There is an amazing community effort happening in search of a new logo for CSS. I was a bit skeptical at first, as I never really considered CSS a “brand.” Why does it need a logo? For starters, the current logo seems… a bit dated.
Displayed quite prominently is the number 3. As in CSS version 3, or simply CSS3. Depending on your IDE’s selected icon pack of choice, CSS file icons are often only the number 3.
To give an incredibly glossed-over history of CSS3:
- Earliest draft specification was in 1999!
- Adoption began in 2011, when it was published as the W3C Recommendation.
- It’s been used ever since? That can’t be right…
CSS is certainly not stuck in 2011. Take a look at all the features added to CSS in the past five years (warning, scrolling animation ahead):
(Courtesy of Alex Riviere)
Seems like this stems mainly from the discontinuation of version numbering for CSS. These days, we mostly reference newer CSS features by their individual specification level, such as Selectors Level 4 being the current Selectors specification, for example.
A far more general observation on the “progress” of CSS could be taking a look at features being implemented — things like Caniuse and Baseline are great for seeing when certain browsers implemented certain features. Similarly, the Interop Project is a group consisting of browsers figuring out what to implement next.
There are ongoing discussions about the “eras” of CSS, though, and how those may be a way of framing the way we refer to CSS features.
Chris posted about CSS4 here on CSS-Tricks (five years ago!), discussing how successful CSS3 was from a marketing perspective. Jen Simmons also started a discussion back in 2020 on the CSS Working Group’s GitHub about defining CSS4. Knowing that, are you at least somewhat surprised that we have blown right by CSS4 and are technically using CSS5?
The CSS-Next Community Group is leading the charge here, something that member Brecht de Ruyte introduced earlier this year at Smashing Magazine. The purpose of this group is to, well, determine what’s next for CSS! The group defines the CSS versions as:
- CSS3 (~2009-2012): Level 3 CSS specs as defined by the CSSWG
- CSS4 (~2013-2018): Essential features that were not part of CSS3, but are already a fundamental part of CSS.
- CSS5 (~2019-2024): Newer features whose adoption is steadily growing.
- CSS6 (~2025+): Early-stage features that are planned for future CSS.
Check out this slide deck from November 2023 detailing the need for defining stronger versioning. Their goals are clear in my opinion:
- Help developers learn CSS.
- Help educators teach CSS.
- Help employers define modern web skil…
- Help the community understand the progression of CSS capabilities over time.
Circling back around to the logo, I have to agree: Yes, it’s time for a change.
Back in August, Adam Argyle opened an issue on the CSS-Next project on GitHub to drum up ideas. The thread is active and ongoing, though appears to be honing in on a release candidate. Let’s take a look at some proposals!
Nils Binder, from 9elements, proposed this lovely design, riffing on the “cascade.” Note the river-like “S” shape flowing through the design.
Chris Kirk-Nielson pitched a neat interactive logo concept he put together a while back. The suggestion plays into the “CSS is Awesome” meme, where the content overflows the wrapper. While playful and recognizable, Nils raised an excellent point:
Regarding the reference to the ‘CSS IS AWESOME’ meme, I initially chuckled, of course. However, at the same time, the meme also represents CSS as something quirky, unpredictable, and full of bugs. I’m not sure if that’s the exact message that needs to be repeated in the logo. It feels like it reinforces the recurring ‘CSS is broken’ mantra. To exaggerate: CSS is subordinate to JS and somehow broken.
Wow, is this the end of an era for the familiar meme?
It’s looking that way, as the current candidate builds off of Javi Aguilar’s proposal. Javi’s design is being iterated upon by the group, it’s shaping up and looks great hanging with friends:
Javi describes the design considerations in the thread. Personally, I’m a fan of the color choice, and the softer shape differentiates it from the more rigid JavaScript and Typescript logos.
As mentioned, the discussion is ongoing and the design is actively being worked on. You can check out the latest versions in Adam’s CodePen demo:
Or if checking out design files is more your speed, take a look in Figma.
I think the thing that impresses me most about community initiatives like this is the collaboration involved. If you have opinions on the design of the logo, feel free to chime in on the discussion thread!
Once the versions are defined and the logo finalized, the only thing left to decide on will be a mascot for CSS. A chameleon? A peacock? I’m sure the community will choose wisely.
