I'd like to correct myself here: Chris is right that a logo should scale down. I don't think it needs to scale as far as favicon size (that's *tiny*) but nonetheless, the ideal logo *should* scale down.
In light of that, I will be adding a scaled-down version of each icon. Something about half the size of a desktop icon and about 2-3 the size of a favicon. Daniel. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Daniel Carrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I've been thinking about this, and this is what I think: The favicon > need not be the same as the logo. Look at Wikipedia or Google. Their > logos would make terrible favicons and indeed, they both use a > different logo for favicon. Hence, I do not think that the logo choice > should be influenced by how it looks as a favicon. In fact, I think it > might actually prevent us from finding a good logo because often, if > you take something that looks good as a favicon and enlarge it, the > result would work poorly as a logo. Again, take Wikipedia and Google. > If Wikipedia's logo was just a "W", it would be a very poor logo. But > the "W" is perfect as a favicon. > > Just my 0.02€ > > Daniel. > > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Chris Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: >> Any chance of having a small favicon size version >> of each logo next to the current one so we can >> start seeing how they look as a marker for our >> web page? >> >> --Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Perldl mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl >> > > > > -- > Intolerant people should be shot. > -- Intolerant people should be shot. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
