Hacker News Reader

If you're worried that illustrator files are too proprietary, you should really consider working in postscript. illustrator will deal with properly handwritten postscript just fine and it's a mostly straightforward graphics dsl (especially if you're mostly doing icon design). plus, it's easy to convert to a pdf or rasterize it using any number of readily available tools.

if your concern is that the tools for creating OTFs and TTFs seem to be opaque, i would suggest you look at the UFO[1] specification which represents a font as a folder containing a series of glyphs which are, themselves, a highly domain-specific hybrid of svg and postscript. the AFDKO [2] added support for UFO last month(!), so there seems to be traction on that front. fontforge, natch, has supported ufo for quite a while.

the problem with picking on fontawesome is that for icon sets to work, they usually need to be consistent and it's hard enough to get people to agree to code style guidelines, much less visual ones which are wayyyy more philosophical.

in any case, if there's a takeaway it's to look at UFO, it will at least provide you with a free and transparent workflow, but how you manage that workflow will still be a challenge.

If you (or anyone else reading this) want to work on this problem, i'm happy to talk offline since i've been doing a ufo fork of fontawesome for work lately and have accumulated some domain knowledge on that front.

[1]: http://unifiedfontobject.org/

[2]: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/afdko.html

I meant a DSL (or at least a framework) to _create_ graphics. I don't propose a new file format. In my approach there is no such thing as a GUI tool since that usually means that you'll be editing a complex (non gittable) file format. I want to compile the source code to SVG/EPS, then use open source tools (such as fontforge) to create the font. But you don't have to, you can of course also create PNGs. I want a DSL that is optimized to describe graphics for humans (so no SVG).

And with a framwork you can easily adjust the fonts to your liking. Rounded edges in general? no problem. Rounded arrows? No problem. All icons with background of gray? No problem. Compile to 173x294 pixels? No problem...

It's much much more flexible than any Illustrator format will ever be and it'll allow real collaboration and source code versioning. I think asymptote would be great candidate and it's very close to the DSL I'd like. The good thing is that most of it is also written in asymptote itself so it's very extensible (unlike some other graphics languages)

Again, PostScript.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript#.22Hello_world.22

Postscript is so unpopular to use as a programming language that github doesn't even have it in their languages. I'm not even sure if you're just trolling or serious?

I can second the use of postscript. A while back, I took it as a challenge to learn it, and ended up making some fairly extensive programs. I've actually found myself wishing there was a popular general-purpose scripting language that closely resembled postscript (stack-based, first class functions, first class environments).

You can download the books for it for free (the "blue book" is the tutorial). I highly recommend it, along with the "red book" which is also useful for adding to your general programming language theory.

You're aware of:

http://factorcode.org/ ?

(Popular would be a stretch, I guess)

I have a hard time seeing anyone actually use this for one reason: it's not Illustrator. Build something that allows them to completely use their existing, frankly much more user-friendly, workflow with no changes and it might at least get looked at. (Illustrator already supports EPS, but since everyone who matters already has Illustrator, not a lot of people bother, even when not running outside EPS's format restrictions.)

Nobody cares about your standards if meeting your standards doesn't benefit them. And the people actually creating stuff own Illustrator already.

Here:

https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues?page=1&st...

https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/pulls

Result:

https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/graphs/commit-ac...

>> We need to stop making "open source" icons which aren't actually open source

It took me a few rewrite of this to boil down to this question. Why do you say they "aren't actually open source". I'm curious to know what you're referring to. Is it that AI spec isn't open source, the files generated aren't open source because they require a paid application to edit, or the files themselves are binary formats and as such, aren't "source" in terms of how we think of XML or code.

If Illustrator was made free tomorrow, would that be satisfactory?

I can already edit EPS pretty well in inkscape and scribus but many developer still won't do it. To collaborate in graphics isn't easy.

No, even if Illustrator was open sources I would prefer to see real source code for icons. IMO Illustrator is over kill for something so (relatively) simple. Image a project on github that contains a very descriptive syntax, a hierarchy of re-usable shapes and which can be plugged together to generate custom icons. Then everybody can contribute to it with a pull request and we have true collaborative open sourced icon fonts.

I'll bite.

I make resources like this regularly. You need illustrator, no half baked open source project even comes close to the features offered by Adobe's awful software. I don't use it because it's what everyone else uses, but because it's the best thing out there.If you forced me to use GIMP and an open source vector editor, I simply wouldn't have the tools.

Contributing non-code resources is hard enough without putting arbitrary limits like this in place.

Give inkscape a try. You might be surprised.

Or he might have already and found it entirely insufficient. I know I did.

Okay, it feels like you're not really referring to the premise of open source, but more that there isn't a suitable portable "source" format for simple graphics like icons.

What about SVG, is that a possible candidate? By proposing a new format, the real challenge is to have the graphical editors to use them. Expecting users to contribute graphics by markup isn't going to be much more productive in my opinion.

Yes that's exactly what I meant. Though, I think I wasn't clear and many people misunderstood me. SVG is to describe graphics and not to create graphics. We need a DSL that has loops, objects, methods, overlaoding etc so we can actually create a framework that allows creating EPS/PDF/SVG etc..

Some exist, there is very simple gnuplot. There is python matplotlib but it's a general purpose programming language and no DSL specific one. I think the closest is asymptote (which is very little known). Then is is processing but it's geared toward animations and also does mostly raster graphics. There is R which is mostly for statistics. Then there is TikZ which is awful since TeX was never meant to be a programming language so it'f far from a DSL.

I want to be able to describe shapes and extend them easily. I think Scala would be wonderful and somebody fluent in it could create a DSL and still allow extreme extensibility. We need a language which has multiple layers of API. One very low which can easily do lines, bezier curves and the usual. And then some higher APIs that allow _easy_ composition and intuitive transformations.

SVG is like PDF, a format to display but nobody wants to write PDF or SVG. It's no fun.

I beg to differ. Why should we describe a visual artifact using tools that are suited to describe logic and algorithms? Now, if you are wanting a DSL to describe HOW to make the visual artifact, that's one thing. However, the way art is created is not algorithmic, but rather a try something, visually inspect, and repeat process. Describing how the icon was created is not the main goal. Instead, the goal is simply a visual artifact.

I note that postscript has loops and methods, if I recall correctly.

Yeah but woulnd't you agree this is more fun:

http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/doc/Tutorial.html#Tutorial

Designers don't care if you think Asymptote is fun. They care that they can use Illustrator to get shit done. I do not understand why you are having trouble with this.

seriously? are you just trolling or just not understanding?

Would Inkscape[1] or some other open source vector graphic editor not fill the hole you describe ? SVG's have existing tooling and with later versions of Creative Suite should work with Illustrator without problems.

Infact - there are a number of browser based vector editors I believe. What would be very interesting is a github clone centered around providing preview, diff and edit functionality specifically for graphics. Another idea on the pile *sigh

While it looks like the source icons originate in Illustrator, what impresses me is the high level of support for other standards, making the icons useful and customizable outside of any graphics software:

"This includes support for emerging formats and technologies like Web Components, CFF, WebP, SVG 2.0, a top-notch, multiweight, unicode-mapped icon web font implementation, SVG animation and a powerful SVG DOM injection tool"

Now, that said, I've longed for an alternative to Illustrator. I like your thinking around the DSL, but because this is all inherently visual work, nothing will become widely adopted until the visual design tools supporting the standard are excellent.

You don't need a GUI or expensive programs to make very stunning and impressive graphics. I've coded SVG manually myself (using Jade templates) and I've written TikZ and asymptote and it works very very well. Remember, we are programmers and not graphic designers who need Illustrator since they often don't code.

Check out some stuff they do over at tex exchange:

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tikz-pgf

You can also easily take existing SVG and extract the curve formats out, normalize them and integrate them in your project as a few arrays. You wouldn't start from scratch and have to redraw the github logo. You just put it into source code and things such as arrows you can draw with a few commands

They don't care. Designers don't care that you can code SVG manually yourself. They use Illustrator because it is the best software to do what they want. You need to respect that this is how designers work if you want to be taken seriously by designers--and that's step one of changing anything.

If it requires a text editor, you just lost 95% of designers (conservative guess) and you won't get them back because you've shown that you don't respect how they work.

No need to require a text editor to create SVG icons, just use Inkscape http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/inkscape-0-48-revie... and then add your work to openclipart.org

No doubt Illustrator is capable of exporting to SVG, and that is really an essential for any sort of web icons in the HTML5 age.

Illustrator and related formats - EPS, AI - are considerably more featureful than SVG supports. They are able to mash their documents down to SVG, at the cost of losing data. Which nobody will do for raws.

And, as is so common with open-source attempts at graphics software, nobody takes Inkscape seriously. Sorry.

I don't say that designers should program instead of using their tools. What I say is: Stop the craziness of 50 different projects which give you some set of icons. Each a little different but each repeating things over and over again. Let's define one framework and go from their and satisfy 95% of all projects.

Let's stop the craziness of 50 different programming languages which all bundle slightly different sets of features. Can't we just put all the features in one language?

The reason to use one icon set on a web page is that the icons look good together. Putting a bunch of different icon styles in one set defeats this. A good designer has the skills to bust out Sketch and make another icon in the same style if they need it, and then contribute it back to the set for consideration.

If you're not able to do this, there's always http://icomoon.io/app/ which lets you bundle icons from different sets into one font.

So another standard for the next project to ignore in favor of creating a new standard?

Hmm.

I'd use an existing programming language (asymptote or scala) and build a framework to create a bunch of EPS/PNG/SVG icons.

No new file format....

This is what I mean with DSL:

http://asymptote.sourceforge.net/doc/Tutorial.html#Tutorial

And who, among the people who actually design and build icons, would care?

Hint: they use Illustrator. They're going to keep using Illustrator. They're not going to stop using Illustrator so you can have a marginally easier Github workflow.

Most pro artists/designers are going to have access to the Adobe suite.

That said...

The icon set at hand is based around SVG; while it claims to have a pile of 'open-source' scripts for improving the AI icon-generation workflow, I would imagine that you could load all the SVG files into Inkscape if that's your preferred vector editor, and build similar workflow scripts for it as well.

And if you want a DSL for graphics, check out Context Free[1]. It outputs SVG.

[1]:http://www.contextfreeart.org

This one is simply not going to be open source at all, they're going to charge for it.

Here's a thought experiment: can OS X or Windows have a true open source app?

I didn't mean to say Illustrator is bad b/c of the not openness but more because of the file format. Icons ---compared to other projects done with Illustrator--- are extremely simple and we could use simpler tools instead which means we can use a programming language (an appropriate one, not python etc) to define the languages.

As long as we have the source and it is readable (hence my wish to use a DSL) people will contribute to it with pull request. The result of the kickstarter will not be contributable (except by a small fraction of people)

This can give you a slight taste of a well done DSL which can produce EPS:

http://www.piprime.fr/developpeur/asymptote/example-asy2d/ge...

http://marris.org/asymptote/

Asymptote also knows structs and overloading

Yeah but it's actually a lot of fun to design in Illustrator. I don't think the creators of this icon set would have wanted to do all of this stuff while not in Illustrator - or at least I can't imagine me wanting to do that.

This is coming from an iOS engineer too.

Yeah but it's more fun to click "edit" on a file in github. Propose the changes and click "submit pull request". Instead of:

1. Download current design file

2. Edit

3. Submit pull request

4. Repo owner downloads file

5. Repo owner figures out what has changed (somehow hopefully) and hopes nothing else was broken with the edit due to different versions, setups etc.

6. Repo owners accepts pull request (while the change cannot be seen in github since it can't diff .ai files).

Here's where we differ. Adobe Illustrator is like a canvas on an easel. Visual manipulations appear right in front of you, and then you can dive in and inspect. Change a color easily and know if it's right immediately. Not commit, then look at a rendered version, notice it's off. Try again, commit and then attempt until it's right. That's a huge waste of time as a designer. It feels magical to edit and create in Illustrator to me, and I'm sorry that someone offering free .ai files isn't pristine enough for you.

Your "editing" of a graphic file is still 4 steps, there's not much being cut out:

1. Click edit. 2. Propose changes. 3. Owner decides nothing is bad, or messes up other parts of the design. 4. Owner accepts pull request (still can't see the files in Github, because there is nothing for viewing graphical diffs anywhere yet)

You can do cool things with immediate updates:

http://vimeo.com/36579366

The great thing about hosting on github is that people can send pull request and you have real collaboration. That's alsmost impossible with Illustrator files. In reality many OSS is abondoned and change leaders or simply die. If you have a source that is accessible by 100% of the programmers (and with icons there is a huge crows who's interested) then your project probably won't die.

Want will the kickstarter accomplish? Sure it'll give you great quality icons, but then what? What if the project is delivered and put open sourced? Is it going to be maintained indefinitely? For 2 years? 5 years? What about in 10 years? Can we still use it?

But now we're really off topic, I'm just re-elaboration why open source (and line based source code) is better. I could also argue why documentation in Markdown is better than word for highly collaborative projects....

Sure it can. If the source is "open", why should the platform for which that source is compiled have any bearing on it's description as such? Or am I missing something?

Because the GP said Illustrator icons are not really open source.

Your query was as to whether an application compiled for Windows or OSX could, in general, be open source. Whilst there may be a point to be made about the openness of Illustrator - I just thought that a tongue in cheek response would correct the more general assertion :) . Sorry for the confusion.

Well, by this logic, open software isn't open source unless you have access to a computer. It's only up to the author to grant permission, not to truly enable.