| _______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial) |
| Visit Hacker News on the Web |
|
COMMENT PAGE FOR: |
| CSS gets a new logo and it uses the color `rebeccapurple` |
|
laserstrahl wrote 2 hours 52 min ago:
[1] I thought it derrives from this.
Haha
|
| [1]: https://github.com/vic/rebecca-theme |
|
kmeisthax wrote 3 hours 14 min ago:
GNU Rebecca Meyer
pmkary wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
The bar for a logo has become so low. I don't understand how we reached
here and everyone are happy about it.
atlih wrote 4 hours 7 min ago:
<3
gedy wrote 4 hours 11 min ago:
This would have been quite funny instead:
|
| [1]: https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1851735303.3881/flat,750x,075,... |
|
npteljes wrote 4 hours 30 min ago:
I used rebeccapurple a lot as well, unknowing of the touching story
behind it. I coded CSS by hand (back in like 2010), and for
placeholders, I used the simple colors I knew, like "green" or "blue".
And "red", of course, too. But when typing "re" for "red", I noticed
that it autocompletes to "rebeccapurple", which amused me, since I
thought it's kind of a nonsense to have a color named like that. Over
time, I used it a lot, and it became a kind of a favorite of mine.
qark wrote 4 hours 39 min ago:
Is there any link that explains why this particular shade of purple was
chosen to represent Rebecca?
felbane wrote 25 min ago:
Purple was her favorite color. #639 is shorthand for about the
purplest purple you can make with RGB. Jeff Zeldman proposed the
color name on Twitter and in a blog post shortly after she died, and
it understandably caught on.
pino82 wrote 4 hours 39 min ago:
Why does it include TS? I would never have called it a 'web
technology'. A lot of people use it in their tech stack, but
fortunately, the browser does not even understand it, right?
Ecco wrote 5 hours 24 min ago:
Without even judging the overall design (personally I don't mind the
simplicity), why on earth do they use such inconsistent fonts? 3
different font sizes (and maybe also mismatching horizontal spacings)
for 5 assorted logos??? This is insane...
usrusr wrote 4 hours 5 min ago:
Because they are still logos, not one list of short acronyms that
just happens to be rendered in a specific way?
I really think it's fine: the web assembly gets to play with its
parallels between W and A, JS gets to mirror the J's bottom-bend in
its S (TS tagging along because those two really are more than just
accidental neighbors), whereas CSS can indulge in summetry with its
twin S by making them internally symmetric themselves. A logo that
contains an acronym isn't really a logo when the characters are just
picked from some font instead of tailored as part of the logo.
latexr wrote 19 min ago:
> Because they are still logos, not one list of short acronyms that
just happens to be rendered in a specific way?
Consistency still matters. If youâre going through the trouble of
making logos similar so they are understood as part of a family,
donât give up half way.
oneeyedpigeon wrote 4 hours 21 min ago:
You want them to be even less distinctive? Personally, I think they
should lean into that more and embrace the context: e.g. sans-serif
for CSS, monospace for JS, serif for HTML.
latexr wrote 17 min ago:
The current logos are both uninteresting and badly constructed. At
least either make them consistent (less distinctive but you can
appreciate them as thought out as part of a family) or wildly
different (more distinctive but not as clear theyâre part of a
family). This middle ground is the worst of all possible options.
cachvico wrote 5 hours 17 min ago:
It's incredibly ironic
QuentinCh wrote 7 hours 16 min ago:
I am in a train and I stopped reading because I was crying too much.
The fact that the reminder of this story hides in plain sight, in the
form of a named CSS color, makes it even more touching for some reason.
Crazyontap wrote 7 hours 19 min ago:
I think we're stretching the definition of "logos" here. Just sticking
text in a square doesn't make it a true logo.
Think of Apple or Nike, those are real logos. The recent logos and
icons, including apps like Photoshop's, seem more like we're
prioritizing metrics over creativity.
thiht wrote 3 hours 30 min ago:
This is definitely a logo, by all definitions of the word. Itâs not
just "text in a box", itâs:
- text, with a specific font, position, size, weight
- a specific color
- a box radius in 3 corners
- some variants
By your definition, the Coca Cola logo is not a logo because itâs
"just text"
striking wrote 3 hours 39 min ago:
What about those of IBM, Facebook, Google, Netflix, or Uber? They're
just words, with gentle stylization. Sometimes their logos take on
the shape of a single letter in a box, which by your standards might
even be less creative.
But there are reasons for this. Plain wordmarks are high-contrast and
easy to read almost by default, and they work great with groups that
aren't already aware of your brand. Or as Netflix puts it ( [1] ),
> The Wordmark remains an essential identifier of our brand. While
our goal is to lead with the N Symbol, we enlist the Wordmark to
ensure brand recognition in low-awareness markets or when production
limits the use of color.
CSS doesn't have a ton of brand awareness. Making something akin to
the Nike Swoosh for CSS won't catch on, it's not like they have the
money to flood your Instagram feed with it and force that brand
recognition on you.
Going back to Netflix why would they use a single gently stylized
letter where possible? Well,
> In high-awareness markets, we lead with the N Symbol. There is
power in owning a letter of the alphabet: itâs universal and
instantly identifiable as shorthand for our brand.
That's right. Netflix wants to own the letter N. I think "CSS" is in
the same position: owning a combination of three letters is a power
move. That's the most valuable thing about the "CSS brand," if ever
there were one, so why not lead with it?
But maybe your opinion is still that all of these designers are full
of it (apparently including Paul Rand).
|
| [1]: https://brand.netflix.com/en/assets/logos/ |
|
oneeyedpigeon wrote 4 hours 18 min ago:
Tell Gap (and all the rest).
shahzaibmushtaq wrote 7 hours 46 min ago:
I will never ever forget this color name and the story behind it for
the rest of my life.
langsoul-com wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
> The color was originally going to be called beccapurple, but Meyer
asked that it instead be named rebeccapurple, as his daughter had
wanted to be called Rebecca once she had turned six. She had said that
Becca was a "baby name," and that once she had turned six, she wanted
to be called Rebecca. As Eric Meyer put it, "She made it to six. For
almost twelve hours, she was six. So Rebecca it is and must be."
Wasn't expecting tears over a colour
jvm___ wrote 6 hours 23 min ago:
..in 2014 in honor of Eric Meyer's daughter, Rebecca, who passed away
at the age of six on her birthday from brain cancer.
asddubs wrote 8 hours 24 min ago:
>The design follows the design language of the logos of other web
technologies like JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly.
and yet it's 5 logos with 3 different font sizes and at least 3
different font faces
3 of which are perfect rectangles, and 2 of which are slight variations
on rectangles
i guess it perfectly represents the ecosystem, no notes
Maken wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
To fully represent HTML, they should be displayed with sightly
different fonts and kerning in each operating system.
globalise83 wrote 5 hours 1 min ago:
This is the evolution of "Design by committee" to "Design by 3
committees"
WD-42 wrote 8 hours 26 min ago:
I really donât like these logos that are boxes with text in the lower
right. The post cites a âcommon design languageâ with other tech
but this has to be the most low effort language imaginable.
spiffytech wrote 22 min ago:
While they aren't snazzy, they do have some benefits that often go
unconsidered:
Logos are sometimes printed on shirts (in monochrome, or where rich
coloring costs extra), or embroidered onto hats, or read at a
distance (like conference booth posters), or printed to B/W official
letterhead, or scaled down for an icon pack. A 3rd party will include
a logo on something with a preexisting style, and it should look okay
there.
A logo which is structurally simple and uses few colors can be easily
adapted to these scenarios â printed in black-and-white, or as an
outline without solid colors.
fenomas wrote 54 min ago:
I once saw an interview with an apparently well-known logo designer,
who said something to the effect of: "When somebody sees my work and
says 'that's nothing, anybody could make that', that means they
instantly got the logo, understood its structure, with no
distraction. That's what it's meant to do, so to me it's a
compliment."
Whether that applies here is naturally subjective, but hearing that
changed how I look at logo designs a bit.
latexr wrote 28 min ago:
Thereâs a limit to that. By that token, every logo in existence
could be a white square with black text on it. Clearly they are
not, because people understand the need for some differentiation.
Even in this case, the logos benefit from having colour.
And theyâre not even consistent. Three of them are squares, two
of them are different shapes, and despite the simplicity even
something as trivial as the font size and spacing isnât uniform.
egypturnash wrote 55 min ago:
Yeah these are programmer art.
Or clones of Adobeâs lame branding.
kalleboo wrote 4 hours 16 min ago:
They should have centered the text in it both vertically and
horizontally
reddalo wrote 4 hours 8 min ago:
It's impossible to do that with CSS :)
matsemann wrote 2 hours 52 min ago:
Could've used this classic CSS joke as the logo
|
| [1]: https://i.etsystatic.com/21468781/r/il/426363/2712010149... |
|
somat wrote 4 hours 37 min ago:
Disagree, but then again my soulless engineer's heart has close to
zero tolerance for design for design's sake, so what do I know?
The most important part about convoying that an item is CSS is
including the letters CSS. So while I am a little disgusted they
wasted time on an icon at all, I will admit that many of our design
language structures demand an icon. So I am somewhat relieved they
managed to dodge the design for design's sake crowd and picked the
best possible one. A non-descript box with the letters CSS in it.
oneeyedpigeon wrote 4 hours 13 min ago:
"Non-descript" is unfair - it has 3 rounded corners!
tannhaeuser wrote 5 hours 9 min ago:
You're absolutely right, especially considering the canonical
CSS-in-a-box logo has long been established [1], and they should
really embrace it if they had any sense of humor.
Perhaps those brutalist logos were designed specifically such that
they could be rendered using CSS itself?
Though I could understand why they'd want to distance themselves from
the old "shield" logo that turned out to signify shielding "browser
vendors" from broad implementation of CSS renderers and to keep a
niche of job security at W3C, Inc. due to rampant and unwarranted
complexity, but in any case was burnt by being placed next to vulgar
metalhand vectors, not to speak of being culturally discriminative
when viewed in a "woke" interpretation.
[1]
|
| [1]: https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.13378023.4114/raf,750x1000,0... |
|
thiht wrote 3 hours 41 min ago:
> especially considering the canonical CSS-in-a-box logo has long
been established
Is this a joke? Iâve never seen it in my life, not even sure
where youâre pulling it from
lemagedurage wrote 7 hours 13 min ago:
They could've added some character by letting the text overflow the
box :)
cantSpellSober wrote 1 hour 38 min ago:
That's been the unofficial "logo for CSS" for years: [1] It appears
this option was discussed:
|
| [1]: https://i0.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/0... |
| [2]: https://github.com/CSS-Next/css-next/issues/105#issuecomme... |
|
geon wrote 4 hours 0 min ago:
The rounded corners was a suitable reference to css, I think.
readthenotes1 wrote 7 hours 17 min ago:
the design language is really "keep it inside the box, don't worry
about your self-imposed solution constraints"
usbsea wrote 7 hours 50 min ago:
You prefer these? [1]
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#/media/File:HTML5_logo_a... |
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSS3_logo_and_wordmark.sv... |
|
cyborgx7 wrote 4 hours 22 min ago:
They're so much nicer.
oneeyedpigeon wrote 4 hours 15 min ago:
They remind me way too much of dark-arts virus checker, disk
cleaner BS.
brailsafe wrote 4 hours 23 min ago:
Absolutely prefer these
WD-42 wrote 5 hours 23 min ago:
Yes.
geoffpado wrote 6 hours 22 min ago:
Yes.
NBJack wrote 6 hours 37 min ago:
They are certainly more colorblind and vision impairment friendly
to be honest.
HL33tibCe7 wrote 4 hours 54 min ago:
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?
wruza wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
Is this the only choice we have?
ohmahjong wrote 7 hours 29 min ago:
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
kijin wrote 8 hours 3 min ago:
I think Adobe started this trend. A box with "Ps" inside for
Photoshop, "Lr" for Lightroom, etc. for all their products.
An entire generation of web designers grew up with their heads stuck
in the Adobe ecosystem, so this must look like the gold standard to
them.
At least Adobe made an effort to make their logos look like symbols
on the periodic table.
hxii wrote 7 hours 19 min ago:
To me these made sense, as I was able to quickly, visually
distinguish PhotoShop by the âPSâ letters instead of trying to
decipher a 32x32 logo.
dang wrote 8 hours 33 min ago:
Related. Others?
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 (2014) - [1] - Dec
2022 (1 comment)
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 (2014) - [2] - May
2015 (33 comments)
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 - [3] - June 2014 (25
comments)
In memory of Rebecca Alison Meyer - [4] - June 2014 (68 comments)
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34186932 |
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565503 |
| [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7924677 |
| [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7863890 |
|
brianzelip wrote 4 hours 4 min ago:
An official logo for CSS - [1] - November 2024
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42124786 |
|
pstuart wrote 8 hours 37 min ago:
I didn't expect a logo update to bring tears to my eyes.
otteromkram wrote 9 hours 0 min ago:
> Update 22 Jun 14: the proposal was approved by the CSS WG and added
to the CSS4 Colors module. Patches to web browsers have already
happened in nightly builds. (Iâm just now catching up on this after
the unexpected death of Katâs father early Saturday morning.)
Mr. Meyer certainly had a rough 2014.
Kudos to him and all his CSS contributions over the years. I hope he
has been able to find some solace since then.
aryonoco wrote 4 hours 18 min ago:
I would say he hasn't, considering a few months ago he wrote "A
Decade Later, A Decade Lost" [1] And I can't blame him. They say no
parent should see their child die, and that's certainly true; but
especially no parent should see their 6 year old child die of brain
cancer. Humans are not built to withstand that.
|
| [1]: https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2024/06/07/a-decade-later... |
|
swayvil wrote 9 hours 4 min ago:
It's a nice purple.
usbsea wrote 7 hours 42 min ago:
A simple one too - it would be on a 216 colour pallete using six
values for each of R, G and B.
R = 1/5
G = 2/5
B = 3/5
Edit: of course that makes sense it is probably a "web safe" one
kijin wrote 7 hours 6 min ago:
If it's such a simple combination, I wonder why it wasn't
officially named until 2014. CSS has had names for all sorts of
weird colors since forever.
labster wrote 5 hours 49 min ago:
Maybe it wasnât named so that long after people like me pass
from memory for good, people will still speak of Rebecca and of
the love we showed her.
duskwuff wrote 5 hours 56 min ago:
Most CSS color names were inherited from the X11 color list [1],
which, in turn, sourced its colors from a weird mixture of
Crayola crayons, paint samples, and idiosyncratic personal
choices [2]. It's a mess.
[1]
|
| [1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/blob/maste... |
| [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0... |
|
voat wrote 9 hours 6 min ago:
For some reason, I was under the impression that the blue shield was
the css logo.
But after looking at it, I realized that it was just for CSS 3 and I'm
not sure if it was even official?
graypegg wrote 9 hours 7 min ago:
Itâll be interesting to see where we end up using this. I donât
honestly see the CSS3 shield this is meant to replace very often
anymore.
Probably the place where itâll be seen the most is in IDE file trees,
where Iâm a bit worried itâll just look like a little purple blob
kijin wrote 7 hours 0 min ago:
File Browser / Finder maybe, but the text inside the boxes are too
small for IDE file trees.
VS Code shows "JS" in yellow text without the box, against a dark
background. CSS is just a blue hash symbol. Maybe they'll change the
color to rebeccapurple, but I don't think there's room for a box
around the symbol.
empathy_m wrote 9 hours 7 min ago:
Eric Meyer's posts about his daughter's illness, and the family's
lifelong process of grieving afterward, are heartbreaking. It's
arresting, gripping writing. It's wonderful and awful. Hug your loved
ones tight.
|
| [1]: https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/category/personal/rebecca/ |
|
czhu12 wrote 4 hours 18 min ago:
Having never had children myself, his writing moved me in a way that
I struggle to comprehend. I spent my 2 hour commute reading through
all of his writing on his time, and subsequent grief of his daughter,
starting here: [1] I found this piece particularly moving, and
brought me to tears:
|
| [1]: https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2008/06/18/welcome-2/ |
| [2]: https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/06/10/so-many-nevers... |
|
whatever1 wrote 7 hours 6 min ago:
How can the game be so unfair for some? People donât deserve this.
agumonkey wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
it's indeed strange to realize that life / universe can crunch
everything brainlessly in some spot while everything else is
colorful around
mewpmewp2 wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
Makes you think how life so easily and randomly can be so different
irrespective of who you are or what you do to affect you forever.
ericwood wrote 7 hours 15 min ago:
Thank you for linking this. I read bits and pieces of this as it was
happening but it never fully registered for me at 24. I'm sitting
here 10 years later at 34 having lost our son at 23 weeks. His due
date was this past week. It's affected me in ways that still
surprise, befuddle, and sometimes scare me. I cannot even begin to
fathom what he's been through; the most recent blog post has me in
tears.
I have really strong memories of learning HTML, CSS, and javascript
in high school, and spending time in the school library picking apart
css/edge. It felt like the dawn of a new era, I was in awe of the
things I saw there. I built more than a few sites trying to get my
head around the complexispiral demo, and spent countless hours diving
into resources I found there (like A List Apart! I will never forget
the suckerfish drop-downs). This is one of the few moments I have
such vivid memories of that were directly responsible me for pursuing
computer engineering and ultimately going so far into UI/UX and the
web. I've never written it out this explicitly but: thank you for
everything, Eric.
ten13 wrote 4 hours 23 min ago:
Thank you for sharing, Eric. Itâs been a few years now for me
since we lost our son before I ever had the chance to meet him and
Iâm not sure itâs any easier. Stories like yours and that of
others help us all know weâre not alone in our grief though so I
encourage you to keep sharing and telling your story.
Cordiali wrote 4 hours 55 min ago:
I hope every day is a bit easier than the last for you.
arrowsmith wrote 8 hours 20 min ago:
Ouch. As a father, that was a gutpunch. Dark, haunting, dripping with
grief and pain, but beautifully written and very haunting.
I canât imagine anything worse than what that guy has been through.
Iâm holding my sleeping baby as I write this and I just hugged him
even tighter. Thanks for sharing.
adastra22 wrote 5 min ago:
As a father of two girls, Iâm not clicking that link. I donât
think I could handle it.
kaelig wrote 8 hours 31 min ago:
"wonderful and awful" is such a brilliant way to capture this. Thank
you
29athrowaway wrote 8 hours 39 min ago:
Those posts are definitely not for everyone. It is a deep dive into
the emotions of a grieving father for over a decade.
I really hope that man can find peace.
|
| <- back to front page |
![[1]: https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1851735303.3881/flat,750x,075,...](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1851735303.3881/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]: https://i.etsystatic.com/21468781/r/il/426363/2712010149...](https://i.etsystatic.com/21468781/r/il/426363/2712010149/il_fullxfull.2712010149_1y8y.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]: https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.13378023.4114/raf,750x1000,0...](https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.13378023.4114/raf,750x1000,075,t,5e504c:7bf03840f4.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]: https://i0.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/0...](https://i0.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/css-is-awesome.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#/media/File:HTML5_logo_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#/media/File:HTML5_logo_and_wordmark.svg){kind=link}
![[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSS3_logo_and_wordmark.sv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSS3_logo_and_wordmark.svg){kind=link}