Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-20211881-20151030050251/@comment-188432-20151201203418

Just my two cents into this discussion about the logo. I want to be clear that in my mockup, I wasn't making a choice for you, but merely carrying on Cavia porcellus' initial PI work. As it had been dropped from that first design, I kept it dropped.

While you're mulling over whether you want to reintroduce it, I think you might want to consider a few things:
 * Does the image add meaning that couldn't be delivered another way?
 * Does it have to be the current image? Could you make logos that were as long as the infobox, but be significantly shorter, so that they're less prominent?
 * If we shrink the width of that image through code — which is certainly more difficult than just not having it — will you still be able read it? Indeed, is it important to be able to read the image?
 * Upthread, someone mentioned loading time. This is an important consideration, particularly on mobile.  Is the contextual meaning of the picture actually worth the additional load time/data charges someone might encounter?

The truth is that I may not be able to give you something that's small, unobtrusive, a quick loader, and still legible. But I'm willing to give it a try if you consider the questions I've posed, and you still really think it's important to retain these logos.