Improve icons and add manifest to improve installing/mobile experience

[mrwweb]

With trends toward Progressive Web Apps, new support for installing websites in MacOS/iOS, etc. it strikes me as a good idea to add/update the following things to Plans:

• Higher-res default favicon
• New optimized icons for various OS's
• A site.webmanifest file that defines name (Grinnell Plans), short_name (Plans), start_url (https://grinnellplans.com/home.php), and probably the display type (standalone?). I don't think defining a theme_color or background_color makes sense as that seems likely to clash with most stylesheets and light/dark preferences

Over time, this would improve the experience for people "installing" plans on their home screens/task bars/etc.

I can't think of a downside, but I am very curious if people can think of extra considerations or potential downsides. I'm happy to submit the PR if at least a couple people think it's worth doing.

[iangreenleaf]

This all sounds like good stuff, and like it's unlikely to cause problems with anything else and therefore shouldn't require much regression testing. 👍 from me.

[mrwweb]

After double-posting this issue (doik, my bad), here are some proposed values and a few questions:

• name: Grinnell Plans
• short_name: [plans]? Plans?
• display: minimal-ui or standalone
• description: Your favorite independent Grinnell College social network.
• categories: social
• icon: image files
• shortcuts: I'd propose (in order) Home, Edit Plan, Quicklove, and maybe Preferences
• start_url: https://grinnellplans.com
• id: https://grinnellplans.com
• background_color: #DA291C

Notes:

1. Because plan styles can be very opinionated, I think we'd avoid specifying a theme_color which is fun but can be pretty opinionated.
2. Does anyone have a source file for the logo? I thought I did but can't find it. It would be great to optimize this!
3. I'm doing some personal testing right now, and we might want to use display_override if we determine that we want a preferred display with a fallback to something more widely supported.

[iangreenleaf]

I just searched and I also don't seem to have a source for the logo. I swear I've seen or heard of one, though. Maybe @ianatha knows?

Those proposed values look good to me and in general I trust your judgement when it comes to answering questions like (3).

[mrwweb]

@iangreenleaf Appreciate the trust :) I'm curious, do you think a minimal-ui that supports the back button, refresh, etc. would be helpful? I lean toward yes; we probably don't want to totally obfuscate the webby-ness of Plans. But maybe the whole point of doing this is to make it as app-like as possible. I might need to do some testing and see how mobile OS nav-ing (mostly back functions) work in the various display modes.

[iangreenleaf]

I think I lean towards yes too. We're far enough from being app-like that I think it probably is wise to maintain some amount of web chrome. But of course, it mostly depends how that plays out in practice...