41–50 of 111 posts
was there an html4 logo? why do we need an html5 logo?
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".
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah, well, I think that impacts on consistency. The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.
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.
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?
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
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, well, I think that impacts on consistency. The smaller version of the logo should be the primary use-case imo.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it reminds you of Moses from South Park? http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=moses+south+park
No way... the new HTML5 logo reminds me of a 2d paper cutout version of the Master Control Program.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151458/i-desire-popcor...
