260
A symbol for the fediverse ⁂
(symbol.fediverse.info)
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
is said in webpage: the pentagram symbol is hard to distinguish at smaller typographicl sizes
I'm reading this thread on mobile, and the fediverse logo next to the community name is much easier to see than the three stars. If I didn't already know what the three stars were from the rest of the post, I wouldn't have a clue what they were supposed to be in the body. They look like a blurry capital A.
Obviously the fediverse logo is bigger there, which helps, but it's not significantly bigger, and would still be clearer at a smaller size
I recommend the asterism to instead be adopted as the symbol for astigmatism.
I like it! 😁
Don't typograh so small
1 thats not how typography works
2 im not webpage authour what u wan me to do about it moew?
So they touch upon it on their site:
I think they have a valid point. Currently on my website I use a Mastodon logo next to email and git and all that jazz. It's not ideal, as it's not so important that I'm on Mastodon specifically (and I might move to a self-hosted #Seppo instance in the future), but the existing fediverse icon would not work well at that scale.
It's a huge branding effort to make it catch on though. And part of me likes the pentagram better.
My guess is because it's unicode. But that doesn't really matter. How often are you going to want to put the icon instead of just typing the fediverse
eg as a link where using a word 300 times on the same page would be cumbersome
"Fedi"
Already more than 50% shorter.
In comparison, asterism symbol (and any proposal that further extends into Unicode's emoji area) still spends three, maybe four bytes.
I... umm... yes, I will grant that in UTF-8 and perhaps UTF-16, it encodes to fewer bytes. But that doesn't have anything to do with my point.
my friend, please read the article. it does a great job of explaining the why. it only takes a minute to read.
Not so widely adopted if most results don't include it.