- From: Don Brutzman <don.brutzman@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 10:30:34 -0700
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Wendy Reid <wendyreid@fastmail.com>, Tantek Ç. <tantek@mozilla.com>, w3c-ac-forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABx5f7eg0WXM7241dTO-3n15OFbw8k=yPtXqyRPzfjLTj2AoUg@mail.gmail.com>
First, sincere thanks in every direction for much good work. Such rebranding efforts are always challenging and worthwhile, despite all difficulties. In the spirit of long-term shared improvement, here are some thoughts regarding the new logo. Logo observations: - The circular ring around the logo spelling out "World Wide Web Consortium" is distinctive and excellent, great first impression, looks very professional. - Similar kudos for superlative overall design and useful variations found at Logos and icons <https://www.w3.org/policies/logos/> page. - The interior logo pattern remains fairly inscrutable, requires lots of mental effort with no clear recognition resulting from the squiggle pattern... thus not memorable. - Subjective confirmation of obscurity: I don't yet know how to verbally describe the logo pattern to others in a manner that they will recognize. "Stylized W3 symbol" perhaps? Secondary confirmation: uhh, not yet sure how to draw it for others either. Process observations: - Likely I missed it, and apologies if so, but apparently the final logo did not seem to receive much scrutiny from AC... I remember getting the pre-release announcement but not seeing logo itself... perhaps a trial rollout (such as pilot-project usage or member-meeting theming) might have been helpful. - The AC can be a trusted part of final stages for any future design review and would no doubt identify reactions such as those raised publicly. Probably a good parallel to community grappling. - Every other part of the rollout was thoughtful and totally professional, demonstrating the consistently superlative qualities of W3C efforts. Presumably there are multiple alternatives available from recent logo-redesign efforts. As a baseline for any future refinement possibilities, the PR team might consider starting with something "new" like the surrounding "W-W-W-C-" circle plus historic W3C logo in the center... any new alternative logos ought to be at least that recognizable to the casual observer. Suggested metric for successful logo-image improvement, worth adapting from our X3D Graphics Scene Authoring Hints <https://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/X3dSceneAuthoringHints.html#NamingConventions> : - *"Success Metric: when is a name successful? (Ironic) Answer: when no one has to discuss that name any more, it is simply understood."* - substitute "logo" above, *s/name/logo/* Am not advocating sudden logo change, or second-guessing diligent and professional group decisions here... simply offering some reactions. Hope this helps. Again thanks for worthy efforts. all the best, Don -- Web3D Consortium Advisory Committee (AC) Representative X3D Graphics, Maritime Robotics, Distributed Simulation Relative Motion Consulting https://RelativeMotion.info On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 7:55 AM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > 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 17:43:50 UTC