W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
71–80 of 111 posts
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#72I'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?
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.
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#73I expected the logo to be in CSS3 :-(
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#74I like it. How long until it's implemented using CSS3?
About 4 hours? Didn't take that long though. Enjoy.
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
" 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…
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
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.
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#76Reddit doesn't seem to like it. And HN seems to like it. Why so much difference ?
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#77Why does it look like Klingon?
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#78Is 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…
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 origi…
I'd say the new logo is definitely aimed to appease web designers, but I don't think it's fair to say that the W3C has "little to no credibility with [web designers]". Many still have pained memories of designing for older IE and understand the work the W3C has done to usefully eliminate the various fine differences.
More recently there's been a lot more positive feeling toward Safari and Chrome for pushing the implementation of new technologies forward, but it's worth noting that there would probably be a lot less confluence in the new technologies if not for the work the W3C and WaSP did.
Even if outside of that logo they both look really boring.
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#79Is 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…
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 origi…
I'd say the new logo is definitely aimed to appease web designers, but I don't think it's fair to say that the W3C has "little to no credibility with [web designers]". Many still have pained memories of designing for older IE and understand the work the W3C has done to usefully eliminate the various fine differences.
More recently there's been a lot more positive feeling toward Safari and Chrome for pushing the implementation of new technologies forward, but it's worth noting that there would probably be a lot less confluence in the new technologies if not for the work the W3C and WaSP did.
Even if outside of that logo they both look really boring.
Re: W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled
#80Looks like the Autobot insignia. Is this a declaration of solidarity against the evil forces of the Flashicons?
More like a take on the Superman insignia.