W3C HTML5 Logo - funny thing I'm here at hamilton working on the presses and my first blog post is about a logo. Well it is what it is I guess. So we now have a logo for a code standard and it strikes me as just a little odd but I do like the outcome(I'm partial to orange at the very least). Normally we brand "things" and although you could say html 5 is a thing it also is a little more intangible than lets say USB that also has a logo or wireless standards.
Here is my concern with it, how long will we have html 5? Sure we have only gone through 5 versions since the early 90's but does it deserve or require extensive branding? And I'm also thinking at how fast code can evolve and transmute with .1 updates and so on so maybe I'd feel better about it if it were just an html logo vs. the very strong 5 reference. Sure I'm nitpicking but look at the way they handled the firewire logo(always wondered why there was no fire in it) the standard have gone through a few changes over the years and usually goes by the ieee standards that seem to forego rev1 -rev1.2 and so on. And yet we know it's firewire because of the little logo. The same can be said for the wireless logo but it has really excelled at readability and ease of use. I would say it is one of the best cases of branding a tech standard.
Will the use of the html5 logo help html? Don't really think so it just one of those things that will get used no matter what I don't see any rivals really even Java and Flash need to operate within html environments and we only see limited use of html outside of the web we can't filter our web by html 5 only and most won't loose sleep over if the site they view use html5(unless you are on an older system with out a compatible browser). So html5 and it's brand seem really pointless to me in the end, even if I think they did a pretty good job on the logo.
No comments:
Post a Comment