31–40 of 111 posts
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.
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…
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.
The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.
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?
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.
Maybe it reminds you of Moses from South Park? http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park
Sort of like dog whistle politics but used for good :)
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…
That, and learning that Netflix on the PS3 is a HTML5/WebKit implementation. I'm sold.