←back to thread

885 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
WD-42 ◴[] No.42162230[source]
I really don’t like these logos that are boxes with text in the lower right. The post cites a “common design language” with other tech but this has to be the most low effort language imaginable.
replies(17): >>42162280 #>>42162299 #>>42162332 #>>42162421 #>>42162434 #>>42162913 #>>42163054 #>>42163131 #>>42164021 #>>42164025 #>>42164152 #>>42164458 #>>42165634 #>>42166052 #>>42166909 #>>42167023 #>>42170503 #
tannhaeuser ◴[] No.42162913[source]
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]: https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.13378023.4114/raf,750x1000,0...

replies(1): >>42163257 #
thiht ◴[] No.42163257[source]
> especially considering the canonical CSS-in-a-box logo has long been established

Is this a joke? I’ve never seen it in my life, not even sure where you’re pulling it from

replies(1): >>42164774 #
1. nativeit ◴[] No.42164774[source]
I’ve been using it for years. A lot of years.