Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

An official HTML5 logo?
January 18, 2011 12:36 PM   Subscribe

The official W3C sanctioned HTML5 logo So, what do you think of the new, official W3C HTML5 logo? Or the official HTML5 t-shirt?
posted by greenhornet (151 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
It's an ugly pile of shit and makes me want to visit the worst Flash-based art websites I can think of.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:37 PM on January 18, 2011 [9 favorites]


It's SUPER.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:39 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


Why is the “5” in a shield instead of The Cloud?
posted by davel at 12:41 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's Soviet Modernism, but ironic!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:41 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Looks like it's an anti-virus program or something. Too shield-like.
posted by kmz at 12:42 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


If I were still single, it would be an effective douchefilter for me.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:43 PM on January 18, 2011 [8 favorites]


When do they come out with the HTML5 branded toilet bowl scrub brushes?
posted by lampshade at 12:43 PM on January 18, 2011


What's not to like?
posted by Avenger50 at 12:44 PM on January 18, 2011


Gee, everyone on Metafilter hates it.

Didn't see that one coming.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:44 PM on January 18, 2011 [40 favorites]


You mean I can complain about HTML5 hype and a new logo at the same time?? hold me
posted by theodolite at 12:45 PM on January 18, 2011 [23 favorites]


I actually kinda like it, although it seems kind of weird for there to be a logo for HTML. Not sure why.
posted by brundlefly at 12:46 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


It is rather shieldy. It should be about exposing us to stuff, not protecting us from it! It should be wearing a raincoat.
posted by Mister_A at 12:46 PM on January 18, 2011 [7 favorites]


Shield-y
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:46 PM on January 18, 2011


Why does a markup language specification need a logo?
posted by tommasz at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2011 [17 favorites]


I like it.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2011


I like it.
posted by crunchland at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2011


It looks like the Transformers logo.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


GET OUT OF MY HEAD
posted by crunchland at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2011


Why is the “5” in a shield instead of The Cloud?

Protection from critics.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:48 PM on January 18, 2011


Why does a markup language specification need a logo?

I think you have asked the core question here... what about poor old HTML4.01... CSS3... if I were these languages I'd be feeling rather miffed.
posted by greenhornet at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2011


I'm looking forward to Microsoft's version of an HTML5 logo. I'm sure it'll be distinctive. And Apple's. And Opera's. And Google's. And Firefox's.
posted by ardgedee at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2011 [5 favorites]


HATE IT. What are they trying to say with it? That HTML5 is now clunkier and more box-like than ever? Is the shield supposed to signify a greater sense of security or something? WHY ORANGE?


I HAVE TO GO FOR A WALK.
posted by girih knot at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or the official HTML5 t-shirt?

couldn't they at least have ironed the t-shirts before they took the photos for that site I mean jeez louise
posted by soundofsuburbia at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


Are you a site builder?
YES I AM A SITE BUILDER!
Are you a sexy site builder?
YES I AM A SEXY SITE BUILDER!
Are you a sexy site builder who likes sexy sex?
YES I AM A SEXY SITE BUILDER WHO LIKES SEXY SEX!
etc., etc.
posted by zarq at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2011 [14 favorites]


A real cloak of invisibility! Anytime I don't want girls to notice me, I'll put on my HTML5 shirt and me on my merry way.
posted by geoff. at 12:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm looking forward to Microsoft's version of an HTML5 logo.
“Microsoft HTML Professional 2011”
posted by davel at 12:52 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


This will never appear on any site I build.
posted by Mick at 12:53 PM on January 18, 2011


greenhornet: The official W3C sanctioned HTML5 logo So, what do you think of the new, official W3C HTML5 logo? Or the official HTML5 t-shirt?

I think that your primary link to a t-shirt store, which is also your third link, makes 2/3 of your links to a t-shirt store. Which makes little red lights go off for me.
posted by mkultra at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2011 [5 favorites]


<5>
posted by benzenedream at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


Shield kind of reminds me of the Transformers logo, but lame.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:55 PM on January 18, 2011


People need to calibrate their hate meters. It's a logo, hate should have nothing to do with it. Save your hate for something truly evil, like Hitler or Rachael Ray.

If you focus on the orange, rather than the white (like those JESUS signs) it reminds me of someone playing mailbox baseball. But I'm weird like that.
posted by bondcliff at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


For reference, here's the old HTML logo.
posted by jedicus at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2011 [4 favorites]


It needs a logo to compete with flash and to some extent silverlight. They finally relized you need to have a strong brand as an answer to "what is it built with" instead of "just HTML".

"Oh this isn't flash? is it just HTML?"
"No, its not just HTML, its HTML 5!"
posted by Ad hominem at 12:57 PM on January 18, 2011 [7 favorites]


HTML 5--now with wings.
posted by stormpooper at 12:58 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


More than meets the eye...


except maybe not.

(oops apparently Joe Beese beat me to it....and then cjorgensen after that)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:58 PM on January 18, 2011


My first thought wasn't Transformers. It was Superman.
posted by kafziel at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey! FREE STUFF!
posted by crunchland at 1:00 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


We shouldn't be encouraging Chrome?
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:00 PM on January 18, 2011


#html5logo {
    display:none;
}

posted by wcfields at 1:00 PM on January 18, 2011 [5 favorites]


oh. Thanks, jedicus, I hate it about 10% less now.

BUT THEN I SEE IT RADIATING WHITE BEAMS AT ME AND I JUST, I CAN'T, WHYYYY
posted by girih knot at 1:00 PM on January 18, 2011


Do we need an FPP every time someone releases a new logo?
posted by rocket88 at 1:01 PM on January 18, 2011


"Why does a markup language specification need a logo?"

When you don't promote standards in a flashy way, half the world ends up stuck on IE6 for what seems like an eternity.
posted by lemuring at 1:02 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's almost like the UPS shield! Can they do two-day delivery of my internets?
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:04 PM on January 18, 2011


That logo makes me wanna HTML5 all over my website.

Oh wait I already did. And I don't use any of the cool new features anyway except for drop shadows, 'cause who doesn't like drop shadows?
posted by caution live frogs at 1:07 PM on January 18, 2011


The shirt would work better if the last word was "trousers", a la modern cockney slang.
posted by scruss at 1:07 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


It looks like the Transformers logo.

But is HTML5 a decepticon or an autobot?
posted by ennui.bz at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2011


I'm not surprised at the hate. What surprises me are the hater-haters. Why the hell do you care if I don't like the new HTML 5 logo? You're defending the new HTML 5 logo.
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:09 PM on January 18, 2011 [6 favorites]


I count three colors--four if you're not printing on white. Won't someone think of the offset technicians?
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2011


The problem, in my mind, is that HTML5 is a markup language. The logo-system they're putting forth covers HTML5 and a host of related but separate technologies that that can be used together in next generation web browsers.

There's already a ton of confusion about what HTML5 is, and what it means, with my clients. The Adobe/Apple/Google slapfights over open standards and video playback have only accentuated it. I worry this attempt at branding will only make things more muddled -- it's like calling flat-panel screens "Quad-Core" because they came of age at the same time. For better or worse, this is what fluffy trend monikers like "Web 3.0" are supposed to save us from.
posted by verb at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


We shouldn't be encouraging Chrome?

They're in the doghouse with me right now.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:15 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think it looks fine. PHP, SQL, Ruby, Silverlight, Flash, etc. all have logos. None of them look quite this good. All the hate is a bit confusing.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:16 PM on January 18, 2011


In my day, HTML was all text. And we liked it.
posted by randomkeystrike at 1:19 PM on January 18, 2011


It's under the Creative Commons license. That means half of my "Calvin Peeing on the HTML5 Logo" will be legal.
posted by Gary at 1:21 PM on January 18, 2011 [12 favorites]


So will google support the logo?

I'm channeling Joe Beese today.

I'm thinking of doing a User Agent detection script on all my sites and if someone is using Chrome giving them a page that says, "Your browser is not supported. Please upgrade to IE 6 or above," but I am afraid people using the browser wouldn't get it.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:25 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


I don't know. I kind of like it. I was surprised at how superhero-y it was, but now I want an html5 superhero costume when I'm coding at work.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:28 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


It is rather shieldy. It should be about exposing us to stuff, not protecting us from it! It should be wearing a raincoat.

Maybe something like this?
posted by Kabanos at 1:31 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


My problem with the logo is not the style but the fact that it is a logo. This suggests a seal or standard or some level of approval. At this point, I've thrown away my HTML 2.0 and 3.2 books and am too old to be fooled by this sort of thing. "But it's Technology X, Technology X is supposed to solve all that!"

Who are we kidding that either web developers or web users will be able to just switch to and use this on the basis of a comforting logo? Does anyone believe that we won't stop having to design for IE6 in the next few months? That IE9's canvas support will be decent? That various browsers will just snap to, at long last? The concept is as outdated as the Best Viewed with Netscape badge and looks like a futile effort on the part of the W3C to hold onto web relevance after their bungling of XHTML 2.0.

Sites will not be compliant. They will not validate. CMSs won't generate validate code and neither will people. The logo says, "No, really, trust us this time."

I don't, and the standard as coat of arms only serves to remind me that this will be just another fine mess.
posted by adipocere at 1:33 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


Why is there a marketing poll on the front page of MetaFilter?
posted by The World Famous at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I likes it.
posted by zeoslap at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2011


It's totally fine and amusing.

HTML5 is very cool, but not all that exciting to me. Even cooler, and much more fun, are the new things in CSS3, which allow us to do some snazzy stuff very easily that used to take so. much. hackery. I've been using CSS3 bits and pieces extensively (with fallbacks for crappy browsers (and happily ignoring older IE versions entirely)) for all my latest stuff. The browser-specific versions of things are a bit annoying, but they'll go away soonish.

It's a good time to be a wrangler of web things.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2011


When you don't promote standards in a flashy way, half the world ends up stuck on IE6 for what seems like an eternity.

This kind of marketing seems geared towards end-users, as opposed to developers who are well aware of HTML5. 2 problems I see with this kind of marketing:

-It's a technical term that is technically imprecise. The official FAQ states "The logo is a general-purpose visual identity for a broad set of open web technologies, including HTML5, CSS, SVG, WOFF, and others.
Why are we conflating differing technologies, all with their own proper names into one umbrella term? This deteriorates the standard's credibility and utility and seems to make discussions around these technologies even more confusing.
(Better examined on this blog post on Adactio)

-By positioning this as a commercial brand, this devalues the positioning of HTML5 as a technical standard, by taking focus away from the technical aspects. This has the effect of equivocating HTML5 as just one of many web content technologies, like Flash, Silverlight, etc., making it seem more like HTML5 is a competitor. Of course it competing as such but HTML's clear advantage has always been that it was the unquestioned technical standard of the internet, unencumbered by commercial interests, only accountable to supporting open and accessible content development. that's HTML's brand. (Or it should be).
posted by artificialard at 1:35 PM on January 18, 2011


-webkit-snark:100%;
-moz-snark:100%;
snark:100%;
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:36 PM on January 18, 2011 [6 favorites]


it was the unquestioned technical standard of the internet, unencumbered by commercial interests, only accountable to supporting open and accessible content development

Don't forget the unicorn.

(nah, I understand what you're saying, but obviously this isn't and never was going to happen)
posted by wildcrdj at 1:37 PM on January 18, 2011


Definitely Minecrafty.
posted by crapmatic at 1:37 PM on January 18, 2011


MeTa
posted by zarq at 1:39 PM on January 18, 2011


Old. I'm already using HTML 6.
posted by chasing at 1:43 PM on January 18, 2011


Kid Tested! Mother Approved!
posted by katillathehun at 1:44 PM on January 18, 2011


Definitely Minecrafty.

No this is Minecrafty
posted by The Whelk at 1:46 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


What do I think? Why, was I consulted?
posted by Eideteker at 1:46 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ooooh, stickers!
posted by Doofus Magoo at 1:47 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Those stickers would be a great way to mark people as ritualistically unclean just sayin.
posted by The Whelk at 1:48 PM on January 18, 2011


I've seen the
FUTURE
It's in my

TROUSERS


This is the kind of joke I would make if I were a dude and also 12.
posted by katillathehun at 1:49 PM on January 18, 2011


Well, duh.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 1:49 PM on January 18, 2011


It needs a flashing under construction banner from 1995...
posted by Confess, Fletch at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2011


stavrosthewonderchicken: "-webkit-snark:100%;
-moz-snark:100%;
snark:100%;
"

#cssjokes .perthread {
     z-index:1 !important;
}

posted by wcfields at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2011


I already spent my t-shirt budget on I [+] Metafilter.
posted by Obscure Reference at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2011


They lost me at HTML 4.01.
posted by Termite at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2011


I think it could use a, oh I dunno, a nice MARQUEE.

Oh and an spinning skull gif. Those are great.
posted by Talanvor at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2011


Well, I think this neatly sums up everything that is troubling about HTML5 hype.
posted by Artw at 1:59 PM on January 18, 2011


A spinning rainbow beach ball would be better. My Mac has that all the time. That's how I know it's a genuine Apple brand Mac.
posted by The World Famous at 2:00 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


It looks like the Transformers logo.

ennui.bz: But is HTML5 a decepticon or an autobot?

More Decepticon than Autobot (and Superman's logo is similar only in color)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:01 PM on January 18, 2011


I think every file format and every code tag should have its own logo!
posted by asfuller at 2:01 PM on January 18, 2011


(Oh, right - the 5 looks rather S-like in that badge-shape.)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2011


and Superman's logo is similar only in color

What are you talking about? Superman's logo also has a big number 5 on it.
posted by The World Famous at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2011


Small sample size, but three of us a work, all reasonably versed in HTML tried to guess what each of the compliancy badges meant before clicking on them... 0/8 right. Offline storage: an on/off button? Performance: an exploding star?
posted by stp123 at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2011


BRAND NEW IS ON THE CASE
posted by shakespeherian at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2011


HTML5Logo is null or not an object
posted by the noob at 2:06 PM on January 18, 2011


So it was a mistake to have this tattooed across my chest?
posted by mazola at 2:06 PM on January 18, 2011


Nobody's gonna yank this post at this late date, but a post that's 2/3rds links to a fucking T-SHIRT STOREFRONT sure as shit doesn't meet my definition of "Best of the web."
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 2:08 PM on January 18, 2011



and Superman's logo is similar only in color

What are you talking about? Superman's logo also has a big number 5 on it.


I guess I was thinking the same thing. (The costume in the image is this super girl costume).
posted by [insert clever name here] at 2:09 PM on January 18, 2011


Free stickers for a SASE? I'm 14 again, sure I'm Sending Away.
posted by fixedgear at 2:16 PM on January 18, 2011


Y'know, this is off-topic and all, but what is the deal with clothing sites displaying the merchandise in a wadded-up, wrinkly condition? See: here, here, here, for three random examples. Jeez.
posted by Kat Allison at 2:21 PM on January 18, 2011


Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:25 PM on January 18, 2011


what is the deal with clothing sites displaying the merchandise in a wadded-up, wrinkly condition? --- Personally, I think J. Peterman is to blame.
posted by crunchland at 2:33 PM on January 18, 2011


Look, if you don't like the logo you can always change it with CSS.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:34 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


> Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?

Off the top of my head...
USB (pdf)
Bluetooth (members-only)
Firewire/1394 (pdf)
HDMI
posted by ardgedee at 2:47 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Badge Builder should also automatically generate snotty messages about how your website is going to refuse to degrade gracefully.
posted by Artw at 2:48 PM on January 18, 2011


It looks shit on my computer, but I suspect that's because of acid test style html rendering errors.

/I will keep saying this until someone laughs.
posted by seanyboy at 2:50 PM on January 18, 2011


Ha.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:50 PM on January 18, 2011


That second like describes HTML5 as "The Movement", for fucks sake.
posted by Artw at 2:52 PM on January 18, 2011


See Ocupop for the rationale. They may have an opening for a proofreader too:
"From favicons to billboards, this mark was designed to hold together in the face any manipulation."
posted by unliteral at 2:54 PM on January 18, 2011


I'm down with the The Movement.

I'm leveraging HTML 5 by rendering all my HTML 1 to jpgs and loading them into the canvas using websockets and jquery.

Free hardware acceleration!
posted by Ad hominem at 2:56 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sites will not be compliant. They will not validate. CMSs won't generate validate code and neither will people.

Actually that's one of the key features of HTML5 compared to HTML4. In HTML4 validity was defined in terms of the text content of the markup, in HTML5 validity is determined by the DOM the markup produces. Not only that but instead of just defining how well formed markup should be turned into a DOM, as HTML4 did, and leave what happens to badly formed markup up to the whim of the browser vendor, HTML5 defines what should happen to both well formed and badly formed markup so that all browsers should end up doing the same thing with the same input.
posted by robertc at 3:05 PM on January 18, 2011


MY WEBSITE WON'T VALIDATE AND ALL I'VE GOT IS THIS STUPID T-SHIRT!
posted by mazola at 3:08 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


It shouldn't surprise anyone, I hate it.

Purely as a logo, it's not so bad. For a toilet bowl scrubber or something. It's just so in your face and strong. And orange. I like the lettering. If it were up to me I would make the logo more subtle and friendly.

Actually I would probably try to include some of the visual cliches common in new HTML5 sites like round corners, drop-shadows, gradients. Etc. Something with a lot of squares.

I also hate the whole HTML 5 branding thing. HTML 5 isn't actually that different from previous versions, it's just that browsers are now going to be more standards compliant. So, in fact any HTML you write is already HTML5. What's really exciting is the video, audio and canvas tags (and the 3d context for canvas with WebGL)
posted by delmoi at 3:28 PM on January 18, 2011


the Wifi and bluetooth logos are much better. Oh, and RSS logo of course. I actually think that ones really good, while still 'working' at very low resolutions, like the HTML5 logo.

Oh, and by the way it's not actually "official" it's just a draft. Hopefully if enough people bitch they'll use something less annoying.
posted by delmoi at 3:34 PM on January 18, 2011


I love the shocked obstinacy of some of the questions in the HTML5 FAQ (linked somewhere above): "But they are PRESENTATIONAL!".
posted by kenko at 3:37 PM on January 18, 2011


Would be better if they created a standard that actually worked instead of the clusterfucks that are CSS and XML.

HTML is pretty okay. Table-based layout FTW.
posted by eeeeeez at 3:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am apathetic towards this logo. I mean, it's like a logo for chemotherapy. Are people really making decisions about HTML 5 based on the fricking' LOGO?

PEN UP
TURTLE OUT
posted by GuyZero at 3:55 PM on January 18, 2011


Table-based layout FTW.

Oh now I have to stab you.

I would, however, quite like a solution to the problem of aligning things vertically that works as well as tables that isn't basically just making pretend tables out of divs (or other containers) and display: table-cell.
posted by Artw at 3:55 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I've never worked with a traditional application presentation framework like Cocoa or WPF. Do they do things differently that make layout any easier?
posted by geoff. at 4:07 PM on January 18, 2011


HTML5 defines what should happen to both well formed and badly formed markup so that all browsers should end up doing the same thing with the same input

Having a strict requirement of well-formedness did not cause browsers to behave identically when presented with well-formed XHTML, so I don't see how browsers would behave identically with HTML that is not well-formed.

The standards that have been foisted upon us the past 15 years suck. The prattle about browser makers "not following standards" is ignorant or politically motivated propaganda. The standards as developed by the W3C have been problematic in and of themselves. The shit we have had to put up with is laughable if you take a step back from the puffery that it used to justify its general suckitude. Why is it that standards like TrueType, JPEG, MP3, etc. etc. work pretty much flawlessly across a wide range of devices and the dangling hemorroid that is CSS/HTML/Javascript needs vigorous massaging whenever a new browser is released? It remains to be seen what will remain of the pragmatic WHATWG approach to HTML5 now that the W3C has once again firmly sunk its claws into it.

</grumble>
posted by eeeeeez at 4:18 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


hi geoff - Do they do things differently that make layout any easier?

The difference is that these frameworks mostly do what you tell them in a way that makes sense.
posted by eeeeeez at 4:19 PM on January 18, 2011


Well, shit, even if Apple et al kick of browser War 2.0 we're in a golden age compared with 1998 when IE4 and NN4 ruled the interwebs and the only standard was CONFUSION.
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?
Off the top of my head...USB, Bluetooth, Firewire/1394, HDMI


I'd bet those technologies actually had final specs before the logos were created. Maybe they even have standards for use of the logo.


I would, however, quite like a solution to the problem of aligning things vertically that works as well as tables that isn't basically just making pretend tables out of divs (or other containers) and display: table-cell.

So we'd need:

1) Some kind of vertical-center rule that does in all contexts what vertical-align does in combination with display: table-cell.

2) Some kind of rule that says "contain your contents, dammit", preferably tunable to various levels of constraints and with independent specification for each dimension. No, the various overflow values available right now don't cut it, but this could get there.

3) Some kind of rule that lets you make the dimensions of one container dependent on the dimensions of another... or on the remaining space inside a container not taken up by various other containers.

Personally, rather than wait for this to happen (would be nice, but I don't think it will) or go with the pretend-table option, I prefer to just sometimes write <table class="layout"> when I'm faced with a layout case for which tables make more sense. This in itself is probably unnecessary, given that human coders are generally pretty skilled at telling a layout table from a semantic one, and computers can be too given a few simple heuristics, but maybe every little bit helps.
posted by weston at 4:41 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?

Compact Disc
DVD
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:43 PM on January 18, 2011


weston - Pretty much, exactly, that is what I want the W3C to be on, 24 hours, 7 days a week, before they get around to fucking around with T-Shirts or trying to make HTML a 3D gaming platform or other shit like that.
posted by Artw at 4:50 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, the WHATWG really probably was more interested in making HTML5 a 3D gaming platform (and web clients generally a better application platform) from its inception than tackling layout issues, at least according to their stated goals.

I don't know what the problem is with the W3C, but on top of your fine recommendation that it become less concerned with branding issues, I suspect that it might need to be more fully (if not entirely) composed of people who've had to implement hundreds and hundreds of cross-browser layouts drawn up by inventive artists and designers who've never written any code in their life (and are therefore unconstrained by any idea of what's challenging and what's easy).

I'm exaggerating a little: I respect that there are probably points of implementation that I don't understand well, and there are probably some talented people involved with the committee that do understand practical problems as well as anybody. But it's hard for me to understand some of the missing pieces of even the specs under development without theorizing that there's something missing on the practical usage side, so I do wonder how many of the people involved have had to regularly implement layouts outside of a narrow and familiar set.
posted by weston at 5:58 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


Do any other technical specifications, of any description, have a logo?

On a hunch I figured the MPEG specs may have a logo. This, if you can believe it, is the official MPEG home page. Words fail.

Then there's the JPEG site, which is marginally better. Definite "when all you have is a hammer" syndrome over there. Note the horrible artifacts on the JPEG and JBIG images on the left-hand side. Wouldn't do to use png or gif, I guess.
posted by jedicus at 6:01 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wow, that MPEG page is really a trip back in time to 1993! I feel years younger!
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:05 PM on January 18, 2011


Looks like the original "Tron"'s Master Control Program (MCP) but without the eyes.
posted by Mike D at 6:22 PM on January 18, 2011


Wow, that MPEG page is really a trip back in time to 1993! I feel years younger!

It's also a textbook example of why people hate on comic sans.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 6:23 PM on January 18, 2011


What astounds me about the MPEG page is the line "In its 22 years of activity" which implies someone is actively maintaining that site. But yet it looks like that.
posted by wildcrdj at 8:52 PM on January 18, 2011


Weston, you're joking, right? My sarcastic meter might be off today... But CSS3 handles all that. (I know, still spec but we're getting there.)
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:20 PM on January 18, 2011


Some kind of rule that says 'contain your contents, dammit'

body {
width: 960px;
}

#wrapper {
width: 960px;
float: left; //won't go anywhere since it's the same width as the body
}

#contents {
width: 600px;
float: left;
}

#nav {
width: 340px;
float: right;
}

#wrapper will expand vertically to contain #contents and #nav.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:41 PM on January 18, 2011


It's not a very clever or well-thought out logo. There's no discernable rationale for the elements nor iconicity in their treatment. The first thing I thought of when I saw it was a classic car badge...and I couldn't figure out why. They missed a lot of opportunities to include carats or other tag-like symbols that reinforce the idea visually. And in a non-print medium, there's a whole range of color options that can be taken advantage of. Consider me stumped about the thought process here, which is a pretty bad reaction for a logo.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:26 PM on January 18, 2011


Um... for what they are trying to achieve I think it's fine.
posted by braksandwich at 12:07 AM on January 19, 2011


It's so years later we can all derisively say, "Oh, HTML5? Ugh, tried that. Got the T-shirt."
posted by ctmf at 12:38 AM on January 19, 2011


Maybe this is what my life is missing. I need a logo.

Actually a "design a logo for someone" thing might be kind of entertaining. I'd suggest a format where each participant is randomly assigned another so no one (meaning me) is left out. Sort of a secret (insert avatar of your winter solstice celebration) thing.
posted by vapidave at 3:22 AM on January 19, 2011


TBH I think the frozen in time MPEG homepage is far less horrible than what it would have looked like if they'd stopped updating it in a later period of the web when things were more "designy".
posted by Artw at 6:23 AM on January 19, 2011


The logo is very well executed. And a logo for HTML5 is a good idea.
And HTML5 is A GOOD THING.
Reading this discussion has been disheartening and depressing.
posted by ghastlyfop at 6:44 AM on January 19, 2011


And HTML5 is A GOOD THING.

Actually I'd kind of argue that HTML5 is barely even a thing.
posted by Artw at 7:58 AM on January 19, 2011


The logo is very well executed. And a logo for HTML5 is a good idea.
And HTML5 is A GOOD THING.
Reading this discussion has been disheartening and depressing.
I stand by my objection -- the 'HTML5' logo conflates almost a dozen loosely related but independent technologies, grouping them under the banner of one specific standard that does NOT in fact rely on them.

The logo may be visually attractive, and HTML5 may be a good update to the HTML standard, but in my book "well executed" must include broader goals than aesthetics. "Not further confusing people about an already complicated subject" is one of those goals.

I'm already dealing with clients blithely announcing that they want to "Replace Flash with HTML5, so it's cross-browser." Branding efforts like this do not help.
posted by verb at 8:00 AM on January 19, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm already dealing with clients blithely announcing that they want to "Replace Flash with HTML5, so it's cross-browser." Branding efforts like this do not help.

Are you kidding? They're handing you a work order, and what's more, you know it is an evolving standard that will require future work orders. They're happy they're getting HTML in a video tag, and you're happy knowing you billed 60+ hours and another 60 hours down the road when FireFox/Chrome makes a breaking change, and they're paying you to learn a new technology.

Maybe I'm being a little too lemonade out of lemons, but this is stuff that down payments on houses are made on.
posted by geoff. at 6:51 PM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Are you kidding? They're handing you a work order, and what's more, you know it is an evolving standard that will require future work orders. They're happy they're getting HTML in a video tag, and you're happy knowing you billed 60+ hours and another 60 hours down the road when FireFox/Chrome makes a breaking change, and they're paying you to learn a new technology.
I think we're definitely talking about different kinds of problems. Getting change requests from clients that would otherwise be asking about The Myspace and Facebooks isn't really what haunts my days. That 60 extra hours you mention wouldn't be gravy on the projects I work on -- it would be an unanticipated bump on a carefully plotted 800+ hour project timeline, evidence that I and the rest of the developers on my team didn't do our jobs up front when we estimated the complexity of the assorted tasks.

If the challenge is "Putting a video onto a web page, and telling people to download a newer browser if it doesn't work," sure. That's fine. If it's "Replace a decade of internally developed flash assets, including paywall-enforcing streaming video players, online games, and ensure that two decades of video content work smoothly," then yeah, there are going to be problems. Because 'HTML5' doesn't help with any of those things, and the video tag doesn't either.

Those are CSS tweakin', JS debuggin', Codec wranglin', user base browser compatibility decidin', edge-case discoverin' kinds of problems. And those are tough problems that the next generation of tools (CSS3 + JS + Canvas + HTML5 + etc) are simply not mature enough to solve on a large scale and a tight deadline. Eventually they will be, but for now there are hard complicated choices and tradeoffs that have to be made and understood. And if peppy branding makes that "understanding" process harder, it will be my time spent helping the clients understand the real choices they need to make.

Hoping that the confusion is for the best because it'll result in more billable hour, at least in my experience, is a recipe for angry, frustrated clients.
posted by verb at 7:35 PM on January 19, 2011 [4 favorites]


Just what we need: a logo composed of fonts made from a foundry that's been hostile to having its fonts used on the web.
posted by oonh at 11:22 AM on January 20, 2011


#wrapper will expand vertically to contain #contents and #nav

That's interesting; I didn't know that having the same width would necessarily trigger the same effect as overflow: hidden or a clearing div. But it's not what I'm talking about, really. Closer would be the problems of having #wrapper expand to fill an unknown width. Or having both #nav and #content expand to fill the height of #wrapper.

I know there's various techniques for accomplishing these things or the appearance of it. But here's one I just don't know how to do at all w/o tables. Let's say you've got a form design that calls for labels off to the left of text inputs, and the combined width of each label plus each text input (plus some small margin between the two) is supposed to be some fixed width. So, each label will take up some unknown about of space on the left (according to how much text it is, what font, etc etc), and the text input will take up the rest of the fixed width space.

With the usual CSS techniques I'm familiar with, you can only do this kind of thing if you know at least one of the widths involved. Perhaps there is a technique I'm unfamiliar with. But after putting in more than a few years learning a lot of different techniques, I actually find the idea that there is discouraging more than anything else. This isn't rocket science. This is just two-dimensional layout, and this particular problem has been solvable for over a decade with table markup that most people can master the use of in a few months. Why is it this hard with CSS positioning?

Weston, you're joking, right? My sarcastic meter might be off today... But CSS3 handles all that. (I know, still spec but we're getting there.)

Not at all joking. Your comment prompted me to go look at the working drafts of the various modules, though, and I see that my crankiness on the topic could arguably be called dated by about a year and a half if you're talking about the flexible box model extensions, though I think it would be equally arguable that would be counting a chicken that is not only not yet hatched, the actual egg involved could be considered unlaid.

I know there's some older proposals floating around too (CSS templates, I think?). I've always gotten the impression, though, that these weren't getting serious traction. The box extensions look more credible. If there's something else you have in mind, I'd certainly be willing to take a look.
posted by weston at 4:25 PM on January 20, 2011


WHATWG is dropping the version number. Does W3C matter at this point? That's an honest question, not snark. I don't know the politics between the two groups.
posted by Gary at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2011


Why I'm Moving From HTML5 To Flash
posted by Artw at 11:39 AM on January 25, 2011


Artw: Why I'm Moving From HTML5 To Flash

... by a web game developer, who, let's be honest, is not the "early adopter" target for HTML5.

verb put it nicely above: If the challenge is "Putting a video onto a web page, and telling people to download a newer browser if it doesn't work," sure. That's fine. If it's "Replace a decade of internally developed flash assets, including paywall-enforcing streaming video players, online games, and ensure that two decades of video content work smoothly," then yeah, there are going to be problems. Because 'HTML5' doesn't help with any of those things, and the video tag doesn't either.

Those are CSS tweakin', JS debuggin', Codec wranglin', user base browser compatibility decidin', edge-case discoverin' kinds of problems.

posted by mkultra at 1:36 PM on January 25, 2011


That's hardly how WHATWG have been selling it though, is it?
posted by Artw at 1:50 PM on January 25, 2011


Honestly, I haven't been following the standard saga closely, though I don't doubt that WHATWG's "vision sell" for HTML5 is as a desktop replacement. What that guy is griping about though, is not the spec per se, but sluggish adoption of it by different browsers. I don't see how, for example, HTML5 is supposed to solve his javascript performance problem.
posted by mkultra at 2:31 PM on January 25, 2011


In at least one way, this reminds me a little bit of the CSS vs Tables discussions. It seemed to me at one point there was this understanding that (a) CSS positioning offered some new great tools for doing some things that formerly had to be done using tables and (b) tables had some problems as layout tools..... and then it collapsed into this sortof vague "CSS good, Tables baaad" where a lot of nuanced understanding of the various principles and tensions involved disappeared.

Well, now we've got the WHATWG and their HTML/5 and Web Applications 1.0 and WHATHAVEU. And so there's some new tools to do many (but not all) things that have been done with Flash, and there are some disadvantages to Flash, so it's great that browsers are evolving towards this place where it can pick up some slack, but then again, Flash still has some unique strengths for delivering applications and media over the web. So even though HTML5 is progress, the decision of what to use isn't necessarily simple. But lo, there's more than a little "HTML5 good, Flash baaad" growing out there.

I don't know that this is necessarily the WHATWG's fault. I think there's a tendency -- either cultural or fundamentally human -- to distill complexity down into a heuristic, combined with the fact that there are some parties in the mix who have incentives to promote HTML5.
posted by weston at 3:05 PM on January 25, 2011


The new new HTML5 logo
posted by Artw at 4:26 PM on January 25, 2011


I don't see how, for example, HTML5 is supposed to solve his javascript performance problem.

Well, it isn't -- but the HTML5 logo that was proposed encompassed not only the HTML5 markup spec, but also JavaScript, CSS3, and a bunch of different browser technologies that are used in those kinds of things. In a lot of discussions, 'You should do that in HTML5' is shorthand for 'You should use some combination of browser-native technologies to do X, rather than Flash or other older approaches.'

And that's where it really does fall down right now. There's a mature ecosystem of solutions for strange thorny problems that just hasn't had time to mature around HTML5+CSS3+JS+Canvas+WebWorkers+LocalStorage+etc+etc. They're good standards and we'll benefit from them, but "Yeah, if you really DO things using that stack right now you'll see 3-4x speed hits on random browsers" is the sort of thing that really DOES matter.

Given time, I think those problems will be ironed out. But they'll have to be ironed out by early adopters willing to take the risks, burn through time and money solving the problems, and willing to alienate some percentage of their userbase until everyone catches up. By collapsing the whole suite of questions into a series of logos that conflate a cluster of separate but related technologies, it makes it more likely that people will try -- and fail -- to use the technologies without carefully evaluating the implications.

I don't know why I'm beating on this horse so much, it's just something that I see happening over and over in different generations of web/software/etc technology. Hyping the new open standards before they're ready for use outside the circle of 'pioneers' always results in bitter backlash.
posted by verb at 5:51 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Given time, I think those problems will be ironed out. But they'll have to be ironed out by early adopters willing to take the risks, burn through time and money solving the problems, and willing to alienate some percentage of their userbase until everyone catches up.

Bahaha. I AM THAT MAN.

seriously, I've burnt through like all my money
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:25 PM on January 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's say you've got a form design that calls for labels off to the left of text inputs, and the combined width of each label plus each text input (plus some small margin between the two) is supposed to be some fixed width.

Set the labels as display:block with a width (pixels or percentage) and float the labels left, text-aligned right, with some right margin or padding.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:33 PM on January 26, 2011


Man, trying to do table type stuff with fucking floats, how I hate that shit...
posted by Artw at 8:03 PM on January 26, 2011


Set the labels as display:block with a width (pixels or percentage) and float the labels left, text-aligned right, with some right margin or padding.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're describing a technique for a different layout than I was proposing... one like this:
   short label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
a longer label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
  middle label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
    tiny label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
The layout I'm asking about is instead like this:
short label | xxxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxx
a longer label | xxxxxxx text input xxxxxxx
middle label | xxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxx
tiny label | xxxxxxxxx text input xxxxxxxxx
So, no fixed width for either the text input or the label, but their individual widths are supposed to sum to a fixed width.
posted by weston at 10:56 PM on January 26, 2011


Oh, OK. This works for me in Safari and Firefox (both on Mac; demo):

form {
width: 600px;
}
label, input {
display: block;
float: left;
width: auto;
}
label {
clear: left;
margin: 0 10px 20px 0;
}

posted by kirkaracha at 7:23 PM on January 27, 2011


HTML5 will be released as a "standard" in 2014
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on February 14, 2011


« Older The FCC and Department of Justice have approved Co...  |  Know that feeling of disappoin... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments