Misc Icons Versus Objectdock Versus IconPackager

IconPackager is a program that applies icons to all of your windows icons (ideally). You can take that same set of icons and put it in misc icons in order for people to use the icons any way they seem fit (no program applying them). Some may be misc program icons that were not plugged into the package. Take that same set, and if they are .png images instead of .ico than they can be used in ObjectDock.

This is how the same set of icons can be in all three categories. A package that automatically replaces your icons, misc icons to use wherever you like, and .pngs to be used in ObjectDock

I got all that SD...But I still don't understand why they need to be in all 3 libraries. Usually when downloading single icons they have the .pngs already included. And as far as Iconpackager, you can already easily take a single icon from a package and use it any way you want or convert it to a .png for use in Objectdock. So this is why I question why 3 libraries are flooded with the same submission. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Marketing? If I sell ice cream, I would sell the same flavor in as many different markets and sizes possible. "All New" is often just the same old, but it is proven to get more sales (uploads) if it's broken out in different packages. I understand your point that it does not need to be that way, though. ...and I agree.

It may also be the case that not everyone knows how to change an .ico to a .png and a .png into an icon. Not everyone submits the .pngs with their misc icons nor do they provide the icons with the .pngs. My only point being that there may need to be all three sections and a single group of icons may serve more purpose being in all three for Mr General Public than only being in one. Just a thought.

I always figured *.ico's go in the Misc Icon gallery, and *.pngs go in the ObjectDock gallery - and if you're nice you'll include both in the file but upload to only one gallery (I choose the OD gallery myself).

I hear you on the package deal, though. Even if there isn't a full IconPackager set, a skinner could conglomerate some images. A Start panel set, say, instead of a My Pc icon, a Search icon, a Network Places icon... you get the idea.

I totally sympathize with the desire to get a lot of downloads, but it is important to think of the other skinners who want time on the front page as well as the convenience for the end users.

IconPackager being its own section is a definite need. 

ObjectDock should have ObjectDock themes and individual PNG files.

Misc. icons should be small groups or individual .ICO files.

The format largely determines the section.

Makes sense then how Frogboy describes it that the artist submits the different types for the different application.
I agree that part of the problem is you can get flooded with new releases of icons in the gallery. One reason I am happy to have the Skin Browser in SDC, I can filter out the ones I don't want to see in the new listing. They are still there, just I have go find them if I need them in the main list.

I make PNG icons for use in ObjectDock, and usually throw in a regular ICO version of that into the zip, but I only upload it to the ObjectDock library, as that is my main focus. I hope that's okay.

ama02...Thats not a problem...as you said your making .png's for Objectdock use..the .ico is an added extra.

Brad...Iconpackager is definitely a needed library..no argument there. Objectdock as you said should have themes and individual png files. But it just seems to me that that Objectdock library can easily be abused by simply changing icons to .png's and then basically the only difference between Iconpackager, Misc Icons & Objectdock is calling a file .ico or .png. yet still containing both files. Icons are the only file I can think of where this can take place.

This is why I would think icons should be kept with Iconpackager & Misc Icons and just have the .pngs included with the icon download instead of seperating them into 2 different libraries, but yet packaging them the same. As it is now, icons are being packaged with png's and png's are packaged with icons, but they are being called 2 different things.

Is this making and sense to anyone or do I need to take my meds?

s this making and sense to anyone or do I need to take my meds?

Did you bring enough for the rest of the class?

As it is now, icons are being packaged with png's and png's are packaged with icons, but they are being called 2 different things.

This is probably due to mods not wanting to reject uploads based on improper packaging.

It was made clear shortly after the creation of the "misc. icons" library, that authors were to upload ".ico" files to the misc. icons library, and ".png" files to the ObjectDock library.

It would seem that not all authors are aware of this guideline.

Wizop Corky O...I think in most cases its fair to say that many authors are uploading .png files, but I've seen just as many including icons along with them. This is why, in my opinion, they should all just be kept in the misc icons library, except for single png's that were made for specific programs. Then they can just package the icons and png's together, rather than flood the Objectdock library with png's which are basically just converted icons.

The thing is, if it weren't for the tabbed docks, zoomers, and docklets which pretty much get buried by these .png files you couldn't tell the difference between the Misc Icons & Objectdock libraries. And from what I've seen lately, many of these single png files should really be packaged since they really don't appear to be just odd icons, but rather part of a theme that should be in a package.

When I first started going to the Objectdock library you could easily find docklets and such to use with Objectdock without much searching, but most of those things have been buried deep in the library because of these icons in png's clothing.

Maybe it should just be rejected with a "please resubmit to these to the appropriate library" notice? If someone included a bootscreen or logon with their wallpaper and uploaded it to the wallpaper section is that not what would happen?

Might help to at least clarify what each section is for.

They are rejected with a '...you can submit to x library instead' notice. To be clear, the Misc Icons section is for Windows icons (.ico). Other types will be rejected as Windows cannot use them   The ObjectDock library is primarily for .png icons, though the odd .ico doesn't matter if it is of sufficient size and quality. We also ask people to limit the size of png icons to 256x256 for the sake of good order. Only yesterday I rejected some icons which were an astonishing 1200x1200

And you can't expect users to convert png to ico - 99% do not know how.

I would like a separate sub-section in ObjectDock for backgrounds etc, though I suspect it's another job for the waiting list

The biggest question here ladies and gentlemen, should be WHY are png's even allowed? ObjectDock will run just fine, in fact better than normal, using ico's instead of png's. ICO is a native Windows format, and this will operate better than any pngs. If an icon is properly made at higher resolutions, there should be no clarity problems at all, and therefore, no reason to use pngs. This just begs the question as to why there are any icons at all in the OD section now. Since Misc. Icons can hold all the usable icons for ObjectDock, the OD section should be devoted to docklets, backgrounds, tabbed backgrounds, and that is ALL. Everything else can go into the Misc. Icons section where it belongs. That is my opinion on the matter.

I just think that whatever you choose to call them..Icon or Png..they are the same animal and should be kept with all the other icons.

As far as converting icons to pngs, this free and very simple app does it in a snap. http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/showthread.php?t=15304

Since Iconpackager/Developer now makes you jump through hoops to convert them I've used this on may occasions.

Well I guess this subject won't be going anywhere.

Ok...this latest Objectdock upload of 36 individual icons that should have clearly been packaged is the last straw. I think from this point on I will be limiting my uploads to my own gallery. It's just not right that other entries are being buried this way.

Yeah, my little pack is buried at the end of that run of 36. The bad thing is, I had some specific requests for some of them but since they will not be seen I need to e-mail the requesters to let them know they are here. c'est la vie, I guess.

Well...It's almost a whole year since this post started...and since it seems obvious nothing will ever get done about this flooding of the Object"Dock" library with icons/pngs...I have to make some decisions in regards to this issue.

I know all this may sound or seem petty to some people...thats a given...you'll get over it...but it just doesn't make sense to me to take the time to create something that will end up buried and not seen or used. Kinda pointless huh? I agree!

It certainly wasn't my first choice...But with the exception of updating older docks...and 1 last upload ...which is for a certain skin to arrive here at WinCustomize soon...I will not be uploading any new docks to the Object"Icon"Dock library (I may...not sure yet...continue to upload to my gallery here). In addition, I am also "considering" just moving them to another library where they will not be buried under a ton of icons/pngs.

For whatever reason...the Object"Dock" library has become (or was) a dumping ground for unwanted pngs (icons in disguise) and a flop house for icons that for some reason don't like their own library..."Misc Icons". And I've heard all the reasonings for why pngs aren't allowed in the Misc Icons library....but quite frankly it doesn't make any sense and is just plain silly. Pngs are in part nothing more than an icon by another name, unless of course they were created as pngs...and icons can be turned into pngs in about 1 second...making file size, extension name, and a slight appearance change the only difference between the 2...and of course they now have rabies or something and aren't allowed in the Misc Icons library.

The Object"Dock" software is about docks "for" your icons/pngs as well as "dock"lets...it is not about icons/pngs...thats what IconPackager & IconDevolper is for. Just as WindowBlinds is about skins for windows...and even though you use icons/pngs in windows...you dont' expect to find either of those in the WindowBlinds library. And since Icons as well as pngs (icons in disguise) already have a library...thats where they should be kept. But thats just because it makes sense to me.

Uploading a dock to the Object"Dock" library these days is like jumping in quicksand made up of icons/pngs....they quickly disappear. And I have watched earlier uploads become forgotten as a result. So...since this is not my website...and I have no say in anything that happens here...and obviously can do nothing about this. I have no choice but to think about what I created and whether or not to accept letting my docks get buried and forgotten...and the answer to that is no...I will not. I'm not yet sure if I will upload them all to another library and delete them here or just simply upload them elsewhere...but the one thing I am sure about is that I won't be uploading anymore here until things change.

I will of course continue to create them and let people know where to find them since I have fun doing that...I will do requests...provided the skin has whats needed to create docks and the graphics work in ObjectDock...not all skins do. And if or when things change here and make sense I will begin uploading here again.
Have a nice day!

Hey WG, after seeing your reference to WindowBlinds, I think the best solution would be a ObjectDock Dock gallery and a seperate OD Icon ( png only ) gallery.
I say this as for with WB, Progress Animations ( 61 items ) and Toolbar Icons ( 68 items ) both have their own gallery. All that would be needed is to combine the animation and toolbar icons galleries thus making room for a new gallery to send all the png icons and leave docks and docklets in the OD gallery.

The new PNG icon gallery could be named OD/DX/IconX as they can be used for all.
Which since there are no galleries for IconX and stock DX png icons, I think that some are not aware the icons can be used for them.

So now what is it again, a poll for a petition or a petiton for a poll.