A "Not on Facebook" font icon for your website(github.com)
github.com
A "Not on Facebook" font icon for your website
https://github.com/Mayeu/not-on-facebook-icon
58 comments
If someone else asks himself why you’d want a font icon instead of an image, I found an explanatory page:
http://css-tricks.com/examples/IconFont/
It's still a hack. It's time to go with SVG instead.
Here's a good writeup of reasons to stop using silly icon fonts and start using SVG.
http://ianfeather.co.uk/ten-reasons-we-switched-from-an-icon...
Here's a good writeup of reasons to stop using silly icon fonts and start using SVG.
http://ianfeather.co.uk/ten-reasons-we-switched-from-an-icon...
Does IE support SVG already?
I've had a lot of success using SVGeezy for image replacement and Modernizr to help with background images.
http://benhowdle.im/svgeezy/
http://benhowdle.im/svgeezy/
IE9 and up do: http://caniuse.com/svg
I don't really see how this is better than <img src=".." alt="You won't find me on Facebook" />
I find this whole concept weird. If you are using icons to represent what services you are on as links to contact you, why do you need one for a service you aren't on? And if you are trying to make a point of not being on Facebook, wouldn't a nice big colorful icon make more sense?
Actually it might be useful seeing how every webpage with the Like button you see is tracked by Facebook. The logo is just an assurance that FB won't know you visited the site.
What most people don't understand is that somewhere in Facebook's data centers there's a DB with entries like:
Paul Averageman (Facebook UID=3427342)
13:48 cnn.com
13:52 nytimes.com
13:59 youtube.com
ecc.
What most people don't understand is that somewhere in Facebook's data centers there's a DB with entries like:
Paul Averageman (Facebook UID=3427342)
13:48 cnn.com
13:52 nytimes.com
13:59 youtube.com
ecc.
It makes it clear to users that they're not just failing to find your facebook contact link, there's not one there for them to find.
Just HN passive aggressive behaviour.
It's a classic form of slacktivist protest.
On my website I just used a regular Facebook icon and marked it "not applicable": http://chrismorgan.info/
FYI, I assumed your lowercase "g" icon was for Google. Would not have guessed Github.
Yeah, I'm was never especially happy with it, despite its shape being the GitHub g rather than the Google g; I'd prefer the octocat which can't be confused by any means. But (silly me) I hadn't even asked for that to change (the icon font in use is Rondo: http://www.tajfa.com/projects/rondo/). I have now done so.
Ah, didn't realize this was a third party thing.
Yeah, it seems like the Octocat Mark is the recommended option now: "Use the Mark in social buttons to link to your GitHub profile or project" https://github.com/logos
Yeah, it seems like the Octocat Mark is the recommended option now: "Use the Mark in social buttons to link to your GitHub profile or project" https://github.com/logos
That's the GitHub font.
Hey, you have the exact same email address convention that I have. Weird. I'm "[email protected]". I don't see too many people using this convention.
Nice idea!
Here are some I made a few years ago -- http://www.fsf.org/facebook -- not as font icons, but as regular images.
The 21st Century equivalent of telling everyone you meet that you don't own a TV.
Still better then telling everyone that you do own a TV.
Not really. If I told you that I owned a TV and you did too, we could talk about the things we watched on TV.
If I told you I don't own a TV there's literally nothing else to talk about on the topic.
If I told you I don't own a TV there's literally nothing else to talk about on the topic.
If you told me that you don't own a television and then I told you that I don't own one either, we could talk about why we don't own one.
[deleted]
You must be exciting at parties.
I know you meant your comment as just an insult, but you're sort of hilariously off the mark.
The whole point of the "I don't own a tv" and the backlash against saying it, was that it became a way to demonstrate that you were leading too exciting of a life to bother wasting your time on TV. Before the modern resurgence of quality dramas (led by HBO, Showtime, now AMC) tv was viewed as almost exclusively low-brow, mind-numbing junk.
The type of person who didn't own a tv was someone who was too busy going to parties, traveling, reading, spending time on their hobbies & side projects, etc. They were exactly who was exciting to talk to at parties. So much so, that telling people you didn't own a tv became viewed as bragging, snobby or pretentious.
The whole point of the "I don't own a tv" and the backlash against saying it, was that it became a way to demonstrate that you were leading too exciting of a life to bother wasting your time on TV. Before the modern resurgence of quality dramas (led by HBO, Showtime, now AMC) tv was viewed as almost exclusively low-brow, mind-numbing junk.
The type of person who didn't own a tv was someone who was too busy going to parties, traveling, reading, spending time on their hobbies & side projects, etc. They were exactly who was exciting to talk to at parties. So much so, that telling people you didn't own a tv became viewed as bragging, snobby or pretentious.
My remark did come off as a bit ruder than I had intended, hah. And to be fair, TV is still almost exclusively low-brow, mind-numbing junk. :) I don't actually disagree with you.
Maybe he is too busy, saving damsels in distress, fighting dragons, making 180 gazillion dollars, inventing a cure for Dyslexia, and making toast to watch TV...
Or you could both talk about "X" show that you watched on Hulu(other streaming services) and TV. The world is more diverse now than needing a TV to 'watch TV'. And that is a good thing! :)
Well yeah, this is where the metaphor breaks down - the FB thing is the "21st Century equivalent" because "I don't have a TV" was more of a 20th Century thing, when Hulu and the like didn't exist.
Oh agreed on that. Was just pointing out you don't need a TV to discuss TV shows or have something to talk about with someone who watches TV for their entertainment.
The world that exists outside of TV is a fairly vast topic area.
That reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mention...
In which century was it cool to not own a TV?
Cool! Let everyone know you're a tool in less than 5 seconds!
So using a website for showing off and glorifying your every day life doesn't make you a tool? Don't even try to fly that 'socializing' bullshit, I can see your sushi eating pictures even with my eyes closed. Combine the nature of facebook with the real privacy concerns and I really can't understand why anyone, let alone technie, would use facebook.
I guess people just have different values and that's what I feel that this is about, showing off your values. Kind of like a bumper sticker, patch or a pin.
I guess people just have different values and that's what I feel that this is about, showing off your values. Kind of like a bumper sticker, patch or a pin.
I don't really see how someone openly expressing their displeasure with a popular product makes them a "tool".
Tools are useful, unlike facebook.
"Open" would be a blog post. This is passive-aggressive.
You could also use Font Awesome for something similar: http://jsfiddle.net/sv8Lm/
Indeed. This was my first approach, but I did not get something nice. It seems my html/css-fu is even lower than what I thought!
What, no "I'm not on LiveJournal/MySpace/Friendster/your local BBS" icons?
Find me on The Well.
Better to just add facebook to your hosts file
What's it for?
Might as well get an edgy bumper sticker to really let everyone avoid you!
Facebook is the new myspace. People are leaving it in droves.
Here is how you deal with not being on facebook [http://i.imgur.com/BOvxQ1F.png] Same thing applies to every other service that you don't use.
Or - and hear me out here - you could just not put the Facebook logo on your site. Revolutionary idea, I know.
This doesn't make sense to me.
The people who care the most about not being tracked or having their privacy invaded probably do not have facebook accounts or do not stay logged into their account. Thus, it won't affect them. The people who still use facebook obviously don't have a problem with it.
What's the point?
The people who care the most about not being tracked or having their privacy invaded probably do not have facebook accounts or do not stay logged into their account. Thus, it won't affect them. The people who still use facebook obviously don't have a problem with it.
What's the point?
The people who care the most about not being tracked or having their privacy invaded probably do not have facebook accounts or do not stay logged into their account. Thus, it won't affect them.
That's a little naive. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-pro...
That's a little naive. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-pro...
"Whoa, I'm such a rebel because I don't use Facebook."
Disapproval of Facebook for whatever reason is fair, but just putting a logo up without any explanation as to what you hate about it is just annoying. Write a blog post. Don't tell us what you don't use, its just pointless information that's more confusing than helpful.
Disapproval of Facebook for whatever reason is fair, but just putting a logo up without any explanation as to what you hate about it is just annoying. Write a blog post. Don't tell us what you don't use, its just pointless information that's more confusing than helpful.
Reminds me of the "AOL sucks" or "Thank you for not using AOL" animated gif buttons that people plastered all over our geocities sites back in 1994