Does the readability of favicons matter?
There's an incredibly short post up at Typophile by Miha showing how much better YouTube's favicon could be if Google applied a sub-pixel rendering technique. Sub-pixel rendering is the approach that Microsoft uses in its ClearType font-smoothing technology, though there are many others using the technique. The concept of sub-pixel rendering is that you can fool the eye into seeing smoother curves and cleaner lines than are actually possible due to the pixel density of a screen by using very specific colors. Miha's example shows that to make clear-looking white inside the read YouTube logo, you actually use yellows and purples rather than the white that is currently used.
While there's no doubt that sub-pixel rendering is valuable for rendering text on computer screens, is it really necessary to have specialized talents in this area to make favicons more readable? There's no doubt that Miha's revised version of the YouTube favicon is more clear and easier to read; what do you think? If you could apply it easily, would you revise your site's favicon using sub-pixel rendering?
[via Google Blogoscoped]
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rokic said 4:30PM on 9-17-2009
Even if I could get a new favicon via a letter to Santa, I wouldn't do it. Why? Well, consider this; one should only put logo of the site (you know, something that people will recognize) as a favicon, which is rarely a word, as it is the case with YouTube. Also, your logo is practically everywhere on the site, so it doesn't even matter if visitors can actually read word(s) that are in the favicon, because, they recognize it all the same. In the end, that's the whole point of a favicon.
Reply
Jordan Running said 5:08PM on 9-17-2009
I disagree entirely. Many, many companies use a logotype instead of a logo to identify themselves. My opinion is that if you're going to use your logo (or logotype) as your favicon--and usually you should--it should be as clean and readable as possible. A blurry or unreadable favicon will have leave your customers with a negative--however subtle--impression, and I think that matters.
The real problem with this kind of trick, however, is that subpixel rendering works differently on different types of monitors, e.g. to look good on both CRT and LCD screens a different version of the icon must be displayed for each, and there's no way to do that with current web browsers. Also, subpixel rendering depends on screen orientation, so if you have your monitor turned to portrait orientation, or are using a handheld device that can be rotated, the icon may not render correctly. These are small problems that perhaps we can live with, but when inevitably a new display technology (OLED?) begins to replace LCD monitors, designers who've uses this technique will have to reevaluate their choices.
My true hope is that soon our monitors will pass the visible-pixel threshold, operating systems will adopt resolution-independent interfaces, and subpixel rendering will be nothing but a fond memory of vintage computing.
Saint Seminole said 5:38PM on 9-17-2009
I'm simply amazed at the amount of users I meet who've (a) never heard of favicons, and (b) say "Oh, I never noticed that" when you point out a favicon.
I use simple ones for my sites, but I doubt the average user even cares, as long as the page-header is correct and the web address is visible.
Reply
AndrewNoNumbers said 6:11PM on 9-17-2009
My blog's all about aesthetics, so I would. But I won't because favicons are just clutter. I never use them, and I know many people less computer-savvy won't either.
andrewnonumbers.tumblr.com
Reply
kingabraham3 said 11:16PM on 9-17-2009
would it take google more than 5 seconds of work to fix?... conclusion therefore is: why not?
Reply
acme said 4:52PM on 9-18-2009
because their time is better spent fixing problems
acme said 11:11PM on 9-17-2009
its a logo, as long as its recognizable the legibility of it is irrelevant, the point was already made.
Reply
quanta said 9:02PM on 9-18-2009
The devil's in the details, they say.
Favicons are what people see when one's site is in a bookmark list, and with all branding things, companies should make sure they look proper. People don't look too closely at hood ornaments, but I'll bet no car company will claim they're irrelevant.
A multimedia company like YouTube shouldn't have such a smeared favicon logo. It probably has the worse favicon of all the major social sites.
Reply