Wasn't expecting tears over a colour
I've always loved the existence of "rebeccapurple", but I somehow missed that part of the story. Her color being immortalized in the CSS logo (even if it changes years from now) is so incredibly beautiful to me.
I feel we have way too little humanity in tech. With the advent of AI, that does not promise to improve.
C# is named because it’s a step up from C++, which is one better than C, which is the next thing after B.
Python is just an arbitrarily chosen name referencing a comedy troupe.
Linux is Linus’s copy of Minix, which is a minimal Unix, which is based off of Multics, which is a pseudo-initialism.
We have names honoring the dead; Pascal, Ada, Darwin.
We can name one color in one spec in honor of one person’s dead child.
It is neither a burden nor out of character for the field. If you genuinely believe it is a problem, I ask that you step back and reflect on why you truly believe it is.
I'm told that it stands for "PHP Hypertext Processor." A recursive acronym.
http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
Nuance;
I'll say "You will find more than zero people here who don't really seem to consider humanity and tech overlapping domains."
I can only speak for myself, but I inject a great deal of “humanity” into my technical work.
I write software that Serves a pretty marginalized and sidelined demographic. Not many folks are willing to do the type of work that I do.
I certainly don’t do it for the kudos. I don’t think most of the folks here, would care, and some, might actually hate me for doing the work.
I do it, because I actually have a personal stake in the work, and because I care -deeply- about the people that use my software. Whenever I design an app, I keep in mind the folks that use it, and ensure that it delivers something that they need (not what I think they need; what they actually need). My work is informed by a mental model that I have, imagining the software being used by people, not by it projecting my brand, making money (it’s free), or salving personal insecurities.
I’m quite aware that this is not the norm, in the industry, but I have worked for companies that kept a laser focus on the end-user experience, which involves a great deal of “getting into their heads.”
I keep mine off, because, for the most part, I don't mind not seeing the trolls.
In this case, the chap made a point that many people (including myself) disagree with, but in a fashion that I think is right in line with the way we should deal with each other.
I just think people downvote posts they disagree with, or because they have some animus with the poster (I have a couple of downvote stalkers, myself, and it's sometimes amusing to see which posts they hit).
My issue boils down to some completely wanting to change IT terminology because of "emotions" which happens because people do not consider the context in which it is embedded.
In that case, probably not since the world master has multiple meanings. However, as you noted, it is common to use master/slave terminology in the hardware world. That terminology is definitely problematic because we are humans. We are affected by human history and we are affected by social constructs. Something similar can be said about killing processes. It is also worth noting that people noticed that terminology was problematic long before the current social environment, probably because it affects a much broader range of the population. (For example: I don't see that terminology used much outside of Unix.)
Neutralizing a term or altering it solely for the sake of political correctness (or whatever you may call it) is not the most effective approach when dealing with terminology that has long-standing and widespread usage. Such changes can create unnecessary confusion, disrupt established workflows, and detract from efforts to address more impactful systemic issues. Instead, fostering education and promoting contextual understanding can better equip individuals to interpret terms appropriately without discarding their historical or technical significance.
> Something similar can be said about killing processes. It is also worth noting that people noticed that terminology was problematic long before the current social environment, probably because it affects a much broader range of the population.
People should ideally not be affected by such terminology, as it is clearly used within a technical context with no intention of causing harm or evoking negative connotations[1]. The phrase "killing processes" for example, is a metaphorical term that accurately describes terminating a running operation in computing. Allowing neutral, domain-specific terminology to become a source of offense risks overextending sensitivity and detracts from the importance of addressing genuinely harmful language or actions in broader societal contexts. As I have previously mentioned, fostering an understanding of the technical intent behind such terms can help mitigate unnecessary emotional responses.
Altering long-standing and widespread technical terminology for perceived correctness is often futile, as individuals who lack contextual understanding or are overly sensitive could potentially take offense at ANY TERM. If anything, we should focus on education and promoting linguistic contextualization that ensures terms are understood within their intended meaning, preserving clarity, historical significance, and functionality.
[1] master/slave terminology has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, for example.
But I don't think this thread is the place for such a discussion. Technical authority and "woke" culture arguments are one thing, but we're talking here about honoring Erie Meier (a seminal figure in CSS history) and his daughter by adding a named color (basically an alias) to CSS and using it in the logo. That's worth doing simply out of love and honor for Eric, his wife and family, and his daughter.
I do not mind the rename from beccapurple to rebeccapurple either.
He only requested a change from becca to rebecca.
It's an attitude that presumes that we can apply logic to all walks of life, which ironically is an inherently illogical stance.
There was no logic to the naming scheme. It was all arbitrary, and the names came in waves from various sources like house paint colors, Crayolas, and the whims of people behind various implementations.
If they replaced '#663399' with 'rebeccapurple' maybe they'd have a point.
Names are easier to learn and remember when universal. We know memorization works with associations and Chocolate, PaleTurquoise and Aqua are great for that. Chartreuse and DodgerBlue aren’t. While I can personnaly relate to the first the second is totally alien. Both lacks a bit more universality IMHO.
Absolute universality isn’t achievable but I stand that is a usefull direction to head to.
I’m deeply sorry for Eric’s daughter and gratefull for his work. I’m sure there’s other ways to honor them.
PS: thanks for the HN post, now I can relate to RebeccaPurple!
I can’t see how to apply logic to naming a colour. It’s fundamentally a perceptual and, dare I say it, emotional process.
I also think your comment is uncharitable and tone deaf.
I am stunned!
That's just bizarre.
[0]: at least when I was implementing it: https://git.sr.ht/~bptato/chawan/tree/351f2f51322c2fa291772c... perhaps there's more now...
If it is not limited to CSS, then you are missing X11 colors (around ~256), for example, although some overlap with CSS colors.
If interested, Gpick can serve as a starting point.
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.
The pain feels too strong to handle some days. I find myself in tears after some seemingly random trigger: seeing another baby in a stroller, listening to a beautiful track named "Never Known", our first daughter saying she wants to play with her friend's small sister, seeing a painting she made with her to-be sister, writing this comment etc.
I have accepted that the pain will always be there.
Thanks for sharing your story.
P.S. there are subreddits where people share similar stories
A few days ago I completely broke down hearing “Daughter” by Four Tet. The triggers that don’t even make sense are the hardest. It’s really tough to hear other people having felt similar pain (nobody should have to endure it), but it’s comforting to not feel completely alone in it. Wishing the best for you and your family.
I can’t imagine anything worse than what that guy has been through.
I’m holding my sleeping baby as I write this and I just hugged him even tighter. Thanks for sharing.
I found this piece particularly moving, and brought me to tears:
https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/06/10/so-many-nevers...
I really hope that man can find peace.
"Suppose that the children have grown into youth And have turned out good, still, if God so wills it, Death will away with your children's bodies, And carry them off into Hades. What is our profit, then, that for the sake of Children the gods should pile up on mortals After all else This most terrible grief of all?"
I try not to think about it too much.
(Personal opinion: fairness is a human construct. The universe does not care. We are the ones who make it as fair as we can.)
Norm Macdonald @normmacdonald - Apr 10, 2019
You regularly jump into threads to criticize how other people deal with their mental health challenges.
I would appreciate if you would stop. It's inappropriate. You've been asked to stop by users and by dang multiple times.
Maybe when you feel challenged by the way other people approach mental health, you should treat it as an invitation to practice rather than an invitation to criticize.
> I would appreciate if you would stop. It's inappropriate. You've been asked to stop by users and by dang multiple times.
You must be thinking of someone else
I hope you have a good day and that you weigh your words with care.
> I'm recalling you, specifically. Because I've seen this happen multiple times, you've left an impression.
But I've never done it before
He's doing therapy etc, what else can he be doing? Writing blog posts is also processing.
Whether that applies here is naturally subjective, but hearing that changed how I look at logo designs a bit.
A lot of it would still get that reaction, I think, if a programmer presented them instead of a designer, and these look to me like they’d be among them.
That said:
> A lot of it would still get that reaction, I think, if a programmer presented them instead of a designer, and these look to me like they’d be among them.
Weren't the logos in TFA made and voted on by programmers?
And they’re 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 isn’t uniform.
As I think you already know, the designer obviously wasn't suggesting that. He was saying that clarity matters, not that only clarity matters.
We didn't get that it was supposed to be a logo or a brand though.
Labels like this look like placeholders. They leave you feeling empty and convey a sense of amateurishness.
These do provoke a visceral response. It's not an "Oh!", nor even an "oh?", but rather an "oh..."
The "brand guidelines" will be broadly disrespected since the mental threshold for brand awareness is higher than the entropy of a square.
CSS is not a technology that needs eye-catching marketing. The existence of branding is mostly just for the purposes of giving someone something to put on a powerpoint slide, or a sticker to put on a laptop. It's allowed to be boring.
In addition, it exists as part of a family of web technologies, so giving it consistent branding with the other web technologies makes sense. You can argue that whoever first came up with this simple sort of branding was unimaginative (I think the JS logo was the first?), but just because something is simple doesn't mean it's not capable of being iconic.
It appears this option was discussed: https://github.com/CSS-Next/css-next/issues/105#issuecomment...
They use the words vote and community, but actually taking them seriously means accepting the Boaty McBooatface when it happens.
I liked the offset logos because they served just as well as logos and were a good humoured nod towards CSS issues that it would be worthwhile keeping in mind for a bit of humility.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#/media/File:HTML5_logo_a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSS3_logo_and_wordmark.sv...
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.
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.
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.
Comparison, in monochrome at small size: https://i.imgur.com/3UvKKtg.png
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 — printed in black-and-white, or as an outline without solid colors.
The text in in random sizes and different fonts for no reason. The shapes are not all the same or all different; they are just randomly different.
It's not that any one logo looks bad; they look awful because they are _incoherent_.
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.
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...
Or clones of Adobe’s lame branding.
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34186932 - Dec 2022 (1 comment)
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9565503 - May 2015 (33 comments)
Adding 'rebeccapurple' color to CSS Color Level 4 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7924677 - June 2014 (25 comments)
In memory of Rebecca Alison Meyer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7863890 - June 2014 (68 comments)
And furthermore, I am a passionate logo designer and logo design critique.
Did you really forgot why its called rebeccapurple?
Probably the place where it’ll be seen the most is in IDE file trees, where I’m a bit worried it’ll just look like a little purple blob
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.
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.
Consistency still matters. If you’re going through the trouble of making logos similar so they are understood as part of a family, don’t give up half way.
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.
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.
What's that supposed to mean? Humans grew up being slaughtered by wild animals. Safe housing is an extremely recent invention and many humans still don't have it.
As for your imaginary hunter gatherer:
1) Yes I'm sure when a child died in agony over a prolonged period of time in hunter gatherer societies, their family was also traumatised.
2) The modern nuclear family has changed our sense of emotional attachment to our children. Whether that's good or bad is a separate discussion, but our relationship with our children is different to what it was 500 years ago, let alone 5,000 years ago.
It's nowhere near the significance of her's and Eric's story, but the piece of land where my grandfather built his home in the 1940s or 1950s has his name on it: the "Paul D. Cravens Addition". Even though that home is long since gone (in a fire) and the land is owned by someone else, every deed and building permit henceforth has his name attached it.
(Not doubting your anecdote - Just felt like doing some sleuthing on the timeline)
[0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jun/0312.... [1] https://caniuse.com/css-rebeccapurple (use "Date Relative")
But after looking at it, I realized that it was just for CSS 3 and I'm not sure if it was even official?
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
R = 1/5
G = 2/5
B = 3/5
Edit: of course that makes sense it is probably a "web safe" one
[1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/blob/master/di...
[2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Mar/0272....
Was I the only one going in thinking that this would result in a slightly off-green colour (RGB(14, 202, 0)) instead?
Haha
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1851735303.3881/flat,750x,07...
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.
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 (https://brand.netflix.com/en/assets/logos/),
> 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: it’s 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).
- 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 it’s "just text"
The web community is obsessed with this "neat, tidy" shit while the all the standards involved (HTML, JS, CSS etc) are a dog's breakfast.
At least for how my brain works, having a little picture to hang the information off of is easier than having to memorize a slew of TLAs and FLAs.
Maybe I should rough out some logos for these things for myself.
