For some reason, Firefox (v43.0 / Ubuntu 14.04) isn't properly scaling up the new logo when zoomed in:

(Click to enlarge.)

The background scales fine, and so do e.g. the vote buttons (which come from the same sprite sheet as the logo). I suspect the problem may have something to do with the filter effect used to create the subtle drop shadow on the logo, but that's just a wild guess.

On Chromium (v47.0.2526.73), the logo does scale up just fine, so this is presumably a bug / quirk of Firefox's SVG rendering. It would still be nice to find a workaround for this, if practical. (Of course, the whole issue is pretty minor anyway, since the logo looks fine at normal size, so I can totally understand if the decision is not to bother fixing this. But I figured it was worth reporting, at least.)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can reproduce (also Ubuntu 14.04, though). There are two sprite sheets apparently, the second one is .svg. For some reason on FF it chooses the png for the logo, but svg for other things. $\endgroup$
    – otus
    Dec 22, 2015 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ If I remove the reference to the png the logo disappears, so yes, it tries to resize a PNG, which is basically a compressed bitmap. I'm a bit surprised that JPG isn't used for this or possibly a downsized png. $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Dec 22, 2015 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ Replicated on Windows 10 (same FF version, I like to keep up to date as well). Funny enough, the logo is displayed correctly when the thing is on its own (so in the foreground), so it could be an issue with the filter and the image being displayed as background image. Why is it a bg image instead of a foreground image - some kind of hack? Oh, yes Chrome works well on Windows, logo is super. $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Dec 22, 2015 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ Apparently we don't have to worry about bold text not being displayed clearly though; that Why just jumps out of the page :P $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Dec 22, 2015 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @MaartenBodewes There’ll always be italics for us… ;) $\endgroup$
    – e-sushi
    Dec 22, 2015 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ @e-sushi Yeah, OK, but not everybody will use that. So I filed a "bug question" here on meta, otherwise we'll have to edit each and every question that contains bold type face. Glad that italics look good, now for bold italics... $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Dec 22, 2015 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ @MaartenBodewes Upvoted that one already. Been thinking – maybe that boldness is a styling change so we have an alternative to reading/writing CAPS-LOCKED messages (which look kind of “miniscule” when comparing it to the new bold styling) – or it’s simply an NSA experiment based on using *“not-working-accross-all-browsers” stuff like shadow filters with paths… (which – as far as I checked things – seems to be the cause of the logo-text-pixelated-bug reported here).* 8] $\endgroup$
    – e-sushi
    Dec 22, 2015 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Back on topic: I can show the SVG logo without the filters, so it's definitely filter related. The filters filter out the SVG :) $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Dec 23, 2015 at 1:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This should be fixed now. $\endgroup$
    – Paweł
    Dec 29, 2015 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Paweł Confirmed! Maybe post an answer so Ilmari can accept it. No shadings, but personally I don't think that's a drawback - I like clean fonts. $\endgroup$
    – Maarten Bodewes Mod
    Jan 2, 2016 at 2:08


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .