- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 07:52:41 -0700
- To: Wendy Reid <wendyreid@fastmail.com>
- Cc: Tantek Ç. <tantek@mozilla.com>, w3c-ac-forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWBQHgqq3b7HekZY4mQKpNqYf5yH2gaLscL75ceHWuvsg@mail.gmail.com>
Firmly taking off several hats: I am not representing the Board nor Google in this particular instance, merely a long-term community member. I'd like to de-escalate the tone from "personal vendetta". For what it's worth, I too have seen far more negative comments (or "meh") than positive ones. I would feel more comfortable with an equitable collection of data points than what Tantek suggests, but I do think it's worth introspection that attempts to avoid confirmation bias (in both directions). I don't expect anything to change with this rebrand at this point, of course. Wendy, you identified the exact problem that a significant part of the W3C community has had with this rebranding: there was an emotional attachment to the old brand, and the community did not call for the erasure of that identity. I've been on record since I first saw the new logo as not being a fan (I'm sophomoric enough to not be able to unsee the visual associations), but I can understand why others might like it. My primary concern was always that it represented a clear and complete break from the previous branding and identity. The emotional cost to the community seemed unnecessary. I have to disagree that the Team had "many rounds of consultation and even delayed things to address comments." In the initial presentation, it was made clear that the Team was not asking for consultation, merely support, and I don't see that any changes were made to address comments. I do hope that when there is an inevitable future rebranding, the community is more involved from the beginning. -Chris On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 6:52 AM Wendy Reid <wendyreid@fastmail.com> wrote: > Tantek, > > Your personal vendetta against this logo started when it was first > presented to the AB early this year, and does not seem to have subsided. I > understand you don’t like it, that is perfectly ok, not everyone needs to > like everything. > > The points you raise here are the same ones we spent far too long debating > earlier this year. Choosing to focus on some negative responses on socials > is confirmation bias. There were many positive ones too, I note those > aren’t part of your analysis. > > When change happens, especially in branding, there is always an inevitable > divide in reactions. Some people like a thing immediately, some hate it, > most are ambivalent. The W3C logo was the same for a long time, emotional > attachment, or at least comfort, are inevitable. For what it’s worth, I > really like it, I’m sure others do too. > > What I do want to call out here is how disrespectful and disappointing > this approach is. The Team worked hard to make this happen, they had many > rounds of consultation and even delayed things to address comments. At this > point, you are just mad they didn’t listen to you, and I think you need to > take a hard look at yourself to question why you felt this was a good use > of your time and efforts. It’s clear you care about the community, but > choosing to publicly and repeatedly undermine the work of the Team is not > the kind of behaviour I think appropriate for a member of the AC. It is not > the AC vs the Team, we are all in this together. > > Have some faith in the people we work with everyday. > > -Wendy > > On Oct 21, 2025, at 1:25 AM, Tantek Ç. <tantek@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > Dear AC: > > Summary: The new W3C logo has generated non-trivial public negative > feedback and reactions that are both concerning and may merit action. This > email summarizes the patterns I have seen so far. If you are also a > concerned Member who has, or has heard, negative feedback, please feel free > to email me directly. > > The intent of this thread is to document negative public reactions. Please > only reply if you have more negative public reactions to add, with new > public citations (URLs). If you want to make a different sort of comment > please start a new email thread (with new subject) accordingly. > > Negative public reactions to the new W3C logo fall into the following > categories (in order of instances found so far): > > > 1. > > (17) genitalia > 2. > > (7) excrement > 3. > > (6) unclear, unreadable, illegible, confusing, or distracting > 4. > > (3) body parts (other than genitalia, or in general) > 5. > > (2) coat hanger > 6. > > (2) obscenity, perversion, or vulgarity > > > I believe these public concerns are of broader public W3C community > interest so I have cc’d www-archive for the record. > > Sources of negative feedback: > > - > > Replies to the W3C.social post: > https://w3c.social/@w3c/115299385112878605 > - > > #W3C hashtag: https://mastodon.social/tags/w3c > - > > Reddit posts: > https://www.reddit.com/r/web_design/comments/1o6kl2k/w3c_logo_refresh/ > > https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1o6kled/w3c_logo_refresh/ > > - > > Hackernews post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45578265 > - > > Other posts folks shared with me and their replies. > > > For reference, many of us brought up concerns like these and others in > feedback in meetings this past March: > > - > > https://www.w3.org/2025/03/13-2025logo-minutes.html > - > > https://www.w3.org/2025/03/18-ac-minutes.html > > > What I am not looking for: > > - > > Tone-policing. If the discussion of this issue offends you, please do > not reply. > - > > Rationalizations. If you feel like defending the new W3C logo, this is > the wrong thread for that. This thread is for gathering public critical > citations. > > > What I am looking for: > > - > > If you are an AC Representative (or Alternate) and have similar > concerns, or have received similar feedback from your organization > internally, please get in touch with me. > - > > Public citations (URLs) of additional negative public reactions. > > > Thanks, > > Tantek Çelik > > Mozilla AC Representative > > > ===== > > Citations of specific public reactions: > > ===== > > CONTENT WARNING: > > The following may include (partial) text quotes which may have language or > links to images that some may consider offensive. > > If you are offended by such words or images, please skip the rest of this > email and do not click on the links provided. > > > > > > > Dates/times are PDT. The letters in parentheses indicate the first letter > of the post’s category/categories, e.g. (b) for “body parts”. > > 2025-09-26: > > - > > 04:38 (g): https://mastodon.social/@mariejulien/115269925623809543 > (paraphrased translation: “does not pass my famously rigorous ‘cock or > swastika’ test) > - > > 04:39 (b): https://oisaur.com/@kgaut/115269930983516661 (translated: > “it even has a pair of buttocks”) > - > > 05:21 (g): https://framapiaf.org/@monviolon/115270097219045974 > (cropped subset of logo) > > > 2025-10-01: > > - > > 08:00 (c): https://mastodon.ie/@rotan/115299504262096954 > - > > 08:01 (g): https://mastodon.social/@mariejulien/115299494586267687 > - > > 08:21 (g): https://mastodon.social/@mariejulien/115299585913099113 > - > > 08:24 (g): https://indieweb.social/@jgarber/115299600896573084 > - > > 08:52 (g): https://circumstances.run/@davidgerard/115299709910319727 > - > > 08:59 (g): https://a11y.social/@mikemccaffrey/115302095326319054 > - > > 09:10 (e): https://mastodon.social/@nicofrand/115299779347599598 > - > > 10:28 (e): https://mastodon.social/@davecykl/115300086586476170 > - > > 17:55 (u): https://mamot.fr/@bohwaz/115301843996549479 > - > > 18:59 (g): https://a11y.social/@mikemccaffrey/115302095326319054 > - > > 19:46 (g): https://c.im/@cwilcox808/115302279843647978 > > > 2025-10-02: > > - > > 04:50 (u): https://maly.io/@danielmunoz/115304420857752511 > - > > 04:52 (o): > https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/115304428218503093 > - > > 07:40 (g): https://social.unextro.net/@ondra/115305075794112412 > - > > 07:42 (g): https://mastodon.social/@tojiro/115305098273087104 > - > > 08:02 (e): https://eliitin-some.fi/@henrik/115305175046397749 > - > > 10:42 (g): https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@aras/115305805942851640 > - > > 20:04 (b): https://front-end.social/@leaverou/115308015280324416 > - > > (o) https://nyan.lol/@zicklepop/115305222213744940 (deleted) > - > > “@w3c@w3c.social perverts” > > > 2025-10-14 > > - > > 03:09 (u): > https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1o6kled/comment/njivht3/ > - > > 03:52 (e): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45578474 > - > > 03:56 (g): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45578501 > - > > 09:46 (u): > https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1o6kled/comment/njh3hpu/ > - > > 11:25 (c): > https://www.reddit.com/r/web_design/comments/1o6kl2k/comment/njhnqtk/ > - > > 13:18 (e): > https://www.reddit.com/r/web_design/comments/1o6kl2k/comment/njia9iz/ > - > > 16:31 (eg): > https://www.reddit.com/r/web_design/comments/1o6kl2k/comment/njj9ad3/ > > > 2025-10-15 > > - > > 00:14 (e): > https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1o6kled/comment/njl0n9t/ > > > 2025-10-16 > > - > > 01:07 (b): > https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1o6kled/comment/njur9s1/ > > > 2025-10-17 > > - > > (u): > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7384866217804873729/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28activity%3A7384866217804873729%2C7384901225135390720%29&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A%287384901225135390720%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7384866217804873729%29 > > > > 2025-10-20 > > - > > 11:18 (g): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45647233 > - > > 13:14 (u): https://indieweb.social/@zerojames/115408325645554816 > - > > 13:15 (g): https://mastodon.social/@vanderwal/115408326479382068 > - > > 13:18 (g): https://indieweb.social/@johanna/115408340828293280 > > > ===== > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2025 14:52:59 UTC