually, even though training models is very expensive, most models are even available online for free! A large collection is on HuggingFace (including GPT-2, which is essentially a smaller GPT-3), and there are studies proving that the quality is essentially the same. You can literally just download and run them, pretty much like... a free library.
If this became popular and thus a marketplace it would have extra value being able to describe the you want an icon to represent 'idea' in the style of 'example' and be able to run a mini-contest with a winning submission purchase.
All 7 sets are open-source. They are here to stay :)
Where is the source code? Where do I open a PR to include a new icon or to fix one?
Good point, I don't think that you can include a new icon or fix one.
Source code is here https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R... and in https://www.figma.com/@05466272_9382_4.
Thank you for the feedback.
Source code is here https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R... and in https://www.figma.com/@05466272_9382_4.
Thank you for the feedback.
I assume you didn't write SVGs by hand for 10 years.
Publishing open source is like me publishing only the binaries of my tool and thn saying because it's free it's also 'open source'.
So, assuming you used some tool (Photoshop, Figma, etc) to export to SVG, open source would mean you publish the original files too.
Publishing open source is like me publishing only the binaries of my tool and thn saying because it's free it's also 'open source'.
So, assuming you used some tool (Photoshop, Figma, etc) to export to SVG, open source would mean you publish the original files too.
Exactly this. Whenever I tried to find some free fonts/icons/illustrations/sprites online, I always got tricked into one of those websites that have the word "free" in its title, but most of the content is locked behind a paywall.
Now I think about it, maybe we should have a blocklist that automatically removes results that invole this kind of deceptive behavior from search results.
Now I think about it, maybe we should have a blocklist that automatically removes results that invole this kind of deceptive behavior from search results.
Same with 3D assets. There is a website called Free 3D dot com, with page title "3D models for free" and when you search anything their result page literally says "Free 3D <search term> models" but every other result is actually a paid model with no way to filter.
The definition of open source is getting blurry day by day.
Just today I was looking for an infinite scroll JavaScript library and even though it's oss with 7k+ github star, you still need to buy a commercial licence to use it.
I really wish we had separate open source licence for such projects which require a commercial use licence.
(1) https://infinite-scroll.com/
Just today I was looking for an infinite scroll JavaScript library and even though it's oss with 7k+ github star, you still need to buy a commercial licence to use it.
I really wish we had separate open source licence for such projects which require a commercial use licence.
(1) https://infinite-scroll.com/
The definition of open source requires that you must be allowed to use the software for commercial purposes. While this library does have a commercial license available, it is dual licensed under the GPL 3.0, which is an open source license that allows for commercial use. Therefore it is open source, and of course allows you to use the product in a commercial product, provided you comply with the GPL.
It's a GPL library, which is a copyleft license that actually predates the usage of the term "open source". Just because it's on npm/github doesn't mean you don't need to check the type of license.
It’s a bit confusing but it reads to me that the code is GPL3, so whats the problem?
Open source doesn't mean, that you can use it however you wish to use it. It means that the source is open. This allows for audits and reading the code, perhaps knowing what the tool / library actually does. What you are allowed to do with it however, is a different matter.
If you are looking for something with more ethics and agenda, maybe you are looking for free/libre software.
If you are looking for something with more ethics and agenda, maybe you are looking for free/libre software.
"It means that the source is open." -> Nope.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition for instance: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition for instance: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."
I stand corrected. The differences do matter though. See for example the restrictions of this project.
I love these icons, great work.
I also found the licensing confusing. You say it's under CC 4.0 but don't specify. When digging deeper it appears you mean CC BY 4.0, but then you link to another page that places specific restrictions on the type of attribution, which CC BY does not do.
What's more, some of these restrictions are onerous, e.g., requiring attribution in an image's text description or requiring a link to your page. Again, that is inconsistent with the license you claim to use, and what's more is you don't have a policy posted on referrer tracking, so for all we know you're essentially requiring telemetry.
In my estimation, you won't get a lot of people using these until you clear up the licensing. While your icons are beautiful (again, great work!) it isn't worth the legal risk.
I also found the licensing confusing. You say it's under CC 4.0 but don't specify. When digging deeper it appears you mean CC BY 4.0, but then you link to another page that places specific restrictions on the type of attribution, which CC BY does not do.
What's more, some of these restrictions are onerous, e.g., requiring attribution in an image's text description or requiring a link to your page. Again, that is inconsistent with the license you claim to use, and what's more is you don't have a policy posted on referrer tracking, so for all we know you're essentially requiring telemetry.
In my estimation, you won't get a lot of people using these until you clear up the licensing. While your icons are beautiful (again, great work!) it isn't worth the legal risk.
Oh no, I'll get this fixed asap.
Those 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets are all licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.
[deleted]
I'm a bit puzzled. To use the full set commercially, do I need to pay a subscription as long as I'm using them, or only as long as I still need new icons?
Only for new sets, but don't be fooled. If I remember correctly, they have limits on how many icons and illustrations you can download every day. So you actually pay huge amount of money (minimum of $228), for small subset of icons that you managed to download. You can't download entire Streamline set and use it within your library.
Streamline is good, I considered to use it, but it's way way more expensive than any other "Pro" icon pack on the market.
Thanks! Yes, we have a fair usage policy that most people never hit unless you're abusing the platform.
~~I see the catch. Billed yearly. So the minimum you pay for access is $240.~~
~~That may not be much for the quality you are getting, but my fontawesome infinite access pack was a lot cheaper.~~
Edit: This was wrong. The catch is that you can only download 100 icons at a time, and you can’t download any more when your subscription expires. The system tries to detects bots, so you cannot automatically download the full set.
~~That may not be much for the quality you are getting, but my fontawesome infinite access pack was a lot cheaper.~~
Edit: This was wrong. The catch is that you can only download 100 icons at a time, and you can’t download any more when your subscription expires. The system tries to detects bots, so you cannot automatically download the full set.
You can purchase for 1 month too. No need to subscribe for annual pricing if you don't need icons or illustrations throughout the year.
Our design process is incredibly intensive. https://medium.com/streamline-icons/create-more-beautiful-an...
Which is why a lot of folks choose us over other icon libraries: https://streamlinehq.com/wall-of-love
If you need Purchasing Power Parity, please reach out to [email protected].
Our design process is incredibly intensive. https://medium.com/streamline-icons/create-more-beautiful-an...
Which is why a lot of folks choose us over other icon libraries: https://streamlinehq.com/wall-of-love
If you need Purchasing Power Parity, please reach out to [email protected].
Haha, no need. I can afford it (if I wanted to badly enough).
Right now it’s at the edge of “I need an actual use case for these things, instead of buying them just in case.”
I completely missed the monthly option! Buying them once for $39 and them using them forever feels shifty though. At least if I paid $240 it’d feel sort of fair ;)
What is up with that 100 icons per project though? If I’m paying for icons I want to have unlimited use out of them (especially on websites), not an arbitrary limit. I doubt I’d ever use more than 100 per site, or that you’d enforce that limit, but even if it’s irrational it still bothers me.
Right now it’s at the edge of “I need an actual use case for these things, instead of buying them just in case.”
I completely missed the monthly option! Buying them once for $39 and them using them forever feels shifty though. At least if I paid $240 it’d feel sort of fair ;)
What is up with that 100 icons per project though? If I’m paying for icons I want to have unlimited use out of them (especially on websites), not an arbitrary limit. I doubt I’d ever use more than 100 per site, or that you’d enforce that limit, but even if it’s irrational it still bothers me.
Make this a service that’s integrated into development tools and only bills for the icons that land into production (noninvasively by scanning them at CI stage for example) and you could get business. As of now, the price/icon is only attractive to enterprise who typically already need to design their own icons to establish identity. So you’re left with small scale who may just skip your offering for a completely free icon set.
Only if you need new icons.
Full details here: https://intercom.help/streamlinehq/en/articles/5354366-strea...
We add new icons and sets every week.
Full details here: https://intercom.help/streamlinehq/en/articles/5354366-strea...
We add new icons and sets every week.
Why is this open-source?
Neither is the source of the (free) icons available, nor is the license (CC 4.0) approved by OSI as "open source".
Don't get me wrong I am not an evangelist praising the OSI. But not even having the source (figma/sketch files, repository) available definitely abuses the term open source.
Neither is the source of the (free) icons available, nor is the license (CC 4.0) approved by OSI as "open source".
Don't get me wrong I am not an evangelist praising the OSI. But not even having the source (figma/sketch files, repository) available definitely abuses the term open source.
Figma, github repositories are available.
https://www.figma.com/community/file/1063138616574654762
https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R...
We still think they are open-source but totally okay with us having different opinions.
We still think they are open-source but totally okay with us having different opinions.
Put links to the source on your website. I searched for multiple minutes and haven't found anything.
CC-BY 4.0 is a perfectly good open license for non-source-code. OSI lists licenses for code, which is why it doesn’t list CC 4.0 licenses.
Finally, go check out the license for the OSI website. It’s CC-BY 4.0, same as this.
It’s not even at the degree of sleight of hand as treating dy/dx as a fraction. It’s perfectly cromulent, not abusive of “open source” and perfectly in line with the principles.
I know the HN community is huge on being negative and stuff but come on, man. If you’re going to be all “abuses the term open source” and shit like that, at least bother to have some basic knowledge.
Finally, go check out the license for the OSI website. It’s CC-BY 4.0, same as this.
It’s not even at the degree of sleight of hand as treating dy/dx as a fraction. It’s perfectly cromulent, not abusive of “open source” and perfectly in line with the principles.
I know the HN community is huge on being negative and stuff but come on, man. If you’re going to be all “abuses the term open source” and shit like that, at least bother to have some basic knowledge.
Thank you. This was a bloodbath.
Wait, are the commercially licensed icon sets also open-source? If not, then the title is too misleading IMO. I don't think it took you 12 years to create the free icons right? It took you 12 years to create all the icons (free and commercial).
We create, refine and improve our icons over time. Some of the open source icons have been improved 4 times over the course of 12 years. Not all sets are open-source.
I find great that it is a paid asset, specially seeing such a huge library of icons. However why a subscription model? For this price I guess only mid large studios can afford them, and they may compare it to other asset libraries like the ones from adobe, etc.
Also it is not clear to me what is the license, if I create a product for a customer and I stop the subscription I guess this product can still use the icons I put them there.
Anyway, congratulations for the product, I bookmark it.
Also it is not clear to me what is the license, if I create a product for a customer and I stop the subscription I guess this product can still use the icons I put them there.
Anyway, congratulations for the product, I bookmark it.
1. Subscription: Moving to a subscription was a hard decision and we thought about it for 2 years, but it allowed us to focus on producing more content and improving workflow features like a figma plugin, global color editor, CSS color editor etc. I wrote all about it in a Medium post.
2. Thanks for letting me know that the licensing isn't as clear. You're absolutely right in assuming that your customers can continue using the icons even if you cancel the subscription.
2. Thanks for letting me know that the licensing isn't as clear. You're absolutely right in assuming that your customers can continue using the icons even if you cancel the subscription.
Please also make the open-source licensing clearer. I couldn't figure out which license they are actually under. It refers to CC 4.0, but creative commons currently has 6 different licenses in version 4.0.
We had licensed the 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
I'll take a look what are the other 6 licenses and make our licensing information clearer. Thank you. I appreicate this.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
I'll take a look what are the other 6 licenses and make our licensing information clearer. Thank you. I appreicate this.
Lovely. Can you share some numbers about revenue? I'm really curious
I'm not sure about the subscription model. Everything is a subscription these days and I think it's a bad thing because if you've already made the icons then just set a fixed price. Made new icons? create a new version and charge for it.
I agree with your emotion, as an individual I also worry about the trend away from ownership. But this is targeted at companies, who definitely need to be able to pay the fee, right? (even tiny ones)
For comparison, we pay Hoefler a similar recurring fee for using one font on our website and in our app. I think it's fair. Designing good fonts or icon sets is hard work, and a few hundred euros a year for what's a fundamental part of our marketing and image is a pretty good deal.
For comparison, we pay Hoefler a similar recurring fee for using one font on our website and in our app. I think it's fair. Designing good fonts or icon sets is hard work, and a few hundred euros a year for what's a fundamental part of our marketing and image is a pretty good deal.
One thing is whether they can pay, the other is the process - especially for big orgs each bill has a huge overheaf to check and make the payment, anf the responsible teams have to justify the expense regularly.
So badly built red tape at huge orgs is why individual designers should give their work away for free? Come on.
[deleted]
Any way to download the whole set?
What keeps me using Font Awesome is the npm packages and ease of integration into frontend frameworks. This set it seems you need to download each icon you want to use, copy into project &c.
What keeps me using Font Awesome is the npm packages and ease of integration into frontend frameworks. This set it seems you need to download each icon you want to use, copy into project &c.
We did have an NPM package a few months ago but had to deprecate it.
You can search and multi-select the icons you need.
Here's a quick gif on how to do that: https://twitter.com/streamlinehq/status/1488139311128391683
Here's a quick gif on how to do that: https://twitter.com/streamlinehq/status/1488139311128391683
[deleted]
Congrats, 12 years is a long time. Hope you don't need to start over seeing as there are diskette and even tape icons that might cause millenials and up to scratch heads. But then it looks you're enjoying finding new graphic representations for UI concepts ;)
I work a lot with icons, even submitted some of my own design to materialdesignicons set.
These sets look nice. However, that's the only good thing about them. Subscription model is ridiculous for this sort of things, licensing is unclear. So I'll pass on using them.
These sets look nice. However, that's the only good thing about them. Subscription model is ridiculous for this sort of things, licensing is unclear. So I'll pass on using them.
I don't think the author understands what open source is.
Really? No font version or single svg file with #ids pointers?
Hi Vincent. These look great. I really like the soft edges and curves, subtle but not too subtle as to make them look comic-book like. Very nice
Thank you! <3
Congrats, all these icons and illustrations look great! I have a question, what's the difference for example between "UI Icons Line - Free" and "UI Icons Line - Pro" when using them for free? I think I'm not understanding the license, I could download icons from both and put the attribution the same way, couldn't I?
Great question!
UI Icons Line - Free is licensed under Licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0.
UI Icons Line - Pro has more icons than the free counterpart. You can only download low-res PNGs for free, actually. See the part about free license limitations here: https://intercom.help/streamlinehq/en/articles/5354376-strea....
UI Icons Line - Pro has more icons than the free counterpart. You can only download low-res PNGs for free, actually. See the part about free license limitations here: https://intercom.help/streamlinehq/en/articles/5354376-strea....
This is nothing but an ad.
Nice design but how do I use your icons? Do I manually have to download every single SVG? You seem to have a collection feature, which requires some mouse acrobatics and a lot of clicks and patience, but even there it's not possible to export multiple icons to an iconfont whatsoever.
You can multi-select and download too or get it via github/figma.
https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R...
https://www.figma.com/community/file/1063138616574654762
We still recommend using the app just because we keep improving icons frequently.
https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R...
https://www.figma.com/community/file/1063138616574654762
We still recommend using the app just because we keep improving icons frequently.
May I ask why you can't download it from your collection page, it would make the most sense to me.
Thanks for the links! I didn't even know it was hosted on github as your main site doesn't link to it.
I tried the Streamline Icons plugin for figma, but it doesn't work: "Oh no! An error has occurred. The dev team has been notified."
Thanks for the links! I didn't even know it was hosted on github as your main site doesn't link to it.
I tried the Streamline Icons plugin for figma, but it doesn't work: "Oh no! An error has occurred. The dev team has been notified."
Agree, we should add the links on the main site so it's clearer. But, it seems like a step back if you need to use figma file or github to search when you can use our app.
The figma plugin works on my end. I've asked the dev team to look into it but in the meantime can you recheck on your end if the error persists?
The figma plugin works on my end. I've asked the dev team to look into it but in the meantime can you recheck on your end if the error persists?
For anybody just looking for nice icons instead of a open-source discussion i can also recommend https://icons8.com. They are the same freemium model as these
Could be a very interesting collection.
What it really needs is an search function or tag name autocomplete. I'm not about to 'browse' through thousands of tags to find relevant ones. Cmd-F helps, but why is that necessary?
What it really needs is an search function or tag name autocomplete. I'm not about to 'browse' through thousands of tags to find relevant ones. Cmd-F helps, but why is that necessary?
there is a search function right up at the top. There's global search and individual set search available. Are you not able to find that?
What I love about Streamline is consistency. Choose a set and it has enough icons or illustrations to fill a website of any size. At the same time there are numerous sets so you can find one for any use case.
Thanks. Please consider indexing your sets on iconduck.com
It took almost exactly 1 hour to make each icon. 12*365*24/104600 = ~1.005 (1 hour and ~18 seconds)
Love that you did the math. This is the kind of content I come to HN for.
Although, I'd do it differently since I didn't work for 24 hours a day. I'll also account for our open-source illustration and emoji sets.
So, (12 years * 12 months * 4 weeks * 40 hour work week )/(104600 icons + 2322 emoji + 24863 illustrations).
Streamline now has a team of 15 people so I'm not the only one doing it all by myself :)
Although, I'd do it differently since I didn't work for 24 hours a day. I'll also account for our open-source illustration and emoji sets.
So, (12 years * 12 months * 4 weeks * 40 hour work week )/(104600 icons + 2322 emoji + 24863 illustrations).
Streamline now has a team of 15 people so I'm not the only one doing it all by myself :)
This is really nice looking icon set. material and FA look too generic these days.
Thanks for creating this.
Thanks for creating this.
Wow, they all look very good. I totally love the streamline freehand icon set, bravo!
Thank you! Freehand, Cyber and Pixel are a few of the really unique styles.
How is this Open Source? These are proprietary icons being peddled as open source.
your "unlock 120k icons" prompt covers some of the text at the very bottom of the page (as in if you've reached the scroll end), maybe you should add some margin/padding at the bottom
I like your mini icons, very nice. I currently use Symbolicons.
Which open source license are they released under?
Those 5 icon sets, Bangalore and Freemoji sets are all licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0 which lets you use them as you want.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Other premium icon sets aren't open-source, so using them would require a backlink or a purchase.
What does Open Source even mean in this context? To me this would mean getting the source files for the icons.
[deleted]
Creative Commons licenses aren't open source licences. Your phrasing is misleading. They are however copyleft as they allow for redistribution and modification and this is the word you should be using.
CC BY is not a copyleft license. Copyleft is explicitly about the requirement to use the same license for modifications, which is present in CC BY-SA, but not in CC BY.
CC BY is recognized by the FSF as a free license and by Debian as DFSG-free. While it's not listed by the OSI as open-source, I think that's mostly because it's not a code license. So I don't think that calling it a open source license is misleading.
Of course, for open source icons I would actually expect the source files to be open...
CC BY is recognized by the FSF as a free license and by Debian as DFSG-free. While it's not listed by the OSI as open-source, I think that's mostly because it's not a code license. So I don't think that calling it a open source license is misleading.
Of course, for open source icons I would actually expect the source files to be open...
Where is the source for the icons and what format is it in?
Would a figma file and a github file help?
https://www.figma.com/community/file/1063138616574654762
https://github.com/webalys-hq/streamline-vectors/blob/main/R...
So it is open source but has a dependency on the proprietary Figma tool for editing the source?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anyone know how we can change the title though?
Nice work! Ignore the "open source" puritans.
Oops, the HN audience really likes icons.
> 1. Can't pronounce them,
In the case of Unicode, you can use the code name
> 2. type them in text,
In the case of Unicode, you have the code point
> 3. send them in text email,
Same as #2
> 4. spell them,
Same as #1 (though why you'd want to spell a glyph is beyond me)
> 5. sort them,
Same as #2
> 6. look them up in a dictionary
Databases for Unicode and icons already exist
> 7. search on them.
Same as #6
> 8. Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean.
Here is the clincher for why icons have become so widespread: they're actually easier for international audiences to determine what they mean because they illustrate an action rather than describing that action in a specific language.
They're also easier to parse for anyone with reading difficulties like dyslexia.
There's a reason traffic signs employ iconography. It's actually easier for the lowest common denominator to read and understand. Plus they have a fantastic benefit of conveying information concisely. Another example of that latter point if the iconography on media players (the pause, play, et al buttons).
> At my Web site, I have no icons and, instead, for links use words typed using the Roman alphabet, words in English, words that have meanings in standard dictionaries, can be spelled, typed, etc.
As with most things, it depends largely on your audience/use cases. Your site might not benefit from them but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit.
> So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards.
People who cannot read English might disagree with you there ;)
In the case of Unicode, you can use the code name
> 2. type them in text,
In the case of Unicode, you have the code point
> 3. send them in text email,
Same as #2
> 4. spell them,
Same as #1 (though why you'd want to spell a glyph is beyond me)
> 5. sort them,
Same as #2
> 6. look them up in a dictionary
Databases for Unicode and icons already exist
> 7. search on them.
Same as #6
> 8. Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean.
Here is the clincher for why icons have become so widespread: they're actually easier for international audiences to determine what they mean because they illustrate an action rather than describing that action in a specific language.
They're also easier to parse for anyone with reading difficulties like dyslexia.
There's a reason traffic signs employ iconography. It's actually easier for the lowest common denominator to read and understand. Plus they have a fantastic benefit of conveying information concisely. Another example of that latter point if the iconography on media players (the pause, play, et al buttons).
> At my Web site, I have no icons and, instead, for links use words typed using the Roman alphabet, words in English, words that have meanings in standard dictionaries, can be spelled, typed, etc.
As with most things, it depends largely on your audience/use cases. Your site might not benefit from them but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit.
> So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards.
People who cannot read English might disagree with you there ;)
>4. spell them
Coincidentally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30357706
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22932918/opera-browser-em...
>for instance, singer Kesha’s Yat page is the emojis Rainbow Rocket Alien (editor note: Vox’s CMS doesn’t allow rendering of emojis)
It seems to me as "pure folly", but what do I know, definitely not a country for old men.
Coincidentally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30357706
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22932918/opera-browser-em...
>for instance, singer Kesha’s Yat page is the emojis Rainbow Rocket Alien (editor note: Vox’s CMS doesn’t allow rendering of emojis)
It seems to me as "pure folly", but what do I know, definitely not a country for old men.
The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons.
For people who don't know English, between an undefined icon and an English word they don't know, which is easier to decode, get defined? The English word can be defined in a dictionary and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Nothing similar is available for icons.
For people who don't know English, between an undefined icon and an English word they don't know, which is easier to decode, get defined? The English word can be defined in a dictionary and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Nothing similar is available for icons.
> The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons.
I saw. But the point you made was far more generalised so I gave examples of where icons can have that feature.
> The English word can be defined in a dictionary
Which is still no use if you cannot read English
> and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet.
Automated translations are usually terrible. They’re just about passable for larger volumes of text because you can figure out what the article is generally about. But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation
> Nothing similar is available for icons.
You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.
Sure shit icons do exist but then so do shit labels for actions that don’t describe the action well. But you cannot form an argument where you’re comparing the worst of icons against the best of written labels. That’s simply not a fair basis for an argument.
You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely. And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties. In fact you seem only focused on web site design while making a sweeping statement that all icons are bad.
Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design. Or on why road signs are the way they are. Or even just an article on why the media glyphs were invented. You’re quoting your own opinion but here but there’s been decades of research into this very topic.
I saw. But the point you made was far more generalised so I gave examples of where icons can have that feature.
> The English word can be defined in a dictionary
Which is still no use if you cannot read English
> and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet.
Automated translations are usually terrible. They’re just about passable for larger volumes of text because you can figure out what the article is generally about. But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation
> Nothing similar is available for icons.
You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.
Sure shit icons do exist but then so do shit labels for actions that don’t describe the action well. But you cannot form an argument where you’re comparing the worst of icons against the best of written labels. That’s simply not a fair basis for an argument.
You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely. And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties. In fact you seem only focused on web site design while making a sweeping statement that all icons are bad.
Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design. Or on why road signs are the way they are. Or even just an article on why the media glyphs were invented. You’re quoting your own opinion but here but there’s been decades of research into this very topic.
I was responding to the OP (original post) with its several examples of icons and mention of hundreds or thousands more. It looked like the context was clear -- Web pages.
Then my context was also Web pages and not all uses of icons. I certainly was not talking about highway road signs.
> But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation.
For English words, the meanings are in dictionaries and easily elsewhere online, e.g., Google.
E.g., when I was reading some old math in some old German, I just used Cassell's dictionary between English and German. So, I would take some one word in German, go to the dictionary, and get the definition in English. So, my input to the dictionary was just one word, not a lot of context. Worked fine. So, I was able to read the book on differential geometry by Václav Hlavatý (I was taking a reading course from him -- he had helped Al) translated from his Czech to some pompous old German -- I found the old German difficult reading and so did a fellow math grad student from Germany. Still Cassell's worked fine.
But if need context, then take the English definition, some dozens of words, paste that into Google Translate, and get back some dozens of words in Czech, German, French, Swedish, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, maybe even Japanese, Korean, ....
Besides, for the context of the Web page links, they are nearly always just 1-3 words and really simple, so simple that the translation should be effective. E.g., there are billions of people on the Internet often reading English words for links, and those billions have to include kids in Southeast Asia, etc. with cheap Android smart phones -- they seem to be able to work with English words for links. Right, they also work with icons, but there they get to have their mouse hover over an icon and get the corresponding 1-3 English words.
Net, I contend that for English speakers, or readers, or not, for links on Web pages, 1-3 simple English words are more effective than icons.
For me, with icons I have to hover, and I don't like that; with no icons and the few English words instead, I don't have the delay of hovering.
> You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.
On "meaningful" I essentially don't agree: For more, to me the idea, claim, suggestion, assumption that icons, e.g., as in the OP, have obvious meaning is outrageous -- I'm torqued. E.g., back to the OP, several icons were shown, and, flatly, bluntly, frankly, I have no, none, nichts, nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero understanding, knowledge, or even a guess what any of the them was supposed to mean -- to me, "meaningful" was just not there, quite the opposite, to me they were flatly meaningless. Then the OP mentioned many dozens more icons, from lots of long, hard work developing icons. Many dozens -- gads, and some people will be pushing those meaningless little cartoons onto me and pressing me to understand them, dozens of them. So, I'm torqued. Like flies at a picnic where I need a spray can of bug juice.
If you see those little cartoons as having meaning, go ahead -- I won't agree. E.g., what the !@#$%^&()_ does a stack of three horizontal bars mean????? What about a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the right over a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the left??? "Meaning"? Not there for me, and I can't look it up in a dictionary, pronounce it, spell it, type it into text (e.g., here), ....
E.g., the Web site of my bank has me log in, and for that they have essentially an HTML "single line text box" control* for my password. Well, bless the hearts of their hard working JavaScript/CSS programmers, inside that text box on the right end they have some icon, some squiggle, some tiny cartoon, some I don't know what the heck. I put up with that meaningless nonsense for some months and on another issue gave some feedback to the bank and mentioned the obscure, meaningless squiggle. Eventually I looked closely and guessed: Sooooo, there was a cartoon of an eye and then there was a diagonal line through the eye. It was really small for a cartoon, about the size of a single character. Soooo, the guess is that the icon was to say that anything entered into this single line text box would not be visible. This is BANKING, about money, and about PASSWORDS, and for such serious work I'm supposed to like such obscure, cartoon squiggle nonsense? I'm torqued but guessed the whole intention of the squiggle was nearly meaningless and harmless and put up with it. But, we already know that, that single line text boxes for passwords have a line of asterisks that from long usage have come to mean that a password entered into that text box will not be visible.
> You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely.
I do not agree: To me, there is nothing, nichts, nil, nada "clearly" about icons. A few icons, say, fewer than a dozen for all of the Web, might be tolerable, but the OP was going for many dozens -- no way can they have immediate, obvious, intrinsicly clear meanings. E.g., for at least months, maybe years, I looked at that house icon that Firefox displays without knowing what it was for. Looking again, it looks mostly like a dog house. Why a dog house? Finally, on some other issue, from some changes in some Firefox update (start of an unanesthetized root canal procedure) that broke some of my macros I spent most of an afternoon working on Web browser system management mud wrestling and by accident found some actual English text that explained the dog house. Went for at least months, maybe years, before discovering what this dog house meant -- nothing "clear" about it.
Okay, here is the situation from the invasion of icons in computing: Icons are little cartoons with immediate, intrinsic meaning that is obscure down to nothing. But icons are now quite popular in software that has a graphical user interface (GUI). In relatively well done software, can hover over an icon and in a few seconds get back a good explanation in a few, usually, English words. So each computer program, Web browser, Web site, etc. can have its own icons. That there are millions of Web sites, each able to use its own icons for its own purposes, just ignore that fact. So, get to learn the icons on the Web pages for one bank, another bank, an Internet service provider, Windows, each Windows application with a GUI, Adobe's Acrobat, each DVD video player, the software for each printer, the programs WinZip, some cases of disk file backup software, and did I mention some millions of Web sites? And from the OP, have many dozens of icons can use. So, just have this ocean of icons to learn -- likely already know a natural language that displays fine with the Roman alphabet, but, still, have to learn the icons or at least frequently hover. My reaction is: Icons are a big step backwards from the progress of the Roman alphabet, and we should stay with the Roman alphabet.
> And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties.
And for those people just why will a cartoon be easier to read than a single English word? Just tell such a person that that word is an icon and they will do fine, okay?
> Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design.
No need: I'm just responding to the OP and their efforts to create many dozens of icons for use on Web pages. I'm not responding to road signs. Besides, in my area, on the Interstate highways, when there is some message to be communicated, they use big signs with text in English and no icons.
Net, I believe that for links on Web pages we should resist more icons and, instead, stay with the Roman alphabet and, usually, English words.
We don't agree.
Then my context was also Web pages and not all uses of icons. I certainly was not talking about highway road signs.
> But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation.
For English words, the meanings are in dictionaries and easily elsewhere online, e.g., Google.
E.g., when I was reading some old math in some old German, I just used Cassell's dictionary between English and German. So, I would take some one word in German, go to the dictionary, and get the definition in English. So, my input to the dictionary was just one word, not a lot of context. Worked fine. So, I was able to read the book on differential geometry by Václav Hlavatý (I was taking a reading course from him -- he had helped Al) translated from his Czech to some pompous old German -- I found the old German difficult reading and so did a fellow math grad student from Germany. Still Cassell's worked fine.
But if need context, then take the English definition, some dozens of words, paste that into Google Translate, and get back some dozens of words in Czech, German, French, Swedish, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, maybe even Japanese, Korean, ....
Besides, for the context of the Web page links, they are nearly always just 1-3 words and really simple, so simple that the translation should be effective. E.g., there are billions of people on the Internet often reading English words for links, and those billions have to include kids in Southeast Asia, etc. with cheap Android smart phones -- they seem to be able to work with English words for links. Right, they also work with icons, but there they get to have their mouse hover over an icon and get the corresponding 1-3 English words.
Net, I contend that for English speakers, or readers, or not, for links on Web pages, 1-3 simple English words are more effective than icons.
For me, with icons I have to hover, and I don't like that; with no icons and the few English words instead, I don't have the delay of hovering.
> You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.
On "meaningful" I essentially don't agree: For more, to me the idea, claim, suggestion, assumption that icons, e.g., as in the OP, have obvious meaning is outrageous -- I'm torqued. E.g., back to the OP, several icons were shown, and, flatly, bluntly, frankly, I have no, none, nichts, nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero understanding, knowledge, or even a guess what any of the them was supposed to mean -- to me, "meaningful" was just not there, quite the opposite, to me they were flatly meaningless. Then the OP mentioned many dozens more icons, from lots of long, hard work developing icons. Many dozens -- gads, and some people will be pushing those meaningless little cartoons onto me and pressing me to understand them, dozens of them. So, I'm torqued. Like flies at a picnic where I need a spray can of bug juice.
If you see those little cartoons as having meaning, go ahead -- I won't agree. E.g., what the !@#$%^&()_ does a stack of three horizontal bars mean????? What about a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the right over a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the left??? "Meaning"? Not there for me, and I can't look it up in a dictionary, pronounce it, spell it, type it into text (e.g., here), ....
E.g., the Web site of my bank has me log in, and for that they have essentially an HTML "single line text box" control* for my password. Well, bless the hearts of their hard working JavaScript/CSS programmers, inside that text box on the right end they have some icon, some squiggle, some tiny cartoon, some I don't know what the heck. I put up with that meaningless nonsense for some months and on another issue gave some feedback to the bank and mentioned the obscure, meaningless squiggle. Eventually I looked closely and guessed: Sooooo, there was a cartoon of an eye and then there was a diagonal line through the eye. It was really small for a cartoon, about the size of a single character. Soooo, the guess is that the icon was to say that anything entered into this single line text box would not be visible. This is BANKING, about money, and about PASSWORDS, and for such serious work I'm supposed to like such obscure, cartoon squiggle nonsense? I'm torqued but guessed the whole intention of the squiggle was nearly meaningless and harmless and put up with it. But, we already know that, that single line text boxes for passwords have a line of asterisks that from long usage have come to mean that a password entered into that text box will not be visible.
> You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely.
I do not agree: To me, there is nothing, nichts, nil, nada "clearly" about icons. A few icons, say, fewer than a dozen for all of the Web, might be tolerable, but the OP was going for many dozens -- no way can they have immediate, obvious, intrinsicly clear meanings. E.g., for at least months, maybe years, I looked at that house icon that Firefox displays without knowing what it was for. Looking again, it looks mostly like a dog house. Why a dog house? Finally, on some other issue, from some changes in some Firefox update (start of an unanesthetized root canal procedure) that broke some of my macros I spent most of an afternoon working on Web browser system management mud wrestling and by accident found some actual English text that explained the dog house. Went for at least months, maybe years, before discovering what this dog house meant -- nothing "clear" about it.
Okay, here is the situation from the invasion of icons in computing: Icons are little cartoons with immediate, intrinsic meaning that is obscure down to nothing. But icons are now quite popular in software that has a graphical user interface (GUI). In relatively well done software, can hover over an icon and in a few seconds get back a good explanation in a few, usually, English words. So each computer program, Web browser, Web site, etc. can have its own icons. That there are millions of Web sites, each able to use its own icons for its own purposes, just ignore that fact. So, get to learn the icons on the Web pages for one bank, another bank, an Internet service provider, Windows, each Windows application with a GUI, Adobe's Acrobat, each DVD video player, the software for each printer, the programs WinZip, some cases of disk file backup software, and did I mention some millions of Web sites? And from the OP, have many dozens of icons can use. So, just have this ocean of icons to learn -- likely already know a natural language that displays fine with the Roman alphabet, but, still, have to learn the icons or at least frequently hover. My reaction is: Icons are a big step backwards from the progress of the Roman alphabet, and we should stay with the Roman alphabet.
> And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties.
And for those people just why will a cartoon be easier to read than a single English word? Just tell such a person that that word is an icon and they will do fine, okay?
> Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design.
No need: I'm just responding to the OP and their efforts to create many dozens of icons for use on Web pages. I'm not responding to road signs. Besides, in my area, on the Interstate highways, when there is some message to be communicated, they use big signs with text in English and no icons.
Net, I believe that for links on Web pages we should resist more icons and, instead, stay with the Roman alphabet and, usually, English words.
We don't agree.
"Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean."
Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means?
"So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards."
Backward and forward with respect to what? Writing language down in an alphabet is more precise, but only other speakers of the same languge will be able to communicate with you. Symbolic writing is less precise, but more intelligible to people who do not speak your language.
Would China hold together if they didn't have a common symbolic writing system? The languages (or dialects) spoken in the country are very different from one another.
Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means?
"So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards."
Backward and forward with respect to what? Writing language down in an alphabet is more precise, but only other speakers of the same languge will be able to communicate with you. Symbolic writing is less precise, but more intelligible to people who do not speak your language.
Would China hold together if they didn't have a common symbolic writing system? The languages (or dialects) spoken in the country are very different from one another.
> Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means?
But that's the problem. You don't know what the icon for Wi-Fi means, until you do.
But that's the problem. You don't know what the icon for Wi-Fi means, until you do.
Same with the alphabet. Someone has to teach you what A means and how is it pronounced.
That is quite a normal task in human civilization, we do not come out of the womb pre-programmed to be literate.
That is quite a normal task in human civilization, we do not come out of the womb pre-programmed to be literate.
I told someone who uses a phone most hours of the day for decades to click the hamburger menu. "What?" I said the 3 lines at the top in the corner. "Oh wtf? I never knew there was a menu there."
In marketing the goal is to, every step of the way, not lose customers. Basically: You want to sell stuff or attempt to teach stuff? If a simple hamburger already is < 100% everything else must be terrible.
More than 0% wont be able to see the little house as a link to the front page while something like "home" would work for an English audience 100% of the time.
In marketing the goal is to, every step of the way, not lose customers. Basically: You want to sell stuff or attempt to teach stuff? If a simple hamburger already is < 100% everything else must be terrible.
More than 0% wont be able to see the little house as a link to the front page while something like "home" would work for an English audience 100% of the time.
And for audiences who don't know English, "home" can be translated to their language.
Recently I saw a claim that the most difficult language in the world to learn was Mandarin and the reason was the written version is all icons.
But we never took that step forward fully. We are constantly using icons in real life (trafic signs is one example) when we want to communicate small dose of information, to everyone, in short amount of time. That's why we use icons - changing taskbar into list of words works only until there is enough space, and even then is more annoying then just finding instantly recognizable picture.
The OP was talking about hundreds or thousands of icons -- tough to have an easy way to have meanings for all of those. Also the OP showed some icons -- it was not at all obvious what the meanings were.
Right, for an icon, commonly, hovering the mouse over the icon causes the display of a word or two or so of English that defines the icon. So, I'm suggesting, just use the word or two of English instead of the icon.
Right, for an icon, commonly, hovering the mouse over the icon causes the display of a word or two or so of English that defines the icon. So, I'm suggesting, just use the word or two of English instead of the icon.
Congrats!!
I found this annoying and spammy. It took me almost a dozen clicks to find out where to buy the premium license, and there it says "contact us for a quote" instead of saying what the price is. I'll defer to others about whether this type of post (on the other site we used to call it a slashvertisement) is appropriate for HN but I'm personally not keen on it. I think if I wanted this type of product I could find it myself.
Are we looking at the same website? There's a big green button at the bottom of the page that takes you to a pricing page with three pricing tiers and the price in USD.
Oh it didn't even occur to me to click that popup since I always ignore those when I don't bother to element-block them. I found my way to the home page and clicked the premium license button at the bottom, which was the first link I was able to find about getting a paid product instead of a limited gratis one. That appears to be something different than the regular subscription though. Whose price is misleadingly quoted $19 or $29 monthly, when those are only for annual subscriptions, and if you actually want to pay monthly then it's 2x as much from what I can tell. Anyway, still annoying.
There‘s nothing on mobile.
"UPGRADE" button. Not obvious but it's there
Ah OK, well OP is in the thread somewhere so maybe they'll take note and update it on mobile.
the web is for computers :)
[deleted]
What? Doesnt mobile dominate web traffic now days?
believe it or not, but mobile phones are small computers nowadays
We didn't fully optimize it for mobile but you should be able to see the pricing here https://streamlinehq.com/pricing or by using the desktop mode on mobile. Just tap on the triple dot menu at the top right of the screen and enter the desktop mode.
It seems like you also didn't optimize it for desktop. There is an annoying "Unlock the world’s largest vector sets" message constantly floating at the bottom of the viewport, obscuring the descriptions of the icon sets in the very last row. There's not even a way to make this floating thing go away!
Right click and select "Block element" if you have ublock origin installed. Or click "Inspect", navigate up the inspection window til you find the html element wrapping that box, and click "delete". The first way is better since it removes it from all the pages instead of just what you are currently looking at.
Would you be able to give a ballpark figure for the extended licenses? I'd rather not get into a sales funnel before knowing what kind of numbers I should expect. In particular, I'm interested in being able to use the full set of icons rather than being limited to 100/project (and having to track that).
[deleted]
[deleted]
The title is quite disingenuous. They make it sound like it's someone personal open source project, when clearly it's a commercial venture ran by multiple people. This title should be changed.
Vincent here, maker of Streamline 4.0. I spent the past 12 years perfecting icons and making the largest sets on the internet.
The 5 open-source sets are:
1. User Interface Icon Set (1,000 icons)
2. Streamline Flex (500 icons)
3. Streamline Flat (500 icons)
4. Covid Icons (147 icons)
5. Nasty Icons (45 icons)