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.

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.