[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] sponsorlogos sizes mismatch



On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> wrote:
-=| Moray Allan, Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:09:09PM +0100 |=-
> 2011/6/9 Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org>:
> > Would it be better if we aim at total pixels used
>
> Yes.  (I'd suggest just approximating it by width ⨉ height.)

This is now online and it sort of looks alright, but is not exactly as
planned.

Here are the size guidelines:

 Level    Width Height  Total pixels
 -------- ----- ------  ------------
 Platinum   220    100       22 000
 Gold       200     60       12 000
 Silver     180     50        9 000
 Bronze     140     45        6 300
 Steel      100     40        4 000

The problem is that there is a CSS-imposed maximum width of 150 pixels
and some wide logos are scaled down as a result. The most obvious case
is the canonical logo, the optimal size of wich is 260×34 (8840px²
with norm of 9000) and it is scaled to 150×20 (3000px²). If I remove
the width limit (locally, with firebug), the sponsor list becomes far
too wide. Should we care about this scaling down?

I am also wondering if the circle-like logos need a size bump? You
know, the area occupied by a 100×100 square is larger than by a circle
with diameter of 100.

Maybe I am bikeshedding too much :)


This is always going to be an issue. I think it's a good thing to have guidelines, but ultimately we have to go for what looks best on the website. Sometimes we have to bend the rules a bit in order to make a logo fit nicely, e.g. the Canonical logo or the circular logos.

My two cents.
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=10Ts
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team



Reply to: