Nearly there(blog.mozilla.org)
blog.mozilla.org
Nearly there
https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/nearly-there/
125 comments
I saw one of the core developers tweeting that he hates dinosaurs because they're ancient meat eating predators that are extinct.
The developers are not the ones running this I'm sure but it gives some idea as to why.
I disagree. Dinosaurs are cool. Dinosaurs are what we like when we still have dreams.
The developers are not the ones running this I'm sure but it gives some idea as to why.
I disagree. Dinosaurs are cool. Dinosaurs are what we like when we still have dreams.
Real apples often have worms and rot inside. Yet it's good enough for the world's most valuable brand. The whole point of using a symbol in branding is that you don't have to drag along every association that the real-world thing may have.
Mozilla's dinosaur was a powerful, happy fellow who is clearly not extinct at all. I always liked that as an image of how Mozilla is about defying expectations.
Mozilla's dinosaur was a powerful, happy fellow who is clearly not extinct at all. I always liked that as an image of how Mozilla is about defying expectations.
Every 6 year old boy and girl loves dinosaurs.
They might be extinct but if we can last as long as they did we'll be really lucky.
I think this video about dinosaurian obsession is appropriate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YQaxqOyz8 (Chelsea Clinton is Pretty Obsessed With Dinosaurs)
Every single one of these fucking horrible and Mozilla should be ashamed. What is this shit?
If they want to look like a rinky-dink "open-source" operation, go nuts, but I've seen personal projects with better logos sourced off of Fiverr.
Hire actual designers. Let them do their job. Mozilla, you're better than this.
Every design needs to consider context, and a top-level identity needs to be adaptable. Can you imagine these rendered onto a shirt? Onto a sticker on someone's laptop? How do you trim those anyway? What's with all the useless color?
Everything here needs to be thrown into a fire.
If they want to look like a rinky-dink "open-source" operation, go nuts, but I've seen personal projects with better logos sourced off of Fiverr.
Hire actual designers. Let them do their job. Mozilla, you're better than this.
Every design needs to consider context, and a top-level identity needs to be adaptable. Can you imagine these rendered onto a shirt? Onto a sticker on someone's laptop? How do you trim those anyway? What's with all the useless color?
Everything here needs to be thrown into a fire.
[deleted]
It's a shame that the results have come out like this – from a design perspective, the 'burst' logo is bad. It doesn't scale or scroll well, it's indistinct in knockout and monochrome, it doesn't stand without the logotype, and it's far too fussy and detailed.
As ever, public feedback can be challenging to use constructively.
As ever, public feedback can be challenging to use constructively.
Yeah, the scaling is a massive issue for Burst. This is how it looks on that page for me: https://i.imgur.com/nGFGwuU.png
This is the ultimate design by committee. The Burst logo is mediocre and is objectively the worst for the reasons stated above.
Moiré is a more appropriate name for that logo.
The burst logo looks like my first failed tries to do semitransparent discs in OpenGL. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw them.
Is it just me, or are these designs terrible and the entire thing reeks of marketers inventing ways to justify their pay checks? The merchandise photos alone are cringe-worthy.
If you told me this was student work I would believe you, but its still not top-marks kind of student work. Its like they have never seen a logo before at all and instead are making a moodboard about what they hope the future of the internet should be. Cool art piece, but not a workhorse design you can use as a brand.
I agree these are not great...
- "Flame" is probably my favorite aesthetically, but "random orange blob" is a pretty weak brand identifier, and the alternate logos seem unrelated unless you see them next to each other.
- "Burst" does not scale - at full size it reads "busy eyesore", then scales down to "unprofessional moiré" and finally to "confusing blur"
- "Protocol" is probably the strongest, but their own data shows it's unpopular with consumers, probably because the "code" aspect is alienating to non-tech folks
- "Dino" is cute but doesn't really communicate anything. I also did not register the main logo as "dinosaur face" until I saw the other designs - it just looked like the "O" was pushed up for no reason.
- "Flame" is probably my favorite aesthetically, but "random orange blob" is a pretty weak brand identifier, and the alternate logos seem unrelated unless you see them next to each other.
- "Burst" does not scale - at full size it reads "busy eyesore", then scales down to "unprofessional moiré" and finally to "confusing blur"
- "Protocol" is probably the strongest, but their own data shows it's unpopular with consumers, probably because the "code" aspect is alienating to non-tech folks
- "Dino" is cute but doesn't really communicate anything. I also did not register the main logo as "dinosaur face" until I saw the other designs - it just looked like the "O" was pushed up for no reason.
To me it's mostly too much belief in a paradigm, yielding this extensive work from absurd sources. Pleaes Mozilla, redirect these resources into firefox, they've been doing hard work with few funds for years, they deserve even more love.
I also thought they were all quite bad.
But why does Mozilla really need a new identity? To me their identity feels really solid and strong. It's been exposed to developers and technically minded people for years and years, but also to regular users through Firefox.
Despite being a web developer for some time, I have no idea what Mozilla's brand is. I'm obviously aware of Firefox, but I'm also conscious that Mozilla do lots of other things, but without looking I don't have any idea what the collective visual style is.
I know it doesn't really seem important, but a good visual identity can help make it clearer who is supporting particular projects – and for a positive community organisation like Mozilla that's probably a good thing.
I know it doesn't really seem important, but a good visual identity can help make it clearer who is supporting particular projects – and for a positive community organisation like Mozilla that's probably a good thing.
Because their constant launching (and often subsequent closing) of products confuses their users. It seems to me that they want to be a research organization that helps advance technology and set standards, but they also produce products, etc.
I try Firefox from time to time because I'd really like to be using it. But as long as it remains less snappy and has worse text rendering than Chrome, while not offering much else in return, I delete it.
This has nothing to do with "brand identity".
This has nothing to do with "brand identity".
Did you ever consider that maybe the branding isn't targeting you? Perhaps a different market?
What market? Branding enthusiasts?
People buy brands every day. Ford, Apple, Burberry, etc. Do you understand how marketing works?
>Do you understand how marketing works?
Yes, in the exact inverse way I'd want a non-profit like Mozilla to work.
By the way, do you understand how marketing works? Mozilla is not a lifestyle or luxury brand, and nobody cares about those things in browsers.
Firefox got a huge market share back in early 2000-2010 because it had a good product -- not because of branding. Heck, it wasn't even an official Mozilla branded effort at the start, just a project by some community members.
Yes, in the exact inverse way I'd want a non-profit like Mozilla to work.
By the way, do you understand how marketing works? Mozilla is not a lifestyle or luxury brand, and nobody cares about those things in browsers.
Firefox got a huge market share back in early 2000-2010 because it had a good product -- not because of branding. Heck, it wasn't even an official Mozilla branded effort at the start, just a project by some community members.
No one said they were a lifestyle brand. I simply through out a couple of examples. The point is marketing does work.
http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2015/01/18-different-...
http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2015/01/18-different-...
People who care about ethics in software?
edit: Though I agree with the vague collective sentiment that they're slipping. Still, I would never feed Google.
edit: Though I agree with the vague collective sentiment that they're slipping. Still, I would never feed Google.
What? Whenever I try it, Chrome's font rendering is outright atrocious compared to Firefox...of all the reasons that one might prefer Chrome this has got to be the worst possible, by miles.
Is it possible you got used to the incorrect rendering or something? How do Edge and Safari look in comparison to you?
Is it possible you got used to the incorrect rendering or something? How do Edge and Safari look in comparison to you?
>What? Whenever I try it, Chrome's font rendering is outright atrocious compared to Firefox...
First of all, we're talking on the Mac, and with Retina display.
Second, "used to the incorrect rendering"? What's to be used? Firefox consistently has had not only less smooth font rendering, but also botched layouts and worse zoom behavior.
(Safari is pretty much close to Chrome. Edge, I don't use).
First of all, we're talking on the Mac, and with Retina display.
Second, "used to the incorrect rendering"? What's to be used? Firefox consistently has had not only less smooth font rendering, but also botched layouts and worse zoom behavior.
(Safari is pretty much close to Chrome. Edge, I don't use).
I remember reading about the Mozilla rebranding some months ago in a random online forum. Someone there made a better logo as a joke:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=214570401&postcou...
Apparently I'm in the minority preferring the flame logo. I mean, it's not great, but it's considerably more polished and attractive than any of the other options IMO. (Not that a re-brand is necessary at all...) The flame makes sense, and has a subtle tie-in with Firefox. Instead apparently they're going to go with a geek pun that makes the name difficult to read? And the majority of people prefer this option?
I agree. Initially I didn't see that there are 4 different proposals and was quite happy with the flame. Then I scrolled down and couldn't believe my eyes...
Yes. The flame has character at least. It definitely needs work, as it looks weird right now, but the other ones are pretty bad.
It "needs work" like a person hit by a bus, thrown off a cliff, half drowned, and then during the rescue was accidentally set on fire needs medical attention.
To me it doesn't look like flame at all. Flame logo of Bunsen Labs Linux distro [1] on the other hand looks like flame and it looks good.
https://www.bunsenlabs.org/
https://www.bunsenlabs.org/
It's insane. The protocol is a okay-ish as an idea, but form and colors are something from the 90ies.
The flames are actually quite appealing esthetically (you have to see them a bit larger to get this "point" effect). But, more importantly: it's a fantastically versatile idea. You could flow them around any shape, animations practically write themselves. Look at the country logos: they're distinct, yet clearly a family.
"Burst" is a bit meh... But I guess I could life with, considering I see the logo maybe once a week.
The flames are actually quite appealing esthetically (you have to see them a bit larger to get this "point" effect). But, more importantly: it's a fantastically versatile idea. You could flow them around any shape, animations practically write themselves. Look at the country logos: they're distinct, yet clearly a family.
"Burst" is a bit meh... But I guess I could life with, considering I see the logo maybe once a week.
As a webdeveloper I see some news about Mozilla now and then:
- new tooling
- new project launches
- new git repos
- evangelism at conferences/meetups
- a rare article about their funds
My idea based on these sporadic encounters is that they are continuously on the forefront of innovation. They have their share of strong and important products/projects/tools, but at the same time they are always in a 'fight' to stay relevant because things move fast.
Is a visual identity change a good idea in this situation? They seem to have done fine proving their relevance/freshness with their work over the years. Isn't this just a distraction?
On the other hand, they have a strong history of design successes too (personal bias). The Firefox logo and font are so beautiful.
- new tooling
- new project launches
- new git repos
- evangelism at conferences/meetups
- a rare article about their funds
My idea based on these sporadic encounters is that they are continuously on the forefront of innovation. They have their share of strong and important products/projects/tools, but at the same time they are always in a 'fight' to stay relevant because things move fast.
Is a visual identity change a good idea in this situation? They seem to have done fine proving their relevance/freshness with their work over the years. Isn't this just a distraction?
On the other hand, they have a strong history of design successes too (personal bias). The Firefox logo and font are so beautiful.
As a stubborn Firefox user, and the user many of their products some positive critics: there are a lot of open source projects which do miracles with less than 1% of what Mozilla earns each year. I find, Mozilla as an organization to be slow, inefficient and lagging in innovation.
Mozilla can be more aggressive and productive:
* Being an umbrella for succesful open source consumer software
* Using kickstarter and other funding sites better
* by evangelizing and implementing more browser features in Firefox (HTML5 and beyond). Things like web components or whatever. Caniuse.com is a good place to see that Firefox is a lazy follower of Webkit/Blink leadership.
* Confronting Apple for not letting their rendering engines inside the app store.
* Giving up copying Chrome visual appearance in every new version.
* Focusing obsessively on performance (JS, rendering)
Mozilla can be more aggressive and productive:
* Being an umbrella for succesful open source consumer software
* Using kickstarter and other funding sites better
* by evangelizing and implementing more browser features in Firefox (HTML5 and beyond). Things like web components or whatever. Caniuse.com is a good place to see that Firefox is a lazy follower of Webkit/Blink leadership.
* Confronting Apple for not letting their rendering engines inside the app store.
* Giving up copying Chrome visual appearance in every new version.
* Focusing obsessively on performance (JS, rendering)
there are a lot of open source projects which do miracles with less than 1% of what Mozilla earns each year
There's none maintaining and improving a complete web engine though.
I mean if you could do this on 1% of Mozilla's funds you'd have more Opera's. That's pre-Blink Opera's, mind you, because even they gave up on it.
There's none maintaining and improving a complete web engine though.
I mean if you could do this on 1% of Mozilla's funds you'd have more Opera's. That's pre-Blink Opera's, mind you, because even they gave up on it.
> There's none maintaining and improving a complete web engine though.
KDE used to maintain KHTML until a few years ago. I remember using it in 2008-2010 when it was a really solid, feature-complete web engine (even innovative at some points, e.g. it supported text-shadow long before Gecko). Then HTML 5 and ES 5 happened, and KHTML couldn't keep up anymore.
I remember when, in 2011, I met the KHTML developer. Singular, not plural. </storytime>
KDE used to maintain KHTML until a few years ago. I remember using it in 2008-2010 when it was a really solid, feature-complete web engine (even innovative at some points, e.g. it supported text-shadow long before Gecko). Then HTML 5 and ES 5 happened, and KHTML couldn't keep up anymore.
I remember when, in 2011, I met the KHTML developer. Singular, not plural. </storytime>
Wow, these are all amazingly ugly. Why didn’t they find a graphic designer to at least prepare one submission that looks good?
Supposedly they DID hire some graphics designers...
You know, I'd feel bad posting how I really feel about these logos, thanks for saying what needed to be.
This will be a future example of why open source brand identity projects aren't a thing. You can get better results on 99designs..
Didn't they commission a professional design house for the proposals?
Haha, apparantly it is, I really wouldn't have guessed:
"Johnson Banks, the London-based brand identity agency, is our partner in this work."
Compared to the logo's they made before these are really shitty. I guess that's what you get if you design by committee. It reminds me of this quote:
"A camel is a horse designed by committee"
"Johnson Banks, the London-based brand identity agency, is our partner in this work."
Compared to the logo's they made before these are really shitty. I guess that's what you get if you design by committee. It reminds me of this quote:
"A camel is a horse designed by committee"
Most people don't know or care about ://
However, I'm not sure what the goal is here? Even if you make a logo that the general public likes, they won't care about Mozilla any more. People care about Firefox. Firefox is the brand here. If they want more publicity towards the organization, they should just rename it to "Firefox Foundation" and put the Mozilla name to history.
However, I'm not sure what the goal is here? Even if you make a logo that the general public likes, they won't care about Mozilla any more. People care about Firefox. Firefox is the brand here. If they want more publicity towards the organization, they should just rename it to "Firefox Foundation" and put the Mozilla name to history.
Mozilla has such a wide range of brands and products. Renaming it to Firefox Foundation is simply disgraceful to the organisation and the community.
Microsoft changed its logo to match Windows. Doesn't mean it no longer cares about its other products.
My impression with Mozilla for the last few years has been that their focus seems to keep wandering around. They invested in some major side-projects (Persona, Firefox OS) that didn't pan out, all while their best-known product continued to lose market share. Reaffirming their commitment to Firefox as the core of their platform, whether with their name or their logo, might actually help them gain more trust and credibility.
I was momentarily excited with their "Flame" proposal, for no other reason than that it reminded me of the tail of a certain familiar animal.
My impression with Mozilla for the last few years has been that their focus seems to keep wandering around. They invested in some major side-projects (Persona, Firefox OS) that didn't pan out, all while their best-known product continued to lose market share. Reaffirming their commitment to Firefox as the core of their platform, whether with their name or their logo, might actually help them gain more trust and credibility.
I was momentarily excited with their "Flame" proposal, for no other reason than that it reminded me of the tail of a certain familiar animal.
Mozilla's focus and the core of their platform is the open web. The products are tools to get there.
Firefox lost the majority of its market-share (and hence, influence of web standardization) to mobile devices, which necessitated Firefox OS. It was not a side project. They poured almost everything they had into it and still failed.
Firefox lost the majority of its market-share (and hence, influence of web standardization) to mobile devices, which necessitated Firefox OS. It was not a side project. They poured almost everything they had into it and still failed.
Whether they like it or not, the Firefox browser has always been, and still is, the most visible and widely used Mozilla product. From an outside point of view, everything else is a side project. Even Firefox OS has the word "Firefox" in it.
Maybe they should embrace the fact they they are a Firefox organization, instead of struggling to pivot into a brand that nobody is familiar with.
Maybe they should embrace the fact they they are a Firefox organization, instead of struggling to pivot into a brand that nobody is familiar with.
Also presumably the other projects might live on even if the browser inevitably dies out.
"Burst" triggers horrible Moiré patterns when scrolling. Looks really bad.
Sometimes that can be part of a visual identity: http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/48402/what-...
Better rework it as a constellation.
I actually thought that "Burst" was fairly generic and...devoid of character myself (not that I could come up with a better design myself). But I'm unsurprised that "Protocol" didn't rate highly among consumers - I really doubt many people even use "http://" anymore.
> I really doubt many people even use "http://" anymore.
I see you haven't used/been forced to use IE in a while :)
I see you haven't used/been forced to use IE in a while :)
You are correct :)
The display of which was deprecated by Chrome and followed by Firefox...
on mobile most of the browsers hide this part from the URL. And yes, you don't have to type it in most of the times ( eventually switching from http to https )
Opera did the whole rebranding-retargetting-identity thing - it changed their marketing focus from technically people, to people playing volleyball on the beach who liked applying filters on selfies while drinking wine on a mid-summers day. It was the start of their sad and slow decline.
This reminds me of when Mozilla bough a beach design studio and hired designers to redesign the Firefox UI. Then nothing of worth of production value came out of it. Instead we got the dreaded Australis tabs years later.
Thank you for reminding me.
Again - design for usability, not to look "fresh"
Again - design for usability, not to look "fresh"
I'm a little worried about the qualities they want the logo to communicate.
* Unique
* Appealing
* Innovative
* Trustworthy
Sounds good so far.
* Inclusive/Welcoming
Let's just take that at face value. Don't want to get political here.
* Activist
That's getting a little dodgy. I just want a browser, not a social movement.
* Opinionated
Okay... Ask HN: What's the most approachable Firefox fork (or other alternative)?
* Unique
* Appealing
* Innovative
* Trustworthy
Sounds good so far.
* Inclusive/Welcoming
Let's just take that at face value. Don't want to get political here.
* Activist
That's getting a little dodgy. I just want a browser, not a social movement.
* Opinionated
Okay... Ask HN: What's the most approachable Firefox fork (or other alternative)?
The politics really get in the way here. I prefer having the "cold", practical protocol logo instead of the "welcoming" burst that's just some ugly moire.
Seems like everyone just wants to push their activism on me these days.
As for alternatives, Pale Moon maybe? But they're very opinionated as well.
Seems like everyone just wants to push their activism on me these days.
As for alternatives, Pale Moon maybe? But they're very opinionated as well.
The logo is for Mozilla, the organization, not Firefox. The Mozilla Foundation has always been an activist organization, with a mission ("promote choice and innovation on the Internet") and it has had a Manifesto for at least a decade.
Its not a browser its independent open-source org. Its activist as hell.
Lets start to be political or we all get rolled by the system eventualy. Eaten by the corp.
Lets start to be political or we all get rolled by the system eventualy. Eaten by the corp.
> That's getting a little dodgy. I just want a browser, not a social movement.
I kind of want a social movement.
I kind of want a social movement.
Mozilla should just adopt the adorable libuv unirex[1][2] along with the project.
I have been following their identity redesign story from the beginning, and to be honest, all their designs are very generic and vague. Too complex to be called minimal, too dull to be called interesting. When polling they should just include an option like "I would like to see a different design".
1. http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/_static/logo.png 2. http://libuv.org/images/libuv-bg.png
I have been following their identity redesign story from the beginning, and to be honest, all their designs are very generic and vague. Too complex to be called minimal, too dull to be called interesting. When polling they should just include an option like "I would like to see a different design".
1. http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/_static/logo.png 2. http://libuv.org/images/libuv-bg.png
That horn is incredibly phallic and sexist and the dinosaur looks angry and scary. Something as frightening and demeaning to women should never ever be considered.
On the other hand, the circle around the dinosaur is obviously a boob?
And those teeth.. Women AND men have teeth. Except new borns and very old people? It's an outrage. It's all about dicks and boobs but i demand a dinosaur with teeth only on the lower jaw in respect of the elderly and new born!
And those teeth.. Women AND men have teeth. Except new borns and very old people? It's an outrage. It's all about dicks and boobs but i demand a dinosaur with teeth only on the lower jaw in respect of the elderly and new born!
I was just being overly sarcastic! I love that fierce dino!
I am running a popular website. In 2008, Firefox made up for over 80% of my users. Then Chrome came along, using all cpus and cores of the computer it runs on. A huge performance advantage. Firefox usage started to decline. Year after year, they added features, branding, etc. Never addressed the performance issue. Now Firefox is used by less then 10% of my users. And even with E10s, Firefox uses only one core for all scripts in all tabs. It even gets completely clogged up if there is one slow script in some tab.
I would love to know how the roadmap is decided on over at Mozilla. Everybody I talk to says "Nah, it's slow. I use Chrome". Yet they did never address it. Why?
I would love to know how the roadmap is decided on over at Mozilla. Everybody I talk to says "Nah, it's slow. I use Chrome". Yet they did never address it. Why?
And even with E10s, Firefox uses only one core for all scripts in all tabs.
This is "dom.ipc.processCount". My understanding is that it'll be defaulted to >1 in Nightly soonish. For most people it "just works".
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1207306
Yet they did never address it. Why?
E10s was in the works for several years (while people where whining about the user-visible stuff, like branding).
This is "dom.ipc.processCount". My understanding is that it'll be defaulted to >1 in Nightly soonish. For most people it "just works".
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1207306
Yet they did never address it. Why?
E10s was in the works for several years (while people where whining about the user-visible stuff, like branding).
There was an article outlining rollout of "Multi Process Firefox" over on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/08/02/whats-nex.... My favorite Mozilla art direction will always be the socialist propaganda branding as seen on https://www.google.dk/search?q=mozilla+soviet+propaganda&prm...
Just detail. its not socialist its soviet propaganda
Right. That's also what I typed in the search query, but then there was Mao in the first image and then somone would claim it was in fact communist and not soviet propaganda after all. I guess that soviet propaganda is the best term for the graphical ism, but I wonder if there is a better term. It's all quite awesome.
You have to remember that Firefox's core was first written in a very different era of computing. E10s required a complete rewrite of really core components for Firefox. It took years to get it working, and it turned out to be impossible to make compatible with existing extension code, etc etc.
FWIW, give a try to Firefox with E10s, or better yet, firefox developer edition. I find it much faster than chrome.
FWIW, give a try to Firefox with E10s, or better yet, firefox developer edition. I find it much faster than chrome.
try nightly or developer edition. Its fast without consuming 10gigs of ram as chrome does wit 20tabs.
Lets not forget that big part of what made chrome leader was branding. Even the idea that chrome is so fast was put into our heads using those expensive chrome lighting ads.
Lets not forget that big part of what made chrome leader was branding. Even the idea that chrome is so fast was put into our heads using those expensive chrome lighting ads.
The "Protocol" design feels a bit too geeky for ordinary people who don't care what all://_the <symbols> mean, as well as a bit too cheap/amateurish for people who don't wear college jerseys anymore. Seriously, the Facebook screenshot looks like a page for a high school football team. Oh, and curl already played the :// trick with its new logo.
The dinosaur one looks like it was designed in the 90s.
The other two look more modern. Although I'm not a big fan of the "ultra-thin sans-serif font with random polygons on the side" fad, I could live with it if it means that more people will consider switching to Firefox.
The dinosaur one looks like it was designed in the 90s.
The other two look more modern. Although I'm not a big fan of the "ultra-thin sans-serif font with random polygons on the side" fad, I could live with it if it means that more people will consider switching to Firefox.
I love how much aliasing the star-shaped primary logo mark (Burst) has. As someone who cares about graphics, it pains me to just look at it. This is not good logo design in my opinion.
>We’re updating our brand identity using Mozilla open source principles, and everyone’s invited.
"Brand identity"? I'm already thrown off.
"Brand identity"? I'm already thrown off.
Crowd worship is failing again. That flame could be a logo for Firefox , or the map of a US state. Mozilla should stick to monsters.
The "burst" logo has a horrible moiré... It might look good on print, but definitely not on a screen.
It's interesting to see data on how people perceive logos like these.
I like the link between the flame logo and Firefox. It's certainly growing on me.
The Dino logo seems really playful though. Specially in the art work.
I like the link between the flame logo and Firefox. It's certainly growing on me.
The Dino logo seems really playful though. Specially in the art work.
"Burst" reminds me of an Eve Online star chart. Bonus points. To me it represents linked entities, connections, unity, and the Internet more than the others. I dig the colors against dark backgrounds too. But...
While typing this on Firefox mobile (just installed to reevaluate), I must use portrait mode for my keybpard to work, my on-screen nav buttons are not redrawing because my screen lock activated w/FF up causing a bug to manifest, and I'm only here on HN because the sites I intended to browse won't load or perform very poorly, one site linked from an article had a 1 min load time, and video plays at ~3fps on any site.) After I type this I'm returning to mobile Chromium, even though I hate Google. I feel like just throwing this phone at the moment. Some user experience.
Is a logo going to correct this? Same reasons I've evaluated and dismissed FF for years now.
That, and I am attached to the damn Firefox, they're killing my favorite software mascot of all time.
Heck, I'm done typing, I get a half second delay every time I backspace and my on-screen arrows which magically reappeared a second ago are behaving randomly (i.e., jumping right one word and one space when I hit hit left once.) T9 would have been easier. Off to remove блядь FF... Congrats on like half a logo design though Moz, I'm sure it will solve your problems, lol. Maybe try not letting your enemy choose the battles, push for usable and accessible standards that aren't designed to sell us more middleware and Enterprise Edition duct tape.
While typing this on Firefox mobile (just installed to reevaluate), I must use portrait mode for my keybpard to work, my on-screen nav buttons are not redrawing because my screen lock activated w/FF up causing a bug to manifest, and I'm only here on HN because the sites I intended to browse won't load or perform very poorly, one site linked from an article had a 1 min load time, and video plays at ~3fps on any site.) After I type this I'm returning to mobile Chromium, even though I hate Google. I feel like just throwing this phone at the moment. Some user experience.
Is a logo going to correct this? Same reasons I've evaluated and dismissed FF for years now.
That, and I am attached to the damn Firefox, they're killing my favorite software mascot of all time.
Heck, I'm done typing, I get a half second delay every time I backspace and my on-screen arrows which magically reappeared a second ago are behaving randomly (i.e., jumping right one word and one space when I hit hit left once.) T9 would have been easier. Off to remove блядь FF... Congrats on like half a logo design though Moz, I'm sure it will solve your problems, lol. Maybe try not letting your enemy choose the battles, push for usable and accessible standards that aren't designed to sell us more middleware and Enterprise Edition duct tape.
Is a logo going to correct this?
No. You should file bugs in Bugzilla, in this case with the phone model and which keyboard (3rd party or not), so we can investigate and fix. It obviously isn't supposed to behave that way.
That, and I am attached to the damn Firefox, they're killing my favorite software mascot of all time.
This logo is for Mozilla, not Firefox.
No. You should file bugs in Bugzilla, in this case with the phone model and which keyboard (3rd party or not), so we can investigate and fix. It obviously isn't supposed to behave that way.
That, and I am attached to the damn Firefox, they're killing my favorite software mascot of all time.
This logo is for Mozilla, not Firefox.
A misunderstanding, I thought another article said something about FF getting a rebrand as part of this. Phew. The Mozilla icon I'm not attached to.
The problem with Protocol is they'll show themselves to the world as Moz://a and not how Mozilla. Destruction of the brand. Luckily people never see the Mozilla brand, only Firefox, so the damage will be limited and the geeks will know.
My first choice was #3 Burst. My reactions: #1 Horrible and not very readable, #2 Not so horrible but much less readable and brand damaging, #3 Normal people could like this, #4 Same as 3 but what's the meaning of that logo?
My first choice was #3 Burst. My reactions: #1 Horrible and not very readable, #2 Not so horrible but much less readable and brand damaging, #3 Normal people could like this, #4 Same as 3 but what's the meaning of that logo?
#1 - Looks pretty cool, oh wait, is the flame the /logo/? Looks like someones generic desktop background. First tutorial on Photoshop will give you this.
#2 - I seriously think this looks like someones first or second go at photoshop/paint. And wit the moire (?) pattern it is straight up repulsive.
#3 - Eh, generic and would exclude anyone who isn't a developer/techie. Not sure if this matters though, it's not like mozilla is consumer facing anyway.
#4 - Looks kinda neat, until they turned it into a freaking raptor..
#2 - I seriously think this looks like someones first or second go at photoshop/paint. And wit the moire (?) pattern it is straight up repulsive.
#3 - Eh, generic and would exclude anyone who isn't a developer/techie. Not sure if this matters though, it's not like mozilla is consumer facing anyway.
#4 - Looks kinda neat, until they turned it into a freaking raptor..
How would these design help people? How would it help the community? That's the main question there. And I see no answer there.
I find myself siding with the article that I _want_ the protocol logo to win, but you gotta understand where your biases land if you're going to be critical of what the consumers picked.
If you want a data-driven decision, you trust the data, not your gut.
Here's the thing though -- they wanted people to get the visual pun in the typography, but they didn't. That's okay, because a part of a branding strategy is to educate the public about what your brand means.
You're surveying people on these abstract emotions associated with abstract shapes and letter headings, but really it's up to the organization to make itself known for those values. As you do work in the name of Mozilla, you remind people of the values of the org and the good that it does.
Spirals and fonts don't buy you trust, deeds do.
If you want a data-driven decision, you trust the data, not your gut.
Here's the thing though -- they wanted people to get the visual pun in the typography, but they didn't. That's okay, because a part of a branding strategy is to educate the public about what your brand means.
You're surveying people on these abstract emotions associated with abstract shapes and letter headings, but really it's up to the organization to make itself known for those values. As you do work in the name of Mozilla, you remind people of the values of the org and the good that it does.
Spirals and fonts don't buy you trust, deeds do.
complete waste of time - even if you do all that, you'll be back next year or two and do it all again.
I think Burst is extremely generic, not sure why it's even considered.
Is it just me, or does the flame look like the map of Britain?
The "Burst" design is preferred by their test panel, but they didn't ask if the design represents actually a clear "identity".
Lets not forget that big part of what made chrome leader was branding. Even the idea that chrome is so fast was put into our heads using those expensive chrome lighting ads.
The bad part is that they shoul just hire someone very good since its the hardest kind of rebrand. Maybe the comunity should pick the design studio not do the actual design.
The bad part is that they shoul just hire someone very good since its the hardest kind of rebrand. Maybe the comunity should pick the design studio not do the actual design.
This is a bad sign, when you think rebranding will help your company find focus. Since ousting Brendan Eich I kind of am not sure what you really want to be and do.
We as developers and users of fine Firefox browser, really need those tool to be great. Everything else, in my view is distraction.
I'm a designer, and from my perspective these are all either incredibly generic or very poorly executed. It's an open exploration though, and they do admit the need for refinement.
Direction 2 is the strongest in terms of execution, but it's like they googled "stock developer logo." It's literally something any developer-facing tech company anywhere could use. Nothing about it is unique to Mozilla.
Direction 1: The crocodile-looking thing seems to be an effort at modernizing the dinosaur mark, but it's just so bad (the mark without the mouth feels decent and unique, but once you add the mouth it's like a bad joke). Stylistically it feels like something HotBot would have done in 1998 down to the random caPitaL lEttEr treatment.
Design direction 4 is trying to capitalize on a really popular (but now dwindling) faceted/stained-glass "data" trend... it's already starting to look dated due to overuse, and on top of that is really poorly executed (blobby rabbit, anyone?).
Design Direction 3 is mind-numbingly literal, it's like the first idea from a Sophomore design student. Some of the supporting patterns where the mark is simplified and abstracted beyond the "M" start to look interesting — but the main "M" mark is muddled mess. Just look at the all-white example on a poster, it's almost objectively hideous.
I think their existing lower-case 'mozilla' type treatment is generally friendly and recognizable and there's nothing wrong with it — this exercise would be more interesting if they stuck with that and looked into more options to modernize the T-Rex... I could easily imagine mozilla as a "mascot" heavy brand in the same vein as Mailchimp (but maybe dialed back a tad in the cuteness factor).
Addendum: Look at the homepage for their design partner Johnson Banks (http://johnsonbanks.co.uk/), and look at the shirt in Option 2 — give me a break. You don't even have to go beyond a single degree of separation to see how generic that concept is.
Addendum 2: Holy shit, look at these other options their agency partner has explored — these have their own issues and would need a lot of refinement, but are infinitely more interesting than these posted options:
route B (very '90s and the 'mozilla' treatment is a bit too abstract, but I think it could be pushed to a really nice place): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-b-the-conne...
route F (combining a few existing trends, but it's eye-catching, fun, and I'd like to see more of it): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-f-the-impos...
I'm not sure if these options mean that Mozilla doesn't know who they are, or their agency partner doesn't know who they are — but it really seems like a brand lost in the woods.
Direction 2 is the strongest in terms of execution, but it's like they googled "stock developer logo." It's literally something any developer-facing tech company anywhere could use. Nothing about it is unique to Mozilla.
Direction 1: The crocodile-looking thing seems to be an effort at modernizing the dinosaur mark, but it's just so bad (the mark without the mouth feels decent and unique, but once you add the mouth it's like a bad joke). Stylistically it feels like something HotBot would have done in 1998 down to the random caPitaL lEttEr treatment.
Design direction 4 is trying to capitalize on a really popular (but now dwindling) faceted/stained-glass "data" trend... it's already starting to look dated due to overuse, and on top of that is really poorly executed (blobby rabbit, anyone?).
Design Direction 3 is mind-numbingly literal, it's like the first idea from a Sophomore design student. Some of the supporting patterns where the mark is simplified and abstracted beyond the "M" start to look interesting — but the main "M" mark is muddled mess. Just look at the all-white example on a poster, it's almost objectively hideous.
I think their existing lower-case 'mozilla' type treatment is generally friendly and recognizable and there's nothing wrong with it — this exercise would be more interesting if they stuck with that and looked into more options to modernize the T-Rex... I could easily imagine mozilla as a "mascot" heavy brand in the same vein as Mailchimp (but maybe dialed back a tad in the cuteness factor).
Addendum: Look at the homepage for their design partner Johnson Banks (http://johnsonbanks.co.uk/), and look at the shirt in Option 2 — give me a break. You don't even have to go beyond a single degree of separation to see how generic that concept is.
Addendum 2: Holy shit, look at these other options their agency partner has explored — these have their own issues and would need a lot of refinement, but are infinitely more interesting than these posted options:
route B (very '90s and the 'mozilla' treatment is a bit too abstract, but I think it could be pushed to a really nice place): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-b-the-conne...
route F (combining a few existing trends, but it's eye-catching, fun, and I'd like to see more of it): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-f-the-impos...
I'm not sure if these options mean that Mozilla doesn't know who they are, or their agency partner doesn't know who they are — but it really seems like a brand lost in the woods.
In the beginning, Firefox was ultra fast. Now it is a slow beast and I am forced to use Chrome instead. Are they sure they are focusing on the right things?
When was the last time you used Firefox? They've put a ton of work into performance, which involved a serious rewrite. Current versions are now much faster than Chrome (for me).
A bit more technical: A big part of why it was so slow, is that the engine was written before tabs ever existed, before CSS and JS (both) became so heavy, and before computers had so much disposable RAM. It kept everything in a single process, on a single CPU.
The rewrite makes firefox multi-process and multi-CPU core capable. It makes the browser feel MUCH faster and lighter! The functionality is nicknamed Electrolysis or e10s, and they've been gradually rolling it out since March of this year. The work effected extensions in particular, so they have to roll out slowly. About 30% of the stable-release userbase has multi-process at this point, and they're just starting the follow up rollout enabling multi-core.
Give it a try! Try the firefox beta (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/) or better yet, Firefox Developer Edition. If you want to see the full speed improvement of multi-core, go to about:config and set services.sync.numClients to something higher than 1. (they're rolling out with a value of 2, and ultimately ending on 5).
A bit more technical: A big part of why it was so slow, is that the engine was written before tabs ever existed, before CSS and JS (both) became so heavy, and before computers had so much disposable RAM. It kept everything in a single process, on a single CPU.
The rewrite makes firefox multi-process and multi-CPU core capable. It makes the browser feel MUCH faster and lighter! The functionality is nicknamed Electrolysis or e10s, and they've been gradually rolling it out since March of this year. The work effected extensions in particular, so they have to roll out slowly. About 30% of the stable-release userbase has multi-process at this point, and they're just starting the follow up rollout enabling multi-core.
Give it a try! Try the firefox beta (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/) or better yet, Firefox Developer Edition. If you want to see the full speed improvement of multi-core, go to about:config and set services.sync.numClients to something higher than 1. (they're rolling out with a value of 2, and ultimately ending on 5).
Designers and community managers sure as hell are not going to fix Firefox's speed.
Programmers are surely not going to focus on this.
Mozilla has more than one team. The speed has nothing to do with the logo.
That's like saying: Samsung's new flagship phone is exploding, and they're focusing on making washing machines?
Programmers are surely not going to focus on this.
Mozilla has more than one team. The speed has nothing to do with the logo.
That's like saying: Samsung's new flagship phone is exploding, and they're focusing on making washing machines?
> That's like saying: Samsung's new flagship phone is exploding, and they're focusing on making washing machines?
The difference being that Samsung's repsective divisions are run as self-funding corporations. The Android development team in their bubble don't have any financial impact on the shipbuilding folks or the washing-machine QA teams.
In contrast Mozilla has essentially only one revenue flow, orders of magnitudes greater than the secondary flows. So every dollar that Mozilla spends on 'rebranding' or flailing around with The IoT is one dollar less for paying developers to fix Firefox bugs, or maintain Thunderbird or Persona or whatever.
The difference being that Samsung's repsective divisions are run as self-funding corporations. The Android development team in their bubble don't have any financial impact on the shipbuilding folks or the washing-machine QA teams.
In contrast Mozilla has essentially only one revenue flow, orders of magnitudes greater than the secondary flows. So every dollar that Mozilla spends on 'rebranding' or flailing around with The IoT is one dollar less for paying developers to fix Firefox bugs, or maintain Thunderbird or Persona or whatever.
[deleted]
Aside from Firefox itself all the things you mentioned got either canned or significantly downsized.
Note that Firefox is "owned" by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation which is using it to generate funding for the things it considers important. Given that many of those involve activism, improving branding or messaging seems like a natural investment.
It's like whining that Samsung was spending money on their (then-irrelevant) SSD division at a time when their hard drives were starting to get pressured in the market.
Note that Firefox is "owned" by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation which is using it to generate funding for the things it considers important. Given that many of those involve activism, improving branding or messaging seems like a natural investment.
It's like whining that Samsung was spending money on their (then-irrelevant) SSD division at a time when their hard drives were starting to get pressured in the market.
[deleted]
>Samsung's new flagship phone is exploding, and they're focusing on making washing machines?
Their washing machines are exploding, too.
Their washing machines are exploding, too.
Did you try Firefox recently? I switched back to FF three months ago and it is actually often faster than Chrome (on Linux at least)
This is like knowing how a sausage is made. You don't want to eat the end result.
This is not how sausage is made. This is how grandpa tries to make a steak out of hot dogs.
After the demise of Firefox OS, Mozilla is finding it hard to come up with another useless thing to burn money in.
They're in the best position to create an IoT / home server OS that does self-hosted calendar, email, pocket, facebook clone, baby photos backup, etc.
It's so sad they didn't go down that path and play to their strengths (openness/open source) and against the weaknesses of the other behemoths and instead decided to compete with android head on.
There's a dire need for a product like this with a lot of engineering muscle behind it (and not just because of snowden) just as there was for a real smartphone OS in 2007 that ordinary people could use.
It's so sad they didn't go down that path and play to their strengths (openness/open source) and against the weaknesses of the other behemoths and instead decided to compete with android head on.
There's a dire need for a product like this with a lot of engineering muscle behind it (and not just because of snowden) just as there was for a real smartphone OS in 2007 that ordinary people could use.
Completely agree. How do we make it happen?
Ironically enough, I really enjoyed my Geeksphone Keon, and it's Firefox OS platform. I liked the idea of making phone apps in HTML, CSS and JS and having them interact with native APIs through a standardized way. It's a shame it didn't work out. :/
I think you mean ://
Why don't they test it against the old dinosaur [1] or the star [2]? OK, they probably already made up their mind and don't want that, but it would be honest to at least compare. The dinosaur mascot has much more character than every other option, and at least some brand-recognition (even if people don't recognize it, when given the name and the picture most people will say, yes this picture looks like "mozilla").
Another option would be to just drop Mozilla and rebrand as Firefox foundation...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/7/74/Mozilla_Found... [2] http://plaza.ufl.edu/darklite/Portfolio/Images/star.png