On Oct 30, 1:33 pm, MenTaLguY <men... / rydia.net> wrote:
> Fully concur.  Also, as a merely practical matter, this logo will be
> difficult (and therefore expensive) to print well[1].

It seems to me that you are implying that a good logo should cater to
the lowest common denominator. "Don't put color in that logo, it won't
work well when printed on a laser printer! And make sure that all
details are readable at 16x16!"

Obviously my quote takes that to the extreme, and does not directly
represent what you are saying. (You didn't shout, for one thing.) But
I contend that good branding can consist of multiple flavors of a
design. Soft gradients and drop shadows (as ugh as they may be) for
the web, solid colors for some print, reduced details (beyond just
resizing) for small-size reproduction.

No, we don't have these in the chosen icon. But that doesn't mean that
they can't be created. A few minutes photoshop work (without the
original files, even) can drop out the gradient background and bring
sharper contrast to the gem and words. And I'm not a very good
designer; someone with more skill than I could certainly, I think,
make alternative versions for different, specific, uses rather easily.

I think about well-designed icons, how entire aspects of the design in
a 128x128 icon are slowly removed as you get to smaller and smaller
sizes. Is there any reason the favicon would have to be the bicubic
resampling of the entire icon, instead of just a recognizable subset
of it?