Genre: Opinion/Argumentation

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. 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. inGEEnius morfingen Ben 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 Adrian Cooney 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 Gerd Wippich 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. LazyAndroid 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. MOHAMMED NABEEL Koen Hendrix 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. tisseenschande 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. Martin LeBlanc brandon moore 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. Damian Rivas Gonzo the Great 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/browse\\... ). 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 ushmorov Muneeb Ahmad 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. If you want to maximize the revenue of your service, you need to maximize completion rates of your web forms. We present findings from an analysis of 100 popular websites where Web forms (should) matter. App Store is a competitive environment. Against more than 140,000 apps, all screaming for attention, how do you make sure your app gets its time in the spotlight? How do you get people to talk about your app? Get Your Smashing Books! The Smashing books are the best printed books we've produced so far: valuable, cutting-edge, high-quality books that every designer should have on their bookshelf. Get your books now: printed or eBooks! Free eBook: "Best of Smashing Magazine" We've got a gift for you! To celebrate our birthday, we've released a free eBook with best articles published here on Smashing Magazine over all these years. In PDF, ePUB and Mobi. Get it now for free!