# Should we get a vector logo?

Right now, we use a raster logo instead of a vector logo.

For those who don't know, a raster is an image made of pixels. If you zoom enough, you'll see the image become pixelated (as is the case with our logo). Vector graphics don't become pixelated when you zoom into them, and they'll always remain crisp.

Almost every SE site uses vector logos because they look nicer. An example of a vector graphic is this:

Feynmann diagram is from Wikipedia, courtesy of user Joel Holdsworth under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license. Modified by changing the color and trimming the gluon spiral. Logo based on Physics SE's logo, copyright of Stack Exchange Inc.; no infringement intended.

I made this in a few minutes. Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Not to mention, the current logo shows up blurry for a lot of larger displays. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?

PS: If you decide to use the logo I made, please give attribution to the creator of the Feynmann diagram, as per the Creative Commons license.

• @EmilioPisanty What real world impact does any design have? No design is intended to affect the world, they only make websites more visually appealing. Also, I'm not criticizing their design choices with incomplete information, it's a simple suggestion. If you have a legitimate reason to disagree, please speak. That would at least be productive. – Sir Cumference Mar 17 '17 at 23:45
• @EmilioPisanty Given that smaller sites like Bicycle SE use vector logos, it doesn't really seem like an intentional flaw. It is definitely something they forgot to implement here. If you know any good reason as to why they didn't use a vector logo here then say it. Otherwise your comment looks too naive. – 2017 Mar 18 '17 at 6:47
• You're not proposing any change to the design, and you're not offering any evidence that your proposed change would actually change how the site looks. So, again: can you offer any evidence that the logo appears under-resolved in any circumstances? Or why are you so keen on zooming in on the logo? It looks perfectly fine in its intended magnification. Without that, both comments above are making a lot of naive hullabaloo about very little. – Emilio Pisanty Mar 18 '17 at 11:45
• @EmilioPisanty Sure, here. The logo is blurry on a big display screen like mine. I don't want to hear "it was intended to be blurry". – Sir Cumference Mar 18 '17 at 13:49
• ^ Yeah, it's blurry on mine too. @EmilioPisanty Now, please don't ask why the logo being blurry bothers us. Or, if it were less blurry, what "real-world" impact it would have. – 2017 Mar 18 '17 at 13:51
• @EmilioPisanty "I think the design team should do more work but I can't be bothered to say why" SirCumference never claimed that. "I don't see how responding with snark to requests for evidence and clarity is "productive"".... I don't see which comment seems to be a snark to you Be specific. Secondly, anyone with common sense would realize that the logo would look pixelated in high resolution displays. (Given that SirC already said: "Notice how it does not pixelate when you zoom in. Shouldn't we update our design to have better quality?"). – 2017 Mar 18 '17 at 14:39
• @EmilioPisanty FYI in your last but one comment 'It looks perfectly find in its intended magnification'. I think you are forgetting that some people may need to magnify images, e.g. due to visual impairment. If the magnified image is pixelated I can imagine this doesn't help them a great deal. For evidence - try turning on your device accessibility magnifier and see the difference. – Quantum spaghettification Mar 18 '17 at 17:27
• I think it's clear that vector graphics are always better than non-vector. They simply can be used in any situation perfectly. It doesn't matter if you will actually use it, it just increases the range of options you have. Also @SirCumference is sharing his work here, not demanding a vector graphics from SE design team. Also, could you export it to pdf or eps? I thing it's more likely that people can open it in their computer than with svg. I need GIMP for that, and when I open the image, GIMP rasters it with a resolution it asks for. Is there any reason why you used svg? – anonymous Mar 18 '17 at 17:36
• This SVG logo you have here is 81 kB. If I run it through svg-cleaner it cuts it down to 44 kB. If I gzip -9 it, it's down to 16 kB. However, the PNG is only 5 kB. It would be nice to have a crisp vector logo/banner, but I hope we can clean it up even more and shave a few more kB off. I know it's only a few kB, but this is how bloat happens (it's totally worth it, but still, good effort needs to be put into minimizing the SVG). Also, +2 for the pretty SVG (but -1 for no red free-hand circle). – Cornstalks Mar 19 '17 at 6:48
• @EmilioPisanty Mine is infringing copyright? Read the terms: I must give attribution and make it clear what changes were made. – Sir Cumference Mar 19 '17 at 15:04
• @EmilioPisanty Oye, all right. – Sir Cumference Mar 19 '17 at 15:10
• @EmilioPisanty So it's not as simple as "give attribution"? Fun. – Sir Cumference Mar 19 '17 at 15:21
• @EmilioPisanty I suppose I'll wait and see if they mind. – Sir Cumference Mar 19 '17 at 15:38
• @jinawee The SE team monitors all posts tagged feature-request on the meta sites - you can rest assured that they are aware of this post and will respond if they have something to say. – ACuriousMind Mar 21 '17 at 17:21
• With all the fuss about the copyright, I'd add that "no infringement intended" is a completely pointless phrase. Whether you intend to commit copyright infringement or not has no bearing on whether you actually do. Also, I doubt that a generic Feynman diagram is worthy of copyright protection, so I don't think it would be legally required to credit Joel for using the same diagram in a design. (If nothing else, the diagram already appears in the current site logo.) I'm all for respecting copyright and not saying you did something wrong by offering an attribution, I just think it's overkill. – David Z Mar 26 '17 at 21:37