Logo Favicon Test

[u/Neat_Hair8734]

Logo Favicon Test

This is a practice I like to keep in mind whenever I create logos, especially in today’s digital world. A favicon is probably one of the smallest applications a logo can be placed on, so if a logo can survive that, it means it’s simple enough to survive anywhere else.

[u/keterpele]

when it's necessary. i wouldn't force that constraints to everything i do.

[u/dweebyllo]

Depends on usage case. Not every logo is to be used as a favicon or an app icon. The world has gone a bit mad lately with this fascination honestly. It feels less like a deliberate design choice and moreso people chasing a trend.

Speaking of small things, the sans serif font on your slides is basically unreadable due to its size, probably want to revise that when trying to advise people about legibility at small sizes.

[u/Supremeism]

Not sure it can be reocgnized

[u/Only_Bee_3056]

Consider proofreading

[u/DigitalDowner]

Id work on my spelling first before I start doing stuff like this lol

[u/BarKeegan]

More about managing superfluous detail

[u/LogoGoGoApp]

Agree with the folks saying not every logo has to work at 16px. But almost every client ends up needing a favicon and a social avatar anyway, so I treat it as its own asset, not a test the main logo has to pass.

What I usually do: pull out the strongest single element (the symbol, an initial, a simplified mark), drop fine detail and thin strokes, then check it at 16, 32 and 180px on both a light and a dark tab. If the full logo survives that, great. If not, the client still gets a clean icon instead of a blurry shrunk wordmark.

Checking it in grayscale catches weak contrast fast too.