Add Homepage icon

[21st-centuryman]

Issue: closes #10450

https://github.com/gethomepage/homepage

13.7

Checklist

• I updated the JSON data in _data/simple-icons.json
• I optimized the icon with SVGO or SVGOMG
• The SVG viewbox is 0 0 24 24

Description

[21st-centuryman]

Honestly would prefer if there was a line in the top right, but the svg that they provided is the official one. So it has to stay this way.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

@21st-centuryman, the source icon was created with Potrace which is a tool for converting raster images to vectors. It often produces very poor results and a lot of people don't seem to bother reviewing them, so we only ever use them as a starting point at the very most. If you feel it needs to be tweaked to make it more faithful to the actual icon or that it would benefit from a cut-out then feel free to do so 👍🏻

[21st-centuryman]

@PeterShaggyNoble i think it's best I don't mess with it. After all I'm not associated with the project, I'm just a fan.

Once they have a better svg I'll update it then on simple-icons.

[21st-centuryman]

I will try to talk to the group on discord so they can update their logo, I don't feel comfortable changing it.

For now I think it's fine to merge.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Did you hear anything back from them yet, @21st-centuryman?

[shamoon]

The actual version we have is raster, it was from one of our users. And yes, the svg we created with just the silhouette is from the png

[21st-centuryman]

@PeterShaggyNoble we should just use the one mentioned by @shamoon. I had some discussion with other members and this was the consensus.

thank you @shamoon, hope you have a great rest of the week.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, @shamoon 👍🏻

Given that feedback, we're good to run with this treatment, @21st-centuryman - the SVG lines up perfectly with the source but it does contain a good few excess points. Could you see if you could remove them before we merge this?

[21st-centuryman]

@PeterShaggyNoble I am not sure what you mean by excess points. Do you want me to do something different with svgo?

[PeterShaggyNoble]

See here, @21st-centuryman; you should be able to delete all points along the straight lines as well as one of the overlapping points in the top-left. As the source SVG is generated by Potrace, I wouldn't be too concerned if any minor differences are introduced as a result.

[21st-centuryman]

@PeterShaggyNoble Does this look good?

[adamrusted]

Looks like work on the bottom of this icon has introduced some weirdness - see the source in red and your PR in black....

Would you mind having another look @21st-centuryman? Might just need to be a higher precision on your PR version :)

[21st-centuryman]

@adamrusted I believe these are caused by the excess points I was told to remove earlier, do you want me to revert to commit d47f958 or should I still remove these points but to a satisfying level?

I am fine with both.

[adamrusted]

Hey @21st-centuryman - I think there's a happy medium somewhere between what's currently in this PR and the source icon. If you keep a local copy of the source icon and compare as you remove points, remove just enough that it's 'minimized' the amount of excess points without affecting the shape (if that's possible!)

[21st-centuryman]

I did my best attempt at this. there will be some small changes I don't think I can avoid that. If you guys are super against any changes I would recommend just using commit d47f958

if that is what you want ill just update the branch.

[21st-centuryman]

@adamrusted

I'm confused by the heart reaction. Does that mean my latest commit was unsatisfactory and I should revert to the earlier commit I mentioned?

Thank you :)

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Ah, the joys of Potrace - none of the straight lines are actually straight! 🙄 The unoptimised path below is the best I could manage, if you want to run with it. Although, perhaps @adamrusted could throw an eye over it first before you go any further.

M1.9917359,0.03401732C1.2174189,0.16581596 0.60235859,0.84128399 0.41564385,1.7693661 0.3881858,1.9011647 0.36072775,21.857675 0.3881858,23.895063c0,0.181223 0,0.181223 0.9225905,-0.593094 0.4971291,-0.416075 1.3286269,-1.12829 1.8012481,-1.515684 0.3404798,-0.280073 0.6260435,-0.54367 0.6370267,-0.57662 0.010983,-0.03844 0.021966,-1.147746 0.016475,-2.465732l-0.00549,-2.394342h1.5156844c0.8292331,0 1.521176,0.02197 1.5376508,0.04393 0.016475,0.02197 0.027458,0.538177 0.021966,1.142254 0,0.609569 0.010983,1.103814 0.021967,1.103814 0.016475,0 0.6425183,-0.521703 0.7248925,-0.604077 0.016475,-0.01647 0.4008875,-0.334988 0.8511996,-0.713909 0.9225904,-0.768826 0.9170988,-0.763334 1.3729024,-1.147747 0.2800722,-0.236139 0.3404802,-0.263597 0.4118712,-0.203189 0.07139,0.0659 2.877603,2.4218 3.591513,3.020385 1.313579,1.098365 2.622935,2.202113 3.931992,3.305949 0.0034,0.0031 2.020159,1.739513 2.075829,1.702399 0.02197,-0.01098 0.03844,-3.333407 0.03844,-7.380723 -0.0055,-6.573458 0.0055,-7.3642495 0.08237,-7.3807243 0.04393,-0.010983 0.895133,-0.016475 1.883623,-0.016475h1.801248L23.601221,5.459728C23.59573,3.389391 23.568272,1.6430591 23.551797,1.5826513 23.409015,1.0884064 23.041077,0.56121188 22.667648,0.30310621 22.195369,-0.01540717 22.832396,0.00106766 12.10179,0.00106766 6.6596044,-0.00442395 2.1125513,0.01205088 1.9917359,0.03401732Z

[21st-centuryman]

@PeterShaggyNoble Thank you for your help, i committed the changes.

[adamrusted]

Thanks for the assist @PeterShaggyNoble!
@21st-centuryman - as you can see from the checks, they're failing because the precision of Peter's unoptimized path is way too high. Could you please run it through SVGOMG or similar to get the precision points as low as possible without altering the shape?

[21st-centuryman]

@adamrusted
i did run it through SVGO here is the output:

$ npx svgo -p 3 icons/homepage.svg

homepage.svg:
Done in 13 ms!
0.745 KiB - 0% = 0.745 KiB

I am not sure what more I could do. do you want me to decrease the precision? here are some outputs

$ npx svgo -p 2 icons/homepage.svg

homepage.svg:
Done in 12 ms!
0.745 KiB - 22.8% = 0.575 KiB

below is the path for precision of 2

M2 .03C1.21.17.6.84.41 1.77.39 1.9.36 21.86.39 23.9c0 .18 0 .18.92-.6.82-.7 1.65-1.37 2.44-2.09 0-.04.02-1.15.02-2.47l-.01-2.39h1.52c.83 0 1.52.02 1.53.04.02.03.03.54.03 1.15 0 .6 0 1.1.02 1.1.53-.43 1.05-.88 1.57-1.32l1.38-1.15c.28-.23.34-.26.4-.2l4.1 3.44c4.9 4.12 3.1 2.64 5.07 4.27.22.19.42.33.44.32.02-.01.04-3.33.04-7.38 0-6.57 0-7.37.08-7.38.04-.01.9-.02 1.88-.02h1.8l-.02-3.76c0-2.07-.03-3.82-.05-3.88A2.54 2.54 0 0 0 22.67.3C22.2 0 22.83 0 12.1 0 6.66 0 2.11.01 2 .03Z

[adamrusted]

@21st-centuryman We usually aim for a path with a precision between 3 and 5, so the linter is likely to fail again on the precision of 2 😅

If a precision of 3 isn't showing any differences compared to Peter's original path, then let's go with that.

[21st-centuryman]

ok i did some other changes. check now
@adamrusted

[adamrusted]

LGTM! Thanks for your work on this both!

Contributed