Thoughts?
I think it’s fantastic, and the design of the page is top-notch. When I read about this on Reddit I was worried that it would turn out looking like a 90’s reject, but they’ve done a great job on the whole campaign.
Yeah, it’s HTML5 all right. It really looks… draft! 
AX3S0ME picture Μitică that was cool. 
I liked the annotations best.
Thanks Robert. 
Truth be told, if you take a short peek under the hood, there are a few more wrong doings in that page, but these ones are the most obvious and can be easily understood by anyone!
I think if that logo was a website it would be written using tables for layout and font tags. Not impressed – Lets throw a five in a box and give it some color – whopptie doo!
No way! This logo is so modern that South Park invented it years ago!
Not referring to how modern it appears but its quality.
You mean “appropriated it” from Tron (the original)
Well, it’s been very well-received by many designers, and on a bunch of popular techy social sites like Hacker News and Reddit. It looks a billion times better than the horrible validation buttons they’ve been peddling for years, and the badge system for each segment is a nifty idea.
In fact, even though I usually dislike doing such things, I think HTML5 is a worthwhile cause to add the badge to some of my personal sites.
That is because people are us to bad design and most designers out there don’t know what good design is either. That is why there is so much crap out there and people complaining they can’t find jobs or whoring themselves away on spec sites.
That I agree with. Though the standard for good is not better than something else that is horrible but I agree.
For the most part the badge system represents technologies that are not apart of what is really HTML5.
Yeah, right, more badges, more confusion added. Social networks buttons, syndication buttons, etcetera buttons aren’t enough?!
About looks: ugly as camel with lipstick on. And confusing: is it a “S”, is it a “H”, is it a “I”, is it a … “5” ?!
You mean like Web 2.0?
I think it’s pretty clearly a 5, although I doubt it’d matter all that much to whoever is reading it if it were a S anyway. All that matters is that it’s a brand, and let’s face it, HTML5 will be a brand in the same way that Web 2.0 was for every marketer and job spec.
On that subject, I find it pretty odd that this place of all places isn’t more accepting to HTML5 when practically every other tech-related social resource seems to see this as a good, constructive move by the W3C. I’ve yet to see anyone other than myself see this as a good thing, and it’s quite worrying.
As stated in one of the SitePoint Blogs the W3C have made a logo that can be used as a “badge”. The likes of Web 2.0, RSS and every other buzzword had defining features that made them friendly to marketers. It might not be useful for developers and designers rarely like anything they’re not told to like, but it’ll work where it needs to work, and that’s what’s important.
Your worries are real man ! SPF is filled to the brim with zombies. Mindless creatures roam here, and you might just be in danger of becaming one !
If you are a serious advocate for HTML5 you should also tell us what’s so good about HTML5 ? We are pretty issolated here on SPF village, we don’t get much outside world news.
Now, from what I know so far about HTML5: they had HTML 3.2 with some pretty specific elements. Non-semantic elements that is. Here comes HTML 4.01 and puts some order to it. With XHTML 1.0 you could still be semantic but extend your elements with what your heart desires.
So far, moderate good. Comes HTML5, it all becames specialized, making HTML5 spec a common template for a certain type of web pages. That’s number one mistake: instead of keeping the general aspect, they take some div’s ids that were becoming the norm and bless them semantical: header, footer, nav, section, article.
So far, it’s worst. To making horrible, they muddy the waters and HTML5 becomes synonymous with video and audio. Even more, HTML5 needs some moderate CSS and a whole lot of JS to even be taken in consideration as a… mark-up language ?!
Now, in our dark SPF village we have our superstitions and we take them very serious: garlic works! HTML5 isn’t.
I don’t get it.
Ok I fail to see how this helps anything other than adding more confusion to the already ill-defined HTML5 buzzword.
Here’s the w3 blog piece on it: http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/01/an_html5_logo.html
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”
Ok. So what’s the point?
As with most productive design conversations, this one started with a desire for clearer communication
So place the HTML5 logo to show you’re using HTML5 and CSS3? Perhaps with JavaScript? Clearly clear.
HTML5 is suffering from buzzword-itis and all the w3c can do is make it worse…
looks OK… however its too loud for me.
I’m a proponent of HTML5 and all the related technologies just not the “logo” – don’t get it twisted. I can’t wait to be able to use heading relative to specific tags rather than the entire document – totally sucks for modular development. For the average mortal the “logo” may provide enough of a desire to update and get all the advantages of “HTML5”.