How do you get your company logo in the internet browser tabs?

I was totally wondering this myself just the other day!!

Here’s two tutorials
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/howto-favicon
http://www.wellho.net/mouth/528_Getting-favicon-to-work-avoiding-common-pitfalls.html

There is also this favicon generator here
http://www.favicon.cc/

Hope this helps!

What @perplexism said, it’s called a favicon if you need to Google it. If you don’t know how to make .ico files use a favicon generator like this one.

Favicon it is.

Here’s another tutorial.

Bear in mind the size of the icon in relation to any existing logo you have. Not all images reduce well (just looks like a jumble). You may have to design a variation (simpler, flat colors).

So is it pronounced faa-vi-con or fah-vi-con?

@mcbealer I (and everyone else I know) pronounces it faa-vi-con.

Hmm, I always said (mentally, I don’t discuss them that often) fah-i-con…

Anyway, you don’t have to use .ico files – I personally prefer to use .png files.

@Vincentt yes you do. Ico’s are the only filetype supported by all browsers. Png’s are only supported by modern browsers.

@markyy: You are correct sir.
Which saddens me as I love .PNGs

@markyy Yes, and you also don’t have to support ancient browsers. Pragmatism is not only declining to use some nifty new tools because it would alienate a significant potion of your audience, but also declining to support ancient browsers that are only used by two of your visitors. It really depends on how many of your visitors use those browsers. And even if it is a significant amount, if their browser does not support it the worst thing that will happen is that they do not see a favicon. Which is not that much of a problem, because when using ancient browsers they cannot expect the optimal experience.

@Vincentt That is certainly debatable. In hindsight I rather have said: ‘Yes you should’ versus ‘Yes you do’. I was merely pointing out your contribution was not cross-browser compatible (the description clearly mentions the favicon should be viewable in Chrome, IE and Firefox).

Even though you make a valid point (which I don’t fully agree with), I have no clue as to why you are making assumptions about the audience of this unknown site purely to underline your own choice. As far as I know, a png offers no advantages over an icon (other than saving 5 minutes of your time making it, or offering transparency).

You are obviously aware of the debate about whether you should or should not support these ancient browsers, and picked your side. If you wish to debate on this I suggest you ask your own question.

@markyy You are right that I should have looked at the question better in regards to browser compatibility. However, my second comment was in reply to yours saying you had to use .ico files, as opposed to you might want to use them. Thus, I’m not making assumptions on the audience, just pointed out that you have to take them into account. There are more advantages to using a .png but this is not the place to discuss that (and I don’t really feel that strongly about it anyway).