Updated Google Ads

[adamrusted]

Issue: Contributes to #4205
Alexa rank: N/A

Checklist

• I updated the JSON data in _data/simple-icons.json
• I optimized the icon with SVGO or SVGOMG
• The SVG viewbox is 0 0 24 24

Description

Source updated as per comment.
Rebuilt from source, with 0.35px line between colour changes.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

The SVG looks perfect to me, @adamrusted. However, it should be noted that the monochrome treatment mentioned here is still in use on Google My Business so I think we should stick with that. What do the other @simple-icons/maintainers think?

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Conversely, adding the cut-out makes it consistent with other Google icons such as AdSense & Optimize. Also, per this comment, should the cut-out here also be 0.5dp?

[adamrusted]

Yep - I think a lot of these Google ones were prior to the 0.5px discussion. I'll have a look over these today.

[adamrusted]

@PeterShaggyNoble should be sorted.

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Before reviewing, do any of the other @simple-icons/maintainers have any opinions on whether or not we should stick with our current treatment (per this comment) or add the cut-out to make it consistent with other, similar Google icons (per this comment)?

[service-paradis]

That is a good question!
I agree with consistencies when there are no other options (but it becomes a little bit opinionated). I think I would use official logos without any transformation when it is available.

[ericcornelissen]

Though I agree that an official is preferred, I'm not sure if an icon from a different Google service that is arguably very much different from the actual logo can be considered official. I don't recall any specific incidents, but I definitely remember Google forgetting to update logos of product A in product B 🤔

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Well, this is odd, the SVG is passing the linter but, when I pull it into Inkspace, it's showing as 23.999 wide 🤔 I wonder if it's related to some of the points breaking the bounds of the canvas and causing some imperfections in the shapes. There's also an excess point in the bottom right curve.

Here's my own attempt at it:

M 3.9997845,22.929104 C 1.7907643,22.929104 -2.0340928e-7,21.138339 2.3841858e-7,18.929319 3.4887553e-7,16.720299 1.7907647,14.929535 3.9997845,14.929535 6.2088042,14.929535 7.9995686,16.720299 7.9995687,18.929319 7.9995691,21.138339 6.2088046,22.929104 3.9997845,22.929104 Z M 23.464129,16.928744 15.463196,3.0720075 C 14.358585,1.1587114 11.912075,0.50276316 9.998779,1.6073746 8.0854829,2.711986 7.4295346,5.1584957 8.5341461,7.0717918 L 16.535078,20.928528 C 17.63969,22.841824 20.0862,23.496409 21.999496,22.393161 23.912792,21.28855 24.567376,18.84204 23.464129,16.928744 Z M 7.5136719,4.84375 1.5644531,15.148438 C 2.2904657,14.680006 3.1359849,14.430486 4,14.429688 6.4852814,14.429688 8.5,16.444407 8.5,18.929688 8.4997576,19.001339 8.4978039,19.072974 8.4941406,19.144531 L 11.710938,13.572266 8.1015625,7.3222656 C 7.6515991,6.5428842 7.4692655,5.6827909 7.5136719,4.84375 Z

[adamrusted]

Yeah - I'm not able to pass the linter at all with the path above, and seem to remember I had some trouble with this one. Figured if the linter passed we were good to go! 😅
Let me adjust SVGO to 4 points of precision and try again, may just be we can't get it down to 3.

[adamrusted]

Got it passing with 4 decimals of precision. Not ideal, but if it gets it through the linter 🤷🏻‍♂️

[PeterShaggyNoble]

Sorry, @adamrusted; forgot about this one 🤦🏻‍♂️

Looks good to me now; thanks for your continued work on it 👍🏻