Feature Request: Font Awesome Pro (5, 6...) optional

Hey @elixirgraphics

It would be great if Foundry could support FA5 and later, especially pro: a global configuration where I can configure my own Pro license / Kit :heart_eyes:

Would be also great if the Icon Font (FA) stack could support >FA5 & Pro by allowing (optional) manually selecting style (Solid, Regular, Light, Duotone, Brands) and short code. And perhaps support rotate and spin as settings?

Something like this:

(Clickable Demo:)
https://xxjlrx.axshare.com

Currently I configure the kit in the headers section and use HTML elements, but in edit mode, they are not shown. Not a biggy, but it would make the editor less cluttered :see_no_evil:

1 Like

This is something that has been discussed here in the past multiple times. When and if Stacks adds support for FontAwesome 5 or 6 libraries in the API I’ll be glad to include it. Using the API means other stacks outside of Foundry can also use the library without duplicating the library multiple times or causing code conflicts. This is why jQuery and FontAwesome are loaded this way via the API currently.

I’m not a fan of anything Font Awesome myself, prefer to use my own SVG’s, so I’ve never tried, but can you not bring in your own suite of FA5 icons and use HTML to add them where you want?

FontAwesome has grown a bit out of control in v5 it feels like. I have been researching other alternatives for a future update though and have even asked Isaiah about expanding the options in the Stacks API.

1 Like

Back in the day when FA first appeared it was an incredible solution to get neat scalable icons on the page. The icons themselves were a bit blocky, but so where websites mostly, so it was grand.

Things have moved on massively in terms of website design, in particular relating to us, what is possible with RW, but FA icons are still blocky, and IMO pretty horrible.

Years back we didn’t feel the need to tie in our icons with our general design, now you have to, if your overal design is to look “joined up” and flow.

As such, I don’t really believe there is one single set of icons that will work for everyone. As such, I’d suggest the days of using one core set embedded into any aspect of RW are over. Much better for users to learn to use their own or their own selected suite.

IMO.

1 Like

That is good for intermediate or advanced users. It is a good skill to learn, and as you point out provides you more customization options. Beginning RapidWeaver users though want and need quick easy solutions to be available for them.

1 Like

It’s a matter of taste, I still love to use them (or other Icon sets) for quick results and their unified way of implemeting them. Especially with FA5 and the the new styles like Light and Solid you can do some nice and fun things.

1 Like

True, that’s what I am doing now. But I love things organzied :rofl:

1 Like

Good point. Haven’t thought about this.

1 Like

The Stacks API can look at all stacks on the page and see what everyone needs. It is even capable of making compromises when different stacks need different versions of jQuery for instance.

If I were to use a library that I am pretty much guaranteed no one else was going to use I would have far less worry about incorporating it manually. One or two options I’m looking at would fall into this category.

So we’ll see how things play out. You can add the request over on the GitHub Repo though so I don’t forget it, along with any other Foundry specific requests you might have.

True. I often forget about the wide range of user types in the RW world.

1 Like

I am probably the only user in the world who want’s to use his FA5 Premium Icons :joy:
All others are happy with the free 4.7 Icons :wink:

(I’ll add that request later.)

1 Like

No, lots of people want FontAwesome 5. You’re not alone. I just would feel irresponsible if I manually added them and then another developer also manually added them to a product and we were doubling up on FA on a page. That library is not small.

1 Like