5 ms·

Elusive Icons - 268 Sleek Vector Icons For Bootstrap

149 points by Hirvesh 14y ago

Hirvesh 14y ago
via: http://www.functionn.in/2012/11/the-best-free-iconic-web-fonts.html http://www.functionn.in/2012/11/the-best-free-iconic-web-fon... Elusive Icons is a new iconic web font released meant to be used with Twitter Bootstrap or Zurb Foundation 2 front-end frameworks. The web fonts contains a whopping 268 glyphs meant mostly for web and mobile applications and websites. It can be used as an alternative to Font Awesome, the default web font packaged with Twitter Bootstrap. The web font is released under the SIL Open Font License.
- lgp171188 14y ago
  I don't think Font Awesome is the default web font packaged with Twitter Bootstrap, which uses Glyphicons.
  - cschmidt 14y ago
    You are absolutely correct. However, Font Awesome might be the most frequently used set of icons with TB.
  - Hirvesh 14y ago
    My apologies. Should have phrased it otherwise, to mean what cschmidt said below! :)
daGrevis 14y ago
No icon for StackOverflow? :(
- Hirvesh 14y ago
  this is work in progress, you can make a request if you'd like , I'm sure the devs will listen to your heart-felt outcries :P
  - daGrevis 14y ago
    Guess what? They did! :)
Zoophy 14y ago
No love for base 2?
jeffehobbs 14y ago
Cool icons! You've got a misused homonym/heterograph on the front, though. You have "claws" and you want it spelled "clause". Great project!
- robomartin 14y ago
  I actually hope he meant "claws" as some of these license agreements feel exactly like that.
  - jonathanyc 14y ago
    Heh, same. I thought it was meant to be a clever pun.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JD557 14y ago
It's good to see some icons here that are not present on font awesome (such as the male and female icons, which usually come in handy). I also noticed the -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; in the CSS. Even though I've seen that pointed out as a bad practice a few days ago (I think I saw that here), it seems to fix the lack of anti-aliasing on Chrome for Windows.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
_frog 14y ago
I really want to start using icon fonts in my projects, the way they make it so easy to support HiDPI displays could save on a bunch of development time. My problem, however, is that the authors of these fonts seem to pay no mind to pixel-fitting their icons. This means, simply put, that the edges of the icons don't line up to exact pixel values and the resulting icon tends to look 'fuzzy'. GitHub thankfully took note of these issues with their vector 'Octicons'[1] by optimising for common display sizes. By doing this they get a lot of the benefits of vector icons without sacrificing sharpness and it'd be fantastic to see a more general purpose icon font that took a similar approach. [1]: https://github.com/blog/1135-the-making-of-octicons https://github.com/blog/1135-the-making-of-octicons
- ncrit 14y ago
  Check out the IcoMoon icons, they don't have the fuzzyness like fontawsome icons for example...
programminggeek 14y ago
If they are open source, how are they elusive? Something freely available and posted to HN isn't elusive at all. At least a name like Font Awesome is somewhat self-descriptive or obvious. Nice icon set nonetheless.
- Hirvesh 14y ago
  Bummer. Now watch the dev behind this come out and say it was not 'ready for prime time'. Happens all the time with my submissions. Nothing eludes www.functionn.in! They should know better than to name there stuffs Elusive :P
swilliams 14y ago
Is this kosher? It looks like they're re-bundling the Glyphicons set that comes with Bootstrap[1]. Glyphicons has a free set with a CC by-nd license[2], which wouldn't work here. 1. http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons 2. http://glyphicons.com/ http://glyphicons.com/
- radq 14y ago
  I don't think they are re-bundling the Glyphicons set... a lot of the icons look different. What makes you think so?
  - swilliams 14y ago
    Looking closely at them side by side, there are minute differences, so I withdraw my complaint. They look awfully similar though.
tonydiv 14y ago
These are WAY better than Font Awesome, thank you.
angry-hacker 14y ago
Every font looks horrible on Windows 7 + Chrome, which should be the most popular choice of browser and OS out there. As long as it's not fixed, no way to use fonts as icons or even Google's own web font collection. Probably there are so many designers living in Mac world where there are no such problems with anti-aliasing so they are not aware or ignore this problem completely.
- ncrit 14y ago
  See my comment to _frog: IcoMoon icons look pretty good, even on windows with chrome...
swanify 14y ago
Great set of icons, you can never have too many icons!!
camus 14y ago
Great but i'm getting sick and tired of all the user facing websites that have no personality and just look like yet another bootstrap site... For back-offices ,Bootstrap is great but too many websites look poorly designed because of Bootstrap overuse. At least , people , do basic customisation... Personnaly it doesnt makes me want to try the product anymore ...
flax 14y ago
step-backward and step-forward look awfully similar.

149 points by Hirvesh 14y ago

via: http://www.functionn.in/2012/11/the-best-free-iconic-web-fonts.html http://www.functionn.in/2012/11/the-best-free-iconic-web-fon... Elusive Icons is a new iconic web font released meant to be used with Twitter Bootstrap or Zurb Foundation 2 front-end frameworks. The web fonts contains a whopping 268 glyphs meant mostly for web and mobile applications and websites. It can be used as an alternative to Font Awesome, the default web font packaged with Twitter Bootstrap. The web font is released under the SIL Open Font License.

lgp171188 14y ago
I don't think Font Awesome is the default web font packaged with Twitter Bootstrap, which uses Glyphicons.
- cschmidt 14y ago
  You are absolutely correct. However, Font Awesome might be the most frequently used set of icons with TB.
- Hirvesh 14y ago
  My apologies. Should have phrased it otherwise, to mean what cschmidt said below! :)

daGrevis 14y ago

No icon for StackOverflow? :(

Hirvesh 14y ago
this is work in progress, you can make a request if you'd like , I'm sure the devs will listen to your heart-felt outcries :P
- daGrevis 14y ago
  Guess what? They did! :)

Zoophy 14y ago

No love for base 2?

jeffehobbs 14y ago

Cool icons! You've got a misused homonym/heterograph on the front, though. You have "claws" and you want it spelled "clause". Great project!

robomartin 14y ago
I actually hope he meant "claws" as some of these license agreements feel exactly like that.
- jonathanyc 14y ago
  Heh, same. I thought it was meant to be a clever pun.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JD557 14y ago

It's good to see some icons here that are not present on font awesome (such as the male and female icons, which usually come in handy). I also noticed the -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; in the CSS. Even though I've seen that pointed out as a bad practice a few days ago (I think I saw that here), it seems to fix the lack of anti-aliasing on Chrome for Windows.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

_frog 14y ago

I really want to start using icon fonts in my projects, the way they make it so easy to support HiDPI displays could save on a bunch of development time. My problem, however, is that the authors of these fonts seem to pay no mind to pixel-fitting their icons. This means, simply put, that the edges of the icons don't line up to exact pixel values and the resulting icon tends to look 'fuzzy'. GitHub thankfully took note of these issues with their vector 'Octicons'[1] by optimising for common display sizes. By doing this they get a lot of the benefits of vector icons without sacrificing sharpness and it'd be fantastic to see a more general purpose icon font that took a similar approach. [1]: https://github.com/blog/1135-the-making-of-octicons https://github.com/blog/1135-the-making-of-octicons

ncrit 14y ago
Check out the IcoMoon icons, they don't have the fuzzyness like fontawsome icons for example...

programminggeek 14y ago

If they are open source, how are they elusive? Something freely available and posted to HN isn't elusive at all. At least a name like Font Awesome is somewhat self-descriptive or obvious. Nice icon set nonetheless.

Hirvesh 14y ago
Bummer. Now watch the dev behind this come out and say it was not 'ready for prime time'. Happens all the time with my submissions. Nothing eludes www.functionn.in! They should know better than to name there stuffs Elusive :P

swilliams 14y ago

Is this kosher? It looks like they're re-bundling the Glyphicons set that comes with Bootstrap[1]. Glyphicons has a free set with a CC by-nd license[2], which wouldn't work here. 1. http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons 2. http://glyphicons.com/ http://glyphicons.com/

radq 14y ago
I don't think they are re-bundling the Glyphicons set... a lot of the icons look different. What makes you think so?
- swilliams 14y ago
  Looking closely at them side by side, there are minute differences, so I withdraw my complaint. They look awfully similar though.

tonydiv 14y ago

These are WAY better than Font Awesome, thank you.

angry-hacker 14y ago

Every font looks horrible on Windows 7 + Chrome, which should be the most popular choice of browser and OS out there. As long as it's not fixed, no way to use fonts as icons or even Google's own web font collection. Probably there are so many designers living in Mac world where there are no such problems with anti-aliasing so they are not aware or ignore this problem completely.

ncrit 14y ago
See my comment to _frog: IcoMoon icons look pretty good, even on windows with chrome...

swanify 14y ago

Great set of icons, you can never have too many icons!!

camus 14y ago

Great but i'm getting sick and tired of all the user facing websites that have no personality and just look like yet another bootstrap site... For back-offices ,Bootstrap is great but too many websites look poorly designed because of Bootstrap overuse. At least , people , do basic customisation... Personnaly it doesnt makes me want to try the product anymore ...

flax 14y ago

step-backward and step-forward look awfully similar.