Reduce new favicon size in search results #3945
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I slightly modified the commit message and placed make static.build.commit on top.
It's hard for me to decide whether we should make these changes ... I've also added a few comments below.
Lets hear what others say .. ping: @vojkovic @mrpaulblack @Bnyro
| height: 1.8rem; | ||
| width: 1.8rem; | ||
| height: 1.25rem; | ||
| width: 1.25rem; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like both, but 1.25rem fits the line height much better
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The purpose of the favicon is to quickly be able to quickly see what you're clicking on. At 1.25rem it becomes much harder to make out the favicon, and even more so on mobile devices.
An issue is that SearXNG doesn't have website 'short-names'. For example, make a search on Google and you'll see how the short name is above the link which balances out the design.
Obviously, I'm no expert on UX/UI design but I think usability should be prioritised. I would be in favour of maybe lowering the size of the favicons just a little if people want to do that but this is just too much in my opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just popping in with my thoughts.
At 1.8rem, the favicons are far too large and distract from reading the names for the search results; they're meant to be auxiliary content, not the main focus.
On the other hand, 1.25rem is a bit small, and could use a slight bump (maybe 1.5rem?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An issue is that SearXNG doesn't have website 'short-names'. For example, make a search on Google and you'll see how the short name is above the link which balances out the design.
I don't think a "short-name" is needed in SearXNG / most origin search sites (e.g. ddg) do not have a short name we can fetch in our engines.
Here is how it looks on google (incl. "short-name") ..
and here a screenshot from ddg:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current status (1.25rem width/height, 10% rounding):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, there is this (1.5rem width/height, 10% rounding):
Which one do you all prefer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The purpose of the favicon is to quickly be able to quickly see what you're clicking on. At 1.25rem it becomes much harder to make out the favicon, and even more so on mobile devices.
At
1.8rem, the favicons are far too large .. On the other hand,1.25remis a bit small, and could use a slight bump (maybe1.5rem?)
.. both arguments count, its hard for me to decide for one or the other .. (may we see some day a PR that places the favicon left to the title?) ..
Which one do you all prefer?
I'm not an UI expert to judge, but since I have to make a decision I will choose the compromise, which seems to be 1.5rem .. hope thats OK for all of you.
|
Here is an example for the before: after: |
What does this PR do?
This PR is for minor stylistic changes to the theming of the new favicons system.
Before:
After:
Why is this change important?
This change is not important. I am making these changes to my local instance, and thought they looked a lot better, so figured I might as well send them upstream if desired. Feel free to do whatever with it!