fix: Adjust ReVanced icons

[MarcaDian]

Fix incorrect icon logo, #1124 and Splash screen is a broken in light mode from #1191 (comment)

---

Round/Adaptive icon

Before (xxhdpi)	After (xxhdpi)

Monochrome icon

---

Splash screen

Dark	Light

[Ushie]

Which one is in our revanced-branding repository?

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

@Ushie both files are in the branding repo.

Somehow two slightly different designs exist there, and nobody has noticed until now.

We should make a decision, then delete/fix the incorrect icons in that repo.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

It seems this file is the only file with the conflicting design (sharp edges and not rounded).

Since all the other branding image resources use rounded edges, I think was can say this the rounded design used by the 7 other files is the correct design.

So the solution is to use the rounded design here, and open a new issue in the branding repo so that incorrect file can be fixed/deleted?

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

It seems everytime the icons are touched there is some kind of controversy.

Well, do we stick with the "wrong" sharp icon here that's been used with Manager for the past 2 years? Or do we change to the rounded (and make another PR in Patches to change to that)?

Patches repo could add one or two additional preset icons for the custom branding patch. One preset with the color ring, and maybe another with an expanded ring that was available with the prior icon design that worked with odd launcher icon shapes. But that is unrelated to the question of which icon to use.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

If we can't come to a decision then we should merge what is currently here, because it is the icon style Manager has already been using the past 2 years.

[Ushie]

Use the rounded ones, an issue should be opened for the sharp one to be fixed

[oSumAtrIX]

I don't understand whats going on here. What issue does the branding repo have? They are all svgs, I dont understand what you mean with sharp/not sharp.

The PR body shows the diamond scaled more than current. Please use the scaling thats also used in the logo from the branding repo.

[oSumAtrIX]

@oSumAtrIX Look at these 2 icons and finally decide which one to use? rounded or sharp?

ReVanced/revanced-branding@main/assets/revanced-logo/revanced-logo.svg

ReVanced/revanced-branding@main/assets/revanced-logo/revanced-logo-shape.svg

I do not understand what you mean. The links you sent are two different things. The shape is ONLY the shape, the round one is the full logo with the ring.

You should use the shape in scenarios where the background is configured separately, in other words:

1. Create an adaptive icon background
2. Extract the shape from the FULL logo from the branding, make sure the scaling is kept
3. Use the extracted shape in that scale as the adaptive icon foreground

I am not sure if android does additional scaling processing so you'll have to compare with the android spec. If they do not apply any additional scaling, the final logo should look exactly like the logo from the branding.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

@oSumAtrIX look carefully at those two images. They are not the same. One has rounded corners, the other is "sharp" corners. Look at the bottom point of the inner small V. The two images are different.

#2762 (comment)

The non rounded icon image in the branding repo must be a mistake, because all other images are rounded. It should be fixed there, but also fixed here.

The logo here has no round circle background, since there isn't a cut shape for adaptive icons. The old manager icon did not use the correct scale and went against android guidelines. This PR fixes all of this for Manager.

[oSumAtrIX]

I see the problem and I know why it happens.

Affinity Design handles roundness based on the canvas size. I think when I created the shape, I did those steps:

1. Remove the background layer
2. Scale the shape to fit the canvas

Step two scales the shape, but it does not scale the rounding value.
A simple fix is to scale down the canvas to the size of the shape. This way the shape fills the entire canvas but attributes like the roundness remain correct. I will fix this.

[oSumAtrIX]

And yes, the full logo is the "correct" one. All variations are derrivates of it

[oSumAtrIX]

Ok seems it was caused by https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-branding/pull/10/files

[oSumAtrIX]

Fixed now ReVanced/revanced-branding@41c7155

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

They can still be used in some edge cases, so I think they should be kept Edit: Legacy round icon can be deleted.

The files are too small to make any difference.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

400x400 looks like it's much larger than needed.

But the manifest is missing the android:roundIcon declaration.

If it's gone this long and nobody has noticed it's missing in any of the edge cases, then that image should be deleted because the file isn't doing anything without the manifest declaration.

[Ushie]

For the splash screen, only the shape logos should be used

The background of the icon isn't necessary here as it's displayed directly on the app's background

[Ushie]

I would say to use , although I admit that it would look worse for the dark mode users

I'm wondering whether an official light/dark shape icon with the diamond colored in can be made

@oSumAtrIX ?

Essentially this but with a dark V https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-branding/blob/main/assets/revanced-logo/revanced-logo-shape.svg

ReVanced Manager would be able to do that as the branding guidelines allow for it, but ReVanced may be interested in officially including it in the branding repository?

[oSumAtrIX]

I'm wondering whether an official light/dark shape icon with the diamond colored in can be made

Yes, sounds reasonable. I will probably get rid of the dark light variants in branding repo and just include a single color example, since you can just invert the shades depending on light or dark mode. Doing it now.

[Ushie]

30% looks perfect

[oSumAtrIX]

Isn't there an android standard for the size

[validcube]

@validcube hello, according to this comment, the old "correct" scaling for the monochrome icon needs to be restored, which means this issue is open again. Should I make these changes or leave the current scaling? And I see that there is no consensus on this issue in the team. If we return it, then this issue should be closed so as not to cause confusion.

Sorry for the slow reply, I did not receive any notification from GitHub at all.

Edited, sorry I missed understand your point.

Edited again, yeah, you should leave it...

[validcube]

🥞💄 LGTM!

Verified with Android Studio, personally I would make the icon bigger by resizing it to 115% or 130% to account for optical alignment slightly outside the circle or touching the smallest square grid because our logo's a V but an decision has already been made so that's fine by me (or not, there's like 5 episodes of this discussion).

Haven't verified with an actual device because I can't disable Google Play Protect, it won't let me do it for some reason.

[ILoveOpenSourceApplications]

I'm confused here from all the screenshots, but is the monochrome icon slightly bigger than the original icon?

[oSumAtrIX]

Yes

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

Monochrome icons don't have a background. The sizing here matches Android design specs and is correct .

See #1124

[validcube]

Assuming no pushback, I'm merging this by tomorrow.

[oSumAtrIX]

To confirm, is the shape scaled according to the official logo & is the monochrome icon scaled according to androids size standard? Are the scalings guessed by eye or calculated?

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

Scaling is correct for both brand guidelines for color icons and Android spec for monochrome. Nothing is eyeballed.

[oSumAtrIX]

Last time I tried scaling, I had to eyeball it. What's the formula you used to scale?

[validcube]

Personally I would state the warning right away in readme or do both, also I don't think adding years make sense as that can be outdated every year or probably raises weird loophole legality questions in the future. (I'm not a lawyer)

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

2024 is the year of the logo redesign (the origin of that particular branded resources). But it could be the year the project started. I don't think it makes any difference which year is used (or if no year at all is used).

See the patches repo for the open PR that adds a simple text file explaining the branding isn't GPL. After it's merged Manager could add the same file.

I don't think the "brand identity is not GPL" is needed in the readme. All the major open source projects I've come across that have copyrighted non open source files have the disclaimer somewhere on the files, or they go one step further and separate the branding into a separate project (such as Chromium and the Chrome browser).

[ILoveOpenSourceApplications]

Who and why was this PR closed?

[Ushie]

It was closed by the author, explanation here:
https://github.com/ReVanced/revanced-patches/issues/2740#issuecomment-3678118256