81–90 of 111 posts
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?
Looks like HTML 6.
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
I do like the impact of the logo, but am I the only one who thinks it's a bit too "military?"
Earlier 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. " 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 Between (1) and (2), I feel that (2) is always the winner. (3) appears to beat them both, but it means prioriti…
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.
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
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…
yeah, I agree. I LIKE it, but for a W3C logo? A standard? It's a bit much.
