5 ms·

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 r

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.
    - tel 16y ago
      They are distributing black and white versions like you mention. Moreover these can be easily colorized to subtly blend with a design. The ease of this transformation does show foresight. The real issue is instead the boldness of the shield and font choices, but that fits the use case of the logo which is pride in technology and standards compliance. Not every website must use the logo, obviously. All said and done, very, very few will no matter how popular the logo is. I'm on a really poor connection, so I'll do research later, but the difference between display and body variants in fonts comes to mind immediately. Knowing the two distinct use cases will highlight very different properties of the font's design, the letterforms are varied. The differences can be fairly large, however it is always clear that the two fonts are from the same family.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        "They are distributing black and white versions like you mention. Moreover these can be easily colorized to subtly blend with a design. The ease of this transformation does show foresight." I see your point .. setting a typeface involves decisions re. kerning and many fonts use 'hinting' to ensure they can be read well at varying sizes, and some display faces are altered to suit headline text or specific use cases - but I think most logos have aims which are more specific than a typeface. If people are free to alter the colours of a logo to suit a design, and the rules for doing so aren't defining clearly - before long a logo isn't able to fulfil it's purpose, because the unifying elements of the design become unclear. That's not to say that a logo has to be the same everywhere - a successful identity system can break the rules, but if it does so, it needs to be very consistent in the way those rules are broken. I think agencies like Wolf Olins provide a good example of this kind of thinking. I don't think the the adaptation of the HTML5 logo for the smaller favicon format is a feature - it seems like an afterthought.
        tel 16y ago
        The choices I see are: (1) Do not correct the 5 and cause people to misidentify the logo at small sizes since it looks like a 6 then (2) Correct the 5 at the cost of an almost imperceptible change in small instantiations of the logo (3) Redesign the whole thing to use a font that is distinctive at all sizes Between (1) and (2), I feel that (2) is always the winner. (3) appears to beat them both, but it means prioritizing distinction at small sizes at the same level as style, text color, weight, and any number of higher level and arguably more important factors. I feel like this exact tradeoff was done by the designer and their choice of (2) very well founded. Wolf Olins is a particularly good example of the fact that brand is far larger than logo. I'm not even a particular fan of this new HTML5 brand, I feel like it overemphasizes and romanticizes a tool, but I won't get caught arguing that it's not comprehensive, or strongly suggested by all of the proposed instantiations on the website, or to weak to survive the likely numerous changes it'll suffer should it be widely adopted.

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.
  - tel 16y ago
    They are distributing black and white versions like you mention. Moreover these can be easily colorized to subtly blend with a design. The ease of this transformation does show foresight. The real issue is instead the boldness of the shield and font choices, but that fits the use case of the logo which is pride in technology and standards compliance. Not every website must use the logo, obviously. All said and done, very, very few will no matter how popular the logo is. I'm on a really poor connection, so I'll do research later, but the difference between display and body variants in fonts comes to mind immediately. Knowing the two distinct use cases will highlight very different properties of the font's design, the letterforms are varied. The differences can be fairly large, however it is always clear that the two fonts are from the same family.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      "They are distributing black and white versions like you mention. Moreover these can be easily colorized to subtly blend with a design. The ease of this transformation does show foresight." I see your point .. setting a typeface involves decisions re. kerning and many fonts use 'hinting' to ensure they can be read well at varying sizes, and some display faces are altered to suit headline text or specific use cases - but I think most logos have aims which are more specific than a typeface. If people are free to alter the colours of a logo to suit a design, and the rules for doing so aren't defining clearly - before long a logo isn't able to fulfil it's purpose, because the unifying elements of the design become unclear. That's not to say that a logo has to be the same everywhere - a successful identity system can break the rules, but if it does so, it needs to be very consistent in the way those rules are broken. I think agencies like Wolf Olins provide a good example of this kind of thinking. I don't think the the adaptation of the HTML5 logo for the smaller favicon format is a feature - it seems like an afterthought.
      - tel 16y ago
        The choices I see are: (1) Do not correct the 5 and cause people to misidentify the logo at small sizes since it looks like a 6 then (2) Correct the 5 at the cost of an almost imperceptible change in small instantiations of the logo (3) Redesign the whole thing to use a font that is distinctive at all sizes Between (1) and (2), I feel that (2) is always the winner. (3) appears to beat them both, but it means prioritizing distinction at small sizes at the same level as style, text color, weight, and any number of higher level and arguably more important factors. I feel like this exact tradeoff was done by the designer and their choice of (2) very well founded. Wolf Olins is a particularly good example of the fact that brand is far larger than logo. I'm not even a particular fan of this new HTML5 brand, I feel like it overemphasizes and romanticizes a tool, but I won't get caught arguing that it's not comprehensive, or strongly suggested by all of the proposed instantiations on the website, or to weak to survive the likely numerous changes it'll suffer should it be widely adopted.