Re: Public concerns over new W3C logo

I don't want to add to the chaos here but I believe it is important to flag
a few fundamental issues with this.

Firstly: to those who aim personal attacks at each other, go take a walk.
The data is unignorable and core design principles are breached - these are
not 'finer points' the logo is a turd on its side.

It sounds like some in this thread are leaning on the "but it's all
subjective" method of dismissing feedback. That method can work, but
fundamentally stops working when there is science behind a subject, which
in the world of branding there is.

This logo is not subjectively bad, it is *objectively bad*. It is not a
matter of opinion, which some of the people in this thread like to make it
sound like, it is failing all the basic principles of design and
readability.

The w3c holds a lot of power when it comes to accessibility and
standardization of accessibility Yet, objectively the rules the logo breaks:

   1. Simplicity and clarity:
      1. The logo is too abstract - unless you know the logo is for the w3c
      you would not be able to make sense of it.
      2. The circular text is visual noise in a wrong attempt to solve the
      abstractness problem.
      3. The circular text is unreadable in small prints. When scaled down
      the text gets blurred. This problem only applies to places where
it is used
      as a secondary item, which is where the logo will be used to most. Check
      the website now and read the letters... Now imagine you were 90 and your
      eyes were 50% worse.
   2. Visual balance
      1. The thick blue mark feels heavy compared to the thin ring of text.
      2. The lack of a visual anchor means there’s no clear focal point.
   3. It fails the most essential 2025 test - I am a human of the world
   test - what does the shape look like? One comment pointed to a poorly
   worded but very important "the cock or swastika test". If you ask people
   without context what a shape is and some percentage say "it's a turd" a
   reasonable human would laugh and get back to the drawing board to fix it...
   You just can't have a logo that has vulgar or excrement hinting features. I
   am shocked the AC has to point that out.

Did we do any 3rd party user interviews? People that don't know the w3c,
that don't know this is a logo for the w3c?
I can not believe for the life of me that this was done. Or if it was, the
feedback was just ignored.

For reference: I sent this logo to a number of friends and family members
and literally all of them said some version of "wow, WTF this is bad. Is
that a turd emoji? Why does it have a heart on top? Why does it have a
drawn b*llsack on the side? WTF is this logo?".

Many members including myself will just move on and don't really care, I'll
tolerate it. Ofcourse a better branding makes for better results in every
way but hey... I'm here already so whatever.
It's not changing my goals for being here. It is a time waste that the
community has to point out the significant and obvious mistakes.

But to the next generation - and this email thread is an example of that -
this is yet another visual indicator of how dysfunctional and detached the
organization is from reality.
The logo is a turd on its side with a scrotum on the top... How do you
expect to remain relevant or be taken seriously when the logo is that
ridiculously out of touch?

To Sue's point "At this point, the question is: Do we want to be an
organization that is known more for our vulgar logo or for the work we do?"
*- Leadership, you don't need the AC to answer this question.*


On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 11:09, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2025-10-23 15:51, Coralie Mercier wrote:
> > Logos should evolve over time and we will take into consideration the
> concerns raised about the process in future endeavors.
> Hi Coralie, just a little person checking in.
>
> The new logo has grown on me.
>
> I initially saw waves and an abstract "w3". When I let my mind wander, I
> see it spelling out "web".
>
> I understand that designing a consortium logo that reflects W3C's role
> in shaping the web, its mission, and vision is challenging, especially
> for a global audience (~8 billion minds and counting). Interpretations
> will vary. I trust the Team will evolve the logo as needed, guided by
> judgement and feedback.
>
> Aside: This could be a chance to provide a detailed description of the
> logo and its intended meaning, serving as a reference for all, e.g.:
>
> <img alt="W3C" aria-describedby="logodesc" role="img" src="w3c.svg" />
>
> :)
>
> -Sarven
> https://csarven.ca/#i
>