Why is our site icon an installer?

[SYSTEM]

I like lintalist's suggestion. It's clear even in a small size.

[lintalist]

This logo refresh topic indirectly came up a few years ago.

I think this is specific for the site's "favicon.ico" file - https://www.portablefreeware.com/favicon.ico - which is what you see in browser tabs and possibly pinned tabs on a browser start page (in much larger size), not the logo (top left on each page). Hence my old-skool 16x16 attempt.

[Midas]

What? Where? Who did that?..

Seriously, no strong feelings either way.

[__philippe]

May I bring back a worn-out, yet perchance pertinent suggestion ?

Spoiler!   

[Andrew Lee]

Although vevy's icon looks nice at its original size, down-sampled to 16x16, it doesn't look very distinctive IMHO:

icon16x16.png (564 Bytes) Viewed 6476 times

This reminds me that when designing a very small icon, it is typically not sufficient to down-sample from a large icon. I was trying to find an article that I read previously about a designer working in the Windows team (couldn't locate the article sadly). She talked about the challenges in creating very small icons, and having to work with a bitmap editor directly to produce good results. This StackExchange article perhaps capture the essence of the challenges, and some techniques that could be used to overcome these challenges.

As of now, my personal preference is lintalist's icon, since it has all 4 letters of this site's abbreviation, which makes it very recognizable. The alternative is no change, which is also OK for me since I am so used to the old icon it is etched into my subconscious by now!

JohnTHaller's icon is defeated by lintalist's 2 additional letters

I will put up a vote to see which alternative the collective prefers.

VOTE HERE

[lintalist]

I voted "No change" for what it's worth.

[vevy]

Andrew is right. And since John's is not on the options, I vote for lintalist's