some icons that are not skinnable yet

[hiccup]

There are a couple of icons that I believe currently are not available for skinning, and thus will stick out like a sore thumb in some skins:



If I am wrong and they are available for skinning, somebody please direct me to the correct elements.
Else, this is a request.

[Steven]

Those icons are retrieved from the windows file system.
I will add a couple of overrides for v3.4

[Steven]

they will be:

Code

NetworkDriveIcon - network share
WpdDeviceIcon - portable devices (WPD and ipod)
UsbDeviceIcon - usb devices
StorageIcon - for all other root drives eg. virtual drive, cd drive

[hiccup]

Great, thanks!

(damn, I'll now need to do some pixel-designing soon)

[hiccup]

they will be:
WpdDeviceIcon - portable devices (WPD and ipod)
UsbDeviceIcon - usb devices

When creating icons for these, it would be good if they last and stay relevant for some time.

Taking that into account, what would be discriminating differences between the above two?
The keyword for both would be 'removable', right?

Perhaps, one is 'dumb' storage, and the other a music player with a user interface?
Is it relevant for either of the two by what means they transfer data with the computer? (e.g. wired vs. wireless)
Or maybe there are some differences in regard to syncing capabilities?

[hiccup]

they will be:
WpdDeviceIcon - portable devices (WPD and ipod)
UsbDeviceIcon - usb devices

.... what would be discriminating differences between the above two?
The keyword for both would be 'removable', right?

Perhaps, one is 'dumb' storage, and the other a music player with a user interface?
Is it relevant for either of the two by what means they transfer data with the computer? (e.g. wired vs. wireless)
Or maybe there are some differences in regard to syncing capabilities?

An additional question:

Currently optical drives and virtual drives have distinctive icons:



So for 3.4 they will be sharing the same icon?
(I'm not sure that's a good idea)

[Steven]

yes i agree and will also add:

Code

OpticalDriveIcon - for optical drives

[hiccup]

yes i agree and will also add:

That leaves my other questions.
Note that I myself don't use any syncing functions to smartphones or portable music players, nor do I use removable drives in relation to MB, so this is an honest question.

I have designed some icons, and I'll need to make a decision which ones are the most applicable for the locations and the circumstances that they will show up in MusicBee.
To give you a better idea of the choices I'll need to make, these are some of my current candidate designs for the task:



MusicBee 3.4 will be having:

NetworkDriveIcon - network share
WpdDeviceIcon - portable devices (WPD and ipod)
UsbDeviceIcon - usb devices
StorageIcon - for all other root drives eg. virtual drive
OpticalDriveIcon - for optical drives

Most are clear and unambiguous, but nr. 2 and 3 are not. (to me)
If a smartphone is connected by means of USB, will it get a WpdDeviceIcon or a UsbDeviceIcon? If it's the latter, when is WpdDeviceIcon used?
Will it make a difference if either a dumb usb stick, a Windows smartphone, or an Apple product is connected by means of usb?
Will it make a difference if a smartphone is connected/syncing by means of wireless vs. usb?
Etc.

So the real question is probably: how specific can these icons be?
Specific and thus self-explainable, or should they be kept much more generic?

[Steven]

if a device is detected via the MTP protocol, its a WPD device otherwise a USB device. A USB device can be a portable player or a stick.
Wireless device connections are only for sync and the device wont show if its not also plugged in

edit:
I appreciate the icon for USB devices is difficult because it could be a memory stick or a portable player. However MB doesnt any logic built in to make the distinction

[hiccup]

I appreciate the icon for USB devices is difficult because it could be a memory stick or a portable player. However MB doesnt any logic built in to make the distinction

Deciding on what icons, it then probably comes down to that it's probably better to be a bit more generic and undescriptive, than trying to be very descriptive, but in some cases being plain incorrect.
Thanks for the insights, I should now be able to decide on something for 3.4.