7 ms·

Logos fall more in the realm of graphic design rather than typography. They're an avatar thus logos don't necessarily need to be readable - albeit there is a mo

by laumars 10y ago

Logos fall more in the realm of graphic design rather than typography. They're an avatar thus logos don't necessarily need to be readable - albeit there is a modern trend to use the company name in an interesting typeface as their logo. However there are plenty of examples where a company logo contains no text what-so-ever - including Mozilla's previous logo[1]. So I wouldn't get too hung up on its typographic design. At least not unless Mozilla start using 'Moz://a' in normal correspondence. ;) Personally I quite like it. It's memorable and well suited to the business they're best known for. Which is essentially the crux of a logo. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Mozilla_dinosaur_head_logo.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Mozilla_...)

bisby 10y ago
You dont remember when people got confused and always called Mozilla 'red dinosaur head' because the logo was confusing?
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  This isn't a logo, it's a stylised name, they serve different purposes. Consider Indesit, they style their name but have a useful logo that can stand alone. Mozilla could do with an actual logo, something that fits with the Thunderbird & Firefox logos. Edit: Having looked at the other designs I think they chose correctly, but perhaps needed a "none of the above" option. This https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/#comment-1989 https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/#co... gets closer. Perhaps they wanted something that worked just using text, I guess. Maybe 2017 will be the year of leet-speak on the desktop!?!
  - toyg 10y ago
    > This isn't a logo, it's a stylised name Pretty much all the material about the redesign says this is, in fact, a logo. I agree that the whole process was a complete clusterfuck. They picked the less atrocious suggestion. It's still terrible.
38kkdiu 10y ago
The problem is that there's nothing unambiguously non-typographic about the design. If they had distorted the symbols so much that they were outside the realm of normal unicode characters, sure. But anyone with that font could reconstruct the logo. Stuff like this works when the glyphs are recognizable enough, but when the design is such that you simultaneously know that it is not to be interpreted literally. It fails here because the latter isn't clear. So in this case it is typography. That's the problem.

by laumars 10y ago

bisby 10y ago

You dont remember when people got confused and always called Mozilla 'red dinosaur head' because the logo was confusing?

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
This isn't a logo, it's a stylised name, they serve different purposes. Consider Indesit, they style their name but have a useful logo that can stand alone. Mozilla could do with an actual logo, something that fits with the Thunderbird & Firefox logos. Edit: Having looked at the other designs I think they chose correctly, but perhaps needed a "none of the above" option. This https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/#comment-1989 https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/#co... gets closer. Perhaps they wanted something that worked just using text, I guess. Maybe 2017 will be the year of leet-speak on the desktop!?!
- toyg 10y ago
  > This isn't a logo, it's a stylised name Pretty much all the material about the redesign says this is, in fact, a logo. I agree that the whole process was a complete clusterfuck. They picked the less atrocious suggestion. It's still terrible.

38kkdiu 10y ago

The problem is that there's nothing unambiguously non-typographic about the design. If they had distorted the symbols so much that they were outside the realm of normal unicode characters, sure. But anyone with that font could reconstruct the logo. Stuff like this works when the glyphs are recognizable enough, but when the design is such that you simultaneously know that it is not to be interpreted literally. It fails here because the latter isn't clear. So in this case it is typography. That's the problem.