Re: Public concerns over new W3C logo

> 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.

No. That's very obviously wrong, as evidenced by the fact that
different opinions have been posted here already. It's a *logo*.

There's been a request for feedback from the silent majority on this list.
Well, here's mine:

* I have *never* heard of a rebranding exercise for a well-known brand that
didn't immediately result in ridicule. People don't like change, and are
far quicker to complain than they are to say nothing.
* Try as I might, I am unable to see genitals, excrement or even a
coat-hanger. Lord knows I've tried, and I've scribbled enough of them in
margins to know them when I see them.
* Requesting only negative appraisals of the logo has set this whole thread
off in completely the wrong direction. It's skewing the numbers, and that's
something I *do* have an issue with.

In general I am struggling to see what the fuss is all about. It could be
better (as well as not finding genitals, I also can't find a "W3C" in those
curves), and it could be worse (I also like the circle, and the contours in
general). Perhaps the process could have been managed better. But I can
certainly live with the result.

Can I also say that I am greatly enjoying the fact that several hundred
people with better things to do are now sharing their opinions on just how
much, or how little, it looks like a thingy. This is why I pay my
membership dues.

Cheers... Mike
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Bremford - CTO                   mike@bfo.com
Big Faceless Organization             http://bfo.com


On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 20:23, Simon Wijckmans <simon@cside.dev> wrote:

> 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
>>
>