
W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled - hakim
http://www.w3.org/html/logo/
======
pclark
Wow, I was prepared to mock it after seeing that w3.org actually had to design
something, but it's rather good.

~~~
2mur
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
"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.

------
cstuder
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
Maybe it reminds you of Moses from South Park?

<http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park>

~~~
mrspeaker
No way... the new HTML5 logo reminds me of a 2d paper cutout version of the
Master Control Program.

~~~
Sidnicious
Moses from South Park _is_ the Master Control Program ;)

[http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-
popcor...](http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcorn-
necklaces)

------
kmfrk
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
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 ...

------
efsavage
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
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!

------
citricsquid
"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
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.

------
lwhi
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
_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
Ah, well, I think that impacts on consistency.

The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.

~~~
tel
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
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
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
" _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
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
I agree about the three options - and I think (3) would have been the best
outcome - because whenever this logo is used, it will most probably be shown
as relatively small badge.

For example - this blog (<http://almaer.com/blog/>) is listed as an example of
the logo in action on the launch page.

I think this page is a good example of my point; at this size, the logo
suffers from the '5-becoming-6' problem - it doesn't actually communicate its
message successfully at the most basic level.

\--

I've had a think about this in a bit more detail - and the more I think about
it, the less impressed I am.

I think the whole concept should have been based around producing a mark that
can identify whether a product supports HTML5 technologies.

I don't think the logo should have been produced to place on a site (or
teeshirt) to show allegiance to the cause - I think it should have been
created along the lines of the DVD, USB, HD or Blueray industry support logos.

An identity that helps promote HTML5 as a consumer technology - and shows a
consumer at a glance, whether the product they are about to download or buy is
capable enough to adhere to the upcoming spec.

But maybe that's what this is? Still, I'm a bit doubtful about whether it
achieves these aims.

~~~
ezalor
_it doesn't actually communicate its message successfully at the most basic
level._

As a marketer, I agree.

------
simias
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
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
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.

------
bitwize
Looks like the Autobot insignia.

Is this a declaration of solidarity against the evil forces of the Flashicons?

~~~
xyzzyb
More like a take on the Superman insignia.

~~~
dlsay
my thoughts exactly. i like it.

------
cpr
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
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.

------
JonnieCache
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 :)

------
nchlswu
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._

------
QuantumDoja
Reminds me of Transformers

~~~
franze
HTML5 logo ~= Autobot Logo <http://t.co/p8lQ9xp>

~~~
joelhaasnoot
Looks like a stretch to me...

~~~
kmfrk
That's because it's obviously a Decepticon and not an Autobot:
[http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncaus...](http://media.photobucket.com/image/decepticon/Decepticoncause2006/decepticon-6.png).

Tsk.

------
j4mie
Nice article by Jeremy Keith on why this logo creates and propagates confusion
between HTML5 and CSS3:

<http://adactio.com/journal/4289/>

------
teye
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/> #next #stop, #webfonts_
<http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104>

------
igrekel
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.

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

------
gurraman
Anyone know who made it?

~~~
riklomas
Ocupop: <http://ocupop.com/>

~~~
rradu
Times New Roman headers on a design firm's site? Yikes.

------
aguynamedben
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>

~~~
aguynamedben
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-semanti...](http://www.w3.org/html/logo/badge/html5-badge-h-
css3-semantics.png)

------
TheCoreh
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
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.

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

~~~
endtwist
About 4 hours? Didn't take that long though. Enjoy.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2116593>

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

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

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

------
nhangen
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.

------
gsivil
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.

------
rbanffy
And the IE folks on Twitter are using it as their picture:

<http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320>

I think we can expect full compliance.

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

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

------
Groxx
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.

------
p0ppe
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.

------
frytaz
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/> ;)

------
jcromartie
This actually makes me more excited about HTML5.

That, and learning that Netflix on the PS3 is a HTML5/WebKit implementation.
I'm sold.

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

------
One_adm12
Autobots, autobots, autobots!!! you love it cause it's a rip off of your
favorite cartoon!

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

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

------
d0m
I find it looks quite ugly honestly. The logos on the bottom are much better.

------
AppDev054
Looks like HTML 6.

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

------
blue1
To my eyes, it looks too american-style.

------
tjmaxal
What no Favicon? or did I miss it?

~~~
aberkowitz
You missed the favicon. Here is a link:
<http://www.w3.org/html/logo/favicon.ico>

------
Griever
HTML5 Badges: The E-Peen of 2011.

------
Joakal
It looked like a RSS icon to me.

------
ajaimk
Why does it look like Klingon?

------
nnutter
"THE HTML5 SHIRT — BUY IT! Every Man, Woman and Child can show their HTML5
Pride!"

As long as you wear a XL or smaller.

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

~~~
jarin
Because it's cool, and we can. Haters gonna hate.

~~~
axod
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
It's really just to peer pressure other developers (and maybe the Internet
Explorer team) into adopting the standards.

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

------
kleiba
5uperlogo!

------
vinsan
I expected the logo to be in CSS3 :-(

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

~~~
pamelafox
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.

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

~~~
joelgwebber
That would be awesome. An incredibly awkward contortion of CSS is always a
better way to render a logo than, you know, pixels.

~~~
phlux
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.

