These new USB logos are supposed to "reduce confusion". They're more confusing than ever

USB Type C fixed the hole but, sadly, not the cables, which all look much the same but might be useless for any given purpose, or indeed the features offered by the holes. Does this USB C hole have DisplayPort Alternate Mode? Does this cable support a 5K image at 60hz? Good luck figuring it out. Now the USB Implementers Forum has announced a set of logos to make it "less confusing".

What a mess. They use the same type style on different versions of the logo to refer to completely different things, bandwidth and power delivery. Design elements and text are jammed crudely into spaces left around the cluttered, amateurish "Certified USB" logo, at whatever size fits. They don't even consistenly use ™ or ® on it. And they still don't answer the questions people actually have about capabilities, instead forcing us to infer them through specifications.

This looks like a perfect example both of engineer syndrome—experts in a narrow technical discipline thinking they are experts in everything (e.g. communication design)—and the law of triviality, where extraneous specifications and requirements (e.g. trademark adherence) subvert effectiveness.