The small 14x16 icons when loading an image and when an error occured (e.g. 404 file not found) are too similar. The error picture has a white "crack" in it, but it's very hard to tell the difference from that icon and the "image loading" icon. Attaching two new icons that better distinguish the two states.
Created attachment 97086 [details] New "loading image" icon. New "loading image" icon. A slightly updated version from the original one.
Created attachment 97087 [details] New "image error" icon. New "image error" icon. Much easier to tell the difference now, isn't it?
wow that's an ugly icon (the second one). I like the current one much better...
The point is that the current icons are too similar. The "image error" icon is not supposed to be pretty. It's supposed to indicate that an error has occured. But feel free to make better icons.
Comment on attachment 97087 [details] New "image error" icon. well, if you want a change, you're free to make better icons. your second image provides *no* indication that it's an image and not a plugin or some other type of document. (yes, i agree with biesi.)
Attachment #97087 - Flags: needs-work+
Created attachment 97155 [details] Alt. "image error" icon This version of the "image error" icon still indicates that it's an image placeholder, but it's much easier to distinguish it from the "loading image" icon.
It would be nice to know what people think. ;)
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Created attachment 101919 [details] Modified broken-image.gif I think this one immediatly indicates that the image is broken and something should be done about it.
Created attachment 102614 [details] Pretty "loading image" icon These are completely new icons that looks much better than the previous ones, in my opinion. Marking my old icons as obsolete.
Created attachment 102615 [details] Pretty "image error" icon And this is the broken image icon. Both icons uses alpha transparency for the drop shadow.
Changing summary. Timeless and Biesinger, do you like these ones better?
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: Image placeholder icons are too similar → Image placeholder icons are too similar and too ugly
I think I Like attachment 97155 [details] best however, this should be decided by the layout module owner, as I was told.
Assignee: mpt → attinasi
Component: User Interface Design → Layout
QA Contact: zach → petersen
Created attachment 107695 [details] replacement for broken-image 14 x 16 8 colors i think both icons are different and beautiful enought put'em into the /res directory hope you'll find them useful - have fun
Component: Layout → Themes
Priority: -- → P4
Target Milestone: --- → Future
*** Bug 223380 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
A relatively related bug is bug 226709 (didn't check to see if it's a dupe or not). The plug-in icon also needs to be updated, if any graphics designers are up to it.
Hrm.. when did these icons get to be 14x16? The code in nsImageFrame assumes they are 16x16.... The other thing I wonder is how many colors do those use? Will they deal ok with 8-bit color? (ok == "not take many colors away from the other apps")
Created attachment 140868 [details] 16x16 image loading icon 16x16 image loading icon, per bz's comment.
Attachment #101919 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #102614 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #102615 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #107681 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #107694 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #107695 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #107696 - Attachment is obsolete: true
What's the answer to my second question?
(In reply to comment #22) > What's the answer to my second question? Sorry, I'm not sure if I understand the question. The proposed image placeholders I've attached are 32bit PNG graphics with alhpa-transparency for the drop shadow. I guess 8bit transparent PNGs could be created also, if that is the requirement.
The requirement is that if I'm using mozilla on a system with 8-bit color I can have something else in color other than these images (which, in the grand scheme of things are something I really _don't_ care about being in color, as a user). That means they should use as few colors as possible. 8-bit is not sufficient; you could have an 8-bit png that eats up most of the colormap.
Comment on attachment 140868 [details] 16x16 image loading icon Removing review requests, since I'm not really qualified to review this sort of thing anyway and my comments on color have no been addressed.
Is it trivially possible to fork (broken|loading)-image.gif for Firefox/Thunderbird/et al? The Firefox interface as a whole is looking really polished right now (particularly so with the new logo), but the broken/loading image placeholders are truly an eyesore. The GRE specifies layout/html/base/src/(broken|loading)-image.gif internally (and the app, be it Seamonkey, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. doesn't). <http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/search?string=broken-image.gif> shows the broken image's URL references in source; a similar query will show the same for loading-image.gif. Would it be possible for now to change the current images to PNG (direct conversion, no image change)? Then it *might* (speculating, but it seems reasonably easy to copy an image to bin/res/ if necessary) be relatively easy to simply add a small hack to overwrite the old version with a new pretty PNG through toolkit/-only code. These two icons are really one of only two or three inconsistent UI graphics (the plug-in icon being the one other I can remember); it would be nice to fix this for 0.9 (probably not enough time, tho) or 1.0. CCing someone who might be able to help if the last set of images is insufficient... By the way, I converted the last two attachments (the 16x16 image loading/error icons) to a web-safe palette in The GIMP, and they're quite passable. It's probably also possible to further optimize them with <misc_PNG_tools> to further save space and keep the color palette small. Is this really necessary, though? Users with 8-bit displays should expect to occasionally see odd colors now, because 8-bit is almost as obsolete as Win16 (which I believe we no longer support).
ccing bsmedberg to field the questions on apps overriding where that resource: URI points to. I'm not asking for no colors at all, just testing to make sure that the broken image icons being proposed don't significantly degrade the 8-bit browsing experience. There's a lot of difference between "colors a bit off" and "everything rendered in black-and-white". We want to avoid the latter. If converting to a web-safe palette does that (I'm not an images/colors expert, so someone who is should comment on that part), then I'm perfectly fine with icons going in if they do that.
Just curious: are the colors in the screenshot most of the way to the bottom at http://www.technicalpursuit.com/demos_screenshots.html web-safe? You can try a demo of TIBET to check, in case the image gamma is off for your monitor. /be
(In reply to comment #28) > Just curious: are the colors in the screenshot most of the way to the bottom > at http://www.technicalpursuit.com/demos_screenshots.html web-safe? It seems that way to me, tho I can't say I'd know conclusively if they weren't. Now that Firefox is on a branch until 1.1, does it make any sense to file a new bug to do this *for Firefox*? The change could be a hack for Firefox 0.9/1.0, but this bug would cover it for the trunk/Fx1.1 whenever that might happen (or at least convert the icon a PNG so it can be overridden with a nicer-looking icon).
Assignee: attinasi → nobody
Priority: P4 → --
QA Contact: chrispetersen → themes
Target Milestone: Future → ---
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Duplicate of bug: 240463
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.