Not who you are replying to, but I started learning HTML/CSS right when HTML5 and CSS3 had just come out, so I do have somewhat of a soft spot for these
Yes, I've always thought they were excellent logos. Makes me nostalgic about the optimism of this time.
Also people actually use them, a while back every CS student inexplicably had these stickers on their laptop. I can't see these new logos being ever used as stickers because they're just... nothing.
As someone coming back to frontend after ten years... the optimism was justified! Writing UI code is amazing now.
Don't let the warts of the real implementation get you down, it's a delight how everything I want to do is just part of the vanilla stack now, one way or another.
I'm not even convinced that html and css need logos. Those shield logos always made me think they were trying to sell you something, which is weird for a markup language.
What is color blind unfriendly about the new logos precisely? Which variant of color blindness will not be able to read them?
Which visual impairment exactly will find it easier to parse the previous logos (which are a mess of design scarcely related to the actual technology name) than the current ones, which contain thick bold text indicating exactly what the technology is called?
> Do not rely on color alone to denote information
> Use additional cues or information to convey content
The old icons were certainly ugly. But they had a unique shape (cue) and didn't rely on color. The new logo has text which helps, but this is where visual impairment becomes an issue (lack of focus to read said text).
I have no intent to take away from the meaningful choices made in this logo's design. But even just picking a unique shape for each component would go a long way.
The old CSS and HTML logos had identical shape aside from the text. The new CSS and HTML logos have different shape (albeit subtle), larger text, and a greater difference in lightness.
