Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

How big are your icons?

Filed under
Web
Humor

Icons? Software related? Have you perhaps filed an article in the wrong section, mate? Not at all. This article is all about social issues, not software.

What I want to talk to you about are icons linking to various social networks and sharing services, like Digg, Stumbleupon, Twitter, Facebook, and others. For many users, these networks and services are an excellent, efficient and a fast way of sharing information with friends and would be friends. For webmasters, making your content easily available to users of these networks and services boosts the chances of quick exposure leading to increased traffic and possibly revenue. Placing icons linking to popular micro blogs, social news sites and community networks is a smart thing to do.

On one hand, you will have made available tools that can help promote you. On the other hand, users visiting your website will believe you're in the know, since you so gallantly flaunt the slew of lovely, cute icons that point to world's bread and butter of social mingling. On the third hand, lazy users who would not bother bookmarking your website might do so now and become more frequent visitors. It's a win win situation, really.

No problem. So far, so good. Well, there's one problem. Sometimes, you come across sites where the icons are simple huge. Not just big. Humongous. We're talking icons that easily take 20-30% of screen real estate. While we have already established that having relevant icons present is good, making them Godzilla-size could be a sign of desperation or boy-scout zeal. There's such a thing as too much.

You need an example, here we go:




More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more