5 ms·

If you're not a logo geek, this is the major website that reviews logo redesigns, on the new Mozilla logo: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/

If you're not a logo geek, this is the major website that reviews logo redesigns, on the new Mozilla logo: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_mozilla_by_johnson_banks.php#.WIDIXJJXU84 http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo...

matt4077 10y ago
Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even for non-profits... edit: the last sentence was apparently interpreted as an actual question, when it was meant as a plea for someone to do an eloquent write-up of the non-profits-also-need-marketing case that I could link to.
- cschmidt 10y ago
  Yes, on the whole they seemed to like it. Which isn't true of many of the redesigns they reviews.
- dublinben 10y ago
  Why are the branding needs of a non-profit organization any less than that of a for-profit organization?
  - matt4077 10y ago
    They are not – the are, after all, operating in a few markets with basically the same mechanisms as any market. And the continued insistence of more or less any for-profit company (and non-profit, and government,...) shows that it's effective. But it was a point repeatedly made in the other threads about this redesign – basically "they're wasting their/our/my money on useless stuff like this when what they need to do is make Firefox use less memory/faster/whatever...".
- amooiman 10y ago
  The general idea is that 90% of people I tell "I work for Mozilla" respond with "Oh, you work on Firefox?" but we're about so much more than that. My understanding of the motives behind this change is that having better branding that explains we're focused on the internet in general will hopefully expand our reach and recognition outside the tech bubble.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic (see edit). I know why it makes sense for Mozilla to do marketing, and I'm hoping for a bright future for you and your mission.
  - StevePerkins 10y ago
    I'm not sure how a logo change begins to address that. I'm INSIDE the tech bubble, and apart from Firefox and Rust I can't name a single Mozilla project that isn't canceled (Persona, phones) or on its way there (Thunderbird). If not Firefox, then what DO you work on at Mozilla then? I'm genuinely curious.
    - vollmond 10y ago
      I didn't know Rust was Mozilla. I thought it was FF, TB, and "generic OSS projects like Apache but less well-known".
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        Yeah, Rust is a Mozilla project. Graydon worked at Mozilla, and them interested in taking it as an official project. Why do you think Mozilla is using Rust so much? (See servo, pushing rust components into FF, etc) They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things...
        vanderZwan 10y ago
        > They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things... Trying out new web technologies that are experimental doesn't count?
- weaksauce 10y ago
  You need money to make the things the non-profit cares about, in this case, tools to have a free and open internet. Money pays for salaries of the people employed there; servers to build, test, and distribute software; office space; etc.
- 38kkdiu 10y ago
  Actually, that review just underscores a problem I have with modern design, which is a focus on aesthetic elegance and cleverness over real usability concerns. I love design, so I'm not meaning to bash design per se, but every field has its problems. With design, it's a lack of attention to usability as a scientific, empirical, psychological, cognitive, physiological sort of issue. There's too much of a focus on cleverness and theorized or actual aesthetics over real usability. Design sits at this funny intersection of art and science, and it seems like too often the former is emphasized over the latter. This design is a perfect example of this, and the review reinforces it. Where's the discussion of usability and confusion? When did they reach out to naive users and pose real-world use tasks involving the logo redesign? When did the review discuss this? The logo redesign is great unless you acknowledge that it co-opts symbols that have real meaning and can be ambiguous in that regard. Mozilla was well-intended but failed. To me, this whole discussion is a perfect example of the foibles of the design world.
  - Rumudiez 10y ago
    > Actually, that review just underscores a problem I have with modern design, which is a focus on aesthetic elegance and cleverness over real usability concerns. As a full-time designer who graduated from a fine arts college (read: least-user focused possible), this is completely false regarding what I and all my peers do. Designers don't set out to be "clever" – we're not programmers, after all. We set out to solve a ritual problem of meaningfully conveying ideas and messages to a target audience, wide or narrow. The reasoning is pretty simple. Readability (different from legibility) is an incredibly important part of designing with type, and your lede basically invalidated all else you have to say, especially as followed by "I love design."
jccalhoun 10y ago
really interesting to see how the comments there are largely positive while the ones here are largely negative.

matt4077 10y ago

Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even for non-profits... edit: the last sentence was apparently interpreted as an actual question, when it was meant as a plea for someone to do an eloquent write-up of the non-profits-also-need-marketing case that I could link to.

cschmidt 10y ago
Yes, on the whole they seemed to like it. Which isn't true of many of the redesigns they reviews.
dublinben 10y ago
Why are the branding needs of a non-profit organization any less than that of a for-profit organization?
- matt4077 10y ago
  They are not – the are, after all, operating in a few markets with basically the same mechanisms as any market. And the continued insistence of more or less any for-profit company (and non-profit, and government,...) shows that it's effective. But it was a point repeatedly made in the other threads about this redesign – basically "they're wasting their/our/my money on useless stuff like this when what they need to do is make Firefox use less memory/faster/whatever...".
amooiman 10y ago
The general idea is that 90% of people I tell "I work for Mozilla" respond with "Oh, you work on Firefox?" but we're about so much more than that. My understanding of the motives behind this change is that having better branding that explains we're focused on the internet in general will hopefully expand our reach and recognition outside the tech bubble.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic (see edit). I know why it makes sense for Mozilla to do marketing, and I'm hoping for a bright future for you and your mission.
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  I'm not sure how a logo change begins to address that. I'm INSIDE the tech bubble, and apart from Firefox and Rust I can't name a single Mozilla project that isn't canceled (Persona, phones) or on its way there (Thunderbird). If not Firefox, then what DO you work on at Mozilla then? I'm genuinely curious.
  - vollmond 10y ago
    I didn't know Rust was Mozilla. I thought it was FF, TB, and "generic OSS projects like Apache but less well-known".
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      Yeah, Rust is a Mozilla project. Graydon worked at Mozilla, and them interested in taking it as an official project. Why do you think Mozilla is using Rust so much? (See servo, pushing rust components into FF, etc) They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things...
      - vanderZwan 10y ago
        > They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things... Trying out new web technologies that are experimental doesn't count?
weaksauce 10y ago
You need money to make the things the non-profit cares about, in this case, tools to have a free and open internet. Money pays for salaries of the people employed there; servers to build, test, and distribute software; office space; etc.
38kkdiu 10y ago
Actually, that review just underscores a problem I have with modern design, which is a focus on aesthetic elegance and cleverness over real usability concerns. I love design, so I'm not meaning to bash design per se, but every field has its problems. With design, it's a lack of attention to usability as a scientific, empirical, psychological, cognitive, physiological sort of issue. There's too much of a focus on cleverness and theorized or actual aesthetics over real usability. Design sits at this funny intersection of art and science, and it seems like too often the former is emphasized over the latter. This design is a perfect example of this, and the review reinforces it. Where's the discussion of usability and confusion? When did they reach out to naive users and pose real-world use tasks involving the logo redesign? When did the review discuss this? The logo redesign is great unless you acknowledge that it co-opts symbols that have real meaning and can be ambiguous in that regard. Mozilla was well-intended but failed. To me, this whole discussion is a perfect example of the foibles of the design world.
- Rumudiez 10y ago
  > Actually, that review just underscores a problem I have with modern design, which is a focus on aesthetic elegance and cleverness over real usability concerns. As a full-time designer who graduated from a fine arts college (read: least-user focused possible), this is completely false regarding what I and all my peers do. Designers don't set out to be "clever" – we're not programmers, after all. We set out to solve a ritual problem of meaningfully conveying ideas and messages to a target audience, wide or narrow. The reasoning is pretty simple. Readability (different from legibility) is an incredibly important part of designing with type, and your lede basically invalidated all else you have to say, especially as followed by "I love design."

jccalhoun 10y ago

really interesting to see how the comments there are largely positive while the ones here are largely negative.