Now for the fun part of Mozilla’s logo design.

Kelsey wrote on August 17, 2016 at 12:17 pm:

I think the Mavericks M, while awesome in style, won’t stand the test of time. It might be too “on trend” for what is considered to be stylish. Same goes for The Connector. I love it, trust me, I love the colors and the brightness and ever single letterform, but it’s just a little too “on trend”.

The Eye isn’t as appealing nor as “light” as the other logos. It feels very heavy and I’m not sure that’s what the company is going for. While it’s a great concept, its execution makes it a little less than compared to the other logo options.

The two stand-outs for me is the Protocol and the Wireframe mark. Sure, they both have their trendiness but they also have a (literal) point behind them (and in them). It is a clear point and it’s very easy to tell why each logo would be used for this particular company. In my opinion, you can’t go wrong with either one!

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 17, 2016 at 9:22 pm:

   Thanks for the detailed feedback, Kelsey.

Skatox wrote on August 17, 2016 at 12:33 pm:

I like de Moz://a logo, maybe retouched to no make it hard for the people. The impossible M is good but too wide.

Stay away for the eyes, seems like: We are watching you!! So much 1984, I believe this the logo to represent the opposite of what it is Mozilla.

I believe you can generate more ideas.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 18, 2016 at 2:57 pm:

   Thanks for the feedback, Skatox. It’s most likely we’ll continue to work on refining these ideas based on a combination of thoughts expressed here on the blog, design expertise, and the best way to communicate the Mozilla brand in the world. Glad you are part of the conversation.

Hdurham wrote on August 17, 2016 at 1:24 pm:

The first one makes me think of Monsters, Inc or Gravity Falls. I am not a fan of any of the designs, really. It does not accurately depict Mozilla as I see it in my mind. If having to choose, I like the concept of a logo like “The Connector” creating the words “Mozilla” in the design, but I’m not a fan of that particular design. I like how it translate to the Egypt and Brasil logos. It shows similarity so a consumer (hopefully) would automatically think Mozilla because of the consistent design feature. I would tweek the main logo if it was my choice and eliminate the mix of colors. Too much.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 18, 2016 at 2:45 pm:

   Thanks for contributing to this conversation, Hduram, and for your reactions to The Connector.

Bogdan wrote on August 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm:

I don’t really think I like any one of these. Let’s start with the yellow one. First of all, I didn’t even notice an eye at first, and is an eye really what Mozilla means? I don’t think so. The design might fit some brands but definetly not Mozilla. The connector one is by far the most interesting, but there’s just too much going on for a logo, it would look awesome with a ton of simplification. “Open button” more like generic logo, if it didn’t say Mozilla I would’ve never thought. The protocol one is great, but not what I would call “appropriate”. It’s too “simple”, when comparing to the simple old mozilla text, it’s like putting the IE logo side by side with Edge logo. Moreover it looks like :/ The wireframe one is decent, but just like the first one, not really what fits the brand the best (IMHO), but it’s closer to home. If it is chosen I won’t go screaming “Mozilla isn’t what it used to be”. After that we have windows 98. And the last one looks like a cutout, I don’t even get it.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 19, 2016 at 2:05 pm:

   Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts, Bogdan. Stay tuned as we continue to refine these directions.

Meh wrote on August 17, 2016 at 3:01 pm:

The Protocol one is the best one. Feels the least pretentious, while the rest exudes that pseudo-intellectual art museum feeling that one wants to cringe at. Most of it is visually tiring as well.
Stick to practicality and directness, throw the “trying to be deep with the abstract” out the window.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 17, 2016 at 7:49 pm:

   Thanks for contributing to this effort, Meh.

Doug Pelton wrote on August 17, 2016 at 9:39 pm:

My top three:

1) The Connector – I like the concept, font and the colors. The idea of morphing for each country is really nice. Mozilla Brazil pops.
2) Flik Flak – this is a cool idea. Again I like the font. Might be a bit busy. Could be cool if it was animated.
3) The Eye – I like the eye but the font is very heavy with all caps and bold. The eye reminds me of the Opera browser, so could be some confusion.

It would be nice to continue to have a Wordmark as an option. I like the font for The Connector alone in black as an option.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm:

   Thanks for the feedback, Doug. If you go to the post related to Flik Flak. At the end you’ll find a simple gif showing motion. More animations of the others to come tomorrow.

Dan Callahan (:callahad) wrote on August 17, 2016 at 10:11 pm:

Hi Tim,

It’s great to be able to see this process unfolding. I can’t wait to see where we end up. I don’t want to detract from such early concepts, but none of the concepts feel imbued with the Mozilla’s humanity or attitude. Thus far, I’m left furtively hoping that we’ll excavate The Dino.

Impossible M is gorgeous, but lacks character. It mostly reminds me of the exhibit advertisements I see on the side of my local modern art museum. The animated treatment seems to take more than a little inspiration from MTV’s early identity.

The developer in me loves Protocol, but I also wonder if it hews a bit too closely to Slashdot and cURL’s logos, or if it might be mistaken for Moz, the SEO company. It’s also interesting that Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Opera all hide the ‘://’ protocol delimiter in their address bars. Tying our identity to a disappearing symbol might not be the best long-term bet.

I love how Wireframe World’s perspective can flip depending on which faces are shaded, but… where’s the humanity? Or the Mozilla? Substitute “MoMA” for “Mozilla” and you’d still have a believable mark.

The Connector is lovely in a 90’s kind of way, but it’s also an illegible wordmark. The tiled pattern is even worse on that account. And while the MozFest, All Hands, MDN, and Maker Party logos look quite nice alongside each other, they’ll never be presented so close together in practice. Without that proximity for immediate comparison, I don’t think I’d recognize them as part of the same brand.

Nothing about The Open Button speaks “Open” or “Web” or “Mozilla” to me. I get a very “bloomberg.com” vibe from the typeface and colors.

Flik Flak is super fantastic, but it still falls “flat” for me, again like something I’d see on the side of my local modern art museum. It’s just too… thin and constructed. How would it have a voice? Where’s the warmth and emotional attachment? Would a shape that complex even be recognizable from afar, or in black and white?

The Eye immediately reminds me of caution tape, construction sites (Caterpillar!), and the evil Eye of Sauron. Oddly enough, I also can’t find a past depiction of our Dino with reptilian pupils. Go figure.

Good luck! I’m eagerly following along,
-Dan

PS: Seriously, everything about the eyeballs freaks me out. The proposed MDN logo could double as a Lovecraftian horror. Nobody wants to open a pitch black book and find an unblinking, eldritch eye staring directly into their soul. Or go to a (Maker) Party filled with nine other scrutinizing eyes. Eep.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 19, 2016 at 2:20 pm:

   Thanks for taking the time to construct thoughtful feedback, Dan. Here’s text from a poster we shared at the June All Hands meeting in London with regards to the dino:

   What about the dino head?

   Created by artist Shepherd Fairey, later known as the illustrator for
   the Obama HOPE poster, the Mozilla dino head logo was retired from
   public view in 2013. Although it lives on in on MDN and communications within the Mozilla family, it’s unlikely to rise to become the Mozilla logo again.

   As lovable as this paleo mascot is, as a logo it doesn’t help explain Mozilla’s role in the world. A great logo is both distinctive and descriptive, and the dino head leads to heavily toward the former. The dino will always be invited to Friends & Family Day.

Edy Pang wrote on August 18, 2016 at 5:08 am:

Too… many… options, Mozilla.

You looks struggling with your own identity.

You ask me which one I like? Well, I hate them all. You should know that I HATE THEM ALL. Each design has contrast character differences (NOT JUST “THEME” VARIANTS), make us confuse what you want —what are you trying to tell us about YOU, yourself, your character.

I am speechless (and not “positively”). MiMoz
But probably, this is how open source works.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 19, 2016 at 2:33 pm:

   Hi Edy,
   Does this help explain at all why we feel this brand work is important? https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/
   Thanks for continuing to push us toward greatness.

Luke Tonge wrote on August 18, 2016 at 5:23 am:

Fascinating process, brave and admirable. I couldn’t do it!

Not here to pass comment on the work, just to make an observation. My opinion of many of the routes changed significantly once I’d seen more of the graphic language, animations etc. on the JB site:

http://johnsonbanks.co.uk/thoughtfortheweek/our-first-design-routes-for-mozilla/

I would suggest anyone passing comment views more of the work before forming opinions. Looking forward to seeing where this goes, and if the ‘open’ nature of the process is helpful or harmful. Best of luck with it all :)

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 19, 2016 at 2:34 pm:

   Really appreciate the rallying cry and suggestion, Luke! And don’t call me Shirley.

Posted Grubb wrote on August 18, 2016 at 8:42 am:

I thought the reptilian eye was an allusion to the old dinosaur. I like the dinosaur, but I don’t like the eye nor the sub icons created with the eye. Too many eyeballs.. creepy.

Connector has potential, but also potential to be bland and express no solid identity.

Open button is cryptic, hieroglyphic nonsense. Mozilla does not make elevator buttons and is not a mass transit authority, which is what all the arrows make me think of. Besides, it looks ugly.

Protocol is boring. Most modern browsers hide the protocol portion of the URL, so it’s not going to be recognizable.

Wireframe has no expression of identity.

Impossible M is an intriguing shape, but the colors and shading are poor choices. It also reminds me of Monsters, Inc… toyish.

Flick Flak has potential, especially the ‘MZ’ variant. The one with all the letters is hard to read. With sideways wordmark, it reminds me of a modern art museum… Which has nothing to do with Mozilla.

Were there no other ideas about characters such as dinosaurs and foxes? Word-logos tend to be impersonal and boring, IMHO.

Marco Frezza wrote on August 18, 2016 at 8:58 am:

Assuming you’re keeping the same brand architecture then I’d say keep it simple. For that, I really like the Moz://a, but it doesn’t feel particularly resolved yet.

If you were going down the branded house route with your products (and I doubt you are, but if you were) then I think The Impossible M or Flip Flap would have the most legs to build a design language around.

tr33ty wrote on August 18, 2016 at 9:13 am:

In order of appearance: Surveillance, native (maybe African) culture, Penguin/Toucan bird, geeky smart (as opposed to general smart), architectural bureau, Moebius M, Lego for 3-5yr.
Mosaic/godzilla wordplay ideas discarded or nobody suggested?

Danielle wrote on August 18, 2016 at 2:28 pm:

I love the flexibility and vibrant spirit of both Design Route B: The Connector and Design Route G: Flik Flak! The Connector is my favorite: it easily handles all the necessary uses, reads clearly as a single mark (privacy, open web, etc) or as a pattern (Mozfest, etc) and, importantly, looks smashing on a tote bag or t-shirt. Also, the country logos look incredible in this design language. To my eyes, some of the other options look dated or are not flexible enough for all the necessary uses.

Tyson wrote on August 18, 2016 at 4:29 pm:

Let’s talk about color and the maturity it reflects. Back in the 1970s and 80s, before color printing technology became what it is, logos were designed with multiple colors only to give an expensive impression. Now that full color print is commonplace, multiple color does nothing but distract.
Also I’ve noticed that while bolder, heavily saturated colors appeal to young children, adults tend to prefer de-saturated tones, something that’s not “100-of-something”. (the exception of course being stark black and white.)
Why not choose a more muted single or pair of colors with character?

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 18, 2016 at 11:41 pm:

   Thanks for the insights into color preferences by age, Tyson. Very interesting perspective.

Gerald wrote on August 18, 2016 at 5:19 pm:

My favorite is… The Firefox logo!

I love Mozilla the company, and its history, but as a brand it’s clearly not making an impression on most people compared to Firefox. I’m not sure trying to grow awareness through some artistic exercise will really help. Let’s just become Firefox Co/Fo!

But if you insist, I’d go: 2. impossible M with different colors, 3. moz://a, 4. wireframe.
I like flik-flak but it’s unreadable, I don’t dislike connector but it’s also unreadable, and I don’t want to talk about the others.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 18, 2016 at 11:40 pm:

   Thanks, Gerald. Our data shows that people who know more about Mozilla are more loyal users of Firefox, more engaged in the work we do (such as signing petitions, taking action for a healthier web, and making informed choices). There’s a strong case to be made for keeping our two brands – Firefox as a product brand and Mozilla as a change agent. Thanks for you suggestions on Impossible M, Protocol, and Wireframe.

Phil wrote on August 18, 2016 at 7:16 pm:

Stick with the logo you have, none of these are better. There’s too much tendency towards change for the sake of it in design.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 18, 2016 at 11:34 pm:

   Thanks for the comment, Phil. We do not have a logo. The creative assets we have today – the word Mozilla and a few colors – are not sufficient to communicate in the modern world. This initiative is meant to create the assets we need to get people more engaged and interested in Mozilla, understand what we do, and help us tell our story with visuals. Please stay tuned and let us know what you think as we continue to design and refine the work.

   1. Znuff wrote on August 20, 2016 at 5:52 pm:

      Then this is…?

Nathan Bylok wrote on August 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm:

Of the finalists, Open Button, Flik Flak, The Connector to me hold the most promise and potential.

Of the three, I would say Flik Flak is my favourite. It takes a novel approach by distilling Mozilla down to a schematic of sorts, representing to me how the web is comprised of a series of components built on top of one another that together create the content we see and interact with.

The way the shapes are created and fold also present an exciting challenge and opportunity for building out the brand.

Open Button and The Connector both represent minimalist conceptualizations of what Mozilla, as an open-source, not-for-profit, to me stands for when it comes to building the web: Openness, inclusivity, the human connection. That said, whilst both have great potential in the build out of the brand, I do see their approach as an expected one.

To speak of the others I did not select, Protocol, Wireframe World seem too simple, lacking in potential. The Impossible M to me does not represent Mozilla’s mission or purpose (I almost see it as being more suited to a printing company), whereas whilst I understand The Eye returns to Mozilla’s earlier days, I was never personally taken by the Raptor, which I was never able to associate with what Mozilla does.

Juan wrote on August 18, 2016 at 11:09 pm:

None of them are really good to be consider as starting point.. I think you should consider to start from scracth and gives more basic directions to the guys who like to participate into this process, because right now, I dont see any potential on any of those logos.

My two cents:
1. The eye: Looks like mordor and kill bill togheter.
2. The connector: It looks quite nice in only one layout (whe it is readeable), else than that, is just like a clever puzzle.
3. Open button: This looks extremely generic… in fact, I think this could be more related to microsoft and the xbox 360 than an open source company
4. Protocol: Is something that resemble the born of the intenet and the main idea ( I think) is to renovate not to make a resemblanse to the old glory days… is to move forward and looking to the future, not looking to the past… so please dont.
5. Wireframe: Lazy
6. The impossible M: Again, this is a look to the past not to the future, this logo could be done in a Pc 80386 in the early 90s using Logo programming language ( if you are old enough, you shoul know about this DOS software)
7. Flik Flak: Not cleaver, not visually appealing… maybe looking the animation could be cool, but for an still logo, this doesnt means anything.

Conclusion:
Pleas start from scratch and make this event more world wide and share this even within Designs universities that have a bunch of studendts full of cool ideas that just want to participate.

Eeva Lamminen wrote on August 19, 2016 at 12:40 am:

I love the Impossible M! In my opinion it describes Mozzilla and open source software very well – no limits. It’s fun and modern.

Nico wrote on August 19, 2016 at 2:30 am:

Wow, some of these propals looks like amateurish. :-(

“The Eye” is an really bad concept: it looks like big brother is watching you, the opposite of Mozilla’s value of privacy. Or Sauron’s eye, which is not better.

“The connector” is too complicated. I love Mozilla, and I didn’t recognise the word in it. Logo must be simpler. The other image looks like somebody is swimming. Not a good idea : we are struggling in the water…

“Choose Open” : I don’t even recognize Mozilla strong identity in it. Is it a new logo for Winamp player ? :-]

“The protocol” is cool: that’s my favourite in the list. The execution should however be far better. But there is a lot of potential.

“The wireframe” looks like a black-and white wireframe, not finished, not modern. :-\

“The impossible M” gives that Mozilla is not possible. Please no. And the execution looks like a 5$ logo in 1990s.

“The flick-flack” is too complex to be recognized.

MadCatX wrote on August 20, 2016 at 4:09 am:

Well, I have to say right away that I like none of the concepts, some are bad, others are worse. If I had to say something about each of them, it’d probably be this:

The Eye: I’m uncertain how the eye connects to anything that Mozilla does, in some of its incarnations if looks dangerously close to Opera’s “O”. As was already pointer out, is the All Seeing Eye a good logo for an Internet-oriented company at times when Internet privacy and security are one of the hottest topics?

The Connector: I’ll admit that the logo looks fresh and lively, but the overall arrangement and color choice suggests something I’d expect to find on the doors of a kids toys store.

Open Button: The color choice is terrible and the overall feel is sort if “artificial”; it seems to be screaming “Hey, I was designed to be a logo of a company” at me. Also, am I the only one who finds it kind of… suggestive?

Protocol: This one is the one I find the most tolerable. On the other hand it looks kind of uninspired and sterile.

Wireframe world: I’m uncertain what to say about this one except that it just doesn’t work for me. I’m sorry that I can’t be more constructive about this one.

The Impossible M: I consider this to be the worst one. The color palette evokes Pinball Dreams with incorrectly chosen video adapter. It also has the kind of 1980’s feel to it. It’d be cool if you were aiming for retro, but that’s not your goal here, right?

Flik Flak: I happen to kind of like this one. At least there is some originality to it. The full “Mozilla” tower is probably too big and complicated, but the simpler “Moz” is pretty fun. Plus it looks a bit like a stood-up cobra:)

To put this in a bit of perspective, all of the fictional companies featured in the “Silicon Valley” TV series have much better artwork than anything I can find here and that is something that only needs to be shown for a few seconds on a screen every now and then. I’m sorry to everyone who worked on this but unfortunately that’s how I feel about it…

Joe Lackner wrote on August 20, 2016 at 9:08 am:

I like the moz://a concept, but not the execution. Take the idea and push it through new variations.

The first one (the eye) is amazing, but the negative connotations with the eye and online privacy should be avoided.

Ryan Quinn wrote on August 20, 2016 at 11:05 am:

These are all awful, and they look dated now.

The current branding is awesome. It’s clean, it has character, and it’s adaptable.

The Eye is the absolute worst of the worst. I get it. It’s a reptile eye, but it also looks like the Eye Sauron and a vagina.

You’re going to have to explain the Open Button, and that’s not a good thing. It’s not obvious what it is or what it represents. Neither of those colors have been part of the Mozilla family, and they are ugly. This would be good for an Internet of Things company, but not Mozilla.

The Impossible M looks like the Marvel Technologies logo, and the typeface is uninspired. Just stop with the San Serif fonts for logos. They are sterile and uninteresting.

Flik Flak is really complicated. It’s arty and interesting, but as a brand it would be good for a museum. 6 different colors?

I like the Mozilla in Wireframe World, but the wireframe figure is dated. This would have been cool for a 3D printer company in 2014.

Protocol is geeky, and I like it for development sites. For a general brand, it’s clever and people won’t get it. Don’t be clever.

The Connector is the best of the worst. Welcome to the Mid-90s, and it’s really hard to read. Initially, I had no idea what was going on with it. Once again, it’s really arty, and not a great corporate logo.

Kudos for not picking a generic colored box, but these could be better.

Chris Sawyer wrote on August 20, 2016 at 12:17 pm:

I’ve got to concur with most everyone else. You should not be trying to brand the word Mozilla. Stick to a readable typeface with a simple logo off to the side. As it is, these are just hard to read and don’t match with how I see Mozilla as a modern tech company. The eye and power button are decent technically, but don’t match the mission statement. I honestly think that you should start over with the intent of getting a simple 2d, textureless shape style logo. Maybe something incorporating the globe?

Sam Stuewe wrote on August 20, 2016 at 1:41 pm:

I am in the same camp as Aki and Justin.

It is going to be extremely difficult to separate The Eye from the feeling of surveillance.

And, several other people here have mentioned that they felt these designs could easily be exported to essentially any company or organization. To be clear, that is almost already the case. Cf. the new curl logo: .

I have been a long-time user of Firefox (been using it almost continuously since I first started using the Web really). In recent years, my confidence has been shaken by various choices that Mozilla has made (each of which seemed to be taken because Mozilla had forgotten its purpose). All of the designs above do nothing but underscore that aimlessness that shook my confidence in the first place.

If given the choice, I would scratch the rebrand effort wholesale until Mozilla has figured out what direction it should be headed in, and then a rebrand can be used to emphasize the new mission statement.

For the sake of completeness, I would like to include what I think Mozilla’s renewed mission should be:

1. Freedom (or, perhaps Liberty depending on how rigidly you separate the two concepts)
2. Diversity (or, perhaps Inclusivity or Openness; consisting of people of many different backgrounds means nothing unless everyone is welcome)
3. Community (yes, this is separate from 2. Mozilla has always thrived because of the community that surrounded it; from its contributors and from those who believed in its goal)

In thinking about the above goals, the attached images are the thought-process I went through arriving at what I feel could be a decent concept (note: I am rather obviously not a graphic designer; but they’re meant to be concepts, not finished designs).

At first, I immediately thought of a Venn Diagram between Liberty and Diversity where the overlapping center would be Mozilla.

While simple, I do not believe it adequately captured Openness as a guiding principle. So, I dropped the old Meta-Bold “m” and opened the bottom of the Venn Diagram (leaving an “M” in the overall shape).

Progress, but I still think that Community is an important part of Mozilla and should be reflected here. So I wanted to add some bounding to the concept. At first, I thought of parenthesis which could look/feel like arms enveloping the “M”. But, with the Venn being a part of the logo, parentheses seemed to just add line noise. Another large part of what makes Mozilla (or, what I believe should make Mozilla, anyway) is the web. And, in accordance with the RFC for URIs, there are only two things which you should use to surround a URL: whitespace and . seemed perfect. For the sake of style, I opted for ⟨⟩ rather than only because Linux Libertine has rather beautiful glyphs for them and they meld in well.

I should also mention that, if there were to be a fourth Guiding Principle I think Mozilla should endorse, it would be Revolution, and I do not believe the concept I offer here does anything to evoke the revolutionary spark that I would like to see.

While these designs are offered freely and without restriction (consider them Public Domain or CC0), I would prefer Mozilla did not use them without first seriously reevaluating its goals and mission.

1. Sam Stuewe wrote on August 20, 2016 at 11:32 pm:

   Seems that my images did not get attached, though I do not know why. So I have uploaded them elsewhere:

   https://ptpb.pw/ssJl.png

   https://ptpb.pw/mklJ.png

   https://ptpb.pw/ZP79.png

gazugafan wrote on August 20, 2016 at 4:03 pm:

The only designs I would move forward with are the lizard eye and the protocol.

I like the use of negative space with the lizard eye, and it did not evoke “eye of sauron” or “surveillance” to me–especially with the rest of the design. It has an “against the grain” look going for it, which I think speaks to the brand, but it would still fit in any context. It reminds me of a logo you’d see on a cool tech magazine. The more I look at it, the more I like it.

The protocol design immediately makes me think of the Internet… like “this company makes the Internet”. It’s simple. I don’t think anyone would have trouble understanding it, and it says something specific immediately. It does not, however, say anything else about the brand. It’s very impersonal seeming.

The other designs are too abstract or too generic. I hate the “open” logo. It just looks like a generic and meaningless icon. The “connector” logo is okay, but too abstract to read. The flik flak logo is ridiculously abstract, will be unusable in black and white, and is too vertical to fit in common logo locations. The impossible M is bland, but maybe with some work could be better. The wireframe design makes me think of King… which is fine I guess, but it also doesn’t really tell me anything about the Mozilla brand.

My top choice is the lizard eye design, but like so many others, I wonder if it might make sense to do another round of designs from scratch. Too many of these are non-starters.

Srap wrote on August 20, 2016 at 4:20 pm:

I have no idea who came up with these logos, but tell the man to start with the very basics: readability. They might be perceived as geeky or stylish by the one who made it (it is neither), but if it takes more than 0.2 seconds for a visually impaired man or an elderly to recognize it as a text, it has failed.

Just do what you guys did with the Firefox logo back in 2013: grab the dinosaur, and simplify it to a degree that it can be implemented in pure CSS3 or SVG.

1. jgreenspan wrote on August 22, 2016 at 3:59 pm:

   Thanks for your input, Srap, definitely an important point to bear in mind.

Andrew Ameden wrote on August 20, 2016 at 5:07 pm:

I use Firefox because of the way it works, not the way the logo looks. I detest nearly every version of IE ( I admit to not having tried whatever is the current catastrophe from Mr. Gates, but that is due to all my previous tries being so pleasurable.) I have tried Opera and Chrome and likely several I can’t remember over the years. Other than some advertising scripts on some websites locking FF up and forcing a task kill and restart, nothing “handles” better for me than FF.
In short, my vote is:
It isn’t broken; don’t “fix” it.

Rory O’Kane wrote on August 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm:

1. Eye – I like the readable but stylish letter outlines, and the contrasting whitespace. However, the eye first reminded me of the Eye of Sauron. Only after a few moments did I realize that it was referencing the Mozilla red dinosaur. I like the reference in that context, but I think most people will not know the history of the logo, and the logo will make them think of something evil always watching, like I first did. I like the colors, but having multiple eyeballs in sub-logos just looks weird. Free-floating eyeballs are gross.

2. Connectors – I found it hard to notice the letters in the square form. It looked at first like a nice-looking but simple “M” on top of some unnecessary random lines. I like the written-out word version more, especially the creative but legible layout of the letters “MoZi”. I find it harder than it should be to interpret the final caret shape as an “A”. I would enjoy the logo more if the “A” at the end were more interesting, by having a big form with interesting interlocking like the first few letters do.

3. Open Button – The elevator open button look is fine. I was actually kind of disappointed to notice that the logo could be seen as a face as well, because that makes it look more generic – more like a ripoff of LG’s logo. Anyway, I think the bright blue and magenta colors are too garish. Black with magenta would look nicer, if you want to keep magenta because of its resemblance to a mouth’s skin tone. Or perhaps you can make some other pun on an elevator open door that references the web, e.g. a globe or an ethernet port, rather than looking like a person.

4. Protocol – I don’t like the protocol look. Even after knowing that the “://” is supposed to mean “ill”, I have trouble reading the name as Mozilla – I keep on mentally sounding it out as Moz-a. Also, the M:// shorthand doesn’t make sense – it would translate to “Mill”, which has no relevant meaning. I also don’t like that the use of protocol syntax doesn’t make sense here – Mozilla isn’t a protocol or anything like it, it’s an organization. Finally, the alternating colors put confusing emphasis on “oz a”. If you want multiple colors, I would suggest having “Moz a” be the dark blue and “://” be the light blue.

5. Wireframe World – My reaction is “meh”. I don’t like that the word “Mozilla” is small in this logo.

6. Impossible M – It looks aesthetically pleasing enough, but it doesn’t feel especially relevant to Mozilla. The impossible shape isn’t clear enough to be an interesting visual puzzle – you have to look hard to even see that it’s an impossible 3D shape rather than a stylized 2D “M”. On the details page, I wish more of the proposed sub-logos used the dotted gradient, a critical feature of this logo that makes it look good. The current sub-logos have too many bright, flat colors without enough dark blue or white inside to give a break from the intensity.

7. Flik Flak – The first few times I saw it, it looked like an “M” shape on top of a pile of random junk. Now that I see the rest of Mozilla, it doesn’t look much better. The varied colors and the high contrast between the colors and greys make the whole thing look very cluttered. It might look better with either less-contrasty colors, or only two very contrasting colors. However, when I click through to the detail page, I like the look of the smaller and simpler “MOZ” version a lot more. I would prefer having that be the full logo, and not having a really tall “MOZILLA” version.

Liam wrote on August 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm:

These are so bad it’s actually terrifying. Most of all they are not memorable, at least not in any good way. There is a reason T-Rex worked. It was a memorable, a fun, and a great design. And these are a nightmare.

What ever you do, don’t go with the second one, the tribal one, and don’t go with the last one, it’s not very readable.

First one at least change the color. Some colors scream warning. Especially if they have the great Eye of Sauron. It screams danger, high levels of radiation, causes impotence.

The best so far, Protocol and The Impossible M. But boring colors and boring textures.

Others are way too generic and boring. Especially, Open Button.

Again, what ever you do don’t use the tribal one, There Connector. It’s the worst thing I’ve seen in a long time. It’s boring, it’s not memorable, it cries “look at us we are multicultural”. Only those that are not multicultural do that crap. Everybody knows Mozilla is a diverse company, no need to use a crappy logo to let others know. Let your actions speak.

1. leon wrote on August 21, 2016 at 4:23 am:

   agreed

Alex Keybl wrote on August 20, 2016 at 7:29 pm:

I’ll focus on Moz://a because (as others have suggested) it’s the only concept that isn’t incredibly generic/busy/ugly. And honestly the Eye of Sauron logo is just a ridiculous idea, and doesn’t represent Mozilla’s values at all. Probably grounds for finding a new design agency.

While Moz://a is definitely the best concept, why would you ever want a logo that harkens back to the past so heavily? It’s been years since you’ve been required to type :// into the address bar. Feels like it’s dated, confusing and inaccessible all at the same time.

Back to the drawing board guys, sorry.

Anthony Thompson wrote on August 20, 2016 at 8:03 pm:

Um, they’re all kind of awful. If you held a gun to my head and made me pick one, I’d have to say the “Protocol” one (Moz://a), but I think it’s too esoteric for most people, and in a world where some browsers are trying to hide the http(s):// part of a URL, it might soon be unrecognizable. But it *is* the best looking one in a bad bunch. (Sorry, telling it like I see it.)

Anon wrote on August 20, 2016 at 9:05 pm:

I’m not very fond of them, to be honest. For some reason many of them (C and D especially) make me think “oil company”, not a good thing. I think the fonts on A and D are too heavy and blocky, and C and F are too simple. I think the font in the current mozilla logo is good and I wouldn’t stray too far from it. If I had to pick favorites, I would choose E and G. I like E’s font better than the others, and I the wireframe idea could possibly look alright if modified, but I didn’t like any of the variations of it shown. G is the best in my opinion, I think the colors and design need some tweaking but I think it shows the most promise and that sort of style has the most potential.

Michael wrote on August 20, 2016 at 9:15 pm:

As far as I can tell, people primarily focus on the software that Mozilla produces, rather than on the organization itself. I don’t see a new logo changing that, and I don’t understand how a new logo is supposed to address the serious problem of declining desktop market share for Firefox, Mozilla’s main product. Not to mention low market share for Firefox on mobile. This logo design process makes me question the priorities of the Mozilla Foundation.

leonardo wrote on August 21, 2016 at 1:36 am:

Please just use MDN’s logo: https://developer.cdn.mozilla.net/static/img/opengraph-logo.dc4e08e2f6af.png

John Huston wrote on August 21, 2016 at 2:08 am:

The eye design reminds me of a coffee brand, the connector and flik flak are too complicated. Open button and the impossible M are old fashion. Wireframe world is ok but not so clever, so the protocol is the best of all for me but not good enough. I think you should stay with your current logo.

1. jgreenspan wrote on August 22, 2016 at 4:11 pm:

   Thanks for your input, John.

leon wrote on August 21, 2016 at 4:17 am:

I hope there is a chance for more logo candidates.

The Eye:
+ This is the only strong logo in the pack
+ it has bold colors
+ an expressive font and
+ clear color scheme.
+ it’s a word-brand thing
– It looks aged to me
– it’s not very readable
– the eye looks a bit sauron-like (maybe some cuteness might help)
– it looks like an ad campaign to me. This is what bothers me the most, but is hard to pin down. I think the yellow as a background is too strong, the smaller variants on white are much more neutral.

The connector:
– logo and brand-name separated
– no consistent color scheme
– A logo has to do it’s work quickly, the riddle of the letters will go unnoticed where it counts, it’s more like a gravatar now.
– reminds me of public transport seat patterns

Open button:
– the colors hurt my eyes. It looks cheap to me, would be nice for a phone subscription.
– I don’t get what it’s supposed to be. Something about the power button?
– round logos are not the easiest to incorporate in to design

Protocol:
+ simple, and therefore with less of the mistakes of the others
– “http://” is being omitted in modern browsers, non techy users won’t get the hint
– it confuses regarding the spelling (do I google for “moz://a” now?)
– the colors look very cold, I think it does not embrace “community”
– the font not very expressive, so the logo does not stand out and is not so recognizable
– What I think is a very bad Idea in all designs, is breaking the color scheme for variants of the logo.

Wireframe:
+ I personally like the look
+ actually with a strong enough aesthetic to pull of the variants
– looks like for nerds only
– looks very aged
– not too recognizable
– difficult to incorporate in to designs with that warped perspective

Impossible M:
+ actually has a unique mood to it
– a bit cold
– gimmicky, but if it’s just the M, not the variants that might be ok.
– apart from the gimmick little consistency in the variants, though I would prefer a little less color to make it look less like an Ikea Keith Haring image.

Flik Flak:
– unreadable
– funky colors
– not very recognizable
– my least favorite

1. leon wrote on August 21, 2016 at 4:19 am:

   whops, this half sentence was supposed to go with the Wireframe:

   ” I would prefer a little less color to make it look less like an Ikea Keith Haring image.

FF MozUzer wrote on August 21, 2016 at 6:34 am:

Hi,
In order of my preference :
1/ Protocol – I love “://” !
2/ The Eye
3/ The Open Button

I have mixed “The Eye” with MozLizard (cf : PNG attached), but I’m not very good with The Gimp (or Inkscape) to add “://” instead of “ILL”. If someone can do this and clean my mixed draft, new logo will be perfect for me ! :)

(Sorry for my bad english, i’m french)
NB : XCF is here for 60 days >>> https://frama.link/DraftMozLogo
or directly here
>>> https://framadrop.org/r/I2HYIseJMg#N0Ge2kxp83GYZ34AgVXIJaSsUFaCAiXoCMr59sPjkR8=

AK wrote on August 21, 2016 at 7:06 am:

All of these are trying very hard but end up falling short. Your current design is *much* better, stick with it. Not every change is for the better.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Barry Johnson wrote on August 21, 2016 at 7:27 am:

Thoughts on the designs, in order of preference (although a basic rank ordering does not convey the enormous gaps in preference).
Protocol design – Easily the best of the group for a brand identity, I would largely echo the positive comments already written. One note: the “M://” execution looks good, but would worry people unfamiliar with brand will read as “Mill”
Wireframe – Could grow on me.
Flik-Flak – The very basic “MOZ” part works pretty well. The unfolded “Mozilla” does not, IMHO – would be fun on an annual report maybe, but feels very busy for a mark.
The Eye – its flaws are well-described in numerous other comments. Having said that, I actually like the ideas & look in many ways, just not for this application. It is kind of cute – reminds me of Monsters, Inc. – I could see the germ of this idea, with some different execution, being a strong candidate.
Open Button is not bad, but feels like the submissions one gets on (e.g.) 99 Designs, when designers will just throw some stock work against the wall. While the circular mark is interesting enough and can be adapted in different ways, it could be stuck on to almost any other brand just as easily – nothing unique about it.
Connector – Cute, colors fine. Reminds me of the poorly-received London 2012 Olympics logo. Also the clever alternate configs are probably not terribly practical/useful as you’ll end up with more chance of conflicts with existing marks the more permutations you play with).
Impossible M – I know there is no accounting for taste, so I’ll just say I find it remarkably unpleasant. I understand some people thinking it would look great on a t-shirt, I could see that. Most other applications? I am less sure. The alternate executions are largely quite weak as well.

Hans Andersen wrote on August 21, 2016 at 7:56 am:

The eye of sauron is no good. The elevator door button is no good. The Bauhaus letter sandwich is no good. The rainbow letter carpet is no good. The etch-a-scratch is no good. The Midwest 80’s construction co. M is no good. Actually they are all no good except the moz://a which is pretty smart.

Jonathan Pritchard wrote on August 21, 2016 at 8:26 am:

Hi Mozilla. The only one I think out of the bunch is possible is the Protocol one. However I do like the Lizard connection to the Mozilla dinosaur, but agree with others comments about the yellow/black and reptile eye being reminiscent of something not altruistic but negative.

I really would like to see simpler designs and concepts. I think many of the others do not stand out and are in fact too nerdy. Not accessible.

Doc Billingsley wrote on August 21, 2016 at 10:14 am:

+1 for Protocol.

All of the others leave a bad taste… my wife just pointed out that the ‘Eye’ could also be interpreted as a very different body part. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.

Open Button looks very, very familiar but I can’t put my finger on what other brand I’ve seen using a similar look.

Also just a practical note: it would help if each of the larger designs were labeled with their name. I have to scroll back up to the top to see what each one is called; why not add captions?

Enrico wrote on August 21, 2016 at 11:26 am:

If I had to pick one it would be the wireframe one. To be sincere, I don’t like any of these new logos :/

1. jgreenspan wrote on August 22, 2016 at 4:22 pm:

   Thanks for your thoughts, Enrico. Hope to hear your thoughts on the revised concepts in September.

hipunk wrote on August 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm:

I read about a third of all these comments here, but now I’m just going to give my opinion without reading the rest. That’s just too much.

First of all: Never change a running system.
Is there a particular reason why you see the need for a rebranding?
This brings me immediately to the “Protocol”: It kind of resembles the old logo the most, while adding some new touch to it, even with a hint of what mozilla is and was about. Nevertheless it is not a complete start from the beginning. However, as some people already pointed out, it has the sad smiley face :/ in it. If you’d really go for this one, I suggest making it green instead of blue. Blue always represents a cold feeling, while green gives a relaxing vibe to the eye.

Now for the rest of the concepts. To be fair I don’t really like any of them that much, they always try to overdo stuff. Look at the logos of the most succesful entities on the IT market right now: Google changed from serif to non serif, to make it even simpler and easier to read. Same for Microsoft, the old stylized logo was exchanged for a new more lean looking one. The Apple logo went from Newton sitting under a tree to a simple one colored Apple and the term “Apple” with no additional styling to it. Other succesful things on the web, like reddit, tumblr or yahoo do the same, they reduce instead of adding to it. They are even written in lowercase, just like the current mozilla logo. And it’s successful that way..

“The Eye”. Well, nobody want’s the evil eye or Sauron watching him surf all the naughty websights, am I right? Also it looks like a vagina. A company for pussies? Excuse me, but it came to mind. I see no connection between the rest of the “The Eye” logos to mozilla – in fact I see Ubuntu because of the coffee beans.

“The Connector”. The slogan “Mozilla” beneath it is quite perfect. Simple, one colored, mozilla just written big now. Mozilla. The a is perfect in this one. The logo above it is having too much color and seems too wild. I see no connection between the logo and mozilla.

“Open Button”. This reminds me of goatse. Please do not pick this. And don’t search for goatse if you don’t know what it is, trust me on that one. Also blue and pink don’t really mix that well. I see no connection between this logo and mozilla. It kind of looks like a power button, not like a logo for a browser maker.

“Protocol”. Make it green instead of blue and we can talk. I like the approach of having possibilities with the M://, e.g. M://Firefox Phone or M://Firefox. Maybe mix this one with the Connector one? Especially the a needs to be changed in this one. The connection between mozilla and this one is evident. Have you tried making one with round : and the a round circular o and a (the a which is also to be found in “The Connector”), so that the dots of the : can fit into the a and o? In german there is a saying “Das ist das A und O” (it kind of means, “That it important”). It would be quite fitting.

“Wireframe world”. Is the web 3D? I don’t think so and I’ve seen a lot. So why wireframes? Also overdoing stuff for no reason. No connection to be seen with mozilla.

“The Impossible M”. Looks like MTV or a construction companies logo. The impossible meh. It’s also not timeless.

“Flik Flak”. I like it, but it is way too much. There is a connection to be seen, but it takes quite a lot of time to recognize it.

I hope you consider what I said, although I’m a bit late to the party here, I am a proud FF user for a very very long time now and I even call a firefox phone my own.
I’m sure you guys will figure it out, but don’t overdo something that hasn’t to be done at all!

Optical Illusion wrote on August 21, 2016 at 3:59 pm:

The Eye: It makes me think of Bill Cipher or some other evil-kind.
Protocol: Unless you are a programmer this doesn’t mean much since urls are removing the http:// from links or just auto filled in. That and regular users on the internet (which makes most of the people) are not going to understand it.
All the others are optical illusion that make my vision blur, except for ‘Open Button’ which pulses while blurring into a circle.

Yegabebar wrote on August 22, 2016 at 8:11 am:

Hello,

I think the best proposal here is the Moz://a, which is not so hard to understand if you use your brain more than five seconds. it may be a bit hard to understand for the elders, but young people will understand so it can make your logo look fresher than before.

The design based on the eye is totally badass in my opinion, (I love this idea) but some people can see it as an evil, big brother thing as it was already said. Moreover, the black/yellow colors are too flashy.

Arkeen wrote on August 22, 2016 at 8:40 am:

Moz://a is by far the best, the idea is great and it is readable, but the font/colros should be changed. Others seems way too old and have no real personnality :
– The ‘O’ of the “the eye” remind me of Opera or, as I said below, an evil eye. Colors are caterpillar-like and ugly, just like the font.
– The “connector” inspire me nothing at all (who said “modern art” ?)
– The “Open button” really, really make me think of a household appliance brand. Flashy colors are ulgy.
– The wireframe is kinda cool, but hardly readable, and what is the link with mozilla ?
– The “impossible M” looks like a poor Wordart from the 90’s, and again, do not inspire anything.
– And the “flik flak” one would eventually be okay if it was readable and if mozilla was an architectural company.

nort wrote on August 22, 2016 at 12:57 pm:

All the designs look ok on their own but, except the open button, they feel “recyclable”. Like if they don’t get picked up for Mozilla they will be used for something else. Just change the letters.

The open button idea e is nice but it’s not originally designed. Looks like a generic stock icon. Also those raw blue and magenta are just too much to handle for the eye on a screen. This blue makes me think of the blue screen of death.

These logos feel like they have been designed for a print edition/merchandising and not for digital supports.

I see three basic issues that are not being addressed :

Colours have cultural, social and psychological connotations. It silly to use colour just for visual effects.

As much as you want to convey a message with your logo. A logo is not a conceptual art piece. Once the logo is installed, nobody is going to go read what you meant.

Spelling the word “Mozilla” in your logo. You’ve said it yourself. You don’t have an icon, you do have a name. Make an icon, not a stylised word.

1. jgreenspan wrote on August 23, 2016 at 12:58 pm:

   Thanks very much for your thoughtful review, Nort.

Matrix Akira wrote on August 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm:

Moz://a is the best but none of them are really good for a logo change.

i dont think they are good for mozilla.

i would start over.

DT wrote on August 23, 2016 at 4:54 am:

What about this concept?

1. Christoph Walz wrote on August 23, 2016 at 8:32 am:

   Rather close to: http://www.prosiebensat1.de/bundles/front/img/brand.svg

Karel Súkup wrote on August 23, 2016 at 5:35 am:

It is true, The Connector is really good! But I think, Moz://a is the best one.

Ben Francis wrote on August 23, 2016 at 6:03 am:

My first impression is that I don’t prefer any of the concepts here to our existing wordmark, but I understand we need a stronger visual identity.

The two I like the most are probably The Connector and Protocol, but here’s some feedback on each:

The Eye

Black and yellow looks like hazard tape, the lizard eye is creepy and reminiscent of the Eye of Sauron. The male T-shirt design shows how it could be softened to be a bit more friendly and fun looking, but as others have said it just looks like Monsters Inc. How would this be scaled down to a favicon? The eyeball on its own is just creepy.

The Connector

I like the tribal/circuitry direction of this. It’s very versatile and feels fresh. Again, I don’t think this would scale down well to favicon size, the typeface of the accompanying text is boring and the visual design stretched out into individual letters on the baseball cap design isn’t very readable. I think the logo would actually work better in conjunction with the Meta Bold typeface of our existing wordmark, or the similar Fira Sans (bold) typeface we had made. I’d say overall this is my favourite design direction of the ones presented here.

Open Button

First, I don’t like the colours. They’re too close to Flickr’s colours. Second, it took me a while to get that this was referencing lift (elevator) doors. My first impressions were of some kind of media controls, which would fit more with an audio/video related business. The animations are cute but don’t really make me think of the Internet. I much prefer the all-white logo on the t-shirt design, that actually looks pretty cool, but I’m not sure people will get it.

Protocol

This really appeals to my nerdy side and I think it’s quite clever. I think the wordmark works better in one colour for simplicty. I wonder how this will scale down to favicon size, that seems challenging. There’s not much graphical design going on here. My concern is that it might be too nerdy, and that for a lot of people it will just difficult to read.

Wireframe World

The animation is pretty cool but doesn’t seem very related to the actual logo design. I really dislike the wordmark with this. I think this design direction is a bit clunky and for me more associated with physics (molecules) than the Internet.

The Impossible M

I don’t like the graphics, the typography, or the colours. It’s very 80s/retro, but not in a good way.

Flik Flak

I quite like the concept and the visuals of this, it makes me think of building in VR. I’m just not sure it works well as a logo. It takes up too much space and is a bit messy.

Overall I’d say The Connector is my favourite as a design direction, but I don’t think we’re there yet.

When we get branding right I think we do it really well. I loved the unleashed Fox designs for Firefox OS and I think our Firefox branding is very strong. At the moment I don’t feel like any of these concepts live up to that standard and actually I prefer our existing wordmark to all of these. I’d really like to see some other proposals before picking one of these concepts to refine. I’d be interested to see some proposals from visual designers inside Mozilla who know first hand what it feels like to be part of Mozilla.

Tiago Henrique wrote on August 23, 2016 at 6:12 am:

“The Eye” is the best!

Martin wrote on August 23, 2016 at 6:41 am:

I get it. Throw some really bad ones out there, get those dropped…and then whittle down.
-Eye of sauron no go.
-Flik Flak – see that stemming out of the wireframe…a little too clever. Visually cool. Unreadable.
-Open Button – a really sad gas station logo?
-Protocol: – potential but bland.

Someone said it before – you have some ideas within each that are ok, but as a cohesive whole are missing the fullness of Mozilla. There has always been a bold sort of throwback to pop art as evidenced by the old lizard logo (tyrannosaur?) – the strong black outline with the punchy red…why not now take that to the logical Roy Lichenstein-ian (via Jack Kirby) conclusion? (Actually, Jack Kirby’s stuff could be a fantastic inspiration here. His “technology” visuals are evoked in “The Connector”. Look up his “New Gods” comics.)

What to do at this point? Combine the pop art sensibilities (i.e. the moire or comic dots) of the “Impossible M” with the colors (though slightly more subdued – or less “regional feeling”) and design elements of “The Connector”, and then further combine it with the design system of “Wireframe” (though tweaked so it doesn’t look like other peoples stuff) which would then allow you to build all sorts of shapes for whatever needs promoting.

The possibilities could be endless. And the storytelling that could come out of a “comic” sensibility…toss in some Scott McCloud theory mixed with tech and the world’s your oyster.

Just a thought.

Marek Holly wrote on August 23, 2016 at 7:10 am:

Ok, I’ll just leave it here.

Pacifica wrote on August 23, 2016 at 7:45 am:

Any chance since the previous design mascot was a dinosaur the next one could have evolved to say a bird, (as we have evidence many did evolve bird like features). Also since this is a rebranding how about a connotation for Mozilla reborn. Now what would be a bird reborn. Oh a phoenix. Wings=connectivity, outreach, open, fire=spirit & passion. It can be clearly differentiated from the ‘fox and thunderbird projects, yet show a connection to those existing/past tools. New mascot please? Like many Japanese companies it helps personalise it, people associate more of a connection to it so are more likely to give it the attitude of an approachable company. Since you are going open that would be an important feature (welcoming newcomers and having those who trust you now support you).

Leandro Rossa wrote on August 23, 2016 at 7:49 am:

From a Art Director point of view:
– Moz://a is absurdly simply. If I’d choose, it would be that one.
– The isometric wireframe is also good and scalable.

– The Eye: keeps the mozilla dinosaur, but won’t tell anything about internet at all.
– The connector: interesting use, but looks like something from Olympics
– Open Button: nice comcept and shape, but it might get outdated soon.
– Impossible M: Meh
– Flik Flak: What?

Stan K. wrote on August 23, 2016 at 8:03 am:

Hello, as someone who has majored in management and has a particular love for marketing I will provide my own take on this.

First of all, before choosing, you have to consider two factors, obviously the aesthetic one, but just as important is the way the new logo will position the Mozilla brand, both by itself and in comparison to it’s major competitors.

I will start with the “Good Fight” one. Well, I am not a fan of it from a design perspective, it’s just too “rough”. I think that in a browser market dominated by big corporations, Mozilla should try to project a friendly and approachable image to contrast the image of the big silicon valley mega-billion corp of competitors.

This logo does not to this. It’s rough, bold and, so to say, attackive. Additionally, in a market dominated by privacy concerns regarding competitors like Google and Microsoft, I don’t think an eye in the logo sends the right message. Do not underestimate the subconscious effect that particular shapes can have. Eye is just connected in most people’s subconscious to concepts like surveillance, Orwell, tv shows et cetera. Even if you do recognise consciously that Mozilla has no relationship to these things, the subconscious effect is still there somewhere silently affecting your judgement.

The Choose open option is also not one I would recommend, as it is simply difficult to get the intended message without having already been introduced to the thought process behind it. In contrast, at least for me it has that “boring and sterile” look that fits with a financial institution, risk management and insurance instead of technological innovation, openness and user friendliness. Case in point, the first thing it brought to my mind when I saw it was the Allianz logo. It’s simply too… bland and unclear.

The With you from the start series suffer from the same problem of not transferring it’s message without prior knowledge of the thought process behind it’s design. Most people will just see it as a random, “geeky” logo. This perception is usually accompanied by a sense of complexity and technicality, which is not what you should be after for a mass market product intended for people with different backgrounds and computer use skills like a browser.

The Impossible M one is simply, in my mind, devoid of a particular message, it is, so to say, empty. It does not transfer a message of either cunning innovation or user friendliness and familiarity. It looks uninspired and has no clear direction, which is a big red flag.

On the other hand I am a big fan of both the Flik Flak and the Internet of People. They both look friendly, exciting and inviting, which I think is what the Mozilla brand should position it self as to make a distinction from it’s competitors.

Internet of People brings a sense of inclusiveness and openness, while also creating an image of creativity and excitement. Flik Flak retains the values of being inviting and friendly but seems to also include a message of technology and innovation but succeeds in doing so in a way that seems friendly and not intimidating to the beholder.

It’s hard to choose one of those two, as I believe both succeed in the basic principles but bring a different flavor with them. My only comes with Flik Flak is that a 3D multi-dimensional logo might be tiring mentally if looked at too often and beware that it will not transfer well to physical devices or print if for any reason needed.

For that, I have to cast my vote with the Connector one, it’s open, fun, friendly exciting and inviting. I think it is the one that will best represent the mozilla brand, and is easily the most distinct and memorable of the propositions. Closing, I would like to say that if you do finally choose the Connector logo, it could use with a bit refinement to be a bit easier to look at, mainly in paler colors and maybe a bit more curves instead of edges, so it becomes more eye and perception friendly. If you are reading this, thank you for your time.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 23, 2016 at 1:13 pm:

   Thanks for taking time to write this detailed and thoughtful response, Stan.

   1. Stan K. wrote on August 23, 2016 at 1:29 pm:

      You are welcome. It was actually an enjoyable thought exercise for me. If it proves useful for you too, then double the benefit.

Filip Šimeček wrote on August 23, 2016 at 8:18 am:

I like the protocol.

Thiago Silva wrote on August 23, 2016 at 9:30 am:

2 AND 3

Ricardo wrote on August 23, 2016 at 9:48 am:

All presented there, the best or coolest in my view would be The Eye, however, as some commented, suggests that Mozilla watches you.
Why not use a paw or claws in place of the letter “ill” – Mozilla, destroyer of outdated concepts … or even a footprint.

Christian Ohrfandl wrote on August 23, 2016 at 10:12 am:

I vote for the protocol! Not just because I am geekly minded ( ;) ); the overall design is appealing in every way :)

Cosmin wrote on August 23, 2016 at 10:20 am:

Counting the number of comments might not be the best way to establish popularity of each of the designs. Still, seeing the comments in this main thread, it looks like there is a correlation with something. Thus, in order of number of votes we have, as I’m writing this comment:

Protocol (D) – 213
Connectors (B) – 107
The eye (A) – 104
Impossible M (F) – 86
Open button (C) – 63
Flik-flak (G) – 46
Wireframe (E) – 43

I’m attracted to the Connectors idea but would not mind a refined version of the Protocol one. Definitely not confortable with either of the other 5, for various reasons: flik-flak and wireframe are way too complex, open button does not look like “open”, the eye is scary, the impossible M is too generic.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 23, 2016 at 12:21 pm:

   Thanks Cosmin for your comments and your suggestion that we tabulate votes. We appreciate the thought around voting. We established at the outset of this brand identity initiative that we could not be crowd-sourcing, voting, or asking for work from designers on spec. We believe that design is an expertise hard won from experience. While many people can provide their reactions to a particular design – and we welcome that feedback here – it’s more challenging for the average person to consider designs from a systemic perspective, for instance, or to know where a particular design might fit into a market of competing brand identities. In our experience, voting on logo design doesn’t yield the best outcome because most of us are averse to change at first, warm to it slowly, and embrace it only after it becomes familiar. These are first-round concepts designed to help us explore where to go next, so constructive comments and ideas are the most helpful at this phase of our work. Thanks again for being a part of this conversation.

malcolm dew-jones wrote on August 23, 2016 at 11:24 am:

Sorry, but in general I think all of these are bad because none of them even hint at the past – it’s just a random selection of nice looking pictures – it’s like you’re starting all over again with a totally different product. A person who knows the current product should recognize the new one. Having said that, here are more thoughts…

Moz://a
This is the only one that is good – it actually hints at something that relates to the tool. This is bad because it isn’t an actual word. You need to know what it is before you know what it is.

The “Open Button” , if followed by word “Mozilla”
If this was a stylized version of a well known computer icon used to open, or “goto” something then it could be good because it could suggest what the software does. However I don’t recognize the icon, you say it is from an elevator – but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that has anything to do with what you do. I am guessing the group of icons is supposed to suggest a group of people – if so it needs work – in art class it gets a C- . If the icon actually hinted at the current similarly shaped logo then it might have a chance to be OK.

The rest all look nice, but so what? What do any of them have to do with the software, or the product history? How do any of them help a new user grog what you do?

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 23, 2016 at 11:51 am:

   Thanks Malcom for weighing in with your thoughts. Mozilla is a nonprofit that contributes around the world to keeping the Internet open and accessible to all through policy and advocacy work in legislatures and courtrooms, including substantive work on the Net Neutrality action in the U.S. We also teach web literacy to help newcomers to the web understand that it is a place of opportunity, know-how, and freedom to them (not simply a way to reach closed, password-protected app ecosystems). And we help build some of the core technologies that enable the Internet to function for all. This work is little known or understood. We are ready to tell these stories and would like to do so with a brand that goes beyond our roots as the founder of Firefox. Appreciate your contributions to this effort and hope you’ll stay tuned. To learn more about the work Mozilla does, please visit https://mozilla.org

Zoe wrote on August 23, 2016 at 11:39 am:

Protocol
Wins hands down! To someone with no previous knowledge, this is the only option that immediately identifies Mozilla with an industry/product/service. It’s meaningful, concise and classic i.e. won’t date quickly. The simplicity and straight forwardness of Protocol means that it is less likely to cause any cross-cultural confusion, and is easily scalable.

The Eye
Reminds me of the Monsters Inc logo and therefore is too childish/Hollywood. The yellow and black colour palette conveys caution, and triggers an immediate association with security/ surveillance/ danger, it is after all, the colours of crime tape.

The Connector
My “impractical” favourite. I love the colour and energy, it achieves the buoyancy criteria but unfortunately not much else. It’s complicated, unreadable, and too trendy i.e. will date quickly. It certainly does not communicate “modern digital technology.”

Open Button
“Audio” looking. I associate these symbols more with a sound system, than the internet.

Wireframe, Impossible M and Flik Flak
Too complicated and trendy. They need to be far more concise, and classic to have any real longevity. In fact, Impossible M already says 1980’s. Pacman anyone?

whormongr wrote on August 23, 2016 at 11:51 am:

personally I like flik flak and wireframe

Yorghos Carabas wrote on August 23, 2016 at 11:59 am:

From the top:
The Eye
Interesting concept. Bold and clean.
Current problem is the high contrast giving me splotchy dark spots as if I’ve been starting at a bright light. That’s workable though.
The icon concepts below are decidedly less good. Do not like at all. If you go with this design, you have to drop the Eyeball as mascot. Using a logotype is great, but that fat font needs to be taken down just a notch as the spacing is killing the readability.

The Connector
I really like this design and I like the flexibility it offers in adapting it to different uses. Good potential here. Love the country flag treatments. Font is both boring and questionable. The dot over the “i” sits too close and kinda clumps into its base.

Open Button
I don’t like anything about this. Poor color choices, the emoji’s are both aggressive and difficult to decipher. Font is boring here too. Lowercase “o” has too much negative space compared to other characters.

Protocol
I get it, I just think it’s dumb. I know these things are images, but wtf is up with the font here? The kerning is insane! They’re literally crunched together. I’ve actually opened this up on multiple browsers just to see if that was the problem, it’s not.

Wireframe World
Has potential, even though not at the top of the list, I’d like to see it iterated on.

The Impossible M
It’s okay, middle of the pack for me. Maybe it’s the dot pattern that doesn’t quite work, a gradient treatment within the bars or maybe a muted color underneath the pattern. As for the font, the “O” kills the “M” really makes it seems small and almost makes your eye ignore it entirely.

Flik Flak
My favorite of the bunch. Good font choice, the graphic can be used in many ways, would make for a great animated logo with collapsing boxes or folding out/upwards like an accordion. Offers so much design space beyond just the logo, it’s something you can really build on.

Overall
Tier 1 – Flik Flak, The Connector
Tier 2 – The Eye, Wireframe World, Impossible M
Tier 3 – Protocol
Tier Delete – Open Button

Dwight wrote on August 23, 2016 at 12:18 pm:

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Looking at the eye, I don’t really see an eye. Or parentheses. I see a zero, as when you are looking an argument an someone totally demolishes your position and you reply “I’ve got nothing”.

I could get *really* tired of the connector really quickly.

The open button is my favorite. I would like to see an animation where you tap the button and it opens, maybe something like the Canadian Broadcasting exploding letter C. It would be nice to show the word “open” at some point.

Protocol is cute, but what it says to me is “we are all about our past”. You could sell this logo to Kodak or Nokia.

Wire frame says “beta at best, a long ways from usability “. Looks like something a kid would want to step on. Logo looks like a box kite, the kind that have been killing people in India.

Impossible M looks like fun but the colors look washed out. The M says “if you can’t solve it, look at it differently ” but the colors say “oh, excuse me”

Flik flak looks like the most fun but also looks like I might get tired of it quickly. I would really like to see an animation of the whole logo unfolding, but only a few times and definitely never more than once per visit. If I ever landed on a page that had a gift of this thing continuously unfolding I would have to close that page right away. The colours are harsh and discordant. The logo says “something amazing is growing here” but the colors say “we don’t like each other. Or you. And we don’t know how we ended up in this logo with each other, let us out now”

Ps I always knew that the dinosaur liked me.

Mike wrote on August 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm:

Moz://a is the only one I could take seriously, and actually I really like the hidden protocol aspect – Mozilla has a techie audience, I think it makes sense to play to that, and for everyone else the brand is still instantly identifiable. Otherwise I had immediate confusing or negative reactions to all of the others… Big Brother, bunch of squigglies, random Napsteresque circle thingy (did not get that it’s an “open button”), the wireframe’s “OK” but too similar to the new Medium logo, the impossible M looks amateurish with the random dot pattern and colors, and the last comes off as just a big jumble of shapes…

Just my 2c.

Eli Bildirici wrote on August 23, 2016 at 3:11 pm:

All of the options are problematic.
The monster/eye one at least winks (pun absolutely not intended) at Mozilla’s tradition, but before being reminded of this by the explanation, the immediate reactions I had was: “Big Brother Is Watching You”. This is not mitigated by the more childlike monster-figures such as on one of the t-shirt mockups. Needless to say this is the last thing Mozilla of all organizations should be associated with!
The connector concept is much less, well, alarming, but at the same time, like the monster, it doesn’t really convey what it sets out to convey. I look at it and see some non-threatening lines, which mean nothing to me – certainly nothing about connectivity. If you have to explain it, then it’s not working.
The open button, likewise, does not convey openness. The two play triangles obscure the design heritage from the ON button being referenced, and beyond that – the fact is, it looks like a scary clown, of all things. I think an emphasis on openness, though, should be the central theme of anything you ultimately choose, if indeed you conclude that a logo should convey anything at all. This element is what separates Mozilla from literally every other major web and mail interface developer on the planet.
Lots of people seem to like the protocol theme. While I like the simplicity of it, and just being able to read the word ‘Mozilla’, the central pun is too obvious to the people who Mozilla already appeals to, who already know what it is and what its full suite of products are. They might find it cute, or they might find it dumb; I’m leaning towards the former. At the same time, it might not be obvious at all to those you’re trying to reach out to. The protocol prefix and :// are less ubiquitous today than in the past since today’s browsers – including Firefox – do not display it unless some protocol other than http is used (https or ftp for example), so I’d also find this design choice conceptually inconsistent: if the protocol matters so much, why omit displaying it in the address bar? That said, it’s hard not to be drawn to the simple “M://” somehow (the :// replacing ‘ill’ in Mozilla on the other hand strikes me as a silly pun). I still think it would not be the correct choice, that conveying openness should be the top priority, but…I dunno. Maybe there’s potential here, too. Protocols of course are open specifications, so maybe this could in some way convey openness…but again, precisely to the people already in the know. The general populace just won’t get it.
The last three designs are all entirely too abstract and meaningless. They have no staying power. And they should not be in the running whatsoever.
All that said. I’m a bit puzzled. If the mission is to telegraph something about the organization behind Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey (well not exactly that one but still) – well, what does the nonsense word ‘Mozilla’ really do for you, anyway? It only ever made any sense with the Fairey dinosaur. Having to make a logo that both makes the ‘Mozilla’ name distinctive *and* implies something about what that name should stand for when there is nothing inherent to point to that meaning in the word ‘Mozilla’ itself – at least, outside of the tech community – well, that seems to me like a tall order. I’m not saying the name Mozilla should be dropped, necessarily, but that it doesn’t look like you guys were clear-eyed about what the task to be done here is were you to stick with it whilst having goals other than mere distinction, and have bitten off more than you can chew. If you guys *did* realize this, really – well, I don’t think you ever would have approved most of these designs, even in a preliminary manner.
Personally, I think that making Mozilla distinct might be a more achievable goal – in this I agree with commenter Robert de Forest’s analysis above – rather than trying to do both that *and* shoehorn meaning into the word ‘Mozilla’. Updating the Fairey dinosaur, *maybe* in a way that pays homage to NCSA Mosaic and Godzilla, should probably be your starting point if you chose to do this. As for making the public more aware of the fact that Mozilla is more than just Firefox: once again this is a tall order for a logo, and there are more obvious places to start. Any information about any product other than Firefox is completely buried at mozilla.org. There is no obvious way to simply get to the download page for Thunderbird, for example – I kept having to Google it.
I’m sure that none of this is what you want to hear, and I promise that I’m not trying to be negative for the sake of being negative. I care a lot about this organization, and was one of the original contributors to the NYT ad campaign ahead of the Firefox 1.0 release, and think Mozilla would be very poorly served with _any_ of the options put forward in this blogpost, as they are right now.

Gustavo H. Kolansky wrote on August 23, 2016 at 4:38 pm:

All logos are interesting , but among all the “The Eye” and ” Protocol” hold attention without tain the reader , and of these two the ” Protocol” is more objective !

If it were a vote , my vote would be in the ” Protocol” , no doubt …

#Moz://a
#M://Undoubtedly

Adam Beecher wrote on August 23, 2016 at 5:01 pm:

If I had to pick, I’d pick the yellow one with the snake eye. But I don’t want to pick, and hate necessary branding exercises. I like the simplicity of the current look. Leave it alone.

Rafael Silva wrote on August 23, 2016 at 9:13 pm:

Eu acho o segundo mais bonito além de me lembrar muito as artes indígenas brasileiras, da o simbolismo de que a mozilla está preocupada também com as culturas menos desconhecidas além de ser um visual moderno e com cores bonitas.

Arun wrote on August 24, 2016 at 4:11 am:

The identity design which stands out is ‘The Connector’ one. In the ‘About Mozilla Open Design’ page you mention “being transparent is what we do”, “inviting others to participate in making a better Internet”, and “work together to prove that the Internet can be a place of empowerment, opportunity, and choice for all”, The Connector identity design relates to the points mentioned.

The negative space around the logo itself resembles being transparent as there are no boundaries or a frame. Due to this it’s also inviting and the 90 degree angles in the shapes used give a sense of invitation as they are almost hugging each other.

How the identity has been applied to work for or in different countries is also very effective. It adds a personal connection and clearly makes the identity of Mozilla versatile. This connects to ‘working together’.

The identity could also be active, it could have motion where the shapes move about in Tetris form and create the Mozilla logo or the national versions of the identity.
As for the colour scheme the logo version is eye catching and is appropriate because of the fact Mozilla likes to work with people. I would however change the black used on the name to one of the colours used in the shapes because the black itself is too strong and doesn’t seem to be a part of the whole design. The national versions work out great as the colour used in text matches the colours used in the shapes.

Hopefully my feedback helps in anyway. By the way awesome idea of inviting the public for their feedback on building and developing you brand identity. Great experience.

Thanks Arun

jan wrote on August 24, 2016 at 4:30 am:

I like most of these, except for Moz://a. I get the “joke” and all, but visually I think it’s simply too boring (Sorry, Helvetica!) or conservative. Yet, I’m afraid it’s the one that would win most people’s hearts.

Favourites:

1. The Connector

Reminiscent of late 80s/early 90s logos, yet feels the freshest of them all. It would be bold decision, but a great one.

2. Flik Flak

It’s cool, I love the idea, but ultimately, it might be too complicated and confusing.

3. Wireframe World

Modern logo, but kind of playing-if-safe-modern. Feels familiar, might have a hard time sticking out.

4. The Impossible M

Simple idea, love it mostly for the colors and patterns. Not sure if this would make a strong brand.

Peter Manfredini wrote on August 24, 2016 at 5:41 am:

I want to be straight: I saw the examples and I was shocked.
As a graphic designer, I am doing with brands every day. These examples are designs of branding 20 years ago – with “explaining” the company’s profession or drawing odd geometric forms.
Today, the priority of a logo lies on working on all media (web, print, 2D, 3D, moving) instead of explaining. It has to be legible, recognizable, transparent, working on every background/surface, and even varying its form (just as the flik flak example, although it has nothing identical with it). And, above all, it has to be S-I-M-P-L-E.
I don’t know where this crowd-questioning is leading, but developing a new corporate design is a process that needs professional advice. Either the next logo is a summary of all this – then Oh my God. Or the next logo is completely different – then what was this all for?
Just to show you what I mean (and this is not a layout, because design needs a briefing!), I attached an example.
Cheers
Peter

Ali Nassiri wrote on August 24, 2016 at 6:04 am:

I like the Protocol idea but I seriously think you should have asked 7 agencies to come up with their best idea instead of asking 7 great ideas to a single agency #missionimpossible

Maxluan Cruz wrote on August 24, 2016 at 7:28 am:

Gostei do “For the Internet of People”

Gayas wrote on August 24, 2016 at 8:46 am:

6th one looks cool

Paul wrote on August 24, 2016 at 10:25 am:

Protocol is better than Flik Flak which is better than Wireframe and the rest are like the London Olympics 2012 logo. Let’s not double down on that tragedy.

Erik Spiekermann wrote on August 25, 2016 at 4:41 am:

As the designer behind Fira, the typeface we designed for Firefox a few years ago, I am surprised not to see it anywhere. Shouldn’t that have been included in the brief? Instead, we get a lot of fashionable type that will look outdated very soon. The use of Fira would also serve to connect the Mozilla family of brands.

Stacey wrote on August 25, 2016 at 6:55 am:

Seems to me The Eye looks like a dinosaur eye, yes? Just get rid of the yellow (it’s a pretty loud color, might seem a bit uninviting), leave the “o” as negative space. Lighten up the font a little bit, finish off the “m” and “a” for better readability. I like it. Simple, but not boring.

D3 wrote on August 25, 2016 at 8:11 am:

I choose either this: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-b-the-connector/
or this: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-d-protocol/

But I prefer the route B (the connector) more, because it is more colourful and I love how all letters are like a mini puzzle.

The route D (protocol) is somewhat facebook-ish. That was the first thought I had when I saw it.

JG wrote on August 25, 2016 at 11:14 am:

No dinosaur is not mozilla

Hugo wrote on August 25, 2016 at 3:57 pm:

Ok I’ll be quick, these logos are very ugly. The actual logo is the best, it’s modern and rounded like to explain that Mozilla is the alternative, your friend, not a big brother or something like that (the eyes in the logo, seriously ?! Like we are watching you?”.

Oh and : I scrolled for 10 minutes to be able to post this comment since there is no button “comment” below and I’m on a mobile phone.

The other thing is, I love you Mozilla.

1. Tim Murray wrote on August 26, 2016 at 10:09 am:

   Thanks, Hugo. We love you, too.

Emma wrote on August 26, 2016 at 7:58 pm:

as a Mozillian optimistic that a new logo can help explain to others in my local community ‘why Mozil’a, why me?’ I don’t feel any of these help me. As a geek I like Moz://a, but I know this will confuse and further alienate those in my community already struggling to understand Mozilla’s relevance. With mobile, the :// isn’t even something we type anymore.
I like the Dino eye, but it feels more like we’re watching YOU vrs watching the watchers.
I must be missing the contexts of the open button. The others seems interesting but not relevant.

What do I want to see? A connection between local and global and the web.
I want people in my community to understand Mozilla is not an organization for nerds but those who care about how they can advocate for privacy, empowerment and creativity on the web. It should reflect global and local.
I worked for a university, which had a successful rebranding strategy with :

http://www.royalroads.ca/sites/default/files/styles/525×300/public/rru-logo-slide.jpg?itok=6SWzc6hc

Not to say its the answer, but it’s clear there is virtual, and brick and morter (aka local & global). I want to see a focus like this.

Sam wrote on August 27, 2016 at 4:28 am:

Moz://a

Szabó Ferenc wrote on August 28, 2016 at 1:16 am:

My proposed logo

Niclas Hultgren wrote on August 28, 2016 at 5:49 am:

I really like the Protocol logo; it really feels like Mozilla when I see it.
Flik Flak is okay too, but I prefer Protocol – the others are quite boring, to be honest.
I feel like Protocol could be improved by switching the colors up a bit though; I’ve attached two suggestions.

1. Dom McLoughlin wrote on September 5, 2016 at 9:43 am:

   I also like this concept but I think the font needs switching out to something better and less tired old helvetica

Bruno Fleurquin wrote on August 28, 2016 at 8:52 am:

The first logo would be great for the NSA: it looks like an eye looking into whatever you’re doing.

The connector looks great but probably does not degrade to B&W so great.

The Open Button is way too generic: it’s going to be hard to tell it from all the other buttons everywhere.

I love the Moz://a logo because it represents Mozilla brand identity so well. What I don’t like though are the colors (the two blues are meh!)

And the other logos are too rustique or too complicated, intricated and hard on the eye let alone to identifiy the brand. So Protocol FTW but please with other colors. Maybe recycling the orange color from Firefox would be a good idea. Because it’s your star product.

Rodrigo Cesar Banhara wrote on August 28, 2016 at 2:37 pm:

I choose the Moz://a logo !!! =DDD

Good night to you folks, or Good Morning/Good afternoon !!!

Mrk wrote on August 29, 2016 at 1:10 am:

THE EYE WIN

Glori Winders wrote on August 29, 2016 at 8:07 am:

I wish I could choose one that I like, but none are pleasing to my eye. They all look to me as if we are trying too hard. My background is Communications, PR. I have spent 20 years in info marketing. And from that perspective none of these logos make sense. They are too “trendy” and have no staying power. We will be doing this exercise all over again in five years.

Just to make sure it wasn’t just me, I showed them to my family which includes a professional photographer, social media consultant, and business growth consultant who specializes in marketing. None of us liked the concepts, colors or stylizing.

Sorry that I can’t be more positive. But, I also don’t want you wasting time trying to move forward with one of these.

Cameron Dawson wrote on August 29, 2016 at 10:40 am:

I have to say that the Open Button was the only one that grabbed me. Though, I don’t care for the colors. They are REALLY garish. Bold colors are great, but these aren’t bold. They’re like an assault on the retinas… :) I like blue a lot, but not this blue. Maybe the dark blue from “Protocol” would work? I would like this logo tons more with a slightly toned-down blue and red smile. Or vise-versa. The Mozilla Egypt version is much closer. Perhaps that black with red internals as well.

That being said, the design is really cool and I think it speaks a lot to openness. Or “turning it on.” I can’t speak to this being truly unique across the internet. I’ve never seen it quite like this, but maybe I just don’t get around enough… But I like how this is both an “on” button and a face. It translates (to me) that it’s open for the people.

I think this logo translates really nicely to black and white, which is a real plus. It would look really cool on a black or gray t-shirt with the blue part being black and the pink part being white.

The MDN bag looks pretty awesome. I’d buy one of those in a heartbeat.

Do I just like everything I see? No. I really don’t like any of the other options, tbh. Wireframe is the next best, perhaps. But it would need work to make the M really look like an M.

I like the Escher-style “impossible” M, sort of. The Shape of the M (the outside slants being SO slanted) and the colors used just look weak to me. Are the colored parts implying I should use “vi” ?

So, in short, I think with some iteration on the coloring for Open Button, we’d have a good one there. I’d just feel more confident if there was a “close second”

-Cam

Steffen Vogt wrote on August 29, 2016 at 1:03 pm:

I like the playfulness of the connector. The word mark is very unique, friendly and open minded. Moreover there would be tons of options for playing with this system. I would love to play with it :)
Moreover it looks for me like a new alphabet in a way and it feels also digital. So to make it short, I would recommend you to choose the connector as your new digital-brand-alphabet. It’s by far the best and most unseen option.

Yury wrote on August 29, 2016 at 2:20 pm:

My logo.

Julia Canzani wrote on August 30, 2016 at 12:14 pm:

The most important thing to take into account, I’d say, is the versatility of the logo. Anything that can’t be used as an aesthetically pleasing loading animation or icon, and anything that won’t work on a small scale as a favicon should be eliminated. Extra points for being recognizable when tampered with (like google doodles).

I’m not sure that flik flak or wireframe world work so well in those respects. On a small scale the already pretty busy wireframe will most likely be impossible to decipher, and flik flak… well… yeah.

Protocol is a really cool concept, but the colors feel pretty cold and drab. Almost hospital-like.

I agree that the eye in its current form is a bit terrifying, but the concept is really cool, and I’d like to see it further explored (The current color could be used for warnings and such)

The open button is a bit weird… I don’t know why, but yeah… weird…

Connector is google-esque. You could do doodles. It will be very recognizable. The text is a little bit abstract but not frustratingly obscure. The colors and lines can be repeated in many formats. I like it a lot.

The impossible M doesn’t appeal to me quite as much, but it’s also very versatile.