Fav Icon Size
-
In Chrome 42 (M42 - that is now in Beta) we are introducing “App Install Banners”. App Install Banners give you the ability to have your users quickly and seamlessly install your Web App as per the images below.
Hmmm… How the heck does that differ from the (ages existing) ability to create an URL shortcut on desktop? Oh yeah, you get the useless app as a bonus overhead. One app per website! Musthave! More clutter to the screens! 15" phones, now!
-
haha I'm not taking one side or the other, just pointing out recent news :P
I'll try and get to adding a more friendly favicon soon if I can keep the size down, but it is a low priority at this point.
-
The browsers development is heading to a giant shithole lately… Utter nonsense being implemented (Oculus Rift in FF, anyone?). Chrome just got an absolutely unusable bookmark manager in stable by default (W8-style Start-screen-like-huge-tiles BS impossible to organize in any way. The moron that designed that must have never used bookmarks for anything.)
:( >:( >:(
-
W8-style Start-screen-like-huge-tiles BS impossible to organize in any way.
go to settings and change the view to list
-
go to settings and change the view to list
Found chrome://flags/ - Enable Enhanced Bookmarks - no need for this "enhancement". Maybe someone will write a usable bookmarks extension when this gets lost from flags. Get working features back, FF style. ::) >:(
-
What about users that use a larger icon set.. Shouldn't the favicon be 256x256 so they can just downsize ;) and get a nice pic..
What about the people that use 48x48 the medium size, etc.. Don't forget the blind people ;)
-
What about users that use a larger icon set.. Shouldn't the favicon be 256x256 so they can just downsize ;) and get a nice pic..
Fine by me. Was just throwing out 32 out as a minimum resolution.
What about the people that use 48x48 the medium size, etc.. Don't forget the blind people ;)
What about people who use a high resolution display and without up sizing it is just a tiny speck on the screen. But upsizing a 16x16 is like a water color painting blur.
In this era can't believe people still make 16x16 icons. 16x16 maybe was fine for Windows 3.0 on a 640x480 display. But we have been well beyond that for over a decade. It's just pathetic how stuck in the past some people/things are.
If it's not broke you're not making enough improve progress.
-
well I forgot my but sure ok ;)
-
well I forgot my but sure ok ;)
I got the sarcasm. You weren't quite that subtle. Line about the blind made it obvious.
-
This really should be addressed properly. To an end user, this is unacceptable. Icon's get added to desktops, task bars, phones, tablets, etc. It's a web designer responsibility to provide the client with the assets it needs to have a good user experience. especially with the current trend towards higher DPI screens. even 16x16 looks really bad with classic dpi monitors
-
What about users that use a larger icon set.. Shouldn't the favicon be 256x256 so they can just downsize ;) and get a nice pic..
What about the people that use 48x48 the medium size, etc.. Don't forget the blind people ;)
.ico files are containers (like zip files) that contain multiple bitmap image sizes (or they can only contain one size, 16x16 in this case), and end-use software can pick the right size it wants. That's why, as a web designer, they have to be careful on the .ico construction because , being a container, it can contain many different sizes and thus vary from small in size to huge in size (relatively), which would increase page load times and bandwidth usage. The client will download the entire .ico container regardless of which size image it intends to use inside that container
but, a more contemporary approach, you can avoid the container concept all together and use html meta data to point the devices to the right file. so the end user device only grabs the size image file it needs and not a container with every size image (uncompressed at that)
http://www.favicon-generator.org/ is a great resource that does this for you
ex:
