[Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

General discussion of development ideas and the approaches taken in the 3.x branch of phpBB. The next feature release of phpBB 3 will be 3.3/Proteus.
Forum rules
Please do not post support questions regarding installing, updating, or upgrading phpBB 3.1. If you need support for phpBB 3.1 please visit the 3.1.x Support Forum on phpbb.com.

If you have questions regarding writing extensions please post in Extension Writers Discussion to receive proper guidance from our staff and community.
Post Reply
archon
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:16 pm

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by archon » Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:28 pm

Please use FA, it will be much easier to make dark themes and add more icons.

User avatar
hanakin
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:02 pm
Contact:

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by hanakin » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:12 pm

already planned my friend ;)

nachtelb
Registered User
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:55 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by nachtelb » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:21 am

For Style-Authoring its much more easier using FA, right. But for the user surfing the site it often looks "not good". Have a look to my screenshot.
icann.org.jpg
(79.34 KiB) Downloaded 364 times
icann.org2.jpg
(48.05 KiB) Downloaded 363 times
Is this only me, having those bad effects? Or are you ignoring this because of the positive points? I dont like this view on a growing list of sites.
_
EDIT: Now i know - this is only a problem of the noscript-Addon. Forget about it.
Last edited by nachtelb on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

roufneck
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:34 am

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by roufneck » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:39 am

nachtelb wrote:For Style-Authoring its much more easier using FA, right. But for the user surfing the site it often looks "not good". Have a look to my screenshot.

...

Is this only me, having those bad effects? Or are you ignoring this because of the positive points? I dont like this view on a growing list of sites.
Just wondering... Are you using addblock plus?

https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/1799

User avatar
JoshyPHP
Registered User
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by JoshyPHP » Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:08 pm

Those are placeholders. They are used when a codepoint cannot be represented in the desired font. My guess is that the browser could not load Font Awesome.

nachtelb
Registered User
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:55 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by nachtelb » Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:13 pm

EDIT: Now i know - this is only a problem of the noscript-Addon. Forget about it.
Last edited by nachtelb on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JoshyPHP
Registered User
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by JoshyPHP » Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:45 pm

Can't reproduce on Firefox 33 with JavaScript disabled. Might be a bad interaction with your NoScript extension. Edit: confirmed to be a NoScript "feature". How to disable that feature.

AFAIK, Font Awesome requires no JavaScript whatsoever.

nachtelb
Registered User
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:55 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by nachtelb » Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:46 am

Your first link gives an idea, why it is blocked for security reasons. But much better, it shows, that i can allow only fonts with the submenue "blocked objects". Now i know how to use my Addon, thank you.
Thinking about it, theres is nothing to do for the phpbb-style.
1. All noscript-users should know about this and how to fix it. But i think it is not possible to generate a info-message for users with disabled fontface, isn't it?
2. Fontface should be improved to be trust-worthy.

User avatar
hanakin
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 822
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:02 pm
Contact:

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by hanakin » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:28 pm

anyone knowledgeable enough to use an extension to block adds is also knowledgeable enough to know why this is occurring. Further more this is a false positive from your extension classifying the @font-face method as a security vulnerability most likely as the only way I have seen this is with IE7 due to the same reason. Either find a better tool without this problem, report it to the developer of your extension as a fault, or swap it our for something else, as it will be completely modular once implemented.

User avatar
jsebean
Registered User
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:40 am
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: [Define New Theme] 8. Utilize Font Awesome icons where icons are needed to simplify server requests.

Post by jsebean » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:38 pm

hanakin wrote:anyone knowledgeable enough to use an extension to block adds is also knowledgeable enough to know why this is occurring. Further more this is a false positive from your extension classifying the @font-face method as a security vulnerability most likely as the only way I have seen this is with IE7 due to the same reason. Either find a better tool without this problem, report it to the developer of your extension as a fault, or swap it our for something else, as it will be completely modular once implemented.
Agreed. It's hard enough to develop for the wide array of browsers let alone the even wider array of add-ons that screw with the browser :P
-Jonah

Post Reply