4 ms·
When it comes to things like favicons, I always design variants for 16×16, 32×32 and larger scalable (or occasionally just 256×256). It perpetually bothers me t
by chrismorgan 4y ago
When it comes to things like favicons, I always design variants for 16×16, 32×32 and larger scalable (or occasionally just 256×256). It perpetually bothers me that no avatar system that I know of supports different images at different sizes; the constraints can be significantly different, as in my own site’s favicon, where at one extreme 16×16 pretty much ignores vertical border to get it as big as possible, and is also effectively super thick and blocky, while at the other extreme the large-size scalable one wants some definite padding, thinner lines, and maybe other details. This is basic design stuff that is intuitive and has been generally practised from the dawn of GUIs.
As for black and white, well, I have been thinking that way a little more when contemplating e-ink displays, which handle monochrome better than greyscale (faster, less ghosting). It may surprise those that don’t know to learn that reMarkable renders your writing strictly monochrome with no antialiasing, presumably for both of these reasons; and it works rather well, though I would appreciate a higher resolution than its 226dpi. (The UI is all firmly black-and-white with no greys, but they do use anti-aliased rendering throughout.)
- somishere 4y agoI've spent a bit of time designing a simplistic (but state-dynamic / rendered on the fly) svg favicon for a firefox extension I'm working on. I started designing at 512², with dimensions/elements carefully calculated for downscale, but the resulting antialias on various screens was so unpredictable that I switched to designing a 16² upscale instead which, while initially restrictive, was much more predictable and came out looking quite nice.