The HTML5 Logo: What Do You Think?

Advertisement

This has been an interesting week for the web design community, to say the least. The W3C revealed a new HTML5 logo1 to help designers and developers ‘tell the world’ that they’re using HTML5. The logo was designed2 by Ocupop design agency, and it’s licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, a permissive license that allows ‘remixing’ of the licensed work. The logo has been made available on stickers3 and t-shirts4, and there’s a gallery5 already promoting examples of the logo in use.

HTML5 Logo6

The logo’s official site includes a “badge builder” that customizes its orientation and allows you to add supplementary icons to indicate support for the different technologies that have become associated with HTML5.

Various examples of the new HTML5 Logo

According to the W3C Blog7, the purpose of the logo is as follows:

We intend for it to be an all-purpose banner for HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF, and other technologies that constitute an open web platform. The logo does not have a specific meaning; it is not meant to imply conformance or validity, for example. The logo represents “the Web platform” in a very general sense.

That all-encompassing definition has met with some opposition from Jeremy Keith8. According to Keith, while he does approve of the logo’s design, he disagrees with the blurring of the lines that separate the web technologies that the logo is supposed to represent. Keith doesn’t have a problem with the media using the term “HTML5″ to cover this broad area, but he feels it’s not appropriate to push this kind of terminology in the web development industry.

In support of the definition, Ocupop Creative Director Michael Nieling said in a statement9 that “HTML5 needs a consistent, standardized visual vocabulary to serve as a framework for conversations, presentations, and explanations.”

Keith’s concerns are valid. The logo will certainly strengthen the awareness of HTML5 (which is something we all want), but it’s difficult to accept that something like WOFF10, which is a web font format and has nothing to do with the HTML5 spec, will fall under the “HTML5″ umbrella. Similarly, CSS3 does not belong in that scope. But interestingly, you’ll notice in that quote from the W3C blog post that the “all-purpose banner” includes “CSS” — so it’s not just the new stuff in CSS3, it’s all of CSS. I can’t see many people being too happy about this.

And if that wasn’t enough, before the web design community had a chance to exhale, the WHATWG Blog published a post entitled “HTML is the new HTML5″11, announcing two changes: (1) The HTML specification will be known simply as “HTML” (dropping the “5”); and (2) The spec will be considered a “living standard”12, not just a draft, dropping use of the “snapshot” model of development.

What Do You Think?

This article doesn’t intend to offer too much of an opinion on these matters, as it’s still early. But we know many in the industry want to voice their thoughts, so we’re encouraging you to offer your comments on the logo, its stated purpose, and the further developments on the term “HTML5” announced on the WHATWG blog. It certainly has been an important week in web development, so we’d love to get your thoughts on all of this.

UPDATE Jan. 25/2011:

Evidently, late last week, just before this article was published, the FAQ was updated13, in response14 to the15 furor16:

Now its meaning excludes the non-HTML5 technologies, leaving those for the supplementary icons. The FAQ says:

This logo represents HTML5, the cornerstone for modern Web applications.

Footnotes

  1. 1 http://www.w3.org/html/logo/
  2. 2 http://ocupop.com/html5
  3. 3 http://www.w3.org/html/logo/#swag
  4. 4 http://html5shirt.com/
  5. 5 http://www.w3.org/html/logo/#the-gallery
  6. 6 http://www.w3.org/html/logo/
  7. 7 http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/01/an_html5_logo.html
  8. 8 http://adactio.com/journal/4289/
  9. 9 http://mashable.com/2011/01/18/html5-gets-an-official-logo-from-w3c/
  10. 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
  11. 11 http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
  12. 12 http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F
  13. 13 http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq#logo-represent
  14. 14 http://schepers.cc/insidevoice
  15. 15 https://twitter.com/adactio/status/28224023695466496
  16. 16 http://tantek.com/2011/020/b1/new-w3c-html5-logo

↑ Back to topShare on Twitter

Louis Lazaris is a freelance web developer and author based in Toronto, Canada. He blogs about front-end code on Impressive Webs and curates Web Tools Weekly, a weekly newsletter for front-end developers.

Advertising
  1. 1

    well i think is awsome logo :) +1 for new development CSS3 & HTML 5

    3
    • 2

      Agreed – logo is awesome :-D

      I think the icons doesn’t work well in smaller sizes though.

      4
    • 8

      +1! And the purpose of this logo is to create a hype about HTML5 and all that jazz ;)

      2
    • 9

      Well I’m going to get flamed for having an honest response rather than the usual kissassery that goes on in here, but…

      What do I think? I think “Why the hell does HTML 5 need a logo?!” … I mean it looks professionally done… but it’s incredibly stupid that anyone thinks HTML5 would need a logo. HTML5 isn’t a brand, or a company, or a technology that requires ready identification so people know it’s there (like WiFi or Bluetooth). People don’t give a crap or even need to know that something is HTML5 or not, or even if it’s HTML5 compliant.

      This is as stupid as creating an icon for “Little Endian” or “HTTP” or “English” or “Cows”. Also things that people don’t need icons for.

      Outside of that. The icon itself says nothing about HTML. It looks like a shield. Is HTML5 somehow safer than XHTML? No. The shield doesn’t make any sense.

      The W3C is antiquated and ridiculous. This logo is another attempt for them to justify their existence. All major browser brands have been adhering to whatever standards they please, generally improving upon their predecessors and adopting standards that make themselves function well with current content. If the W3C went out of existence, HTML would sally forth undeterred.

      76
      • 10

        I agree in many respects to what you said, but the reason for it being made is so that it can be branded to be sold to the public. I see it as a reference image that one might see when there is a blog post or headline regarding the change to HTML5. There -are- uses for it, but ultimately most of the ideas brought up in the article and what you said, render the idea redundant and unwarranted.

        1
        • 11

          I can completely agree. This is about as useless as washing my car with dirt.

          Either way, it’s a professional logo except for it’s downward scalability.

          4
      • 12

        Actually, I disagree with you… As they say this logo is promotion to start using HTML5 already not waiting for ages in fear of web browsers incompatibility. I think it’s a big step and they need that support from people, developer, us! Logo is simple and staring – that’s all they need to get attention. HTML5 is not a brand, but this new “update” has many cool features, so “why the hell” not to highlight it by creating cool logo?

        And it’s not a shield by the way and it don’t represent a safety somehow… It represents a strength. “It stands strong and true”

        -1
      • 14

        Very true. And it does look like a superhero logo too.

        2
      • 15

        Well said.

        -1
      • 16

        Dear Ben,

        It’s just business. :)

        2
      • 17

        I got to say I disagree. Whilst the technology might already be “sold” to the people who need to know about it (us), if it helps sell someone’s services as a designer or developer then surely that can’t be a bad thing.

        Additionally, if I’m looking at buying one of two cars and I notice one has for example Brembo brakes, I might not be a brake aficionado but I may recognise the Brembo name and therefore consider that car of superior quality. It’s just a basic branding exercise, and still a valid one.

        0
      • 19

        can’t agree more

        -1
      • 20

        True, but I think the purpose of having a logo at least for the initial release of HTML5 is to spread awareness of it. I think all web designers can agree that HTML 4 is outdated and is frustrating compared to its HTML5 brother. The sooner the majority is onboard the faster online technology will expand.

        On a side note I dont care to much for this particular design. Every time I see it Im reminded of the transformers logo only simplified.

        -1
    • 21

      Agreed. It looks pretty awesome. Quite retro and funky.

      0
  2. 22

    Kind of Smashing Magazine logotype style. ;)

    5
  3. 23

    Expressive! and nice logo..we r goona love html5 :-)

    2
    • 24

      Did this guy get down-voted four times because he misspelled “gonna”, or because he’s Indian? The down-votes don’t make any sense.

      Good job, SM fans! Way to be welcoming!

      Don’t worry man, it’s typical for these comment sections.

      3
      • 25

        Sarcasm plus racial discrimination? I assume that you down-voted everyone who don’t agree with your first comment. That’s fine, but stop whining and give people the freedom to express their opinions(negatively/positively and cough cough spelling errors).

        PS: I am not an Indian. :)

        0
  4. 26

    I think it’s bold without being too bold. It’s a timely design but not sure I care about the #5 that much :-) Really hope it will make people aware of good web-standards though.

    -1
  5. 27

    To promote the usage of HTML5 is surely a good idea. But ask five designers what they think about a new logo, and you will get five very different answers… as I am a designer myself, I think the logo itself is quite well done («Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Superm… no wait, it’s HTML5!»). The small badges that can be placed besides the logo are on the other hand just adding visual clutter, because they are too abstract and do not self-explain their meaning.

    19
  6. 28

    plain awful

    6
  7. 33

    i think who is creat this logo, very love your site. it’s very look like your logo alot

    8
  8. 34

    I love the logo – it’s just a bit of fun and it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

    In regards to the “snapshot” model of development being dropped then as the backwards capability of HMTL5 and all versions of HTML is perfect I don’t really see this as a problem, but I’m not quite sure why WHATWG are making these rules and announcements as I thought the W3C was the world governing web body?

    1
    • 35

      It’s a problem because you could develop a site that is compliant today and then the spec could change tomorrow and break your site. The whole point of having standards is so you can code to them and ensure your site works anywhere, no matter what. Take away the standard and you have to start coding for every browser again (something we’re trying to move away from!)

      0
  9. 36

    This logo reminds me The Transformers !

    15
  10. 42

    awesome!

    -1
  11. 43

    Visually, the logo seems OK to me. Clean-cut, bold, modern, serves it purpose. But I have a few problems with all this logo fuss.

    Having an HTML5 logo will help to increase standards-awareness, which is in itself good. But I’m worried about all those small sub-badges: no one except web nerds will know what they mean, so I fear they’ll be regarded as either 1) clutter to be ignored, or 2) whoever has most has the best site. Neither option is appealing. And why is that vertical version so different from the horizontal one?

    Beside that, first having the logo to hype HTML5 and then dropping the “5″ from the spec is just silly.

    P.S. the WHATWG may call HTML an evolving standard but the W3C will likely stick to having milestones / snapshots / stable versions of it.

    5
    • 44

      don’t fear it will be ignored, it most certainly WILL be ignored for 2 reasons you stated:

      1) only geeks care
      2) version numbers just got dropped from the spec.

      This logo was a complete waste of time.

      And anyone that puts an HTML5 logo on a client’s site is doing the client a branding disservice.

      10
      • 45

        Agreed. How stupid was it to come out with this logo right when they announce that version numbers are being dropped from HTML?

        http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5

        1
        • 46

          The logo is from the w3c. The WHAYWG is dropping the milestones. Apples and pears!

          1
        • 47

          lol, amen to that.

          These people need to make up their minds. The whole reason we have to design for various browsers is:

          A. Well, they keep making new browsers! …arrrg

          B. Nothing is standard because everyone has their own idea of how things should be done.

          0
      • 48

        I guess this logo has no branding purpose, but identification of the new standard. Sure it will be used by specific groups of developers and designers… by the way its a very cool logo :D

        -1
  12. 49

    To be honest, when we ever *need* this? To show that we used HTML5? Users don’t need to know that, they just want to use your site. I may be a tad pessimistic but I really just think it’s some sort of publicity stunt, not too sure why though. I’ll admit it is nice, but …pointless?

    24
    • 50

      Yeah normal users don’t care about that, but if you are a web developer/designer it is a MUST to let the user (potential clients!) know that you use standards, valid code and new technologies, and nothing better than a shiny and meaningful logo in your services page.

      Besides, you can put those logos in your client’s web pages so they feel protected and happy that they web site is up-to-date and uses the last tech, I always put those little CSS/HTML valid badges on the pages of my clients and they walk away happy, now with this little shiny gem logo they will love me (and pay me) more!

      -1
      • 51

        Thats quite a point there Greg, sounds like a good idea for backend but in my opinion, it could add unnecassary clutter to the frontend and (although ridiculously tiny) extra loading time.

        But definately, it feels nice to have that assurance that your developer is using new technologies.

        (Then again, they could get paranoid you’re not supporting old browsers that don’t support the new tech! D: )

        0
      • 52

        Really? Clients like stuff like this? Sheeesh. Putting this logo on a web site right now is going to make the general public view this as the “logo that means the web site is broken” when they are viewing the site with their current version of IE.

        0
        • 53

          nope, they will know they old IE is the one that’s broken, besides, a good website will have fallbacks.

          -1
  13. 54

    It reminds me a locomotive’s front view see link below. But I don’t think that the author intended it to be so. Anyways, it looks o.k., not too much promising, as the HTML5 itself, right? For a while at least. But maybe I’m wrong, I just started a few days ago to get familiar with HTML5.

    http://www.google.co.il/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=888&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=locomotive+front&aq=f&aqi=g3g-m1&aql=&oq=

    0
  14. 55

    TRANSFORMERS 100%

    5
  15. 59

    Logo is clean and distinctive but as mentioned already there is going to be very less consideration about the use of those badges which still is unexplanatory. If ever the logo is to be used how contradicting it may seem to mark the whole specification as plain HTML and using a badge where it says HTML 5. A bit confusing.

    0
  16. 60

    Nice logo, good and solid timeless design, with a added value on functions – but…

    How The Hell can they set a version-number in the main-focus?
    I think this is a capital strategic fail for further developments.

    -1
    • 61

      In fact, the 5 is the one with the big meaning in HTML5, no point in putting only HTML… but those logos with just the 5 mean nothing without the word “html”, just the 5 does not send the message.

      2
  17. 62

    Whilst I do think the logo is well designed, I am not sure of the purpose of it, did previous HTML versions have their own logo? Will people put a badge of it on their website? I’m not so sure. It just seems a bit unnecessary in my honest opinion.

    3
  18. 63

    I really like the new Logo – but i think they should use another font for “HTML”. Bold for readability is fine and it suits the “5″ in the shield- , sign-, whatever-thing. But i would love to see a different font.
    The icons are Standard-Ok.

    -1
  19. 64

    Looks like a logo of superhero in comic world

    2
  20. 65

    I have a question…

    If they’re going to drop the “5″ and make it a standard, why does the logo have a prominent number 5 in it?

    0
    • 66

      The people who released the logo with the “5″ (the W3C) are not the same people who dropped the “5″ from the name (WHATWG).

      The better questions are:

      1) Did the W3C know that WHATWG were planning to drop the 5 from the name in the spec?

      2) Did WHATWG know that the W3C were planning to release a logo with a prominent “5″ in it?

      If neither knew what the other was up to, then that doesn’t say a whole lot about the people planning the future of the web.

      10
      • 67

        Same question. So it is a temporal solution? Or just another proof of HTML5 being controversial? Anyway I love HTML5 :)

        0
  21. 68

    Now HTML5 logo as presented is a lot better looking than the validation stuff .I think if you add new logo to your site this is an interesting thing to add.But those badges have no explanation…

    -1
  22. 69

    I think it should be much smoother. Html5 makes the web as dynamic as never before. The new logo looks like static, motionless and heavy. Curves represent dynamics are better than straight lines and hard edges.

    2
  23. 71

    is a logo like this relevant for anyone except web developers? Sure, we can use it on sites but if the user doesn’t know or care what it means, what’s the point?

    see also: “made on a mac”, “optimized for IE” etc.

    5
    • 72

      HTML5 is the new “Web 2.0″. It means one thing to developers, something totally different to clients and the majority of people just don’t care.

      And just like the “valid HTML” badges on sites that don’t validate, I predict a rash of HTML5 badges on sites with XHTML doctypes.

      1
      • 73

        Excellent summary Emily!

        IMHO The introduction of the logo (as well as the WHATWG reaction) seems like just another phase in the ongoing power struggle between the WHATWG/Browser vendors and the W3C about deciding who “owns” the control of the evolution of (X)HTML in the minds of John and Jane Q Web Developer…

        -1
      • 74

        There is no issue with putting an HTML5 logo on a XHTML website as the logo isn’t there to say that a site is valid HTML5.

        As it states in the article above the logo is for designer/developer to communicate with the ‘world’ (so clients) what HTML5 and related technologies you use…

        So the only people who will see this are web agencies/freelancers and their clients.

        -1
  24. 75

    Looks like new Smashing Magazine logo. :D

    but it’s nice anyway.

    0
  25. 76

    I think the logo looks great!

    Anyhow, I made a little Chrome extension so you can create your html5 badge right from the browser. Nothing fancy, its the same builder as on the site :)
    http://bit.ly/gyWW4i

    -1
  26. 77

    Well, i think that without the shield, the badges and the “5″ we have a winner here!

    The things we remove we can give to our managers and marketeers to strengthen their pitches and give them more to talk about without knowing what it is they are saying.

    But please, it’s a spec! There are WAY more important specs in this world and we don’t have fancy logo’s for them. Why? Because, for the spec itself, it has zero purpose.

    The only thing that this logo contributes to is the hype, and as a developer i can say that the hype didn’t make my life easier!

    -1
  27. 78

    Looks like someone saw Superman marathon then went to work on a logo.

    2
  28. 79

    This new logo will definitely be a common site on the web. Design wise, I think it’s weak and very elementary. HTML 5 represents a much advance development of HTML technology, in my opinion the logo should carry this essence.

    The colors are cute, though.

    0
  29. 80

    It’s just like those “valid HTML” or “valid CSS” badges that the W3C encouraged us to use in the past. But seriously, who puts that on his page? It’s background information that the user shoudn’t see. It’s like making a movie and showing the film crew in every frame.

    10
  30. 81

    I would have liked to see a more generic name instead of HTML5 so it could include things like CSS3 proper. I don’t even mind using the 5 for that. Something like the OpenWeb generation 5 or something. OpenWebStack or OpenWebStandards or whatever. Just noticed the w3c used the term: “open web platform” somewhere on their site. So “open web platform” generation 5 ? Would that make sense ?

    -1
  31. 82

    kinda ‘superhero’ logo, but it’s looks cool. i love it

    0
  32. 83

    Choosing a vintage design to represent a modern thing… I find it weird.

    More over, users don’t care about the technologies used in their website, only developers do. So why designing an HTML5 logo you can display on top of your web site ?

    Well, you got the point : I don’t like this logo…

    0
  33. 84

    Simple and effective in showing what it supposed to, good logo :)

    -1
  34. 85

    I think the logo kicks ass, it’s the perfect way to visually demonstrate your adherence to and passion for the forward motion of web technologies. Ok, those little icons don’t say jack about what they mean to the lay person, but come on, if you really care that much I’m sure you could find a way to fix that.

    The only thing I’m concerned about is dropping the “5″ in HTML5. I like to be able to say, “I use HTML5″. When you say “I use HTML”, a hundred thousand people can chime in, but not when you say “I use HTML5″… Then they say: “Ooohhh, coool.” It impresses people.

    -3
  35. 86

    For some sort of reason, I’m thinking that there’s at least 5 other folks who are going to jump out a la Justice League style when I see it. Are they really considering the real estate that this “logo” is going to take up on pages that have to adjust themselves to this? just saying.

    -1
  36. 87

    Awesome!!!

    -5
  37. 88

    HTML5: the superhero that will save the web from lameness.

    -4
  38. 89

    i like it! *thumbs.up

    -7
  39. 90

    prinz von samunda

    January 22, 2011 3:28 am

    My costumers don’t care about html5 and communist logos.

    0
  40. 91

    A shield?! The logo looks nice but I’m not too sure that the orange shield is the right kind of representation. It’s markup not an anti-virus…I think they need to rethink this.

    …”an all-purpose banner for HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF, and other technologies”… uhm no. While I understand the logic behind it, and probably explains the shield in the logo (display strength, power, the collective etc), I don’t believe HTML 5 can mean anything other than the specification itself. If they really need to, they could come up with a different name for this collective that makes up the platform not HTML 5.

    Dropping the 5 altogether? Now that’s bold. Again representation – this being solely done to speed up adoption – It doesn’t look like it has any other meaning and quite frankly I can’t see how one who’s new to the industry will not get confused to which version of HTML to use. HTML, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, etc. Which one you’d pick? No need to confuse matters – you want to turn HTML5 in to a living standard then do so without the name change.

    Too much going on in the name while all they need to do is just do it without changing anything.

    1
    • 92

      Using a diferent name or logo for every HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF is just too much for a normal user to digest, better let them know with only one shiny kick-ass HTML5 logo that your site uses all the new tech.

      -1
    • 93

      Besides, you could use the HTML5 logo to sell, it’s a marketing strategy and selling point, they must not drop the 5 from the name, it help sells, like someone said, saying you use HTML5 impress people… including potential clients.

      1
  41. 94

    It’s nice but what’s it’s purpose exactly? To put on html5 tutorial sites is the only thing i can think of.

    I don’t get the random grey icons, they absolutely mean nothing to me and i can’t tell what most of them are supposed to be.

    Three stripes means you’re a sergeant but what does that have to do with web development and a cog for settings? Bad designing there.

    7
  42. 95

    Dont like it much – It won’t fit in with every style of website and therefor is not a good logo for this purpose.

    -1
  43. 96

    This logo is a shame.
    It’s a mix of US Army badge (look at the vertical one with the star at the bottom), Comics super heros sign (Superman, Captain America, Transformer), graphism from the 40′s or 50′s.
    This logo sucks.
    This logo don’t represent a “Web for all”. This shield is just a war declaration. The next step will be “WC3 : I want you” just like “Uncle Sam : I want you”.
    I really hope that nobody has been paid for such a crap.

    2
  44. 97

    I think the logo is well done and as a graphic on the t-shirt would do great (bigger version), but it doesn’t work for me in web sense (small version). I really don’t see the point in having this on a website. For those kind of purpose i would like to see a more simple sign.

    -1
  45. 98

    A logo with a 5 in it. And 5 being dropped from the name . . .

    Equally, from a working point of view, we need defined baselines for what browsers should be supporting. By default, Android doesn’t support SVG, for instance, you can’t use Canvas with IE yet, etc.

    I can see the value of developing them as separate standards, but it’s becoming a nightmare in terms of knowing what works (and also – what works well).

    The current situation allows a lot of ambiguous claims to ‘HTML 5 compliant’ (again, I’m more interested in proper CSS support, SVG, WOFF – the associated technologies – rather than better document section markup).

    I think we need a higher level ‘browser baseline’ standard, being set by something other than the market dominant browser (IE on desktop, Safari in mobile). Even keeping the HTML marketing term, something like ‘HTML 2010′ would convey the idea that ‘this is now’.

    -1
  46. 99

    I think it should only take 5 of the logo and add the symbol of the W3C, like so http://twitpic.com/3rrt83

    -1
  47. 100

    logo is hot! I also bought two t-shirts :)

    -3
  48. 103

    I have already posted in another blog that this logo reminds me too much of the magento ecommerce logo: same colors red and lighter red to achieve a slightly 3dimensional look, quite edged, white to show the number (in case of magento the letter), black type (ok, thats no real similarity ;) ) … but otherwise, I think the logo itself is well done and neat. It fulfills all the requirements that a logo needs to fulfill and therefore functions.

    -1
  49. 104

    it’s nice, but too military for me — thats just the meaning of a subjective pacifist :D

    -1
  50. 105

    Another thing to note here is that, according to the Logo FAQ, this HTML5 logo is *not* yet the official HTML5 logo for the W3C:

    W3C introduced this logo in January 2011 with the goal of building community support. W3C has not yet taken it up in any official capacity. If, as W3C hopes, the community embraces the logo, W3C will adopt it as its own official logo for HTML5 in the first quarter of 2011.

    -1
    • 106

      Haaa Haaa — what a hype for just a random contribution to the web! thx 4 making me lol XD

      -1
  51. 107

    Looks like an American propaganda posters which were once :)

    0
  52. 108

    I dont get the point. Why does an HTML need a logo?

    3
  53. 109

    Adrian Tschubarov

    January 22, 2011 6:04 am

    I think it is too old looking. Retro futuristic, 50′s like. It looks good, but does not kill me. Well executed, in 2 or 3 month it will look so natural to us that it will start looking good anyway. Like the Coca-Cola logo.

    0
  54. 110

    It looks like a shield. Shield means protection. What does HTML5 protect from? I thought it is a presentation language.

    2
  55. 111

    I love the logo, being a logo designer, but I think it’s pointless to show this on a website. Why?

    First of all, the audience that knows the meaning of this logo will probably only be the designers and developers of websites. Joe the Client isn’t interested in this and that should always be the target-group of designers and developers to make sites for!

    Second, HTML5 is not being supported by all the existing webbrowsers (the big 5), and I think it’s looking strange to put a HTML5 logo on your site, when still 30% of all users of internet use IE (see: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). To be honest it’s quite ridiculous to see a HTML5 logo when a site doesn’t work as intended or doesn’t work at all. For IE-users the logo could easily get a new meaning: ‘ban this site’, cause I can’t watch it properly!

    And third point is that we’re going back to the ’90 with the (generally thought – read an earlier article here on Smashingmag) stupid labels like ‘best viewed on IE’ or other non-browser-compatibility thingies.

    So no, although I love the logo, I think web designers and developers should stick to making web sites accessible .. and let’s face it: HTML5 still isn’t working on all browsers.

    In short, this logo means that the designer or developer was too lazy to make the site accessible in ALL browsers!

    Cheers & Ciao ..

    3
  56. 112

    To all the commenters asking what the shield protects us from…
    …SCNR: Flash exploits :P

    I like it but hope nobody uses the mini badges. Are they a trick to make curious people click?

    -1
  57. 113

    The design of the logo is nice, but reminds me more of a hood ornament, or as other have said the transformers/superman logo. Does not scream “web” by any means. The orange color scheme also seems out of place, and to me would only look good on a few color schemes. Throw it over a black background and suddenly your site looks like Halloween. The black version is a bit better, but to me is still too bold. To me, icons like this should be a more muted color, and secondary to the content on the website. If I’m going to be puttin badges on my site, I want them to be neutral colors, and a shape that isn’t so obtrusive. The overall shape of the shield seems like it would be hard to use in a footer with the conjunction of plain text, etc. The typeface looks art-deco to me, not very futuristic. The accompanying icons are very confusing, and I’m a designer – should be ultra-confusing for the public. This icon seems like something a designer or developer should put on their portfolio – not something the general public will be seeing.

    -1
  58. 114

    The main concept of new technologies is: simple – usefull – direct.
    That logo i god for a SUPER_HERO (The bad Flash is Gone…. her comes HTML5.. rescue you….).
    Don´t work fine..

    -1
  59. 115

    Great logo, but will users care what technologies (or better, yet – should they) the site is built on?

    0
  60. 116

    Great logo :-) Byt, If you want some parody -> http://graphism.fr/dj-les-parodies-du-logo-pour-le-html5

    0
  61. 117

    We thought it’s unfair that HTML5 got all the fun, leaving it’s equal partner – the CSS3 – neclegted and unstyled, so we created it’s own logo. Naturally, partners often do have similar design style. :) You can see it here: http://dribbble.com/shots/102587-CSS3-Logo?offset=1

    -1
  62. 118

    Reminds me of a military badge. Not the kind of logo I like to see for html 5.

    0
  63. 119

    I like the Logo and i’m using it almost on my website, but in my opinion the style could my more modern.
    Michael
    PS: sry for my bad english, i’m german :)

    -2
  64. 120

    What an ugly logo!

    1
  65. 121

    Nice!!!

    -2
  66. 122

    logo is nice but personally i think do we need logo for only html5 stuff .. then why not for css3 .. or up coming technologies ..
    if we want to have.. this could be more simple. may be just conceptual thing. completely different colors shapes .. maybe just type modification would work ..
    i think this is gimmick to promote html5 against flash .. see color is almost same .. lite red .. instead of cherry red see logo of flash cs5 and this one .. just 3d concept is same..
    no hard feelings but its just my opinion :)

    1
  67. 123

    logo reminds me of the transformers, also it looks kinda retro.
    But it looks cool!!

    -1
  68. 124

    It’s very nice! It seems to me a protective shield: the protective shield of the Web! Moreover, it’s a good idea combine it with other technologies…

    -1
  69. 125

    I dont care, I will never use this logo anyway, ever!

    5
  70. 126

    embarassing.
    like it nicerß
    teenage dreams of being strong.
    what about taking yourself and simple technique less serious?

    -1
  71. 127

    I think it’s a sweet logo, but wouldn’t it be more fitting to announce that the logo would evolve over time? This logo seems so settled. For example, this week we could remove the 5 and replace it with a question mark or Prince’s old symbol. Also, some additional supplementary logos showing which browsers are compatible would be nice, and we should also have cool HTML5 slogans, like ‘Validations? We don’t need no stinking validations!’ or ‘Remember the fierce moral urgency of XHTML … fooled you!’ or ‘If it doesn’t run on an iPhone, shame, shame, shame!’.

    In all seriousness though, a logo won’t help make adoption of the great features for HTML5 a reality. Usefulness will, and usefulness will be determined by the interrelated issues of set standards and uniform browser adoption. The logo really is a nice design, but HTML5 seems to me to be great ideas on a shaky foundation. I hope they shore up the foundation soon.

    -1
  72. 128

    Not bad. Now I just need a place to put it. I can totally see the long one in the second row with all the little icons with a toggle effect. Opening up the list of features on click.

    -1
  73. 129

    Looks very super heroish, I kind of like it. I don’t think it looks as professional as it could be, because it looks kind of cartoonish, but I think that’s kinda cool ;)

    -1
  74. 130

    I think its a great logo, the color red-orange really put on front the whole concept, the shape is fantastic, really look like a shield or something like very dominant, the type for the 5 is awsome but the HTML word doesnt really fit for this shape I think.

    so I give it a 8/10 for this logo. not the best but very beautiful

    -1
  75. 131

    When I first saw this on the front page, without reading the HTML, I thought it was a new logo for Smashing Magazine..

    0
  76. 132

    I think the logo realy realy sucks! Putting it on your website implies you are in favour of kinda military style coats …

    Such a crap it is frustrating. Reminds me in the proud “made on a mac” or “best viewed in Netscape Navigator 4.0″ or such, as it is just as pointles imho.

    0
  77. 133

    it’s abt. time to brand the technology..WTG..woo hoo BUT the Logo could be a lot better.Why don’t you take submissions and pick the best one and send it over to W3c council idiots?

    -1
  78. 134

    i can make a better logo than that in less than 10 minutes.

    -1
  79. 136

    to bad they’re dropping the 5 from HTML 5. And just making rolling development.

    -1
  80. 137

    Why do we need a logo? It’s unnecessary to tell the world how you have built the frOnt end….or anything for that matter. Both clients and users just want it to work and work well. It should be irrelevant to them the technology used. If they are thinking about technology behind a website, then as designers and developers we have failed.

    -1
    • 138

      @Maak bow

      “…Both clients and users just want it to work and work well. It should be irrelevant to them the technology used. If they are thinking about technology behind a website, then as designers and developers we have failed..”

      Not true! Some of my clients demand that specific technologies be used on some projects. And when that’s what they want, that’s what they get. Just because a client thinks about the technology, does not mean the designer or developer failed.

      0
      • 139

        Yea, the client may think about tech, but that doesn’t say anything. Sure, if he demands you save everything UTF-8 without BOM, no one would argue against (I guess). But does that imply it is a good Idea to have a starwars’ish logo on your site, claiming it is UTF-8 without BOM ?

        -1
  81. 141

    I think it’s not bad, but not good enough to be the new “Web Standard”. They’ve could make something better, I think.

    -1
  82. 142

    pretty horrid

    0
  83. 143

    My first impression was that this logo looks like it should be representing something related to soccer, which is to say that this is neither a good nor a bad thing.

    -2
  84. 144

    “5″ or “S”? :)

    Not a good logo when it’s made small. And realistically, a readable size will take just too much real estate.

    Good logo design is not just how appealing things look. It’s also about, usability, readability, descriptiveness, functionality, etc.

    This logo is not readily sizable. When shrinking it down to usable formats, the readability and detail is lost.

    Perhaps this logo should have been released to the community before making it the official logo?

    My opinion, it just looks like an image of a shield was taken from a comic book and the number 5 typed onto it, with an unusual font.

    5 can surly refer to the HTML 5 version. The only issue for me really (in terms of descriptiveness)… The shield refers to????

    The logo itself is not awful (just because it’s not my taste, that does not make it terrible or bad), but I really think it’s not good enough for a web standard.

    1
    • 145

      >> Perhaps this logo should have been released to the community before making it the official logo?

      It’s not the official logo. See my comment here from above.

      This “release” is basically what you just said: A release to the community to see if we approve of it, and then they will decide from there (although in reality, it would be extremely unlikely that they would just scrap it and start again — although that can happen with enough public outrage).

      -1
  85. 146

    I read somewhere the logo is to hard 4 the new web. I agree.

    -1
  86. 147

    The logo is designed to look like a cube in perspective, with eye-level at the top.
    Moving down the image, the perspective shows the shape of a cube (sort-of).

    However the horizontal lines in the 5 don’t follow that perspective. This results in something that looks terribly wrong.

    Add the fact that end-users don’t even know what html is and also the fact that html5 is a moving target, and you get something unnecessary that looks weird.

    0
    • 148

      Add the fact that end-users don’t even know what html is and also the fact that html5 is a moving target, and you get something unnecessary that looks weird.

      Yea, that’s something I’d agree with. though, perspective cube … Not.

      -1
      • 149

        Yeah, I only read the comments and the shield stuff after posting. I guess it goes to show the shield is really screwed up because I didn’t see it before. All I saw was a weird cube.

        -1
  87. 150

    I do agree that the different technologies should be separated. Overall HTML 5 becoming a living draft is great for us developers, because the browsers will adapt on the go. This looks very promising.

    -1
  88. 151

    Alex Kahl @probefahrer

    January 22, 2011 3:20 pm

    I absolutely love the Logo – even if it looks a bit like a Virus Scanner Signet :-)

    -1
  89. 152

    Truly ugly. The shadows and highlights look terrible when viewed as a small icon. A simple plain background would work better.
    The typeface is also very unpleasant.

    1
  90. 153

    I’m surprised that you’ve posted those logos as JPGs. I can see compression artifacts trying to jump out of the picture and eat my eyes… I didn’t expect that here, at Smashing’s.

    0
  91. 154

    IMHO HTML should NOT have a logo.
    Its just HTML, and all…

    1
  92. 155

    It does seem like a great idea to have a logo dedicated to html5 and perhaps that will spawn designers of old and new to re-evaluate how they code and design (there is alot of messy code and designs out there). I think could help enthusiasts to get out of there comfort zone of basic html and xhtml.

    As for the logo itself, I like the simplicity but I kind of wish it was more “futuristic”? I don’t know but in all, it is a good idea.

    -1
  93. 156

    Should be a HTML5 canvas version tbh.

    -1
  94. 157

    the mad professor

    January 22, 2011 8:36 pm

    great idea….
    love html5, hate the logo…such an ugly design.

    0
  95. 158

    Nice Logo!

    -1
  96. 159

    It is a logo – get over it :)

    GW

    -1
  97. 160

    overall i like the logo and what i appreciate the most is its not done in a web 2.0 style. the quote “The logo does not have a specific meaning; it is not meant to imply conformance or validity, for example.” i have a problem with; if you wanted to communicate nothing or nothing particular when why not just go with “HTML5″ in helvetica black/white?

    a shield translates to “strength” or “protection”, its a masculine shape. it combined with orange especially demands attention and can seem as a symbol of warning or danger. orange is a bold color. it may be the biggest attention-whore of any hue, meaning no matter where you place it or how small, your eye will find it and the problem is that it can become an annoying distraction.

    3
  98. 162

    Here’s my first revision for the logo, (quick mockup, comments welcome):
    http://twitpic.com/3sm87n

    -4
  99. 163

    the log fails so many rules and at small size is hopeless, the W3C and WHATWG have created a nightmare by dropping the html 5 name, and will now go with a moving target that they will not even issue a snapshot of until 2013, give us a break, just how we going to keep up with compliance to standards on a moving target. HTML 5 is like salt on an open wound that will not heal. Get over this game and set a standard and move on with it. lets face it we are at the mercy of a bunch of cray cray’s and a hopeless standard future ; )

    0
  100. 164

    nice, strongly model

    -1
  101. 165

    Patricia Carvalho

    January 23, 2011 2:26 am

    Love the logo! Please do one for CSS 3 :-)

    -1
  102. 166

    As a web designer I got recently asked by a potential business partner if I can code in HTML5. It was an online newspaper who was developing an iPad app and was looking for designers who could build iAdds. The guy didn’t exactly know what HTM5 actually is or what the difference is to “normal” HTML.

    I think on a B2B level (espacially in times like these were HTML5 is hyped) it can be very helpful to have this logo on your portfolio. Actually it could result in getting a job. It’s like an industry standards.

    On a B2C level I think it is worthless. No normal user would actually care about this logo and wouldn’t know what it means. What do you think?

    Although I think in 1 or 2 years it might get redundant as it might appear everywhere – or the complete opposite happens no one uses it.

    -1
  103. 167
  104. 168

    I think its like Magento logo

    -1
  105. 169

    i don’t like it. it’s like an antivirus logo. it seems to defend something wich has a negative connotation to it, instead of being open and welcoming and user friendly. the styling is ok i guess but it just doesn’t fit with the product it represents.

    4
  106. 170

    I don’t like it either, it doesn’t reflect the idea I have of HTML 5: open, easy, light, natural.

    0
  107. 171

    Plain aweful, sorry to say it.

    The 5 looks like an S, as a badge it is hard to understand for non-webdesigners, and the other small badges are images which meanings you’d have to learn.

    For the purpose of communicating the use of html 5 it is – in this form – only understandable to webdesigners.

    3
  108. 172

    I don’t understand why HTML need a logo…

    4
  109. 173

    I may put this on my portfolio site, but don’t see any need for it on any sites aimed at consumers.

    -1
  110. 174

    regardless the article (which is interesting) …. the background on this page looks terrible… keep it simple SM team please.

    0
  111. 175

    The article is awesome, the logo not that much. I can’t see why a logo for HTML is needed and in any case, if you’re promoting something you need to make it more catchy – to me the logo is too retro and too simple.

    Well, I guess somewhat like HTML itself :)

    -1
  112. 176

    i love the logo so i stuck it on my html5-less windows phone: http://www.flickr.com/photos/falkegg/5377485287/

    0
  113. 177

    It’s nice as a personal project. Maybe some pretentious developers will throw the badge on their site (I NEVER thought I would see people putting badges proclaiming that their website validated with W3C, but they do). I think the main use for this logo would be if there was an official HTML5 resource site, but other than that, it seems like just another arbitrary decision on behalf of those seeking to add yet another dev medal on their chest.

    -1
  114. 178

    I agree with ward, the 5 seems like an S and more in small sizes, but looks great!

    -1
    • 179

      Funny to read the mention of “S” all through the comments.

      On an amusing note (for me I suppose), one of the first images that popped to mind when I first saw the logo was “S Club”. A group from several years back. I don’t think this was the intended image, but that’s what came across nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X0EjwF8o0g#t=1m04s

      -1
  115. 180

    I have to say, I do not want to see it called HTML5.
    I agree on the point of HTML only.
    Keep it HTML from now on and you define an every evolving thing. New features are added and you keep going with it.
    Use HTML 5.1 as a iteration number but as it is labeled at the moment HTML5 makes it seem new and sets a bad standard in my view for what it is.

    0
    • 181

      Good logo design is an informed process. This only comes through discussion, research and (of course) collaboration with W3C, because they in great part are more aware of the target.

      In the case of this logo, it seems evident that it’s more of a cute or pretty thing. Created without being informed? Maybe the designer can take the bull by the horns and revamp the logo by using a more informed design approach? I wonder if this even, initially occurred?

      Maybe it should be tendered out to the community, as a contest perhaps, for younger designers, just starting out?

      Perhaps I’m too outspoken, but does HTML really need a logo, and does it have to focus on a version number?

      -1
  116. 182

    The HTML5 logo has become obsolete since the WHATWG declared HTML to be a “living standard”. A living standard is a specification, which will never be final and will always be work in progress. Therefore, WHATWG cancelled the version number and names HTML5 simply HTML now. WHATWG didn’t clarify, if they gonna call also an Audi A8 simply “Audi” now, or if they refer to Google Chrome simply as “browser” – just to exclude the number.

    Source: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/HTML5-to-become-a-living-standard-called-HTML-1172982.html

    The logos which should disclose which features of HTML are in use, don’t. They’re not clear on their own. I look at them and for some I can guess what they could mean, but for the most I don’t see any sense. The designer used very abstract illustrations which have almost no connection… probably they’re going to map the image with some titles, so you can hover for the explanation. Well, not probably. Hopefully.

    -1
  117. 183

    looks like a super hero logo, looks cool though!

    1
  118. 184

    Not great.
    • It’s a pretty blocky, heavy, look
    • doesn’t look great at small sizes
    • Looks like an S, not a 5.
    • The HTML font is too heavy.
    • Looks like a shield (is that the right metaphor?)
    • There’s a real disconnect between the HTML and the 5, they could have been integrated much better.

    However, I’ve seen a lot worse and I’m pretty picky. So, it’s all good.

    So it goes…

    -dp

    -1
  119. 185

    Yes. i’ts just like SUPERFIVE….. :)
    keep spirit…

    0
  120. 186

    The whole html 5 hype is getting old and a superman logo isn’t going to change anything. Html 5 will florish when clients start paying extra for it, or when IE 9 finally takes over (years from now).

    As far as the design, bring back the curves and the class. Take it back from the machine.

    -1
  121. 187

    The logo is nice, but why you peoples are following Smashing Magazine branding

    -1
  122. 188

    Its look like jeans pocket with 5 written on it. A big no from me. looking for more creative stuff.

    -1
  123. 189

    I love it, the way it is so simplistic yet has a 3 dimensional feel to it. The colour is also awesome as it grabs your attention from the start.

    What I really like about it is the fact that this shows the W3C’s awareness of HTML5, and who knows…2020 might be sooner than we think…we just need many many more early adopters.

    -1
  124. 190

    HTML5 means something else for everybody so it’s difficult to make something everybody agrees with. It is a nice logo but I cannot think of a single project where I could use it. Putting it on a t-shirt is the best thing I can think of. I don’t like the blue background-color though…

    -1
  125. 191

    Yes, very nice logo.

    -1
  126. 192

    I can’t believe I access SM every day to find news one week old…. Stop talking about 10 days old news (HTML5 logo) and stick to what you’re good at….. listicles…. resources… freebies

    -1
  127. 193

    It’s a bit American for my liking, looks like it should be a logo for an American Football team.

    -1
  128. 194

    I have set up my own HTML5 template files and I am now using it as standard with all web projects I work on. It is great!

    The difficulty we have as designer/developers is browser support and having a logo on the page will help promotion, which is good, but it wont help the customers who view the sites in older browsers, which is bad.

    My suggestion would be to build into the logo banner a facility for customers to go and download the latest browsers that support the new technology… That to me should of been a #1 priority; not showing off what HTML5 offers us, the designers and developers…

    The everyday user doesn’t care about the technology HTML5 brings, all they care about is whether the site works, and I am sure they would rather know that they can quickly and easily download the latest browsers than whether or not we are using semantic code or 3D objects.

    As for the design itself, I have to agree with some of you, the tiny versions of this logo just don’t do it for me. The badge idea is good, but like I say above it’s focus should of been on the users not the web community. Overall it is nice to see WC3 taking this to the next level with promotional tools but I think they have forgotten the website users.

    HTML5 is the future! – Get the browsers supporting us and tell MS to release IE9 to everyone the cheeky gits. ;-p

    -1
  129. 195

    Obnoxious attempt to try and hype the technology. Understandable from some points of view, however this should not be the way to go. This type of “tech branding” only causes dissolution at the users end. People think these kind of logos represent some sort of certification, not the intended hype it implies.

    In conclusion, way too soon. Technology is evolving fast and there should be a solid userbase first to work with. Reality is that many people still use IE6 or worse.

    -1
  130. 196

    I like the concept but it is very S like.

    -1
  131. 197

    Well, since everyone hijacked the term “HTML5″ to mean “HTML5, CSS3, MultiMedia and my newborn child” – I can see why they want to rename HTML5 to just “HTML”. Not only does it very slightly disambiguate things, but they can claim to be the most important part of what people call “HTML5″, given that they are contributing all but one character of the moniker.

    2
  132. 198

    This is the new logo of HTML5? Damn… ugly :S

    -1
  133. 199

    Made in the North

    January 24, 2011 3:32 am

    I don’t have a problem with the logo itself, just the fact that a range of web technologies are being labelled HTML5 when they are not HTML5. This can only lead to confusion. However, the fundamental principle of promoting HTML5 with its own visual identity is sound if it helps promote and increase adoption of the new technologies. There just needs to be more clarity.

    -1
  134. 200

    I love it! Nice strong and powerful logo. The icons, though I like the look, lack much meaning on first sight, something that should be the purpose of using an icon I think, so imho they are less of a succes. The only one that looks like something I know is the gear. the connectivity icon? I have no clue what it’s supposed to represent. A weird old ethernet cable?

    -1
  135. 201

    Soon the water and air will have logos. Enough of it.

    0
  136. 202

    CSS3 isn’t part of HTML5.

    -1
  137. 203

    The logo as a piece of work itself I have no issue with – it’s a perfectly acceptable badge for the web as it stands at the moment. What I have huge issues with is what it stands for. I can see this being used by all and sundry, from credible web designers/agencies to Bob’s Websites Ltd (no specific company intended!) as a way to lure mis-informed clients who think HTML5 is the new, all-encompassing term for anything sexy on the web. Client: “Do you do HTML5?”, Designer: “Well, er, yes, I suppose so”, Client: “Great, then you’ll be able to make our logo animate into a T-Rex and then explode into a flock of angels”….

    A logo for HTML5? Fine, if the media wants one, then give them one but this isn’t a good step for establishing clarity within the design/developers community.

    -1
  138. 204

    Although explained at http://www.w3.org/html/logo/index.html#the-technology I have had some trouble to understand the true meaning of the little icons, that come with the logo.

    A parcel for “3D, Graphics and effects”, a gear (usually used for “settings” or “properties”) for “performance and integration”, a TV set with a dent for “device access”? Come on …

    Smashing Mag offers so many (web-)icons, they should have taken a look here. ;-)

    Bego

    -1
  139. 205

    I guess I can (kind of) see why HTML 5 needs a logo, but it reminds me of a superhero emblem.

    -1
  140. 206

    the list of different technologies that are associated with HTML5 will continue to grow. the logo is well done to represent unity and direction

    -1
  141. 207

    It’s definitely a “5ma5hing” logo :P

    0
  142. 208

    I would use this logo for my personal website, but will never use it for client’s website.

    0
  143. 209

    I know design can be very subjective, but personally the logo makes me a sort of “toy” feeling(which others pointed out more precisely: Transformer or Superman :D).
    Keep in mind HTML5 is not only for web designers, but millions of online publishers and content authors. My expectation would be something elegant, sophisticated and mature. Seriously, that “shield” shape is very misleading(like some anti-virus apps).

    -1
  144. 210

    Looks Automotive-ish. I would’ve gone more organic, since ‘HTML 5′ allows for more creative layouts, components, integration, etc…

    -1
  145. 211

    If they’re dropping the “5″ from the spec name, why use it as the most prominent feature of the logo? I think dropping the 5 is a bad decision on their part…

    It’s a good looking logo, but perhaps a bit strong for branded sites…a subtle validation icon-like logo, or perhaps a landscape rectangle format including the “HTML” in the smaller versions, woiuld have been a little less loud for on-site contexts.

    -1
  146. 212

    Dang, I actually really want the t-shirt!

    -1
  147. 213

    There’s a lot of people saying they don’t see the point of using the logo and that it will just add to clutter, etc. I think there are, however, a few reasons why it would be okay to use:

    1. The footer of a website isn’t usually a place where I’m super worried about clutter. I have maybe a simple nav and a copyright statement 90% of the time, the logo would actually look pretty nice down there. It adds a bit of contrast and a nice polished look. Even if people don’t know what it means.

    2. From a conversion design perspective, having pretty much ANY logos on your site can help induce trust from the user. That doesn’t mean you should go putting random logos all over the place willy-nilly, but a little orange shield in the footer certainly isn’t going to hurt anything. Users might not know what it means, but they see a shield and they’re going to associate it with security.

    -3
  148. 214

    Just what the world needs… Yet another badge for hacks to plaster all over a website. Very few end users care know or care what HTML5 is any more than they care that a site validates. While the logo is visually quite nice it simply contributes to industry chest thumping.

    1
  149. 215

    Well, as a designer, the logo looks fine and beautiful, following the trendy colors, shapes and simplicity… (i would like to get a t-shirt 4 sure, i’m a geek, wearit in a bar and wait for anyone says: “cool tee bro, what this f.#$ing means?” and make me social.)
    ..But, as a developer and real opinion,.. it’s HTML a brand? or product? ..no… html is our language, growing and expanding to new frontiers each day, it didn’t have a logo in the past why the need it today?..all this is about marketing to me. And in fact, in order to make our life easier, simple this is not help at all, it’s useless. A redesign of the validation icons will have more sense to me.
    And maybe create an atracttive graphically warning sign on sites that says: “THIS IS NOT IE6 FRIENDLY” will give us some help and lead users to use a updated browser to display and enjoy our wonderfull universal used language as it is. ;)

    -1
  150. 216

    To me this looks strictly to be a marketing ploy. In the world of web technology it’s made known HTML5 is trying to make a move on Flash with the influence of Apple. So with that in mind i see this as HTML5 putting the message out there: “the new sheriff is in town”. nice logo but i dislike the reason behind it…

    1
  151. 217

    So yeah… I like the design, but I don’t really see the point of the ’5′ in it. They shortened the DOCTYPE declaration to just ‘html’ because there weren’t gonna be any version from now on. It will be an evolving spec. Which is probably why they declared the logo obsolete already over at WHATWG.

    My reaction above doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want this on a t-shirt :)

    -1
  152. 218

    I think it looks WAY too much like an antivirus logo… Which just makes me think of my computer slowing down and seeing too many pop up windows. Not exactly something I’d want to be reminded of when I’m coding!!!

    1
  153. 219

    http://www.flicksfonts.com/canvastastic.html

    I’ve been working on setting up the logo in canvas. Then I’ll add Google’s excanvas so IE won’t be left out ;)

    -1
  154. 220

    For promoting HTML5 in the media? I think creating a logo for that purpose is, in itself, a problem. The media is turning HTML5 into fantastic sexy web design, things that look like flash but aren’t, and social networking/user generated content……all of which just make me want to punch the person in charge of “the media”.

    HTML5 is a hardly anything the media makes it out to be, why help them further their bastardization of what HTML5 actually is?

    HTML5 let’s us natively play video and audio without flash, gives us an interface to use Javascript to do wonderful things (e.g. canvas – important to note here that HTML5 doesn’t do anything that amazing with canvas itself, Javascript does), and brings us a big leap closer to the “semantic web” (yeah, remember when that was the talk of the town instead of HTML5?) by giving us additional semantic elements like header, article, section, footer, etc. (Yes, I am aware there are some other things that HTML5 does give us in terms of UI that are awesome to have such as form elements, but I am trying to make a point, so please don’t point that out to me).

    It is not what makes Facebook or Twitter run (they could get along just fine without it, and do because the majority of their users are IE users), Google’s instant search doesn;t need it, it’s not what makes websites look pretty (designers/developers don’t need HTML5 to make something visually appealing), nor does it replace flash (although it does render a big part of flash’s current use on the web unnecessary).

    I would’ve rather Ocupop design a logo that consisted a list of things that HTML5 isn’t to hand out to the media to tell them that everything they’ve been saying for the past 12 months is wrong and that they’re actually a bunch of asshats.

    Neat looking logo though, I like the design.

    -1
  155. 221

    Why the military badge theme?

    Also, I have no clue what the other small badges represent, even being a designer.

    1
  156. 222

    I think it looks great! Nice job!

    -1
  157. 223

    It’s better than the W3C logo

    -1
  158. 224

    Autobots rollout!

    -1
  159. 225

    Alexander Farennikov

    January 24, 2011 1:35 pm

    Main question:
    Why does HTML even need a logo? Is it a brand fighting for recognition?

    -1
  160. 226

    Not bad but will look dated in a few years. What I’m more concerned about is the grammar in ‘AN HTML5 LOGO’ since when is H a vowel?! Schoolboy error!

    -1
    • 227

      Long overdue reply, but. the answer is: since ‘H’ was pronounced ‘aitch’.

      -1
  161. 228

    I think they should work on HTML 5 rather than branding it first. Think about it like a company or an organization. You create the company first, define the logistics, then brand it and plaster it every where so that people know what it’s about.

    http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

    0
  162. 229

    Like the logo, and I can see some use for it, but if HTML5 is now just called HTML now (last paragraph) what we going to do with the 5?

    Have to say, I don’t like SVG, CSS, WOFF etc being umbrellad: they are not the same, for example the CSS syntax is much different. If they were to be umbrellad, it should be something like “New Web Standards” or something. Just a thought.

    -1
  163. 230

    I got a sneak peak of the new SQL logo and it BLOWS this one away. They are soooo gonna sell more stuff than these guys.

    This is absurd.

    -1
  164. 231

    I thought its the NEW smashing magazine logo. lol
    :D

    -1
  165. 232
  166. 233

    Looks like a Transformers logo.

    0
  167. 234

    HTML5 is not fully developed yet, so why people are going nuts about the logo? In my opinion, I think it’s silly for people to go crazy on HTML until next year or so. Like the other comments said, HTML5 is NOT a brand. But if everyone is happy and we can make a better place by discussing this HTML5 logo then so be it. Let’s have a constructive criticism.

    -1
  168. 235

    Great visual piece – love the bold/solid look of logo

    -1
  169. 236

    Right, Domi:

    “The HTML5 logo has become obsolete since the WHATWG declared HTML to be a “living standard”. A living standard is a specification, which will never be final and will always be work in progress. Therefore, WHATWG cancelled the version number and names HTML5 simply HTML now. ”

    The logo ist obsolete. Not necessary at all. (And it’s ugly.)

    1
  170. 237

    Christopher Anderton

    January 25, 2011 7:11 am

    Well, it’s simple. I like it.
    Do i care about a HTML5 logo? No, nothing more than to comment this post.

    -1
  171. 238

    The message the logo sends (strong, hero, hello!) is appropriate and well communicated by style and colour – but … jeez, that is one ug-ly blob. Seriously. It makes me hiccuppy.
    But then the W3C were never famous for their sense of style…

    -1
  172. 239

    way too much like an anti vir app. the shield is kinda protect from something.

    -1
  173. 240

    Love It!

    -1
  174. 241

    I love it, I can’t wait to throw it up on the footer of a new HTML5 site I just finished. I am not a “flash hater”, but I appreciate what HTML5 is doing for the industry and am proud to rock it on the new site.

    -1
  175. 242

    I wonder how legible this logo will be for those people running Internet Explorer 6?

    -1
  176. 243

    The logo is fine but who is EVER going to understand these cryptic badges? Make no sense at all.

    0
  177. 244

    The big push to try and get designers to sit back and take for granted more and more proprietary browser differences is only just beginning. With Google dropping support for .264 and now experimenting with CSS variables for Chrome, you can bet we are going to remember the browser discrepancies of the past as the good old days.

    Lovely HTML 5 logo, thank you for looking so good. Almost makes me forget about all of the extra work for no pay I will soon be required to do for you in the name of “advancing the innovation”.

    -1
  178. 245

    They shouldve redesigned the W3C logo instead. Woof.

    0
  179. 246
  180. 247

    nice! anyway, when i first saw it, i thought it was smashing magazine ^.^

    -1
    • 248

      :) I thought the same. Orange color dont give a very distintive look. I also saw Blogspot Logo at first impression. Its just ok in my opinion. I tink HTML type its too heavy and will not work perfectly in small sizes

      -1
  181. 249

    Looks great!

    -1
  182. 250

    As said before, there is no need for it. I also think it looks like cheap clip art, not a professionally crafted logo

    -1
  183. 251

    Slick!… I Love it!!

    -1
  184. 252

    Esteban Maringolo

    January 28, 2011 7:11 am

    This HTML5 logo will be the most popular soviet-like logo after the Hammer and Sickle. Because of the types, because of the lines, and it’s shield color. I like it however.

    -1
  185. 253

    HTML5 is dead on arrival.

    Welcome to shifting standards – that vendors ignore. Meaning you get to ignore them as well. Enjoy.

    -1
  186. 254

    It should say “HTML 5″ in a rectangle box thats it! Or not exist at all which is my preference.

    -1
  187. 255

    I think it could be more than batter so big no from me..

    -1
  188. 256

    Actually, It is not a bad Logo.
    If they were conducted a open competition.
    Will definitely produce a better option.

    Anyway thanks!

    -1
    • 257

      Open competition would be spec work ;) and we don’t promote that.

      Personally I think it’s a great logo.

      -1
  189. 258

    Logo looks fine in smaller size its not good. Waiting for HTML5 with CSS3 .Personally I think it’s a great logo.

    -1
  190. 259

    I got a T-shirt with the logo and the tag line reads I’m The Future :D

    -1
  191. 260

    Strange!!!
    HTML never had this kind of personality :S

    -1
  192. 261

    It has that 1950s automobile logo look to it. Not that that’s bad. An industrial look.

    -1
  193. 262

    Yea I like it! looks modern, tight and web 2.0. Wanna t-shirt with it and a tag line – Program everything, program your grey thingy. ;)

    Definitely looks great for a computer language starter, but reminds me of Transformers logo, you know, the shape, a bit of the font, stylization…

    -1
  194. 263

    It is ridiculous to require attribution every time the logo is used. This will just be ignored in practice. It would have made more sense to release it as public domain.

    -1
  195. 264

    hmmm…interesting. Reminds me a lot of this logo.
    http://chicago.interhoods.org/

    -1
  196. 265

    I’ve been working on an HTML5 Tribute Theme for WordPress. You can see it at http://www.stpetersburgwebdesigner.com – if anyone is interested I can post a zip file.

    I like the new look.

    -1
  197. 266

    It reminds me of the Transformers

    -1
  198. 267

    I do view it as part of a blunt “marketing” attempt for the whole html 5 hype to be sold to the users… not long until someone bring a better logo without all the fuss, I myself already created an idea here http://flic.kr/p/9kGoCh
    And why did W3C bring it on now? Aren’t they not suppose to wait until 2022 for their full recommendation?

    -1
  199. 268

    The HTML5 logo was inspired by Smashing Magazine Logo, or vice versa.

    -1
  200. 269

    I really didn’t like it in the beginning, but I think I’ve already gotten used to it.

    -1
  201. 270

    BUAHAHA… for your information, the HTML 5 logo is not far away with Krakatau Steel Logo… here is the link : http://www.seeklogo.com/images/K/Krakatau_Steel-logo-93D6C69CC8-seeklogo.com.gif

    OMG!!! the “S” letter has got his brother now ^^

    for further information, you can the website here : krakatausteel.com/

    -3
  202. 271

    Does it not remind anyone else of that thing from Tron or South Park?
    http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/23/128902710782743773.jpg

    Can’t be the only one surely

    -1
  203. 272

    Reminds me of Transformers…

    -1
  204. 273

    this is shield x)

    1

↑ Back to top