7 ms·

Rebuilding a simplified Firefox logo

173 points by AaronMT 13y ago

Dirlewanger 13y ago
Oh look, it's even more flat! Just put the gun to its head and pull the trigger. Flat's all the rage man, why not kill another great logo with it!
- adamman 13y ago
  That is nowhere near flat.
  - illicium 13y ago
    It may not be as flat as currently trendy (Microsoft, iOS 7) but it still has way less contrast than all the previous revisions.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  Since when did removing unnecessary detail make something flat? Flat is the absence of shadows/gradients and the like. This certainly has both and a tonne of other stuff.
webwanderings 13y ago
I think it would be psychologically better if that Fox were to show his eyes.
- anonymfus 13y ago
  Psychologically main problem for my mind is that "arm" looks like tentacle, and body looks like snail's foot. But it's probably my own fault.
- simantel 13y ago
  Here's the fox all on his lonesome, though not exactly in logo form: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_to_mobile_oses_fox_you.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_...
  - keeperofdakeys 13y ago
    There was also a special fox made by Mozilla Japan a few years back http://www.foxkeh.com/downloads/ http://www.foxkeh.com/downloads/
simonz05 13y ago
Somehow I still prefer Jon Hicks original re-brand of the phoenix logo the best. That is the 2004-2005 version displayed in the article. See [1] for an earlier evolution write-up of the brand logo. http://thinsmek.com/a-history-of-the-firefox-icon-and-details-on-the-3-5-logo/ http://thinsmek.com/a-history-of-the-firefox-icon-and-detail...
kibwen 13y ago
I wish there was some more contrast on the continents, but otherwise I think it looks nice (and they finally fixed the arm!!). However, given that one of the stated reasons for the change is "SVG compatibility", I'm surprised that there's no link to an SVG version. And the official Mozilla branding page doesn't seem to be updated yet: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/firefox/branding/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/firefox/br...
anonymfus 13y ago
This looks unbalanced. Right side has much more colours than left.
- chiph 13y ago
  Region 2 in the article is the back of the fox -- they removed all the fur, which I think is an important detail. There's some color variation up by the shoulder/neck area that sort-of looks like it, but it's too subtle. Thumbs-up on removing the high gloss, though. (yeah yeah, everyone's a critic)
byandyphillips 13y ago
"Simplifying a style doesn’t always mean bringing it down to basic geometric shapes and solid colors." Cough... cough... iOS7
- lttlrck 13y ago
  And Google, Microsoft, ... Though really iOS7 is the least flat looking.
badman_ting 13y ago
I guess they had it right the first time.
malandrew 13y ago
It lost a lot of depth on the left hand side. Instead of looking like the back of a fox, it just looks like an amorphous shape with a tail. 2009-2013 was the best on the left hand side.
archagon 13y ago
I started reading this article with a burning prejudice against overly nitpicky designers, but I have to say, each change here makes perfect sense and contributes to a more cohesive whole. Never thought Firefox of all places would be a good place to read about design. Great work! In regards to the flatness and lack of detail that some people are complaining about: when I look at the Firefox icon in my taskbar, I don't parse it as a fox and a globe but rather as an abstract red/blue circle. The simplified design will make this easier to read -- much more in line with, for example, the Chrome logo.
- bluetidepro 13y ago
  > "Never thought Firefox of all places would be a good place to read about design." Why's that? Firefox has always had incredible design aspects to their products?
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    I don't know if always is quite true, but they've been pretty solid for the last three years or so, definitely :)
    - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
      Many of us long-time Firefox users have actually found the past three years to be the worst so far, in terms of design. The rush to copy Chrome in appearance and behavior has essentially ruined what was a decent experience before. What's worse is that the design changes haven't actually brought any benefits, either. And to make it even worse, there has been nothing to suggest that things will actually improve any time soon. Firefox's declining market share over this period is very good evidence that people are not happy with it. It initially became popular because it provided a better experience than other browsers; now it's declining because it's providing a worse experience, and the recent changes clearly haven't been helping the situation.
      - archagon 13y ago
will_brown 13y ago
Oddly, until reading this article I was always under the impression the Shepard Fairey created the Firefox logo...something seemed off redesigning the Firefox logo and not mentioning Shepard, so I looked into it and... It turns out Shepard Fairey created the red "Mozilla.org logo and mascot" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_%28mascot%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_%28mascot%29).
ronaldx 13y ago
I gather this is driven by SVG: an efficient use of a minimal number of bezier curves (quite literally, reticulating splines). It would be a nice project to automatically recreate existing image files as efficient SVGs. However, this procedure seems to make things look flat and textureless.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Someone 13y ago
Interesting that they aim to have a single resolution-independent logo ("This tied into another goal of having the image hold up with greater clarity at smaller sizes" and "with high resolution displays in mind"), while traditionally, advice was to tweak icons to their display size and resolution. For example, https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/userexperience/conceptual/applehiguidelines/IconsImages/IconsImages.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/... says "redraw art as you scale down" and "do not use the standard-resolution 32x32 icon as the 16x16@2 icon". Similarly, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa511280.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa51... says "Simply scaling down from the 256x256 size does not work" and "As an icon gets smaller, transparency and some special details found in larger sizes should be sacrificed in order to simplify and get the point across." This isn't purely by technological choice ("we want a svg logo"), as one can somewhat build a svg where the level of detail varies depending on display size (http://timkadlec.com/2013/04/media-queries-within-svg/ http://timkadlec.com/2013/04/media-queries-within-svg/). So it's either a deliberate "it's better that way" choice, or a "better one really good logo than a couple of less good ones", or they weren't aware of media queries, or they don't think them supported well enough.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  Clarity at smaller sizes depends on color & contrast, not small details. Of course they will do manually-optimized 16, 32 and 64px versions.
pertinhower 13y ago
Am I alone in thinking that the 2005–09 logo is clearly the strongest image? I'd like to see the results of a poll. Designers can talk their way into all sorts of things; a bit of objective measurement of opinion would be interesting.
- asperous 13y ago
  It's very subjective, but I agree with you. It's colorful, simple, balanced. Full of character and life.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  That was my initial thought too, but ultimately I have no problem with them simplifying the logo to make it SVG-friendly, even if the first pass results in an oversimplification. In a few years, the next pass will probably be done in SVG first and might get a little more detail back. >The first step in the rebuild was to go in and strip out all the detail that was using blend mode layering such as multiply, screen and overlay – mostly found in the tail area 1. As stated, a key goal of the redesign was to make it work flawlessly in SVG as well as open up the possibility to rebuild all the internal structure using SVG and CSS gradients. >Having reduced the logo down to its shape-tweaked forms 2 and softer gradients, we continued to remove any detail we thought wasn’t critical to the overall image. This tied into another goal of having the image hold up with greater clarity at smaller sizes.
mkehrt 13y ago
Man, I always thought the FF logo was a good example of a complex logo that worked really well. The new one is a little too simple.
bsimpson 13y ago
For an article about how it is now SVG-compatible for improved display on retina-class screens, it sure does look crappy on my Chromebook Pixel. Would have been nice if they used retina-quality assets in the announcement...
mehmehshoe 13y ago
The word simple must be the word for today. From the payment processor to arguments for and against simple coding..arrrgh. Do you want a simple logo? Do what USA Today did to their logo. Have a third grader spill blue paint.
- adamors 13y ago
  Simple and flat are the words of 2013.
- jimmaswell 13y ago
  But spilled paint doesn't have simple enough geometry!
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
Downvote me to hell but I can't stand the new logo. It's the little things, the designer is on the right track, simplification is the right direction but... The new 2013 logo is unbalanced & dull. 1) First it's extremely unbalanced, all the eye popping color, depth, & detail is in the tail with nearly no highlights on the left side of the logo. 2) The fur on the end of the tail is 3D, slightly wrapping itself around the globe. Why? Why simplify the whole logo and leave the tail with the same awful complexities as the previous 09-13 logo? The tails in the 04-05 and 05-09 are near perfection and more simple. The newer tails add unnecessary detail yet they were kept. 3) It's inconsistently flat. Usually flat coincides with simple, but the logo's complex outlines have actually been exaggerated while the coloring has been flattened and simplified. The fox's head and torso on the other hand were nicely simplified (aside from the little hairs added all over). 4) It's dull. What was once planet earth is now a dull blue ball with coffee stains. 5) The gradient of orange to yellow is too hard. The entire fox is orange then sharply turns to yellow after the tail starts. The gradient change in the 04-05 version is perfect. The new logo's gradient is harsh and too distracting. 6) Micro-details were added. Why? I thought this was about simplifying? Look at the fox's fur on it's back. There's little tiny hairs that have been added that weren't there in the 04-05 and 05-09 version. There's no reason for those to be there. When the logo is shrunk and viewed at it's normal size they won't even be visible, why not just remove them altogether. In fact the ears have added hairs as well. It's easily salvageable and the designer was on the right track: Just bright up planet earth, contrast the continents from the ocean more, remove the 3D-ness of the fox's tail, further simplify or remove the tail's inner fur spikes, and soften the gradient of orange to yellow that runs across the fox's body and get rid of those annoying hairs that one can only see when zoomed in 400%.
- frankcaron 13y ago
  Although I'm less passionate about it, I tend to agree with ChrisNorstrom's comments that the change doesn't seem change enough to warrant neither this level of attention nor such a "detailed" analysis of the changes. Sure, "good design doesn't mean flat" in this post-iOS 7 world, but at the same time, dropping a few details is hardly a revolution.
  - 13y ago
rkuykendall-com 13y ago
My browser didn't want to resize the page smaller than 25%, so I made this to visualize the logos at very small sizes: http://rkuykendall.com/uploads/fx-logos-small.png http://rkuykendall.com/uploads/fx-logos-small.png
brokenparser 13y ago
Dear Firefox, Please don't. Sincerely, the Internet
anigbrowl 13y ago
And in 2-3 years there'll be another post 'explaining' how the 2013 logo was too dull or the gradients lacked dynamics or something, and there'll be another logo that's basically the same with marginal changes, because people basically can't resist the urge to tweak. I appreciate that people get bored and design sensibilities change. But spare us the long-winded itemization of why this is 'objectively' better, when it's obviously a simple matter of taste.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  Fair point, but it is objectively better at small sizes (see comments above), a bit similar to the original one.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I don't really agree. I liked the second one best, but I presume there was some good reasons for the last version they adopted as well.
- Systemic33 13y ago
  A blog post with just pictures of the new design obviously doesn't make an interesting blogpost xD
kepano 13y ago
This is mostly about the transition to SVG, not really a "brand evolution". The new logo is fine, not that much better or worse than any of the other variations shown. I don't get the hoopla. I like what Wolff Olins did for Firefox OS and would love to see Mozilla take major new steps in that direction, with more radical changes to the logo (which frankly has always looked like a shrimp at favicon size): http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_to_mobile_oses_fox_you.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_...
NanoWar 13y ago
I hate this current "make it flat" movement. Ok, it's good so smoothen the logo a bit, the oval light on top wasn't super pretty, but the grade of details (in the fox!) were just about perfect.
da_n 13y ago
I have never really liked the Firefox logo much. I guess this is a decent compromise given what they've got, and looking at an example of what a completely flat Firefox logo would look like it just doesn't quite work, think this is a at least a step forward. http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/85101/513/browser_firefox_flat_mozilla_icon http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/85101/513/browser_fire...
- keeperofdakeys 13y ago
  Mmm, the logo you linked seems to have lost all meaning concerning the globe. When I look at it, the blue sphere doesn't seem to fit well. The fox also seems just a bit too rounded.
- rangibaby 13y ago
  Pretty cool. The arm does look like an erect penis though.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  Although it looks a lot better than I thought it would in that style, it's too dull and doesn't really portray the message the FF icon is attempting. The only reason I noticed it was to do with firefox was because the original is so recognisable. This one just looks like either: A fox hugging a blue ball A fox on its back looking into the sky
inthewind 13y ago
Never really been a fan of the Firefox logo. Why not go for a revolution? Just use the Red Panda as inspiration for something very cutsey and recognisable. Bin the current logo. I like the idea of the ship's wheel in the navigator logo, and the compass in Safari. As for the other logos they don't do anything for me (oh alright, IceWeasel is quite a funny knock off, and Nightly's is boringly okay.)
- lucb1e 13y ago
  Weird, I always disliked Safari's compass and really did like Firefox' logo.
- acturbo 13y ago
  might as well rename FireFox to RedPanda too ;)
  - inthewind 13y ago
    The Firefox name is kind of catchy (and known) so I wouldn't go that far. ;) I think the name started it started out as Phoenix, then Firebird - which they couldn't use as it was a database, and then was named Firefox. I quite like the transition. Not sure if it was Clint Eastwood inspired or not. I like the way that Firefox is the Red Panda - so it's nice that it kind of has that evolution. It so happens that the Firefox is rare and is totally cute. There was an icon floating around on Linux which was based on the panda that I liked - and the panda has loads of potential for a lovely icon.
lucb1e 13y ago
Oh I thought it was a lazy designer that left out all the details in the Firefox logo. Never imagined it was actually a new logo. Didn't really notice it a lot though anyway, not sure you can even call this a new logo.
zipop 13y ago
It wasn't a good logo to begin with. Lets start there. It's trying too hard to be literal and fit into the blue round boundaries of most other browser logos. And I honestly don't know whether the tail is supposed to be stylized fire or not. The asymmetry and distracting hi lights bother me too. In order to evolve and mature a logo it has to be solid to begin with. Otherwise updating it just makes it fall apart.
OGC 13y ago
Jerking it, Firefox edition. Nobody cares about the details as 99% of the users will look at this logo in a 16x16 or 32x32 px version. Is it a fox hugging a globe? Is the fox red/orange? Yes? Is it somewhat detailed? Okay. _Good enough_.
famousactress 13y ago
I don't care about the new logo, or the old one... I just clicked the comments link to confirm what's at this point become pretty well documented on HN: all articles introducing new graphic designs of any kind will be hated. Not that it's not justified, but I'd challenge anyone to pull up an example to the contrary. I'm sure someone can find one, and it'll probably somehow involve Stripe :)
- crazygringo 13y ago
  It's funny... I think there might actually be a good reason for this. In so much of my experience, it often seems like version 1.0 (or sometimes 2.0 or 3.0) is the best version of something. All the original creators are still on board, the interface is straightforward, the functionality is clear, the product is good. But then, by the time you get to 4.0+, the original creators have moved on, a new team comes in looking to make their mark, and suddenly a graphic overhaul is introduced, they start focusing on "content" or "exposing features" or whatnot, the interface loses organization and coherence, and bad decisions start being made. I don't know of a name for this phenomenon, but it almost seems to be the rule rather than the exception. But it may explain why people seem to be so anti-change -- because, so many times, the change actually is just pointless or bad.
- blowski 13y ago
  I don't think it's limited to new graphic designs. Any kind of change at all is met with instinctive vitriol. If posts looked more like "These bits are good. These bits need work. These bits should be scrapped entirely." then it would be easier to call them constructive. As it is, they just seem uncompromisingly conservative and pointless.
jathu 13y ago
wtf is up with the whole "flat" trend? first microsoft, then apple and now firefox. lack of depth does not look "good".
alanh 13y ago
I am experiencing extreme design rage that they kept the way the blue globe shows through in ragged edges of the tail. It’s pointless, distracting, and violent. “Violent,” you wonder? “Surely you are insane and hyperbolic.” I am neither. Look at those spots and tell me they don’t look like a cheese grater. I wouldn’t touch this icon if it existed in 3D space. Would you?
tbirdz 13y ago
I wonder if Debian will make a similarly flattened new logo for their Iceweasel version of Firefox.
BaconJuice 13y ago
That blog layout is gorgeous, anyone know what it is? I'm guessing it a custom made skin by him.
- acturbo 13y ago
  from the source, looks like WordPress
  - mh- 13y ago
    indeed, the WP theme is https://github.com/viewportindustries/starkers https://github.com/viewportindustries/starkers can see here: http://blog.seanmartell.com/wp-content/themes/simplified/style.css http://blog.seanmartell.com/wp-content/themes/simplified/sty...
pearjuice 13y ago
I can't believe so much time has gone into iterating a logo which was pretty acceptable to begin with, when so many other areas need work.
- OrsenPike 13y ago
  I see your point but this is obviously a graphics guy (or girl) and probably not a programmer to the level that is require for a lot of the work on Firefox. Now if this new logo were designed by a developer on OdinMonkey I would say it was time wasted as they could be doing a lot more important thing but I don't think this is the case :)
sunseb 13y ago
First logo was more punchy/constrasted ! New one is inexpressive.
sn0v 13y ago
I remember the hullabaloo when the 'flat' Chrome logo was introduced, but people have gotten used to it as well. Seems to me like the FF logo will undergo a similar transition :)

173 points by AaronMT 13y ago

Oh look, it's even more flat! Just put the gun to its head and pull the trigger. Flat's all the rage man, why not kill another great logo with it!

adamman 13y ago
That is nowhere near flat.
- illicium 13y ago
  It may not be as flat as currently trendy (Microsoft, iOS 7) but it still has way less contrast than all the previous revisions.
andyhmltn 13y ago
Since when did removing unnecessary detail make something flat? Flat is the absence of shadows/gradients and the like. This certainly has both and a tonne of other stuff.

webwanderings 13y ago

I think it would be psychologically better if that Fox were to show his eyes.

anonymfus 13y ago
Psychologically main problem for my mind is that "arm" looks like tentacle, and body looks like snail's foot. But it's probably my own fault.
simantel 13y ago
Here's the fox all on his lonesome, though not exactly in logo form: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_to_mobile_oses_fox_you.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_...
- keeperofdakeys 13y ago
  There was also a special fox made by Mozilla Japan a few years back http://www.foxkeh.com/downloads/ http://www.foxkeh.com/downloads/

simonz05 13y ago

Somehow I still prefer Jon Hicks original re-brand of the phoenix logo the best. That is the 2004-2005 version displayed in the article. See [1] for an earlier evolution write-up of the brand logo. http://thinsmek.com/a-history-of-the-firefox-icon-and-details-on-the-3-5-logo/ http://thinsmek.com/a-history-of-the-firefox-icon-and-detail...

kibwen 13y ago

I wish there was some more contrast on the continents, but otherwise I think it looks nice (and they finally fixed the arm!!). However, given that one of the stated reasons for the change is "SVG compatibility", I'm surprised that there's no link to an SVG version. And the official Mozilla branding page doesn't seem to be updated yet: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/firefox/branding/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/firefox/br...

anonymfus 13y ago

This looks unbalanced. Right side has much more colours than left.

chiph 13y ago
Region 2 in the article is the back of the fox -- they removed all the fur, which I think is an important detail. There's some color variation up by the shoulder/neck area that sort-of looks like it, but it's too subtle. Thumbs-up on removing the high gloss, though. (yeah yeah, everyone's a critic)

byandyphillips 13y ago

"Simplifying a style doesn’t always mean bringing it down to basic geometric shapes and solid colors." Cough... cough... iOS7

lttlrck 13y ago
And Google, Microsoft, ... Though really iOS7 is the least flat looking.

badman_ting 13y ago

I guess they had it right the first time.

malandrew 13y ago

It lost a lot of depth on the left hand side. Instead of looking like the back of a fox, it just looks like an amorphous shape with a tail. 2009-2013 was the best on the left hand side.

archagon 13y ago

I started reading this article with a burning prejudice against overly nitpicky designers, but I have to say, each change here makes perfect sense and contributes to a more cohesive whole. Never thought Firefox of all places would be a good place to read about design. Great work! In regards to the flatness and lack of detail that some people are complaining about: when I look at the Firefox icon in my taskbar, I don't parse it as a fox and a globe but rather as an abstract red/blue circle. The simplified design will make this easier to read -- much more in line with, for example, the Chrome logo.

bluetidepro 13y ago
> "Never thought Firefox of all places would be a good place to read about design." Why's that? Firefox has always had incredible design aspects to their products?
- scott_karana 13y ago
  I don't know if always is quite true, but they've been pretty solid for the last three years or so, definitely :)
  - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
    Many of us long-time Firefox users have actually found the past three years to be the worst so far, in terms of design. The rush to copy Chrome in appearance and behavior has essentially ruined what was a decent experience before. What's worse is that the design changes haven't actually brought any benefits, either. And to make it even worse, there has been nothing to suggest that things will actually improve any time soon. Firefox's declining market share over this period is very good evidence that people are not happy with it. It initially became popular because it provided a better experience than other browsers; now it's declining because it's providing a worse experience, and the recent changes clearly haven't been helping the situation.
    - archagon 13y ago

will_brown 13y ago

Oddly, until reading this article I was always under the impression the Shepard Fairey created the Firefox logo...something seemed off redesigning the Firefox logo and not mentioning Shepard, so I looked into it and... It turns out Shepard Fairey created the red "Mozilla.org logo and mascot" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_%28mascot%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_%28mascot%29).

ronaldx 13y ago

I gather this is driven by SVG: an efficient use of a minimal number of bezier curves (quite literally, reticulating splines). It would be a nice project to automatically recreate existing image files as efficient SVGs. However, this procedure seems to make things look flat and textureless.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Someone 13y ago

Interesting that they aim to have a single resolution-independent logo ("This tied into another goal of having the image hold up with greater clarity at smaller sizes" and "with high resolution displays in mind"), while traditionally, advice was to tweak icons to their display size and resolution. For example, https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/userexperience/conceptual/applehiguidelines/IconsImages/IconsImages.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/... says "redraw art as you scale down" and "do not use the standard-resolution 32x32 icon as the 16x16@2 icon". Similarly, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa511280.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa51... says "Simply scaling down from the 256x256 size does not work" and "As an icon gets smaller, transparency and some special details found in larger sizes should be sacrificed in order to simplify and get the point across." This isn't purely by technological choice ("we want a svg logo"), as one can somewhat build a svg where the level of detail varies depending on display size (http://timkadlec.com/2013/04/media-queries-within-svg/ http://timkadlec.com/2013/04/media-queries-within-svg/). So it's either a deliberate "it's better that way" choice, or a "better one really good logo than a couple of less good ones", or they weren't aware of media queries, or they don't think them supported well enough.

ricardobeat 13y ago
Clarity at smaller sizes depends on color & contrast, not small details. Of course they will do manually-optimized 16, 32 and 64px versions.

pertinhower 13y ago

Am I alone in thinking that the 2005–09 logo is clearly the strongest image? I'd like to see the results of a poll. Designers can talk their way into all sorts of things; a bit of objective measurement of opinion would be interesting.

asperous 13y ago
It's very subjective, but I agree with you. It's colorful, simple, balanced. Full of character and life.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
That was my initial thought too, but ultimately I have no problem with them simplifying the logo to make it SVG-friendly, even if the first pass results in an oversimplification. In a few years, the next pass will probably be done in SVG first and might get a little more detail back. >The first step in the rebuild was to go in and strip out all the detail that was using blend mode layering such as multiply, screen and overlay – mostly found in the tail area 1. As stated, a key goal of the redesign was to make it work flawlessly in SVG as well as open up the possibility to rebuild all the internal structure using SVG and CSS gradients. >Having reduced the logo down to its shape-tweaked forms 2 and softer gradients, we continued to remove any detail we thought wasn’t critical to the overall image. This tied into another goal of having the image hold up with greater clarity at smaller sizes.

mkehrt 13y ago

Man, I always thought the FF logo was a good example of a complex logo that worked really well. The new one is a little too simple.

bsimpson 13y ago

For an article about how it is now SVG-compatible for improved display on retina-class screens, it sure does look crappy on my Chromebook Pixel. Would have been nice if they used retina-quality assets in the announcement...

mehmehshoe 13y ago

The word simple must be the word for today. From the payment processor to arguments for and against simple coding..arrrgh. Do you want a simple logo? Do what USA Today did to their logo. Have a third grader spill blue paint.

adamors 13y ago
Simple and flat are the words of 2013.
jimmaswell 13y ago
But spilled paint doesn't have simple enough geometry!

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago

Downvote me to hell but I can't stand the new logo. It's the little things, the designer is on the right track, simplification is the right direction but... The new 2013 logo is unbalanced & dull. 1) First it's extremely unbalanced, all the eye popping color, depth, & detail is in the tail with nearly no highlights on the left side of the logo. 2) The fur on the end of the tail is 3D, slightly wrapping itself around the globe. Why? Why simplify the whole logo and leave the tail with the same awful complexities as the previous 09-13 logo? The tails in the 04-05 and 05-09 are near perfection and more simple. The newer tails add unnecessary detail yet they were kept. 3) It's inconsistently flat. Usually flat coincides with simple, but the logo's complex outlines have actually been exaggerated while the coloring has been flattened and simplified. The fox's head and torso on the other hand were nicely simplified (aside from the little hairs added all over). 4) It's dull. What was once planet earth is now a dull blue ball with coffee stains. 5) The gradient of orange to yellow is too hard. The entire fox is orange then sharply turns to yellow after the tail starts. The gradient change in the 04-05 version is perfect. The new logo's gradient is harsh and too distracting. 6) Micro-details were added. Why? I thought this was about simplifying? Look at the fox's fur on it's back. There's little tiny hairs that have been added that weren't there in the 04-05 and 05-09 version. There's no reason for those to be there. When the logo is shrunk and viewed at it's normal size they won't even be visible, why not just remove them altogether. In fact the ears have added hairs as well. It's easily salvageable and the designer was on the right track: Just bright up planet earth, contrast the continents from the ocean more, remove the 3D-ness of the fox's tail, further simplify or remove the tail's inner fur spikes, and soften the gradient of orange to yellow that runs across the fox's body and get rid of those annoying hairs that one can only see when zoomed in 400%.

frankcaron 13y ago
Although I'm less passionate about it, I tend to agree with ChrisNorstrom's comments that the change doesn't seem change enough to warrant neither this level of attention nor such a "detailed" analysis of the changes. Sure, "good design doesn't mean flat" in this post-iOS 7 world, but at the same time, dropping a few details is hardly a revolution.
- 13y ago

rkuykendall-com 13y ago

My browser didn't want to resize the page smaller than 25%, so I made this to visualize the logos at very small sizes: http://rkuykendall.com/uploads/fx-logos-small.png http://rkuykendall.com/uploads/fx-logos-small.png

brokenparser 13y ago

Dear Firefox, Please don't. Sincerely, the Internet

anigbrowl 13y ago

And in 2-3 years there'll be another post 'explaining' how the 2013 logo was too dull or the gradients lacked dynamics or something, and there'll be another logo that's basically the same with marginal changes, because people basically can't resist the urge to tweak. I appreciate that people get bored and design sensibilities change. But spare us the long-winded itemization of why this is 'objectively' better, when it's obviously a simple matter of taste.

ricardobeat 13y ago
Fair point, but it is objectively better at small sizes (see comments above), a bit similar to the original one.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I don't really agree. I liked the second one best, but I presume there was some good reasons for the last version they adopted as well.
Systemic33 13y ago
A blog post with just pictures of the new design obviously doesn't make an interesting blogpost xD

kepano 13y ago

This is mostly about the transition to SVG, not really a "brand evolution". The new logo is fine, not that much better or worse than any of the other variations shown. I don't get the hoopla. I like what Wolff Olins did for Firefox OS and would love to see Mozilla take major new steps in that direction, with more radical changes to the logo (which frankly has always looked like a shrimp at favicon size): http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_to_mobile_oses_fox_you.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/mozilla_...

NanoWar 13y ago

I hate this current "make it flat" movement. Ok, it's good so smoothen the logo a bit, the oval light on top wasn't super pretty, but the grade of details (in the fox!) were just about perfect.

da_n 13y ago

I have never really liked the Firefox logo much. I guess this is a decent compromise given what they've got, and looking at an example of what a completely flat Firefox logo would look like it just doesn't quite work, think this is a at least a step forward. http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/85101/513/browser_firefox_flat_mozilla_icon http://www.iconfinder.com/icondetails/85101/513/browser_fire...

keeperofdakeys 13y ago
Mmm, the logo you linked seems to have lost all meaning concerning the globe. When I look at it, the blue sphere doesn't seem to fit well. The fox also seems just a bit too rounded.
rangibaby 13y ago
Pretty cool. The arm does look like an erect penis though.
andyhmltn 13y ago
Although it looks a lot better than I thought it would in that style, it's too dull and doesn't really portray the message the FF icon is attempting. The only reason I noticed it was to do with firefox was because the original is so recognisable. This one just looks like either: A fox hugging a blue ball A fox on its back looking into the sky

inthewind 13y ago

Never really been a fan of the Firefox logo. Why not go for a revolution? Just use the Red Panda as inspiration for something very cutsey and recognisable. Bin the current logo. I like the idea of the ship's wheel in the navigator logo, and the compass in Safari. As for the other logos they don't do anything for me (oh alright, IceWeasel is quite a funny knock off, and Nightly's is boringly okay.)

lucb1e 13y ago
Weird, I always disliked Safari's compass and really did like Firefox' logo.
acturbo 13y ago
might as well rename FireFox to RedPanda too ;)
- inthewind 13y ago
  The Firefox name is kind of catchy (and known) so I wouldn't go that far. ;) I think the name started it started out as Phoenix, then Firebird - which they couldn't use as it was a database, and then was named Firefox. I quite like the transition. Not sure if it was Clint Eastwood inspired or not. I like the way that Firefox is the Red Panda - so it's nice that it kind of has that evolution. It so happens that the Firefox is rare and is totally cute. There was an icon floating around on Linux which was based on the panda that I liked - and the panda has loads of potential for a lovely icon.

lucb1e 13y ago

Oh I thought it was a lazy designer that left out all the details in the Firefox logo. Never imagined it was actually a new logo. Didn't really notice it a lot though anyway, not sure you can even call this a new logo.

zipop 13y ago

It wasn't a good logo to begin with. Lets start there. It's trying too hard to be literal and fit into the blue round boundaries of most other browser logos. And I honestly don't know whether the tail is supposed to be stylized fire or not. The asymmetry and distracting hi lights bother me too. In order to evolve and mature a logo it has to be solid to begin with. Otherwise updating it just makes it fall apart.

OGC 13y ago

Jerking it, Firefox edition. Nobody cares about the details as 99% of the users will look at this logo in a 16x16 or 32x32 px version. Is it a fox hugging a globe? Is the fox red/orange? Yes? Is it somewhat detailed? Okay. _Good enough_.

famousactress 13y ago

I don't care about the new logo, or the old one... I just clicked the comments link to confirm what's at this point become pretty well documented on HN: all articles introducing new graphic designs of any kind will be hated. Not that it's not justified, but I'd challenge anyone to pull up an example to the contrary. I'm sure someone can find one, and it'll probably somehow involve Stripe :)

crazygringo 13y ago
It's funny... I think there might actually be a good reason for this. In so much of my experience, it often seems like version 1.0 (or sometimes 2.0 or 3.0) is the best version of something. All the original creators are still on board, the interface is straightforward, the functionality is clear, the product is good. But then, by the time you get to 4.0+, the original creators have moved on, a new team comes in looking to make their mark, and suddenly a graphic overhaul is introduced, they start focusing on "content" or "exposing features" or whatnot, the interface loses organization and coherence, and bad decisions start being made. I don't know of a name for this phenomenon, but it almost seems to be the rule rather than the exception. But it may explain why people seem to be so anti-change -- because, so many times, the change actually is just pointless or bad.
blowski 13y ago
I don't think it's limited to new graphic designs. Any kind of change at all is met with instinctive vitriol. If posts looked more like "These bits are good. These bits need work. These bits should be scrapped entirely." then it would be easier to call them constructive. As it is, they just seem uncompromisingly conservative and pointless.

jathu 13y ago

wtf is up with the whole "flat" trend? first microsoft, then apple and now firefox. lack of depth does not look "good".

alanh 13y ago

I am experiencing extreme design rage that they kept the way the blue globe shows through in ragged edges of the tail. It’s pointless, distracting, and violent. “Violent,” you wonder? “Surely you are insane and hyperbolic.” I am neither. Look at those spots and tell me they don’t look like a cheese grater. I wouldn’t touch this icon if it existed in 3D space. Would you?

tbirdz 13y ago

I wonder if Debian will make a similarly flattened new logo for their Iceweasel version of Firefox.

BaconJuice 13y ago

That blog layout is gorgeous, anyone know what it is? I'm guessing it a custom made skin by him.

acturbo 13y ago
from the source, looks like WordPress
- mh- 13y ago
  indeed, the WP theme is https://github.com/viewportindustries/starkers https://github.com/viewportindustries/starkers can see here: http://blog.seanmartell.com/wp-content/themes/simplified/style.css http://blog.seanmartell.com/wp-content/themes/simplified/sty...

pearjuice 13y ago

I can't believe so much time has gone into iterating a logo which was pretty acceptable to begin with, when so many other areas need work.

OrsenPike 13y ago
I see your point but this is obviously a graphics guy (or girl) and probably not a programmer to the level that is require for a lot of the work on Firefox. Now if this new logo were designed by a developer on OdinMonkey I would say it was time wasted as they could be doing a lot more important thing but I don't think this is the case :)

sunseb 13y ago

First logo was more punchy/constrasted ! New one is inexpressive.

sn0v 13y ago

I remember the hullabaloo when the 'flat' Chrome logo was introduced, but people have gotten used to it as well. Seems to me like the FF logo will undergo a similar transition :)