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 logo to help designers and developers ‘tell the world’ that they’re using HTML5. The logo was designed 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 stickers and t-shirts, and there’s a gallery already promoting examples of the logo in use.

HTML5 Logo

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 Blog, 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 Keith. 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 statement 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 WOFF, 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″, 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”, 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 updated, in response to the furor:

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.

Louis Lazaris is a freelance web developer based in Toronto, Canada. He blogs about front-end code on Impressive Webs and is a co-author of HTML5 and CSS3 for the Real World, published by SitePoint. You can follow Louis on Twitter or contact him through his website.

  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

      Toni Podmanicki

      January 22nd, 2011 10:38 am

      +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

      Gordon @ Primate

      January 25th, 2011 9:42 am

      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
  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

    MOHAMMED NABEEL

    January 22nd, 2011 1:55 am

    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

    Carsten Nielsen

    January 22nd, 2011 2:10 am

    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

    Anton Trollbäck

    January 22nd, 2011 3:05 am

    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 22nd, 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
  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 22nd, 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

    Gonzo the Great

    January 22nd, 2011 6:09 am

    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

    first-developer

    January 22nd, 2011 8:19 am

    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 22nd, 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 22nd, 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

  1. 1

    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
  2. 2

    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
  3. 3

    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
  4. 4

    This logo reminds me The Transformers !

    +15
  5. 5

    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
  6. 6

    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
  7. 7

    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
  8. 8

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

    +8
  9. 9

    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
  10. 10

    I’d rather had seen them working on finalising it.

    +6
  11. 11

    plain awful

    +6
  12. 12

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

    +5
  13. 13

    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
  14. 14

    MOHAMMED NABEEL

    January 22nd, 2011 1:55 am

    TRANSFORMERS 100%

    +5
  15. 15

    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
  16. 16

    Kind of Smashing Magazine logotype style. ;)

    +5
  17. 17

    I agree with ‘awful.’

    The ’5′ looks too much like an ‘S’.

    +4
  18. 18

    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
  19. 19

    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
  20. 20

    I don’t understand why HTML need a logo…

    +4
  21. 21

    Agreed – logo is awesome :-D

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

    +4
  22. 22

    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
  23. 23

    Looks like a shield to me.

    +3
  24. 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. 25

    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
  26. 26

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

    +3
  27. 27

    Gonzo the Great

    January 22nd, 2011 6:09 am

    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
  28. 28

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

    +3
  29. 29

    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
  30. 30

    yeah I totally thought: “TRANSFORMERS. more than meets the eye.”

    maybe that’s what they’re going for? “HTML 5. more than meets the eye?”

    +2

Leave a Comment

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic! Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. So, please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name, or it will be deleted. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation instead. Thanks for dropping by!

↑ Back to top