9 ms·

W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled

370 points by hakim 16y ago

gsivil 16y ago
It is finally out. I guess we will be living with that for some time. I do not mean to be grumpy but something with a bit more curves would be more appealing or representative of the new design era.
cstuder 16y ago
I don't know why, but it puts a smile on my face. I guess, the logo shows some confidence previously unassociated with boring standard bodies.
- Jabbles 16y ago
  Maybe it reminds you of Moses from South Park? http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park
  - mrspeaker 16y ago
    No way... the new HTML5 logo reminds me of a 2d paper cutout version of the Master Control Program.
    - Sidnicious 16y ago
      Moses from South Park is the Master Control Program ;) http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcorn-necklaces http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcor...
  - dholowiski 16y ago
    Yup, I immediately thought of that when I saw the logo. Did anyone scroll down further to the "Badge Builder 5000"? Anyway, only people in the developers 'echo chamber' will have any idea what this means. Most people have no idea the difference between html4, javascript, flash or silverlight, and probably don't care.
  - Qz 16y ago
    Reminds me of transformers (the Autobots insignia)
QuantumDoja 16y ago
Reminds me of Transformers
- franze 16y ago
  HTML5 logo ~= Autobot Logo http://t.co/p8lQ9xp http://t.co/p8lQ9xp
  - joelhaasnoot 16y ago
    Looks like a stretch to me...
    - kmfrk 16y ago
      That's because it's obviously a Decepticon and not an Autobot: http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncause2006/decepticon-6.png http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncaus.... Tsk.
dheerosaur 16y ago
The icon for "Device Access" looks very similar to an apple. Does a square apple mean anything? :)
simias 16y ago
Is that how HTMTL5 websites are supposed to look like? With the cluttered layout, the various fonts and sizes, the flashy colours and the interactive content I find this page incredibly difficult to parse. It's hard for me to extract the important informations from the text. Is it really about the new logo? What's the deal with the "HTML5 semantics" on the middle? I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means. I could also question the need of... 2^8 variations of the same logo (the "build a logo" thingy). EDIT: fixed typo
- true_religion 16y ago
  The class semantics section appears to be related to the other logos that the w3 has created for them. Personally, I think its extraneous information. If you came away with knowledge of what the logo looks like (and you should since it took up fully 2/3rds of the first page), then you're set. As for the rest of your criticism: > I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means. Although HTML originally was created to be human readable, and better yet--writable by ordinary people---that isn't how history played out. Hardly anyone writes their websites in bare HTML anymore. For a time, it seemed that HTML instead would be automatically generated by machines--either a CMS or Dreamweaver/Frontpage and its ilk. This 'dream weaver' age brought us XHTML and its XML inspired draconian parsing requirements. But slowly, a cadre of individuals was growing who did write HTML by hand and documented the fine differences between browsers, and put pressure upon their makers to change them. These folks were a sect that didn't exist before (and perhaps couldn't have existed in the 90s low-bandwidth websites)...they are web designers. HTML5, logo and all, looks like the w3's way of trying to capture the attention of web designers because at the moment they have little to no credibility with that group.
  - simias 16y ago
    I see, when I read the page I thought the intent was to market HTML5 "to the masses". It reminded me of the "use firefox" campains. I guess I'm just not the target audience. Thank you for your insight. EDIT: I stand by my point regarding the layout though. I think a website promoting HTML5 should try to keep it clear. Trying to mix an informative content with an HTML5 demo page might not be the best idea.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
shankx 16y ago
It looks lot like Superman's Logo (The one that's on his shirt)
- pamelafox 16y ago
  I'm not sure if I love the standalone logo, but I am loving those shirts. Reasons why the shirt is awesome: 1) It's not black. (I have too many damn black tech shirts at this point in my life). 2) Sales profits go to development of the HTML5 suite. (A good cause!) 3) As you say, superman. And who doesn't want to be a super hero? Ordering mine now.
pclark 16y ago
Wow, I was prepared to mock it after seeing that w3.org actually had to design something, but it's rather good.
- 2mur 16y ago
  I had the same reaction. Pre-click: Hate dialing up to DEFCON 1, Post-click: huh, not too bad -- back to the morning coffee.
  - younata 16y ago
    "Hate dialing up to DEFCON 1" At first, I thought you were talking about DefCon, the convention, which really confused me. Then, I realized you were talking about defense condition.
  - theandym 16y ago
    Agreed. I think it is pretty good overall, and can see potentially using it in my own projects. However, I don't think that the design of the technology class icons are particularly well execute. I feel like they suffer from an attempt to match the angles and styling of the logo too closely and would have rather seen more easily recognizable elements used to represent those concepts.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Must be a polarizer then.
- bkudria 16y ago
  According to http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/html5_validates_with_new_logo.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/html5_va... the logo was designed by "Honolulu, HI-based Ocupop." (http://ocupop.com http://ocupop.com)
  - bgraves 16y ago
    Was hoping someone would uncover the designer. Ocupop has more info > http://ocupop.com/html5 http://ocupop.com/html5
gurraman 16y ago
Anyone know who made it?
- riklomas 16y ago
  Ocupop: http://ocupop.com/ http://ocupop.com/
  - rradu 16y ago
    Times New Roman headers on a design firm's site? Yikes.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  ocupop http://ocupop.com/html5 http://ocupop.com/html5
d0m 16y ago
I find it looks quite ugly honestly. The logos on the bottom are much better.
cplamper 16y ago
That's awesome and vastly superior to other w3c logos.
axod 16y ago
was there an html4 logo? why do we need an html5 logo?
- jarin 16y ago
  Because it's cool, and we can. Haters gonna hate.
  - axod 16y ago
    but what does it mean? No user will know/care. I guess it's just like putting a badge on your website that says your site passes some html verification test.
    - jarin 16y ago
      It's really just to peer pressure other developers (and maybe the Internet Explorer team) into adopting the standards.
- omarqureshi 16y ago
  unfortunately - yes: http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-html40.gif http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-html40.gif It was used blindingly by most people regardless of whether the page was valid or whether it was used on HTML, normally alongside "Made on a Mac".
nchlswu 16y ago
Without considering the context, the logo itself is pretty good. I like the badge/custom badge and related components. Overall though, I don't like it. I don't think it's a fitting logo (the superman/superhero comparisons are what come to mind to me as well). The logo treatments and website seem like a contrived effort design a logo to whatever the designers believe is the "HTML5 Design Aesthetic." Sure, rich content and all, but HTML5 (and related technologies, like this logo is supposed to imply) shouldn't be represented by over contemporary design. Interestingly, the logo is not the "official" logo. On paper, it's just the community logo - and it will only officially be adopted if it gets enough grassroots support. Is this W3C's "official" logo for HTML5? Not yet. W3C introduced this logo in January 2011 with the goal of building community support. W3C has not yet taken it up in any official capacity. If, as W3C hopes, the community embraces the logo, W3C will adopt it as its own official logo for HTML5 in the first quarter of 2011.
citricsquid 16y ago
"IS THIS W3C'S "OFFICIAL" LOGO FOR HTML5? Not yet. W3C introduced this logo in January 2011 with the goal of building community support. W3C has not yet taken it up in any official capacity. If, as W3C hopes, the community embraces the logo, W3C will adopt it as its own official logo for HTML5 in the first quarter of 2011."
- marcamillion 16y ago
  Was this a REAL response by them? If not, satire at it's best! I hope it wasn't, but wouldn't be surprised if it is.
TheCoreh 16y ago
It's super strange that this page itself is HTML5. Doesn't W3C have a policy of only publishing documents using standards already in the "Recommendation" stage?
- Udo 16y ago
  What irks me more is that they made another one of those one-page scroll-till-your-eyes-bleed sites to show the logo off. I don't know where this new "trend" is coming from, but I find it really tiresome already.
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  I couldn't find anything about this policy, but it does seem to be a common practice. Even the HTML5 spec is almost-valid HTML 4.01. However, I did find other exceptions. For example, the CSS3 Media Queries spec uses the @bottom-right and @bottom-left page selectors, which are introduced by the CSS3 Paged Media module (Working Draft): http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/default.css http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/default.css
- alanh 16y ago
  Keep in mind that HTML5, the language, was designed to be compatible with existing browsers, already; a core part of the effort is to completely standardize all the edge case behavior, etc., related to simply parsing HTML. So there’s no real risk there. See also: Progressive enhancement.
lwhi 16y ago
I'm not certain I like it. Think about its purpose; it needs to work with a huge range of styles, each of which will have specific and varied audiences. The choices made (collegiate typeface / bright orange) are quite bold; I don't think it lends itself to sympathetically supporting a broad range of differing styles of design. Also, when this is used, it's likely to be quite small - the gap between the tail of the '5' and its upper curve is slight. I think it will have a tendency to resemble a '6' at smaller resolutions. Maybe I'm being too negative, but on top of all this I don't think it looks visually appealing or balanced. I don't think the proportions (forced perspective / surrounding gap vs. typeface weight) are pleasing to look at. But then again, maybe once we see it everywhere, it's ubiquity will create new associations and familiarity will win out.
- grayrest 16y ago
  Also, when this is used, it's likely to be quite small - the gap between the tail of the '5' and its upper curve is slight. I think it will have a tendency to resemble a '6' at smaller resolutions. Someone realized this. If you look at the favicon, they've dropped the tail.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Ah, well, I think that impacts on consistency. The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.
    - tel 16y ago
      It's very common to have structural changes in letters at different sizes in order to maintain readability, yet no one complains about consistency. Why? Because being consistent is very deliberately not supposed to require being identical. So long as the visual identity is maintained, and I think it is, then small changes are welcomed.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        Most logos / marks need to be compatible with a broad range of media formats. Any system generally needs to be flexible - whilst remaining true to its original concept. If the mark needs to be altered to work in a particular format, I think that could show a lack of foresight on the part of the designers. I'm playing devil's advocate though. I think a very simple HTML + black shield border + black 5, could provide a useful additional mark; which might prove less obtrusive. -- "It's very common to have structural changes in letters at different sizes in order to maintain readability, yet no one complains about consistency. Why?" I don't know of any common examples of logos which make similar structural changes - but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
kmfrk 16y ago
I have to say that I find the icons to be really, really ridiculous. It doesn't look like something someone hired from outside did, and the HTML5 logo looks like the header on a Tutsplus vector tutorial. Most of the different icons have very poor symbolic value, and look really unintelligible. They could do a lot worse, so that's always something.
- lazylland 16y ago
  I re-checked the URL two or three times to convince myself that this is not an amazingly done HTML5 troll-site ! I just don't associate such imagery with the W3C ...
wakeup 16y ago
It sucks balls.
JonnieCache 16y ago
I really like it. It looks acceptably corporate, but it has a hint of the whole 'unicorns are awesome!' early-adopter-webdev aesthetic that will put a smile on the face of the people who actually use html5 day to day, and evangelise for it. Sort of like dog whistle politics but used for good :)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
p0ppe 16y ago
You probably can't trademark a five-pointed star in a circle, but that part of the logo immediately got me thinking of Daring Fireball.
jcromartie 16y ago
This actually makes me more excited about HTML5. That, and learning that Netflix on the PS3 is a HTML5/WebKit implementation. I'm sold.
efsavage 16y ago
Wow. I actually doubled-checked the location bar to see if this was the real deal or just some designer take on it. It's a really great logo, definitely "with the times" with the bold, sharp lines and flat colors. I'm not sure I'll be putting it on any websites, since I don't think most users care or understand markup versioning, but grats to w3c for doing something that doesn't look like it came out of a committee of phds and marketroids.
- malnourish 16y ago
  Maybe you won't put it on any main page but I suggest you do on your "about" page or what have you. I can't be the only user in the world who has seen an interesting "tech" thing and subsequently learned more from a website. It can't hurt!
leftnode 16y ago
I like it. How long until it's implemented using CSS3?
- drdaeman 16y ago
  The background-image property is supported since old plain CSS1.
- endtwist 16y ago
  About 4 hours? Didn't take that long though. Enjoy. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116593 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116593
nhangen 16y ago
This looks like something you'd see on a Transformer, not a professional logo for a new web standard. I think it's good for what it is, unfortunately that "what it is" isn't what should represent HTML5.
j4mie 16y ago
Nice article by Jeremy Keith on why this logo creates and propagates confusion between HTML5 and CSS3: http://adactio.com/journal/4289/ http://adactio.com/journal/4289/
cemregr 16y ago
I'm surprised, the active states of the icons seem to be buggy in the latest chrome for Mac: http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k
bitwize 16y ago
Looks like the Autobot insignia. Is this a declaration of solidarity against the evil forces of the Flashicons?
- xyzzyb 16y ago
  More like a take on the Superman insignia.
  - dlsay 16y ago
    my thoughts exactly. i like it.
xbryanx 16y ago
I do like the impact of the logo, but am I the only one who thinks it's a bit too "military?"
- smallblacksun 16y ago
  That looks nothing like any military logo I've ever seen. Is there some logo in particular it reminds you of?
tjmaxal 16y ago
What no Favicon? or did I miss it?
- aberkowitz 16y ago
  You missed the favicon. Here is a link: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/favicon.ico http://www.w3.org/html/logo/favicon.ico
antidaily 16y ago
Logo's available in SVG - a reminder that I have no idea how to use SVG.
Griever 16y ago
HTML5 Badges: The E-Peen of 2011.
teye 16y ago
How many type foundries do you think would be trumpeting their fonts' inclusion in the HTML5 logo? One of the many reasons I love Hoefler & Frere Jones. Gotham + Mercury + Knockout, all from @h_fj, make the HTML-5 logo. http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ #next #stop, #webfonts http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104 http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104
igrekel 16y ago
I am not sure I see how useful it is. I think people who would care about HTML5 are already aware of it and the ones who don't will probably not be influenced by the logo. What remains seems to just be some kind of nerdy bragging thing: collect them all! It reminds me of the "Netscape Now!" button campaign from the early web. The logo and badges looks nice tough.
AppDev054 16y ago
Looks like HTML 6.
- alanh 16y ago
  I would like a wider gap in the 5, too. Interestingly, you get your wish if you use the “vertical” badge generator.
cpr 16y ago
I'm sorry, but this is laughable. Do people put icons in their iOS apps advertising the use of CoreAnimation? Do they put some kind of Silverlight or Flash badge on their web sites done with those technologies? It's just a set of useful technologies. Why all the branding hoo-hah?
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  CoreAnimation no, Flash no, Silverlight yes. Of course, even if there weren't a Silverlight branding badge, the Microsoft updater that starts every time you visit a page that uses it would remind you.
- phlux 16y ago
  >...hoo-hah? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
frytaz 16y ago
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/ ;)
vinsan 16y ago
I expected the logo to be in CSS3 :-(
baby 16y ago
Reddit doesn't seem to like it. And HN seems to like it. Why so much difference ?
ajaimk 16y ago
Why does it look like Klingon?
namzo 16y ago
'S' on an orange background. A new logo for smashing magazine. No? I kinda like it though.
phlux 16y ago
Was anyone else expecting the thing to be fully CSS rather than a .jpg?!
- joelgwebber 16y ago
  That would be awesome. An incredibly awkward contortion of CSS is always a better way to render a logo than, you know, pixels.
  - phlux 16y ago
    I'm sure you got it - but my point was that I was expecting them to use all 'HTML 5' to render their HTML 5 logo... Not that I am condoning it, I was just expecting it.
aguynamedben 16y ago
Am I the only one that finds the aliasing created by slightly tilted lines a design flaw? It was meant to be displayed digitally, and the designer should have avoided aliasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing
- aguynamedben 16y ago
  It's very apparent in the small version they want you to plaster on your site: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/badge/html5-badge-h-css3-semantics.png http://www.w3.org/html/logo/badge/html5-badge-h-css3-semanti...
rbanffy 16y ago
And the IE folks on Twitter are using it as their picture: http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320 http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320 I think we can expect full compliance.
varenc 16y ago
It seems the logo is an image (http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png). How long until someone can draw it using purely HTML5?
kleiba 16y ago
5uperlogo!
Joakal 16y ago
It looked like a RSS icon to me.
One_adm12 16y ago
Autobots, autobots, autobots!!! you love it cause it's a rip off of your favorite cartoon!
nnutter 16y ago
"THE HTML5 SHIRT — BUY IT! Every Man, Woman and Child can show their HTML5 Pride!" As long as you wear a XL or smaller.
blue1 16y ago
To my eyes, it looks too american-style.
AbyBeats 16y ago
w3c copied SuperMan, where is that damn sue button :|
Groxx 16y ago
I expect to see this changing in phone booths in the near future. Interesting. Nowhere near as bad as I had expected, a little too alter-ego for my tastes though.

370 points by hakim 16y ago

It is finally out. I guess we will be living with that for some time. I do not mean to be grumpy but something with a bit more curves would be more appealing or representative of the new design era.

cstuder 16y ago

I don't know why, but it puts a smile on my face. I guess, the logo shows some confidence previously unassociated with boring standard bodies.

Jabbles 16y ago
Maybe it reminds you of Moses from South Park? http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park
- mrspeaker 16y ago
  No way... the new HTML5 logo reminds me of a 2d paper cutout version of the Master Control Program.
  - Sidnicious 16y ago
    Moses from South Park is the Master Control Program ;) http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcorn-necklaces http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcor...
- dholowiski 16y ago
  Yup, I immediately thought of that when I saw the logo. Did anyone scroll down further to the "Badge Builder 5000"? Anyway, only people in the developers 'echo chamber' will have any idea what this means. Most people have no idea the difference between html4, javascript, flash or silverlight, and probably don't care.
- Qz 16y ago
  Reminds me of transformers (the Autobots insignia)

QuantumDoja 16y ago

Reminds me of Transformers

franze 16y ago
HTML5 logo ~= Autobot Logo http://t.co/p8lQ9xp http://t.co/p8lQ9xp
- joelhaasnoot 16y ago
  Looks like a stretch to me...
  - kmfrk 16y ago
    That's because it's obviously a Decepticon and not an Autobot: http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncause2006/decepticon-6.png http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncaus.... Tsk.

dheerosaur 16y ago

The icon for "Device Access" looks very similar to an apple. Does a square apple mean anything? :)

simias 16y ago

Is that how HTMTL5 websites are supposed to look like? With the cluttered layout, the various fonts and sizes, the flashy colours and the interactive content I find this page incredibly difficult to parse. It's hard for me to extract the important informations from the text. Is it really about the new logo? What's the deal with the "HTML5 semantics" on the middle? I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means. I could also question the need of... 2^8 variations of the same logo (the "build a logo" thingy). EDIT: fixed typo

true_religion 16y ago
The class semantics section appears to be related to the other logos that the w3 has created for them. Personally, I think its extraneous information. If you came away with knowledge of what the logo looks like (and you should since it took up fully 2/3rds of the first page), then you're set. As for the rest of your criticism: > I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means. Although HTML originally was created to be human readable, and better yet--writable by ordinary people---that isn't how history played out. Hardly anyone writes their websites in bare HTML anymore. For a time, it seemed that HTML instead would be automatically generated by machines--either a CMS or Dreamweaver/Frontpage and its ilk. This 'dream weaver' age brought us XHTML and its XML inspired draconian parsing requirements. But slowly, a cadre of individuals was growing who did write HTML by hand and documented the fine differences between browsers, and put pressure upon their makers to change them. These folks were a sect that didn't exist before (and perhaps couldn't have existed in the 90s low-bandwidth websites)...they are web designers. HTML5, logo and all, looks like the w3's way of trying to capture the attention of web designers because at the moment they have little to no credibility with that group.
- simias 16y ago
  I see, when I read the page I thought the intent was to market HTML5 "to the masses". It reminded me of the "use firefox" campains. I guess I'm just not the target audience. Thank you for your insight. EDIT: I stand by my point regarding the layout though. I think a website promoting HTML5 should try to keep it clear. Trying to mix an informative content with an HTML5 demo page might not be the best idea.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

shankx 16y ago

It looks lot like Superman's Logo (The one that's on his shirt)

pamelafox 16y ago
I'm not sure if I love the standalone logo, but I am loving those shirts. Reasons why the shirt is awesome: 1) It's not black. (I have too many damn black tech shirts at this point in my life). 2) Sales profits go to development of the HTML5 suite. (A good cause!) 3) As you say, superman. And who doesn't want to be a super hero? Ordering mine now.

pclark 16y ago

Wow, I was prepared to mock it after seeing that w3.org actually had to design something, but it's rather good.

2mur 16y ago
I had the same reaction. Pre-click: Hate dialing up to DEFCON 1, Post-click: huh, not too bad -- back to the morning coffee.
- younata 16y ago
  "Hate dialing up to DEFCON 1" At first, I thought you were talking about DefCon, the convention, which really confused me. Then, I realized you were talking about defense condition.
- theandym 16y ago
  Agreed. I think it is pretty good overall, and can see potentially using it in my own projects. However, I don't think that the design of the technology class icons are particularly well execute. I feel like they suffer from an attempt to match the angles and styling of the logo too closely and would have rather seen more easily recognizable elements used to represent those concepts.
Tichy 16y ago
Must be a polarizer then.
bkudria 16y ago
According to http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/html5_validates_with_new_logo.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/html5_va... the logo was designed by "Honolulu, HI-based Ocupop." (http://ocupop.com http://ocupop.com)
- bgraves 16y ago
  Was hoping someone would uncover the designer. Ocupop has more info > http://ocupop.com/html5 http://ocupop.com/html5

gurraman 16y ago

Anyone know who made it?

riklomas 16y ago
Ocupop: http://ocupop.com/ http://ocupop.com/
- rradu 16y ago
  Times New Roman headers on a design firm's site? Yikes.
citricsquid 16y ago
ocupop http://ocupop.com/html5 http://ocupop.com/html5

d0m 16y ago

I find it looks quite ugly honestly. The logos on the bottom are much better.

cplamper 16y ago

That's awesome and vastly superior to other w3c logos.

axod 16y ago

was there an html4 logo? why do we need an html5 logo?

jarin 16y ago
Because it's cool, and we can. Haters gonna hate.
- axod 16y ago
  but what does it mean? No user will know/care. I guess it's just like putting a badge on your website that says your site passes some html verification test.
  - jarin 16y ago
    It's really just to peer pressure other developers (and maybe the Internet Explorer team) into adopting the standards.
omarqureshi 16y ago
unfortunately - yes: http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-html40.gif http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-html40.gif It was used blindingly by most people regardless of whether the page was valid or whether it was used on HTML, normally alongside "Made on a Mac".

nchlswu 16y ago

Without considering the context, the logo itself is pretty good. I like the badge/custom badge and related components. Overall though, I don't like it. I don't think it's a fitting logo (the superman/superhero comparisons are what come to mind to me as well). The logo treatments and website seem like a contrived effort design a logo to whatever the designers believe is the "HTML5 Design Aesthetic." Sure, rich content and all, but HTML5 (and related technologies, like this logo is supposed to imply) shouldn't be represented by over contemporary design. Interestingly, the logo is not the "official" logo. On paper, it's just the community logo - and it will only officially be adopted if it gets enough grassroots support. Is this W3C's "official" logo for HTML5? Not yet. W3C introduced this logo in January 2011 with the goal of building community support. W3C has not yet taken it up in any official capacity. If, as W3C hopes, the community embraces the logo, W3C will adopt it as its own official logo for HTML5 in the first quarter of 2011.

citricsquid 16y ago

"IS THIS W3C'S "OFFICIAL" LOGO FOR HTML5? Not yet. W3C introduced this logo in January 2011 with the goal of building community support. W3C has not yet taken it up in any official capacity. If, as W3C hopes, the community embraces the logo, W3C will adopt it as its own official logo for HTML5 in the first quarter of 2011."

marcamillion 16y ago
Was this a REAL response by them? If not, satire at it's best! I hope it wasn't, but wouldn't be surprised if it is.

TheCoreh 16y ago

It's super strange that this page itself is HTML5. Doesn't W3C have a policy of only publishing documents using standards already in the "Recommendation" stage?

Udo 16y ago
What irks me more is that they made another one of those one-page scroll-till-your-eyes-bleed sites to show the logo off. I don't know where this new "trend" is coming from, but I find it really tiresome already.
mbrubeck 16y ago
I couldn't find anything about this policy, but it does seem to be a common practice. Even the HTML5 spec is almost-valid HTML 4.01. However, I did find other exceptions. For example, the CSS3 Media Queries spec uses the @bottom-right and @bottom-left page selectors, which are introduced by the CSS3 Paged Media module (Working Draft): http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/default.css http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/default.css
alanh 16y ago
Keep in mind that HTML5, the language, was designed to be compatible with existing browsers, already; a core part of the effort is to completely standardize all the edge case behavior, etc., related to simply parsing HTML. So there’s no real risk there. See also: Progressive enhancement.

lwhi 16y ago

I'm not certain I like it. Think about its purpose; it needs to work with a huge range of styles, each of which will have specific and varied audiences. The choices made (collegiate typeface / bright orange) are quite bold; I don't think it lends itself to sympathetically supporting a broad range of differing styles of design. Also, when this is used, it's likely to be quite small - the gap between the tail of the '5' and its upper curve is slight. I think it will have a tendency to resemble a '6' at smaller resolutions. Maybe I'm being too negative, but on top of all this I don't think it looks visually appealing or balanced. I don't think the proportions (forced perspective / surrounding gap vs. typeface weight) are pleasing to look at. But then again, maybe once we see it everywhere, it's ubiquity will create new associations and familiarity will win out.

grayrest 16y ago
Also, when this is used, it's likely to be quite small - the gap between the tail of the '5' and its upper curve is slight. I think it will have a tendency to resemble a '6' at smaller resolutions. Someone realized this. If you look at the favicon, they've dropped the tail.
- lwhi 16y ago
  Ah, well, I think that impacts on consistency. The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.
  - tel 16y ago
    It's very common to have structural changes in letters at different sizes in order to maintain readability, yet no one complains about consistency. Why? Because being consistent is very deliberately not supposed to require being identical. So long as the visual identity is maintained, and I think it is, then small changes are welcomed.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Most logos / marks need to be compatible with a broad range of media formats. Any system generally needs to be flexible - whilst remaining true to its original concept. If the mark needs to be altered to work in a particular format, I think that could show a lack of foresight on the part of the designers. I'm playing devil's advocate though. I think a very simple HTML + black shield border + black 5, could provide a useful additional mark; which might prove less obtrusive. -- "It's very common to have structural changes in letters at different sizes in order to maintain readability, yet no one complains about consistency. Why?" I don't know of any common examples of logos which make similar structural changes - but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

kmfrk 16y ago

I have to say that I find the icons to be really, really ridiculous. It doesn't look like something someone hired from outside did, and the HTML5 logo looks like the header on a Tutsplus vector tutorial. Most of the different icons have very poor symbolic value, and look really unintelligible. They could do a lot worse, so that's always something.

lazylland 16y ago
I re-checked the URL two or three times to convince myself that this is not an amazingly done HTML5 troll-site ! I just don't associate such imagery with the W3C ...

wakeup 16y ago

It sucks balls.

JonnieCache 16y ago

I really like it. It looks acceptably corporate, but it has a hint of the whole 'unicorns are awesome!' early-adopter-webdev aesthetic that will put a smile on the face of the people who actually use html5 day to day, and evangelise for it. Sort of like dog whistle politics but used for good :)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

p0ppe 16y ago

You probably can't trademark a five-pointed star in a circle, but that part of the logo immediately got me thinking of Daring Fireball.

jcromartie 16y ago

This actually makes me more excited about HTML5. That, and learning that Netflix on the PS3 is a HTML5/WebKit implementation. I'm sold.

efsavage 16y ago

Wow. I actually doubled-checked the location bar to see if this was the real deal or just some designer take on it. It's a really great logo, definitely "with the times" with the bold, sharp lines and flat colors. I'm not sure I'll be putting it on any websites, since I don't think most users care or understand markup versioning, but grats to w3c for doing something that doesn't look like it came out of a committee of phds and marketroids.

malnourish 16y ago
Maybe you won't put it on any main page but I suggest you do on your "about" page or what have you. I can't be the only user in the world who has seen an interesting "tech" thing and subsequently learned more from a website. It can't hurt!

leftnode 16y ago

I like it. How long until it's implemented using CSS3?

drdaeman 16y ago
The background-image property is supported since old plain CSS1.
endtwist 16y ago
About 4 hours? Didn't take that long though. Enjoy. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116593 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116593

nhangen 16y ago

This looks like something you'd see on a Transformer, not a professional logo for a new web standard. I think it's good for what it is, unfortunately that "what it is" isn't what should represent HTML5.

j4mie 16y ago

Nice article by Jeremy Keith on why this logo creates and propagates confusion between HTML5 and CSS3: http://adactio.com/journal/4289/ http://adactio.com/journal/4289/

cemregr 16y ago

I'm surprised, the active states of the icons seem to be buggy in the latest chrome for Mac: http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k

bitwize 16y ago

Looks like the Autobot insignia. Is this a declaration of solidarity against the evil forces of the Flashicons?

xyzzyb 16y ago
More like a take on the Superman insignia.
- dlsay 16y ago
  my thoughts exactly. i like it.

xbryanx 16y ago

I do like the impact of the logo, but am I the only one who thinks it's a bit too "military?"

smallblacksun 16y ago
That looks nothing like any military logo I've ever seen. Is there some logo in particular it reminds you of?

tjmaxal 16y ago

What no Favicon? or did I miss it?

aberkowitz 16y ago
You missed the favicon. Here is a link: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/favicon.ico http://www.w3.org/html/logo/favicon.ico

antidaily 16y ago

Logo's available in SVG - a reminder that I have no idea how to use SVG.

Griever 16y ago

HTML5 Badges: The E-Peen of 2011.

teye 16y ago

How many type foundries do you think would be trumpeting their fonts' inclusion in the HTML5 logo? One of the many reasons I love Hoefler & Frere Jones. Gotham + Mercury + Knockout, all from @h_fj, make the HTML-5 logo. http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ #next #stop, #webfonts http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104 http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104

igrekel 16y ago

I am not sure I see how useful it is. I think people who would care about HTML5 are already aware of it and the ones who don't will probably not be influenced by the logo. What remains seems to just be some kind of nerdy bragging thing: collect them all! It reminds me of the "Netscape Now!" button campaign from the early web. The logo and badges looks nice tough.

AppDev054 16y ago

Looks like HTML 6.

alanh 16y ago
I would like a wider gap in the 5, too. Interestingly, you get your wish if you use the “vertical” badge generator.

cpr 16y ago

I'm sorry, but this is laughable. Do people put icons in their iOS apps advertising the use of CoreAnimation? Do they put some kind of Silverlight or Flash badge on their web sites done with those technologies? It's just a set of useful technologies. Why all the branding hoo-hah?

jdminhbg 16y ago
CoreAnimation no, Flash no, Silverlight yes. Of course, even if there weren't a Silverlight branding badge, the Microsoft updater that starts every time you visit a page that uses it would remind you.
phlux 16y ago
>...hoo-hah? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

frytaz 16y ago

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/ ;)

vinsan 16y ago

I expected the logo to be in CSS3 :-(

baby 16y ago

Reddit doesn't seem to like it. And HN seems to like it. Why so much difference ?

ajaimk 16y ago

Why does it look like Klingon?

namzo 16y ago

'S' on an orange background. A new logo for smashing magazine. No? I kinda like it though.

phlux 16y ago

Was anyone else expecting the thing to be fully CSS rather than a .jpg?!

joelgwebber 16y ago
That would be awesome. An incredibly awkward contortion of CSS is always a better way to render a logo than, you know, pixels.
- phlux 16y ago
  I'm sure you got it - but my point was that I was expecting them to use all 'HTML 5' to render their HTML 5 logo... Not that I am condoning it, I was just expecting it.

aguynamedben 16y ago

Am I the only one that finds the aliasing created by slightly tilted lines a design flaw? It was meant to be displayed digitally, and the designer should have avoided aliasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing

aguynamedben 16y ago
It's very apparent in the small version they want you to plaster on your site: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/badge/html5-badge-h-css3-semantics.png http://www.w3.org/html/logo/badge/html5-badge-h-css3-semanti...

rbanffy 16y ago

And the IE folks on Twitter are using it as their picture: http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320 http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320 I think we can expect full compliance.

varenc 16y ago

It seems the logo is an image (http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png). How long until someone can draw it using purely HTML5?

kleiba 16y ago

5uperlogo!

Joakal 16y ago

It looked like a RSS icon to me.

One_adm12 16y ago

Autobots, autobots, autobots!!! you love it cause it's a rip off of your favorite cartoon!

nnutter 16y ago

"THE HTML5 SHIRT — BUY IT! Every Man, Woman and Child can show their HTML5 Pride!" As long as you wear a XL or smaller.

blue1 16y ago

To my eyes, it looks too american-style.

AbyBeats 16y ago

w3c copied SuperMan, where is that damn sue button :|

Groxx 16y ago

I expect to see this changing in phone booths in the near future. Interesting. Nowhere near as bad as I had expected, a little too alter-ego for my tastes though.