Add favicon to project

[tbille]

Add favicon to project.

Fixes #11

[anthonydillon]

LGTM 👍

[anthonydillon]

Can you do me a favour and add <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" /> in there too, plz!

[anthonydillon]

Awesome thanks 👍

[nottrobin]

I was gonna add a comment on this, then it got merged... I'm gonna comment anyway:

@anthonydillon do we have a standard for how to add favicons? There's a whole spectrum of options from just one image to about 20, including a bunch of "apple-touch-icon"s and "og:image".

I'd prefer simplicity personally. I'm not sure why we would need a 32 pixel one and a 16px one. Personally I think a single link to a 32 or 48 pixel icon should do just fine. But do you have another standard for a reason?

[anthonydillon]

Happy to restrain from adding og or Apple favicons as this site is not to be shared. The two sizes are for single DPI screens and double DPI screens.

[nottrobin]

My thinking was that every modern browser will happily display a 32x32 favicon, and it should look fine for both cases, so why complicate things with 16x16? I don't think the difference in size between 32x32 and 16x16 is going to make any difference at all to performance.

[anthonydillon]

Microsoft recommends [1] including images sized 16x16, 32x32 and 48x48. The sizes you declare depends on the devices you want to support. Some common and not-so-common sizes: 32x32 48x48 64x64 96x96 128x128 Chrome Web Store icon 160x160 Chrome for Android 192x192 Chrome for Android 195x195 Opera Speed Dial icon 196x196 Chrome for Android 228x228 Opera Coast icon In this case I think the basic ones should suffice although we could add 48. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/internet-explorer/ie-developer/samples/gg491740(v=vs.85)

…

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 07:39 Robin Winslow, ***@***.***> wrote: My thinking was that every modern browser will happily display a 32*32 favicon, and it should look fine for both cases, so why complicate things with 16*16? I don't think the difference in size between 32*32 and 16*16 is going to make any difference at all to performance. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWRnmYm0Jd0VpqKcnIZ6jmCJQyyUed5ks5u1iangaJpZM4Y7-Vp> .

[nottrobin]

@anthonydillon from that page:

Site Icons in Internet Explorer 9

I think I win the argument.

[nottrobin]

@anthonydillon more seriously, I'd rather not be a team that just does stuff because "Microsoft recommends it". When people have good justifications for their advice, great. We can read the justification and decide it totally makes sense and we agree.

In this case, Microsoft are also recommending that we create icons in .ico format. Their advice is significantly out-of-date - PNG icon support is now ubiquitous, and IE9 has disappeared into the mists of history.

And they don't actually recommend that you use all 3, they instead say:

your icons should support the following image sizes:
Recommended | 16x16, 32x32, 48x48

I would argue that a single 48 pixel icon is "supporting" all of those image sizes.

So I don't understand, in this day and age, why we can't just include 1 icon in whatever the largest size we need is and have done with it. Given that, for an icon that is 48 pixels wide, the time taken to do the HTTP handshake will exceed the time taken to download the image in 98% of cases, we really don't need to worry about providing 3 separate icons.

Do you have an actual counter-argument to this point?