W3C HTML5 Logo Unveiled

Wow, I was prepared to mock it after seeing that w3.org actually had to design something, but it's rather good.

I don't know why, but it puts a smile on my face. I guess, the logo shows some confidence previously unassociated with boring standard bodies.

I have to say that I find the icons to be really, really ridiculous.<p>It doesn't look like something someone hired from outside did, and the HTML5 logo looks like the header on a Tutsplus vector tutorial.<p>Most of the different icons have very poor symbolic value, and look really unintelligible.<p>They could do a lot worse, so that's always something.

Wow. I actually doubled-checked the location bar to see if this was the real deal or just some designer take on it.<p>It's a really great logo, definitely "with the times" with the bold, sharp lines and flat colors. I'm not sure I'll be putting it on any websites, since I don't think most users care or understand markup versioning, but grats to w3c for doing something that doesn't look like it came out of a committee of phds and marketroids.

"IS THIS W3C'S "OFFICIAL" LOGO FOR HTML5?<p>Not yet. 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."

I'm not certain I like it.<p>Think about its purpose; it needs to work <i>with</i> a huge range of styles, each of which will have specific and varied audiences.<p>The choices made (collegiate typeface / bright orange) are quite bold; I don't think it lends itself to sympathetically supporting a broad range of differing styles of design.<p>Also, when this is used, it's likely to be quite small - the gap between the tail of the '5' and its upper curve is slight. I think it will have a tendency to resemble a '6' at smaller resolutions.<p>Maybe I'm being too negative, but on top of all this I don't think it looks visually appealing or balanced. I don't think the proportions (forced perspective / surrounding gap vs. typeface weight) are pleasing to look at.<p>But then again, maybe once we see it everywhere, it's ubiquity will create new associations and familiarity will win out.

Is that how HTMTL5 websites are supposed to look like? With the cluttered layout, the various fonts and sizes, the flashy colours and the interactive content I find this page incredibly difficult to parse. It's hard for me to extract the important informations from the text. Is it really about the new logo? What's the deal with the "HTML5 semantics" on the middle? I know nothing of web development, so I have no idea what this means.<p>I could also question the need of... 2^8 variations of the same logo (the "build a logo" thingy).<p>EDIT: fixed typo

Looks like the Autobot insignia.<p>Is this a declaration of solidarity against the evil forces of the Flashicons?

I'm sorry, but this is laughable.<p>Do people put icons in their iOS apps advertising the use of CoreAnimation? Do they put some kind of Silverlight or Flash badge on their web sites done with those technologies?<p>It's just a set of useful technologies. Why all the branding hoo-hah?

I really like it. It looks acceptably corporate, but it has a hint of the whole 'unicorns are awesome!' early-adopter-webdev aesthetic that will put a smile on the face of the people who actually use html5 day to day, and evangelise for it.<p>Sort of like dog whistle politics but used for good :)

Without considering the context, the logo itself is pretty good. I like the badge/custom badge and related components. Overall though, I don't like it. I don't think it's a fitting logo (the superman/superhero comparisons are what come to mind to me as well).<p>The logo treatments and website seem like a contrived effort design a logo to whatever the designers believe is the "HTML5 Design Aesthetic." Sure, rich content and all, but HTML5 (and related technologies, like this logo is supposed to imply) shouldn't be represented by over contemporary design.<p>Interestingly, the logo is not the "official" logo. On paper, it's just the community logo - and it will only officially be adopted if it gets enough grassroots support.<p><i>Is this W3C's "official" logo for HTML5?<p>Not yet. 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.</i>

Reminds me of Transformers

Nice article by Jeremy Keith on why this logo creates and propagates confusion between HTML5 and CSS3:<p><a href="http://adactio.com/journal/4289/" rel="nofollow">http://adactio.com/journal/4289/</a>

How many type foundries do you think would be trumpeting their fonts' inclusion in the HTML5 logo?<p>One of the many reasons I love Hoefler &#38; Frere Jones.<p><i>Gotham + Mercury + Knockout, all from @h_fj, make the HTML-5 logo. <a href="http://www.w3.org/html/logo/" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/html/logo/</a> #next #stop, #webfonts</i> <a href="http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/H_FJ/status/27369279905071104</a>

I am not sure I see how useful it is. I think people who would care about HTML5 are already aware of it and the ones who don't will probably not be influenced by the logo. What remains seems to just be some kind of nerdy bragging thing: collect them all!<p>It reminds me of the "Netscape Now!" button campaign from the early web. The logo and badges looks nice tough.

Logo's available in SVG - a reminder that I have no idea how to use SVG.

Anyone know who made it?

Am I the only one that finds the aliasing created by slightly tilted lines a design flaw? It was meant to be displayed digitally, and the designer should have avoided aliasing. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing</a>

It's super strange that this page itself is HTML5. Doesn't W3C have a policy of only publishing documents using standards already in the "Recommendation" stage?

I like it. How long until it's implemented using CSS3?

I do like the impact of the logo, but am I the only one who thinks it's a bit too "military?"

It seems the logo is an image (<a href="http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/html/logo/img/html5-topper.png</a>). How long until someone can draw it using purely HTML5?

This looks like something you'd see on a Transformer, not a professional logo for a new web standard. I think it's good for what it is, unfortunately that "what it is" isn't what should represent HTML5.

It is finally out. I guess we will be living with that for some time. I do not mean to be grumpy but something with a bit more curves would be more appealing or representative of the new design era.

And the IE folks on Twitter are using it as their picture:<p><a href="http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/#!/IE/status/27397420665016320</a><p>I think we can expect full compliance.

I'm surprised, the active states of the icons seem to be buggy in the latest chrome for Mac: <a href="http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k" rel="nofollow">http://cl.ly/0B0f0N3B1K2z3F2H3e0k</a>

That's awesome and vastly superior to other w3c logos.

I expect to see this changing in phone booths in the near future.<p>Interesting. Nowhere near as bad as I had expected, a little too alter-ego for my tastes though.

You probably can't trademark a five-pointed star in a circle, but that part of the logo immediately got me thinking of Daring Fireball.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurafire/5367609066/</a> ;)

This actually makes me more excited about HTML5.<p>That, and learning that Netflix on the PS3 is a HTML5/WebKit implementation. I'm sold.

The icon for "Device Access" looks very similar to an apple. Does a square apple mean anything? :)

Autobots, autobots, autobots!!! you love it cause it's a rip off of your favorite cartoon!

'S' on an orange background. A new logo for smashing magazine. No? I kinda like it though.

Reddit doesn't seem to like it. And HN seems to like it. Why so much difference ?

I find it looks quite ugly honestly. The logos on the bottom are much better.

Looks like HTML 6.

To my eyes, it looks too american-style.

What no Favicon? or did I miss it?

HTML5 Badges: The E-Peen of 2011.

It looked like a RSS icon to me.

Why does it look like Klingon?

"THE HTML5 SHIRT — BUY IT! Every Man, Woman and Child can show their HTML5 Pride!"<p>As long as you wear a XL or smaller.

was there an html4 logo? why do we need an html5 logo?

w3c copied SuperMan, where is that damn sue button :|

5uperlogo!

I expected the logo to be in CSS3 :-(

It looks lot like Superman's Logo (The one that's on his shirt)

Was anyone else expecting the thing to be fully CSS rather than a .jpg?!