The HTML5 Logo: What Do You Think?
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.
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.
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.
Patricia Carvalho
January 23rd, 2011 2:26 amLove the logo! Please do one for CSS 3 :-)
duffy
January 23rd, 2011 3:17 amAs 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.
passatgt
January 23rd, 2011 4:38 amHtml5 logo with css3:)
http://visztpeter.me/html5logo/
Leandro
January 23rd, 2011 5:01 amI think its like Magento logo
tisseenschande
January 23rd, 2011 5:30 ami 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.
Alex Tonneau
January 23rd, 2011 5:50 amI don’t like it either, it doesn’t reflect the idea I have of HTML 5: open, easy, light, natural.
Subvert
January 23rd, 2011 5:54 amPlain 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.
Vlad
January 23rd, 2011 6:00 amI don’t understand why HTML need a logo…
matt
January 23rd, 2011 7:16 amI may put this on my portfolio site, but don’t see any need for it on any sites aimed at consumers.
john
January 23rd, 2011 7:57 amregardless the article (which is interesting) …. the background on this page looks terrible… keep it simple SM team please.
Fresh
January 23rd, 2011 8:05 amThe 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 :)
levi3man
January 23rd, 2011 8:37 ami love the logo so i stuck it on my html5-less windows phone: http://www.flickr.com/photos/falkegg/5377485287/
Glenn Sorrentino
January 23rd, 2011 12:06 pmIt’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.
andy
January 23rd, 2011 2:21 pmI agree with ward, the 5 seems like an S and more in small sizes, but looks great!
Rama
January 24th, 2011 6:00 amFunny 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
Liam
January 23rd, 2011 2:35 pmI 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.
Rama
January 24th, 2011 6:12 amGood 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?
Domi
January 23rd, 2011 2:48 pmThe 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.
countocram
January 23rd, 2011 3:12 pmlooks like a super hero logo, looks cool though!
dp
January 23rd, 2011 4:35 pmNot 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
ginanjar
January 23rd, 2011 6:07 pmYes. i’ts just like SUPERFIVE….. :)
keep spirit…
Art Machine
January 23rd, 2011 6:42 pmThe 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.
Ashok Gotte
January 23rd, 2011 8:56 pmThe logo is nice, but why you peoples are following Smashing Magazine branding
Shashikant Arya
January 23rd, 2011 9:51 pmIts look like jeans pocket with 5 written on it. A big no from me. looking for more creative stuff.
Adriaan Fenwick
January 23rd, 2011 10:27 pmI 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.
Eelco Deuling
January 23rd, 2011 11:00 pmHTML5 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…
Rich Armstrong
January 23rd, 2011 11:49 pmYes, very nice logo.
Catalin
January 24th, 2011 12:09 amI 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
Tom
January 24th, 2011 12:41 amIt’s a bit American for my liking, looks like it should be a logo for an American Football team.
Richard
January 24th, 2011 1:00 amI 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
DickyJ
January 24th, 2011 1:12 amObnoxious 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.
Noah
January 24th, 2011 1:27 amI like the concept but it is very S like.
Steve Fenton
January 24th, 2011 1:37 amWell, 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.
atMaikelw
January 24th, 2011 2:53 amThis is the new logo of HTML5? Damn… ugly :S
Made in the North
January 24th, 2011 3:32 amI 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.
Pieter
January 24th, 2011 4:00 amI 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?
Ivan
January 24th, 2011 4:11 amSoon the water and air will have logos. Enough of it.
Jordan Moore
January 24th, 2011 4:23 amCSS3 isn’t part of HTML5.
Mark Williamson
January 24th, 2011 4:26 amThe 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.
Bego
January 24th, 2011 5:21 amAlthough 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
Kyle
January 24th, 2011 5:45 amI guess I can (kind of) see why HTML 5 needs a logo, but it reminds me of a superhero emblem.
geert baven
January 24th, 2011 5:46 amthe list of different technologies that are associated with HTML5 will continue to grow. the logo is well done to represent unity and direction
X-oR
January 24th, 2011 6:06 amIt’s definitely a “5ma5hing” logo :P
population2
January 24th, 2011 6:22 amI would use this logo for my personal website, but will never use it for client’s website.
jianglong
January 24th, 2011 6:52 amI 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).
Scott
January 24th, 2011 7:02 amLooks Automotive-ish. I would’ve gone more organic, since ‘HTML 5′ allows for more creative layouts, components, integration, etc…
Sebastian
January 24th, 2011 7:03 amIf 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.
Clay
January 24th, 2011 7:12 amDang, I actually really want the t-shirt!
Sam
January 24th, 2011 8:17 amThere’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.
Bryce
January 24th, 2011 8:34 amJust 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.
whdesign&art
January 24th, 2011 9:58 amWell, 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. ;)
Brian
January 24th, 2011 10:19 amTo 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…
Wouter Vervloet
January 24th, 2011 10:51 amSo 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 :)
Erin
January 24th, 2011 11:06 amI 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!!!
John Flickinger
January 24th, 2011 11:07 amhttp://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 ;)
Adam
January 24th, 2011 11:11 amFor 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.
Dave
January 24th, 2011 11:34 amWhy the military badge theme?
Also, I have no clue what the other small badges represent, even being a designer.
Ryan Seaman
January 24th, 2011 11:41 amI think it looks great! Nice job!
xxstarz
January 24th, 2011 12:34 pmIt’s better than the W3C logo
JayDee
January 24th, 2011 12:38 pmAutobots rollout!
Alexander Farennikov
January 24th, 2011 1:35 pmMain question:
Why does HTML even need a logo? Is it a brand fighting for recognition?
Kieran Weston
January 24th, 2011 2:16 pmNot 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!
Pete Stoneman
August 24th, 2011 1:44 pmLong overdue reply, but. the answer is: since ‘H’ was pronounced ‘aitch’.
spindle
January 24th, 2011 3:15 pmI 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/
JDa
January 24th, 2011 4:14 pmLike 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.
LA
January 24th, 2011 6:54 pmI 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.
Jerichvc
January 24th, 2011 8:27 pmI thought its the NEW smashing magazine logo. lol
:D
Sachin Dharwadker
January 24th, 2011 9:31 pmTHIS is what I think: http://technologycharge.com/charge/2011/1/20/you-cant-brand-web-standards-the-case-against-the-w3cs-html.html
Ranganath
January 25th, 2011 12:05 amLooks like a Transformers logo.
John
January 25th, 2011 2:01 amHTML5 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.
rajesh r nair
January 25th, 2011 3:07 amGreat visual piece – love the bold/solid look of logo
K.R.Zweydinger
January 25th, 2011 3:33 amRight, 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.)
Christopher Anderton
January 25th, 2011 7:11 amWell, it’s simple. I like it.
Do i care about a HTML5 logo? No, nothing more than to comment this post.
Fred K
January 25th, 2011 8:29 amThe 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…
stubi
January 25th, 2011 12:43 pmway too much like an anti vir app. the shield is kinda protect from something.
james weaver
January 25th, 2011 7:21 pmLove It!
edrian
January 25th, 2011 10:58 pmI 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.
Ron
January 25th, 2011 11:46 pmI wonder how legible this logo will be for those people running Internet Explorer 6?
Machteld Ouwens
January 26th, 2011 12:35 amThe logo is fine but who is EVER going to understand these cryptic badges? Make no sense at all.
Art Machine
January 26th, 2011 1:45 amThe 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”.
Rob Schlegel
January 26th, 2011 9:02 amThey shouldve redesigned the W3C logo instead. Woof.
Adam
January 26th, 2011 9:43 amWe could just use the NEWT logo instead.
http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2010/meet-newt-new-exciting-web-technologies/
ganyabubrown
January 26th, 2011 8:46 pmnice! anyway, when i first saw it, i thought it was smashing magazine ^.^
José
January 26th, 2011 9:36 pm:) 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
Fahim
January 27th, 2011 8:51 amLooks great!
Edd
January 27th, 2011 9:49 amAs said before, there is no need for it. I also think it looks like cheap clip art, not a professionally crafted logo
Prince Bazawule
January 27th, 2011 10:30 amSlick!… I Love it!!
Esteban Maringolo
January 28th, 2011 7:11 amThis 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.
Barry Cunningham
January 28th, 2011 7:13 amHTML5 is dead on arrival.
Welcome to shifting standards – that vendors ignore. Meaning you get to ignore them as well. Enjoy.
Jimbo
January 28th, 2011 9:13 pmIt should say “HTML 5″ in a rectangle box thats it! Or not exist at all which is my preference.
Roshan
January 31st, 2011 2:48 amI think it could be more than batter so big no from me..
srinufx
January 31st, 2011 1:24 pmActually, It is not a bad Logo.
If they were conducted a open competition.
Will definitely produce a better option.
Anyway thanks!
Daniel Whyte
February 1st, 2011 3:05 pmOpen competition would be spec work ;) and we don’t promote that.
Personally I think it’s a great logo.
SHAHUL HAMEED
February 1st, 2011 9:49 pmLogo looks fine in smaller size its not good. Waiting for HTML5 with CSS3 .Personally I think it’s a great logo.
Sumeet Chawla
February 2nd, 2011 9:52 pmI got a T-shirt with the logo and the tag line reads I’m The Future :D
Eric
February 3rd, 2011 3:41 amStrange!!!
HTML never had this kind of personality :S
Jeff
February 4th, 2011 1:22 pmIt has that 1950s automobile logo look to it. Not that that’s bad. An industrial look.
Ivan Tsankov
February 5th, 2011 3:45 amYea 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…
Jeff
February 6th, 2011 1:55 pmIt 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.
miket
February 15th, 2011 4:16 amhmmm…interesting. Reminds me a lot of this logo.
http://chicago.interhoods.org/
Dubrod
February 17th, 2011 6:28 amI’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.
Theraisa K
February 23rd, 2011 2:52 pmIt reminds me of the Transformers
Nelson Felix
February 24th, 2011 6:09 amI 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?
tae
March 7th, 2011 4:24 amThe HTML5 logo was inspired by Smashing Magazine Logo, or vice versa.
Tedel
March 11th, 2011 7:56 amI really didn’t like it in the beginning, but I think I’ve already gotten used to it.