I propose to change the minimum resolution rule from 200x200 pixels to 40000 pixels.
In the spirit of the law, we are trying to limit minimum resolution to limit minimum symbol quality. However, explicitly specifying both height and width assumes the symbol as a square (aspect ratio 1:1). Therefore using a rule with the total number of pixels would suit better.
I noticed this issue through discussions of Dispute 135.
I don’t think this rule assumes the symbol to be a square, it just shows a minimum width and height.
Computing the total number of pixels would unnecessarily complexifies the rule.
We can change it to something like “the logo must be able to fit at least a 200x200 px square to ensure minimum quality”
This is more complex. Multiplying symbol dimensions is very simple.
If you require min height 200px of a horizontal symbol (1:3), then you require width to be 600px at least. Which translates to 120000px, 3x of necessary minimum.
I don’t see why we should change/add additional rules. Seems like only added complexity. Requiring a certain number of pixels seems really arbitrary and confusing.
If the purpose is to allow submissions like #135, I think it’s better to just reword this part:
…and take most of the space available in the image…
So that it doesn’t allow blank space outside of the logo, but allows inner blank space to maintain minimum square.
…of at least 200x200 px…
Concise and the intention is pretty clear on first read, changing it to areas will be confusing: “40000 px? Does this mean width times height or the actual count of pixels within the logo? Also, why?”
To see why please see dispute 135.
Requiring dimensions (200px x 200px) is actually “requiring certain number of pixels”. Because it assumes 1:1 ratio by explicitly requiring dimensions. Instead you can require total number of pixels and remove 1:1 aspect ratio assumption. This has zero confusion and zero complexity added.
You can say, but symbol will be displayed in minimum fitting square anyway. Yeah but this creates a debate as you can see in dispute 135. Requester submitted an image with 300px x 300px resolution. Symbol inside has 300 pixels width and 152 pixels height. And submitter submitted it in minimum fitting square. Challenger argues that because height parameter is under 200x200 rule submission should be rejected.
Submitting symbol which fits minimum square of at least 200x200px image size works equivalently with my proposal. We can propose this as well. @willy
This is simply not true. Requiring at least 200x200 is a stronger requirement than >40000px.
It’s minimal requirements. It has noting to do with ratio or form.
Requiring a certain number of pixels seems quite abstract/confusing to me. Have you ever seen an image prompt in the internet that requires a certain amount of pixels instead of certain minimal dimensions?
You don’t understand my point.
200x200 is stronger requirement than >40000 because it’s restrictiveness is minimum when the symbol is square and goes to infinity as ratio of dimensions goes to zero. Example:
1:1 required pixels 40000
1:3 required pixels 120000
1:3000 required pixels 120000000
So as the symbol becomes less square you require it to be more high definition. Unless you interpret the rule for the image not the symbol within, which is not clear in current policy and creates debates.
When you understand my point above multiplying dimensions will no longer seem abstract/confusing to you.
And, have you ever seen a decentralized curated list?
I get your point, but are there really images out there that have a ratio higher than 1:5 or so? Doesn’t seem like a realistic scenario.
Fair ;p
Realistic scenario is out there, see dispute 135.
That logo’s ratio is like what, 1:2? How is that even comparable to what you’re suggesting?
Like mathematically your argument works fine. This is don’t disagree with. But it’s not realistic.
I’m not saying this rule is problematic when ratio is big, I just demonstrated that minimum resolution requirement increases linearly depending the ratio of symbol. But we would want a standard requirement of quality, not varying requirement of quality. Do we?