The HTML... hum... logo

HTML5logoI discovered yesterday the HTML 5 "logo" and I find it completely missing its target. Except the name, nothing in the logo's design is clearly related to the Web. Change "HTML" in that logo to "Interstate" and it could well be a road sign...

I already had a chance to give my opinion about the "HTML 5 is everything" current buzz during the last Technical Plenary Meeting of the W3C in Lyon. I find it counter-productive and in fact harmful. Oh, that's the only acronym journalists use to describe "the Open Web Platform"? Since when journalists DO things instead of WRITING ABOUT THEM?

Being the co-chairman of the CSS Working Group, I am also puzzled by the "CSS 3 / Styling" thingy that goes with the "HTML 5 logo". See by yourself:

CSS 3 / Styling

Hum, to say the least! I just don't understand this beast. What the hell is it supposed to tell me? CSS, Presentation, Style, Fonts? Really?!?

Speaking only for myself here, who can seriously think I am going to use such a meaningless horror (see below) anywhere? Hmmm?

HTML5 Powered with CSS3 / Styling, Device Access, Graphics, 3D & Effects, Multimedia, Performance & Integration, Semantics, and Offline & Storage


1. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 10:49 by Stéphane Deschamps

Oh wait, "The Open Web Platform", this would have even had made for a funkier catchphrase for journalists than "HTML5", which is double-geeky (a version number and an acronym).

I don't like following endorsements either:
- HTML5 being the "one for all" word of reference
- CSS being represented by a logo that is a kind of sergeant-in-the-US-army mark

I like it when Bruce Lawson calls it "HTML5 and friends" if there is need for a "HTML5*" string for journalists to copy-paste, although I'm sure most of them don't copy-paste.

Apparently we're among good company: cf. the WASP's "Don't muddy the waters" http://www.webstandards.org/2011/01... and Eric Meyer's "HTML5 logo" http://meyerweb.com/eric/html-xhtml... full of irony.

I don't know, most of the time I want to back the W3C on their choices, but not this time.

2. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 11:13 by jpvincent

W3C always vaguely said that they recognized the HTML5 word as an umbrela term, and honestly, using that buzzword is nice when discussing with non webdevs folks (friends, mom, journalists, some managers ...).
There was some kind of consensus saying that APIs like geolocation or FileReader or XHR2 were in the same family, and I was fine with that, but including SVG and CSS in it, that's too much, especially when talking to technical people.
And I can agree that the CSS3 "logo" is ... well, meaningless at the very least

Let's not discuss the logo itself, no one can agree on such a subjective matter. I dont like it but some find it modern, and I think the badges idea is a very modern one too : it's like the rewards you now got in all the games or in services like foursquare. It's fun
Some years ago, there were plenty of sites proudly showing badges with XHTML or CSS validity. I never liked them either, but some did and this psychological reward probably helped spreading the word about writing good code, so maybe it will

anyway, W3C also said they will wait a few months before declaring that logo as the final and official one, so with enough ranting the webdev community can still change things :)

3. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 12:24 by Jean

@ jpvincent

+ 1

4. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 12:45 by ChrisJ

I totally agree with this. Not only do I find the HTML5 "logo" ugly, but worse, the "CSS/feature" icons are just too meaningless, too similar to each other, to have a chance to be largely identified. Oh, and it did take me several minutes before I realized that the "three horizontal lines" were actually the "3" digit...

5. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 12:56 by theodoreb

I rather like it actually, with HTML5 hardening the markup interpretation, it's sending the message to non-tech without them realising.

6. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 16:07 by sporniket

yep, c'est assez déroutant, et les logos des caractéristiques, certes sont "stylés", mais sans signification évidente pour la plupart...

7. On Wednesday 19 January 2011, 16:40 by Antoine Turmel (GeekShadow)

Did they done a draft for the logo itself ? It was discussed no ?

8. On Thursday 20 January 2011, 01:11 by fantasai

I like Antoine's idea. Let's ask W3C to send it through the REC track. Can such a logo make it past Last Call? I think CSSWG might raise a formal objection. ;)

9. On Thursday 20 January 2011, 21:47 by Nicolas Krebs

« W3C always vaguely said that they recognized the HTML5 word as an umbrela term, and honestly, using that buzzword is nice when discussing with non webdevs folks (friends, mom, journalists, some managers ...). » (jpvincent)

Comme « Dynamic HTML » lors de la première bulle Internet.

Like "Dynamic HTML" during the first Internet bubble.