Categories: General

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

On our open logo design journey together, we’ve arrived at an inflection point. Today our effort—equal parts open crit, performance art piece, and sociology experiment—takes its logical next step, moving from words to visuals. A roomful of reviewers lean forward in their chairs, ready to weigh in on what we’ve done so far. Or so we hope.

We’re ready. The work with our agency partner, johnson banks, has great breadth and substantial depth for first-round concepts (possibly owing to our rocket-fast timeline). Our initial response to the work has, we hope, helped make it stronger and more nuanced. We’ve jumped off this cliff together, holding hands and bracing for the splash.

Each of the seven concepts we’re sharing today leads with and emphasizes a particular facet of the Mozilla story. From paying homage to our paleotechnic origins to rendering us as part of an ever-expanding digital ecosystem, from highlighting our global community ethos to giving us a lift from the quotidian elevator open button, the concepts express ideas about Mozilla in clever and unexpected ways.

There are no duds in the mix. The hard part will be deciding among them, and this is a good problem to have.

We have our opinions about these paths forward, our early favorites among the field. But for now we’re going to sit quietly and listen to what the voices from the concentric rings of our community—Mozillians, Mozilla fans, designers, technologists, and beyond—have to say in response about them.

Tag, you’re it.

Here’s what we’d like you to do, if you’re up for it. Have a look at the seven options and tell us what you think. To make comments about an individual direction and to see its full system, click on its image below.

Which of these initial visual expressions best captures what Mozilla means to you? Which will best help us tell our story to a youthful, values-driven audience? Which brings to life the Mozilla personality: Gutsy, Independent, Buoyant, For Good?

If you want to drill down a level, also consider which design idea:

  • Would resonate best around the world?
  • Has the potential to show off modern digital technology?
  • Is most scalable to a variety of Mozilla products, programs, and messages?
  • Would stand the test of time (well…let’s say 5-10 years)?
  • Would make people take notice and rethink Mozilla?

This is how we’ve been evaluating each concept internally over the past week or so. It’s the framework we’ll use as we share the work for qualitative and quantitative feedback from our key audiences.

How you deliver your feedback is up to you: writing comments on the blog, uploading a sketch or a mark-up, shooting a carpool karaoke video….bring it on. We’ll be taking feedback on this phase of work for roughly the next two weeks.

If you’re new to this blog, a few reminders about what we’re not doing. We are not crowdsourcing the final design, nor will there be voting. We are not asking designers to work on spec. We welcome all feedback but make no promise to act on it all (even if such a thing were possible).

From here, we’ll reduce these seven concepts to three, which we’ll refine further based partially on feedback from people like you, partially on what our design instincts tell us, and very much on what we need our brand identity to communicate to the world. These three concepts will go through a round of consumer testing and live critique in mid-September, and we’ll share the results here. We’re on track to have a final direction by the end of September.

We trust that openness will prevail over secrecy and that we’ll all learn something in the end. Thanks for tagging along.

jb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.keyjb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.key

583 comments on “Now for the fun part of Mozilla’s logo design.”

  1. kneekoo wrote on

    Moz://a is by far the coolest and geekiest in my book. The problem is, most people would be unable to read it correctly.

    The eye-ish O looks like a surveillance thing (always looking) – definitely stay away from any suggestions about that.

    The others are either retro or too abstract for my taste.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the feedback, Kneekoo. Interesting feedback about Protocol (M://). People are often in two camps with regards to mind puzzles like this one. Either they love the challenge of figuring it out (and the accompanying feeling of success), or they can’t be bothered.
      As for The Eye, I’m curious how you would feel about if it were always looking out for you online. Perhaps its all in the perspective?

      1. Aaron wrote on

        The eye definitely feels like surveillance or always looking (not looking out for you). I think it is because the eye being used is more of an “evil” eye. This type of eye is often used to represent: black cats, snakes, tigers, witch craft, and even Sauron from Lord of the Rings.

        1. Aurelia wrote on

          Agreed, it’s hard to divorce a lizard eye from the LOTR surveillance eye, and the colors feel like caution tape on top of that. I do like the simplicity, lizard-allusion, and legibility of it, but reflex reaction is “evil eye”.

          1. Adam wrote on

            If that warning eye is used with page and website security then it would be dual purpose.

            I really like the eye, it’s a strong catching visual.

            My only negative is that it a similar idea to Monsters Inc.

        2. HergotH wrote on

          I absolutely agree. The eye feels really surveillancish, it was the first thing that came to my mind. Very uncomfortable.

          In overall that logo looks like some of the “securitas agency that will install cameras in your property and provide you with monitoring”. And colors even stress it out, like “warning, this area is being monitored”

      2. Omar wrote on

        Always looking out for you is always creepy, even with good intentions. I don’t even like the CBS logo

      3. Sychedelix wrote on

        Still I don’t think it’s the best one to bring Mozilla worldwide. Many peopel won’t get it!

      4. Camden Narzt wrote on

        I’ve gotta add my support to the people saying the eye looks like the eye of Sauron, and like you are surveilling us. That was an immediate and visceral reaction I had to that logo, and even after giving it some thought I doubt people would get past that initial negative reaction.

      5. Alan Hysinger wrote on

        The reason people are reading the eye as big brother is because the color combination of yellow and black communicates caution and triggers a fear/caution response in the viewer. This is either a rookie mistake, or a rule-break fail by your top dollar designer. Try maybe a neon-ish green or maybe orange instead of the yellow. Probably green as it gives a nod to Mozilla’s original branding.

        1. Jan wrote on

          I disagree with all of You. First of all an abstract logo is okay because Mozilla is not an end user brand, that is what ‘Firefox’ (etc.) are for. The ‘Dinosaur Eye’ is the only design that builds upon the already 18+ years long established Mozilla brand. But its genious lies in the fact that it brings the focus to what Mozilla does not and will never do: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo and Apple all have to avoid associations of the ‘eye’ at all costs, because the collection and sale of user data are part of their business plan. This is also why they will shy away from Logos that make them appear too big and powerfull. But people use Firefox because you care about stuff like mass surveillance, after all “Mozilla is the proud non-profit champion of the Internet, helping to keep it healthy, open and accessible to all.” In a list with all those cutesy and harmless logos of the internet behemoths it will serve as a reminder what the others won’t tell you. Mozilla must not be shy.

          1. Laurence “GreenReaper” Parry wrote on

            Yes, it must. It shouldn’t try to stand out. It’s a browser, and the choice of those with technical competence. Build on *that*.

          2. Tim Murray wrote on

            Thanks for contributing your comment, Laurence, and for mentioning the Forefox open-source browser. This design exercise is for Mozilla, the nonprofit championing a healthy Intetnet for all. Let us know if this influences your opinion about these designs. Thanks.

      6. Hildy J wrote on

        I don’t see the :// as difficult to decipher. I might try it with a slanted M and a small capital A with the M and first A uprights paralleling the // and the last A upright vertical as a sign off.

        As for the others, the eye is weird, and not in a good way. The connector is too difficult to decipher and too busy. The open is inoffensive and not particularly memorable. Wireframe is just odd. The impossible M has potential but I would follow it with ozilla rather than putting Mozilla underneath. As for flik flak, no, just no.

      7. Alberto Rojas wrote on

        Specially the multi eyed “Maker Party”. That’s a no no.

      8. JASON M GEORGE wrote on

        I agree with Kneekoo concerning the eye. The very first thing that popped in my head was “Godzilla is watching me”, followed immediately by “My every move is being watched! Oh no!”

    2. Aki Sasaki wrote on

      +1 to m:// being the best of the bunch, and O carrying negative connotations.

      +1 to the general sentiment below that the entire set is underwhelming. I realize we’re not voting, but if starting over is an option, I think it should be seriously considered. I would prefer to either have something nice to say or nothing at all, but I also don’t want us to make a mistake with our brand, so I’m adding my say.

      Let me try being more constructive: Perhaps instead of taking the word ‘Mozilla’ and trying to brand that, perhaps the exercise should be branding the concept of our mission in visual language. I realize the wireframe and flikflak are trying to do that, but building 3d shapes does not intuitively translate to protecting the open web and making it accessible and empowering to users. I don’t know what image or icon could encompass all of that, but I do know we haven’t solved it yet. I think a Foxkeh face would probably be more successful, in my mind, than any of the above examples, with the caveat that it would tie Mozilla even further with the fox imagery. I think we may want to try other, possibly less angular-geometric, attempts at this before we start trying to narrow down the field.

      1. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote on

        +1 from me to pretty much everything :aki said.

        As a contributor for more than 10 years, and an employee for far less, these designs are both underwhelming, don’t feel like they represent the brand I love (to me), and feel like they’d be *harder* to describe the brand I love and what these icons/graphics mean to friends/family. At least I can sorta describe the Mozilla Dinosaur and Firefox itself.

        1. Tim Murray wrote on

          First, a huge thanks for being a long-time contributor, Justin. If not for you and others like you, Mozilla would not be what it is today. I’d love to hear more about what comes to mind for you when thinking about the work Mozilla does in the world. Does the dinosaur reflect what we’re about? Thanks for continuing to challenge these designs. Really appreciate the feedback.

          1. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote on

            For me, the dino does not quite reflect what we’re about but more reflects our roots (Gecko, Lizzard, Dinosaur, Older dominant technology emerging to take on the big dogs [Microsoft at the time] — I have little insight into what came to be the original logo since it was born before I was a contributor, but thats that).

            The current Mozilla I find harder to directly envision as a logo (from scratch) personally, I just know these don’t feel like it.

            I want our logo to be both easily identifiable, and easily recognizable as “Mozilla” without necessarily being recognized as “Firefox” (To this day I tend to say, “Mozilla, company that makes Firefox” when saying where I work, due to the decreased brand recognition).

            I also endeavor for our logo to be a measure of our mission/values. Which at least the Eye of Sauron image (as others have compared it) doesn’t. And the Moz://a while does appeal to the geek in me, won’t help make others feel we’re necessarily good for them (nor is it easy for all to read) — And I dislike the M:// shorthand there.

            Personally I think what would help me is a few more, drastically different Proof Of Concepts in terms of logo art, potentially even from a different outsourced firm or two (if these are all the same firm) to get alternative proposals on the table, so that I and the greater community at large, can help inform what *is* our logo in a meaningful way. I’m not sure if this is an option though.

            Maybe some greater prose on *why* you and others felt these logo proposals were standout, how they came to be, etc would be useful to me as well. What do you feel they represent, were there alternative designs of these things in earlier stages where they could have made sense taken a slightly different way? Things like the “artsy vertical Mozilla” how do you see it portrayed on banners/products/websites/advertisements?

            A brand re-image is a hard thing to get right, comes with a great deal of scrutiny and stop-energy and a wrong re-image can hurt the brand long term. I don’t envy your job here, but I do hope we can come up with something I can feel proud in displaying as “Mozilla” without feeling dread that I’d have to explain it repeatedly, in a greater detail/pain than I already do with the Dino/plain-text-Mozilla.

          2. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote on

            Allow me to say, that I actually didn’t realize we had the larger prose I asked for in my last (still in mod queue) post.

            So I’ll be reading those sometime today.

          3. Simon wrote on

            I’d agree with Justin… the dinosaur logo doesn’t reflect what the organisation is about, but it *does* represent the long history of Mozilla.

            And frankly, none of the other logos reflect what the organisation is about either. Remember, normal people won’t be reading all the associated documentation you’ve posted to this site, the explanations of what the elements of a logo represent. They’re just looking at a small picture in the corner of their screen.

        2. Tim Murray wrote on

          Thanks for letting us know how you feel about it, Justin. While the logo alone will not be able to tell the total Mozilla story, ideally it will become over time recognizable and will hint at that story.

      2. Tim Murray wrote on

        Thanks for contributing to this conversation, Aki, and for the constructive approach. Speaking to the Foxkeh face in particular (which, for those not in the know, is a Japanese mascot character created by the Mozilla Japan community around 2007), you’re right to recognize that conflating Mozilla with Firefox may not be the right path for either brand. We need a set of creative assets that can be deployed to represent Mozilla distinct from Firefox. Our exercise here is to lean into different facets of the whole Mozilla (openness, technology, participation/community, our heritage, etc). We’ll continue to refine from these first-round ideas. If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to read earlier posts on how we identified and refined the narrative territories that underlie the designs. Thanks again!

    3. John wrote on

      m:// Just seems so expected and safe (boring) to me. I think the others are less resolved, but show WAY more promise – trust in the iterative process, they can be refined into something really special. This is a chance to do something different, memorable.

      1. Tim Murray wrote on

        Thanks for letting us know how you feel about this Protocol direction, John.

      2. LV wrote on

        To be completely honest, I thought this was a joke after looking and re-looking at these logos. They’re all pretty bad. You are getting plenty of polite replies here, but comments on other news sites and blogs that are not yours are not favorable on any of these designs at all.

        My vote: Get other professional logo ideas. Or just keep the type/logo you have right now. Involve your marketing team.

        I have no idea why you’d want to see any of these on your building, your letterheads, or on a t-shirt or other swag.

        1. John C Zastrow wrote on

          Can’t agree more.

        2. Joe Hance wrote on

          +1

        3. Yoann wrote on

          +1 so 80’s

        4. Maria wrote on

          I have to agree with LV.

          I thought this is just fun, because all those drafts doesn’t show any seriousness. Mozilla’s mission is to make the internet better and secure. This is always connected to transparency and non of those logos gives the hint of clear (transparent) but welcoming entrance to Mozilla’s world and work. I vote for more options.

    4. Karthik Rajendran wrote on

      I second kneekoo. I like Moz://a too. the type usage makes it look conventional though. Opera uses the ‘O’ logo too, so I don’t know about that direction. I am not sure about the others too.

      Didn’t Mozilla just rebrand a few years ago and that I felt was great. Why not stick to it? IMHO.

    5. nick wrote on

      really don’t care for any of these … old one is just fine IMHO

    6. Matthias wrote on

      > Moz://a is by far the coolest and geekiest in my book.

      I completely agree with that.

      > The problem is, most people would be unable to read it correctly.

      I think a small change of the font would be sufficient to make it clear. Increasing slightly the vertical size of the lower dot in the colon and decreasing the vertical size of the upper dot, as well as some tweak on the L letter could easily fix that.

      > The eye-ish O looks like a surveillance thing (always looking) – definitely stay away from any suggestions about that.

      Yep.

      All other designs don’t resonate much with, look old-ish or feel inappropriate to convey what Mozilla represent (IMHO).

    7. Adam wrote on

      Completely agree on the Moz://a I really think it is one of the best if the options.

      It kind of reminds if some of the history of Mozilla too. Strangely it suggested Netscape to me, I’m not sure if that is down to the font used or the colour. But either way it is a good thing.

      Suggesting the old will only real ate with those who know, while at the same time it is a new and easily recognisable logo.

    8. Ruedas wrote on

      Really? I think the yellow/black is the best one. It projects confidence, and more importantly competence. It’s simple, direct, bold. It’s the opposite of sprawling, the opposite of ineffectual. The opposite of the governing-board-meeting-at-the-local-food-co-op vibe that plagues all the other 6 designs. (Trying to please everyone and offend no one – and winding up accomplishing nothing. I’ve been to those meetings.) And it has a Godzilla reference to boot. More Godzilla please. Mo’zilla. Is it bad-ass? YES IT IS. Do you want Mozilla to be more bad-ass, more focused, more effective? I sure do. “The eye” you guys are fixating on… Would it help if it were never used apart from the word Mozilla? Because I think that might help. Anyway do you really think the guy who “surveils” you is going to arrive at your doorstep sporting a lizard eye? No, he will sneak in using a smiling, friendly-looking Google Doodle.

      This logo would make people take notice and re-think Mozilla. As being focused and competent and having some cojones. People doing right are the ones who SHOULD be bold.

    9. Eric wrote on

      I agree that Moz://a is my favorite, but perhaps with a solid color rather than two shades of blue?

    10. Mark Koops wrote on

      I like the style of the m protocol, but there is definitely something special just making without the fox. Maybe look at keeping the colours from the Firefox and incorporating them? Is too drastic break…

    11. Andrew Jackson wrote on

      I agree with your points kneekoo. I really like the deep (royal?) blue M:// logo. The eye logo definitely makes me think of surveillance, like some kind of dystopian or Orwellian future. I was quite shocked when I saw that it was even suggested.

    12. AD5NL wrote on

      I like the Moz://a logo. The rest are pretty garish (although the rainbow squiggly thingy is not too bad).

    13. patricia coser wrote on

      I think Moz://a it is the coolest idea, but the color and the aplication it is looking to much tradicional, you could try more modern color and aplication to the brand.

    14. Anna G wrote on

      Personally, the Eye makes me think of Godzilla (which I’m guessing is the point). He’s always had yellow eyes. But I agree with kneekoo, the surveillance panopticon-aspect is quite glaring, and the font looks too heavy.

      I really like Connector. The bright colors and jumbled lines are reminiscent of QR codes and circuits. I find it pleasantly geeky, and the customizations/skins of the design are pretty nice. The animation is clean and quick, too. It can be a modern solo jazz pattern.

      Button’s default color combination is unpleasant and the shapes are clunky. However, the soft-edged luminous effect on some of the other examples are decent. The animations are interesting, but I feel like I’m getting an invitation to a digital baby shower.

      Protocol is simple and nerdy, and is a friendly nod to both tried-and-true Mozilla fans and an embrace of future potential users and uses. Easily the safest choice. Nevertheless, the lack of even a little trademark orange makes me sad. The emoji symbols are pretty ugly, too.

      Wireframe is interesting, but so minimalist that it doesn’t particularly stand out.

      Impossible M is way too retro. I can’t really take it seriously.

      I love Flik-Flag as a logo, despite it’s unwieldy size. It’s playful and it’s geometric patterns definitely make the coolest merch. If it could be used alongside Protocol somehow, or as a second logo, I think it could be a fitting replacement for the old globe.

    15. MrB wrote on

      You took the words out of my mouth. I agree completely.

      None of these seem to be easy to remember (except for Moz://a) and are simply too abstract. I have a feeling that they tried too hard to integrate the name into the logo.

      The logo must be something that’s easy to remember and can be remembered/identified instantly – think Nike – and most of these are simply too abstract or too complex.

      Furthermore, a good logo should reflect the mission statement of the company (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/) if you want it to withstand the test of time. I’ll take Nike, again, as an example – it speaks “speed”, “motion” – all the things the brand stands for.

      Also note that logos get used on different media and should also be recognizable even when printed in black and white: to many colors and you lose legibility on this media.

      Lastly, one should also think about the applications of the logo. Logos that fit into a square box (have about 1:1 ratio) are more easily applied than stretched out logos.

    16. Dom McLoughlin wrote on

      The eye is spy…it’s staring at me and in the context of the web it should probably be avoided

  2. D wrote on

    Probably not what you want to hear but I have been using your browser and other services for about a decade. And none of the signage above signifies open source internet to me. Almost all of those designs seem to represent being “boxed in” . And since you really are not crowd sourcing the decision just looking for opinions. My opinion is that signage is representative of the messy and mostly unintuitive direction the company has been heading. SMH.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for sharing your opinion and being a part of this process, D.

      1. Gozzin wrote on

        Well,Design Route C: The Open Button is ok..The rest I really don’t care for. The eye one makes me think of Mordor, so nope on that one.
        I trust you will be keeping the fox around Earth. I can’t think of ANYTHING better than that one. I started using FF six months after in came out and used Netscape too.

        1. Tim Murray wrote on

          Thanks for clarifying, Gozzin and for giving your feedback on these design directions. The work in front of us only deals with Mozilla, not Firefox. Congrats and thanks for being such an early advocate of Firefox!

  3. MiMoz wrote on

    I am speechless (and not “positively”).

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Tell us more.

      1. MiMoz wrote on

        In all honesty all the proposed “themes” are very bad and totally fail to catch Mozilla’s essence. All of them.

        All these proposals might be applied to whatever other brand and be as effective, hence they look and feel empty, dull and seldom lame.

        Mozilla is a unique reality and “trivialize” its legacy, mission and goals with such proposals should be a reason to revisit the whole branding effort. As a member of the community I’d be very sad to see one of these things as Mozilla logo.

        Also, some of these proposals look and feel rather amateur-ish; I don’t even know how something that clearly resembles a vagina can be taken in consideration by the Mozilla staff. It’s a real shame. It’s Mozilla, not a tampon company, for God’s sake!

        From what I understood Mozilla has chosen to seek help from an external firm: probably it’d make sense to save the money and engage the internal design team that has by far a better understanding of Mozilla.

        I hope you folks will review the outcome of this almost unanimous global disappointment and learn from it to move forward by going back to square one.

        Please, please, please, don’t fuck up with Mozilla’s identity.

        1. Tim Murray wrote on

          Thanks for elaborating, MiMoz. Your passion for Mozilla comes through loud and clear. It would be great to hear what sort of words and visuals you think would best represent the Mozilla of your experience.

          1. Worried wrote on

            Maybe you should try (properly) reviving the dinosaur logo.

            I also personally agree with the outsourcing remark.

  4. Kelsey wrote on

    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

      Thanks for the detailed feedback, Kelsey.

  5. Pippa wrote on

    The rainbow angles makes me the most excited and reminds of my time formally in Mozilla, it is a wonderful diverse group of passionate people who have many projects. I feel like it could be rearranged to support a lot of sub-branding. I would love to see it animated too!

    Second for me is the protocol, it is reminiscent of the default link blue. It’s clever but it doesn’t totally grab me.

    The first reptile eye is OK, but feels like a movie poster for a franchise.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Pippa. Animations have been added to the site, so let us know if any of them change your perspective on the ideas.

  6. Skatox wrote on

    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

      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.

  7. Sebastiano Develli wrote on

    I will give a review to each one in the order above.

    I quite like The Eye, some might find it like it is always watching, I´d try to make it clear that Mozilla is trying to care for you and if you go into private mode looks away or closes in a quick animation. The typo is also quite bold and could make it stand out with the strong yellow. The whole concept around the use/ application should be rethought a bit for clarity. It looks the most stable for sure and could easily be branded worldwide and be recognizable.

    Tribal is an interesting idea, with the whole aspect of community, it kind of reminds me of Vaio though. I love the use of the name in a creative way and the reuse of the same elements, though they should always stay the same, don’t use new or modified letters, use the ones you have. Recognizing and global reach will be a hard one with this one, it’s not instant, it’s a slow approach logo (what I mean by that is that you have to get used to it over a long time to really recognize and appreciate the connections).

    Please don’t use the elevator one at all, it’s kind of terrible, colors, shapes and meaning seem to far off to be any good. I don’t see any value in this one.

    The most technical yet is Moz://a, love it for its clever use of characters and meaning, it’s hard to see this one outside of community driven aspects that have a deep connection to the brand. It also may seem like a silicon valley pun like Tumblr or Flickr. Hard to market to a bigger audience because of those limitations and quite boring appearance.

    Wireframe looks interesting, is too common for it to be special, just look at Watch Dogs or any other tech company that wants to be edgy. Everyone seems to love the wireframe, most forget that it is so common that it is interchangeable with anything else. Interesting animations could be possible, the limitations of not being recognizable kill the concept for me.

    Impossible M is a retro modern approach alla MTV with the changing logo fillings, it feels retro but also new because it hasn’t been done for a while, instead of giving it a plain filling this one lets the brand explore more of the day to day basis (Google Doodle). Memorable for sure if there is interesting content provided inside the logo and if it tells a story or conveys an emotion, if not it will fail quickly and become another 3D like letter (Medium). Keep the edginess and embrace it, separate the Logo from the name and make them stand for themselves, the strong point is the interchangeable voice the logo can speak, use it to your advantage and show that you are always on the pulse of time.

    Flik Flak looks promising, in animation or not, but there is just to much going on for my taste, maybe try to make it simpler and always convey it with movement to show the deepness of the ideas that are put with it. Colors should also be rethought and be chosen to fit together better and in a more defining way, maybe a 2 color variant, with black and violet, which would stand out for sure and make it one of the few with that color that could embrace it. Violet would be a goof fit for several reasons amongst them being different and conveying a sense of thrust that goes along with it.

    Those are my quick opinions on those concepts, hope I could help out.

    Sebastiano Develli

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Sebastiano,
      Thanks for taking the time to put together such well-considered and detailed feedback. It’s a great contribution to the future of how Mozilla will communicate to the world.

    2. David Tenser wrote on

      I think I’m mostly in agreement with Sebastiano’s feedback so I’ll +1 it while I consider my own response to the designs concepts.

  8. Damian Brown wrote on

    I like the first and the third. Some of them are bit abstract and the sixth one just doesn’t do it for me.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the input on The Eye and The Open Button, Damian.

  9. Jidé wrote on

    This is work from an agency ?… Looks amateurish to me :/

  10. Hdurham wrote on

    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

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

  11. punctum35 wrote on

    i initially thought the first look was a fun play on the letter “O” without realizing it was called “the eye”, which then threw me off.
    the second one “the connector” would be best suitable for branding locally but not sure about the main logo.
    the third option, the open button, felt too generic. However, it is – including the first two – possibly the best option to scale accross different products.
    i imagined “the protocol” would be used by mozilla on internal memos (it look too professional)
    “the impossible M” reminded me of the 90s internet era which would be too retro for young audiences.
    lastly, if shown without context, i would have never guessed “wide frame” or “flik flak” represented the new mozilla logo.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the comments, punctum35. Appreciate you being a part of this review process. Stay tuned!

  12. Bogdan wrote on

    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

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

  13. Jess wrote on

    These all look pretty clunky to me and none of them speak strongly to the Mozilla brand. A logo should be eye-catching, simple, and instantly recognisable. I don’t feel that way about any of these options.

    If I had to choose, I would pick either Moz://a or the Eye. However, I spend a lot of time working with teens and I can promise you they will see something other than an eye, especially if you use the “All Hands” guy. If you are going to go with that option, you need to change the pupil. For the Eye I also feel the lettering is too thick and overpowering.

    The exact opposite problem is happening with Moz://a. There isn’t enough style to the letters. I don’t think it needs heaps more, but it is a bit plain at the moment. It should feel like someone designed it, right now it looks like someone just picked the first typeface they saw.

    These are my two top choices because they are fairly simple and with a few tweaks could be instantly recognisable. Looking at these logos I tried to think of which ones would look good on a button or sticker. The others are too complex, too much, and too old-fashioned. If I knew nothing about Mozilla and saw those logos I would be incredibly confused. Actually, I do know quite a lot about Mozilla and I’m still confused looking at them. Mozilla needs a good, clean logo that can last for years to come.

    I hope you find this helpful!

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Jess. Very helpful!

  14. Meh wrote on

    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

      Thanks for contributing to this effort, Meh.

  15. liuche wrote on

    I don’t really understand the point of this rebranding, especially with the designs that are featured. They strike me as trying to be “fun” and “hip”, without any long-term vision towards all the places where a logo would be used to represent the company.
    They all seem messy and don’t convey a message – maybe they could be used for a particular event, but I would be aghast to see that representing Mozilla everywhere.

    And absolutely definitely don’t use the eye! The reason why everyone finds it creepy is because it looks like…the Eye of Sauron, which is generally just associated with “evil all-seeing being” which is pretty much the opposite of what Mozilla should be trying to convey.
    http://bit.ly/2bdNKcp

    I’m really confused about the goal of this rebranding – are these seriously being considered as the logo that will replace the current Mozilla logo everywhere?

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Iiuche. If you’d like to learn more about the origins of this brand refresh – why Mozilla is doing this, what problems we’re solving, and what we hope the outcome to be – please have a look of the early blog posts. Thanks for your feedback on The Eye.

      1. Tim Murray wrote on

        Hi again Iiuche,
        In response to comments from you and others, we’ve written a bit more about the strategy underlying the work here: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/
        Thanks!

  16. Jonathan Kingston wrote on

    The good fight:
    * A nod to the past with the eye which is nice, however it’s not clear that is what it is. It also has the chance to be creepy.
    * The colours and text structure instantly reminded me of the Netto supermarket logo which isn’t a good connotation at all

    For the internet:
    * This one is the only one that I think stands out and clearly looks like a logo
    * However I still don’t think it’s unique enough to ever remind you of Mozilla

    Open button:
    * This instantly reminded me of web 2.0 logos and design like flickr and delicious bookmarks which no longer look like this but I feel this shade of blue has been done to death

    Protocol:
    * I really don’t like this, it reminded me of older sites like slashdot and others that used tech features to design their logos. I find it confusing and over done also.

    Wireframe:
    * I like the concept, I’m not keen on the shape. Perhaps take another design and make a wireframe from that, the eye or the share icon?

    Impossible M:
    * Again this cold blue I don’t feel resembles Mozilla. The more I look at this the more I can see it working with some polish though.

    Flick flack:
    * I like that this could be animated, I like that it makes a dino subtly however I think the execution and colours just remind me of kids brick-a-brack.
    * The full logo is probably too complicated for many places on the web we use our logo.
    * I think this because of it’s complexity won’t ever identify itself as Mozilla.

    I really wish Mozilla could go back to using the dino, it still identifies itself. The outline like is used on MDN could be used in these designs somewhere including the red too.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for taking the time to review each of these options and provide detailed feedback, Jonathan. Stay tuned!

  17. Guy wrote on

    I’m sorry but these are terrible. The :// one is the only one that’s not terrible and even so it is ok but it is not good.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for reviewing these initial ideas, Guy. Would love to hear why you feel these are not a good fit for Mozilla so that we can learn more. Appreciate you taking the time to give us your thoughts.

      1. Guy wrote on

        They’re not visually appealing and were made with the intention of hiding some cryptic message instead of promoting a recognizable brand.

        The eye looks like it could be used on a poster for an event, once. The hieroglyphic one looks like it was made with crayons in kindergarten. The open button looks like some diversity propaganda and has clashing and ugly strong colors. The protocol one looks like it could be ok for a mozilla news site or something but its definitely not good nor recognizable enough to represent the whole brand. The 3d square looks like someone got bored because it is boring. The yellow and blue one with dots reminds me of the Metro in the soviet union and looks outdated and as ugly as the rest. And that polygon thing looks like someone took a bunch of acid and instead of making a logo tried to make a cat.

        I’m sorry to be mean but I cannot understand how you guys thought any of these were good ideas. I came here from a reddit thread on /r/firefox and nobody there likes this stuff either. You guys have lost touch with reality if you think these are good and it makes me lose faith you as a result.

        1. Simon wrote on

          > They’re not visually appealing and were made with the intention of hiding some cryptic message instead of promoting a recognizable brand.

          Yes, I think that sums up my issue with the process. There’s too much focus on the symbolism of the logo – long design articles explaining what all the elements represent. But the people encountering the logo won’t have read all of that stuff – all they have is an image on their screen. The image needs to stand on its own merits, something none of these do.

  18. Jim K. wrote on

    The T-Rex eye logo is my favorite. It harkens back to that first T-Rex logo and Mozilla’s origins. It’s got plenty of character and will be a cool logo for Mozilla going forward. Also dinos are just cool.
    The protocol design feels bland and soulless. The foldy flik flak logo is way too busy and complicated. It has too much character and is over the top.
    I think the tribal design has a cool circuit kinda feel but when it’s the letters in Mozilla it looks pretty bad.
    The impossible M is too dull/boring.
    The interconnected M logo is decent but reminds me of the EFF more than Mozilla.
    The open button is pretty cute but doesn’t feel like “mozilla” as much as the T-Rex eye logo.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks Jim for considering all of the options in your comment and revealing the one you feel is best for Mozilla.

  19. Victoria wrote on

    They are all ugly. The design team should try again. And probably stick to the color scheme of red and white. Mozilla has used red and white this whole time and that’s what it is associated with. For example, Google uses blue, red, green and yellow, and everyone knows it’s Google. Changing colors would be like changing Mozilla’s identity.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for reviewing these designs, Victoria. Appreciate the feedback about the colors associated with Mozilla today.

  20. Lance Patrick Lim wrote on

    Nice concepts!
    The Connector is a good concept also but, it looks more like the olympic designs in my opinion.
    The Eye concept looks like the Monster Incorporated movie mashed up with another company logo.
    Moz://a is by far the most geeky, but sad to say most people won’t be able to understand the meaning of it. So it’s a design wasted because it won’t be able to relay any meaning to the user.
    By coolness, Wireframe and Flik Flak takes it all. Gotta love those flats!
    But nice designs! Really really nice. :)

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hey, thanks for the shout-out on the designs and for putting your point of view out there, Lance.

  21. Michelle wrote on

    The Eye and Flik Flak are my favorites, but throwing my support behind the Eye. As a marketing person, my thoughts go to usage in advertising, promotion and PR activities. That means looking at how clean it is, how easily recognizable is at a glance, if works in both color and black and white, and if can be read/recognized when shrunk down to thumbnail/favicon size. Lastly, I’m looking at how creative can you be with the design. What you have with the Eye is very versatile while keeping core design in tact.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the thoughtful argument in favor of The Eye as a marketer, Michelle.

  22. Thomas Crowne wrote on

    The :// looks like ripping off the new curl logo. The old Mozilla brand is fine and looks way better than any of the designs here. My two cents

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for pointing out the reference to curl, Thomas. That was new to us.

  23. Andre Williams wrote on

    Out of all of these I love the Protocol design the most. It’s a fantastic representation of what Mozilla is to its developers and to the internet. I’d buy a TShirt with that logo on it in a heartbeat, no question.

    1. Andre Williams wrote on

      Also, my only conmplaint is the color change to blue. Leave it Mozilla orange and it’ll be easily identifiable as the company behind Firefox. Orange is a big part of Mozilla’s brand image, I think.

      1. Tim Murray wrote on

        This may be a tomato-tomahto thing… I see our current dominant Mozilla color as red, and Firefox as orange. It may be in the eye of the beholder. Thanks for the reminder of the importance of color in communicating brand at a glance.

  24. Doug Pelton wrote on

    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

      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.

  25. Christian Chung wrote on

    After looking through all of the pages of the designs, I would say i prefer the one where the elements inside the circle forms faces and different symbols, because it bends its way into different icons representing different projects of Mozilla, and is the most modern one out of all. However, seems that most of the people here favours the M:// one. That could work too, but that identity does not offer much flexibility into the different projects of Mozilla, and I don’t consider the pictograms as a big part of the identity. They typography of M:// is flawed since it’s using Helvetica heavy – not only a proprietary typeface and not open at all, but also would make the wordmark look too generic, just like some everyday brands you see at the supermarket. Therefore an open and more characteristic typeface, or a set of lettering specifically designed would give that identity a big boost.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Christian. We’re continuing to explore font options for Protocol (M://) and the other concepts, and are well aware that we’ll ultimately need to use an open font in our final route.

  26. Dan Callahan (:callahad) wrote on

    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

      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.

  27. christophe MIRAILLET wrote on

    Moz://a is for me the best alternative ! others are old fashionned or weird, too much complex at my taste ! a bit or improvement for Moz://a could do the job ! maybe

    Mozi//@
    M@z://a

    with a mix of the yellow-eye concept ! one advice frome : be short, explicit and handy ! too much complicated logotypes don’t work ! i’m infographist in France and i know what i’m talking about ! great job and idea btw !

  28. Lyre Calliope wrote on

    Oof. I like where ya’lls thematic thinking is going, but none of these seem very strong.

    My initial reaction is that there’s only one really viable concept here: The Open Button. The fact that only one option seems viable to me is worrisome. But let’s take it from the top.

    The Eye: I actually like this one in the way it harkens back to the dinosaur. As a long-time contributor, it feels like it harkens back to our history but in a new, modern way. Nostalgia is a trap. This is a bad justification for a logo. We need a logo for the world, not insiders. Besides this, it feels very aggressively scary, authoritarian, and inhuman. The ‘All Hand’s variant looks like a cop telling me to stop. The Maker Party variant reminds me of insect eyes, or a hive of some kind. Generally, this makes me think my every move will be surveilled.

    The Connector: Very post modern. It looks random, and it took me a few minutes to see it’s kind of a wordmark sorta thing. It reminds me of the MIT Media Lab logo which I’m also very very much not a fan of. This is better than theirs though because colors and rounded edges. http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_and_identity_for_mit_media_lab_by_pentagram.php

    The Open Button: Reminds me of media player UI. Is it a button I can press? Will it play music? Is it like the iPod click wheel? As far as logos go, it’s unique and I think would lead to strong brand recognition. I’m not sure it immediately says/means anything, but the more I look at it the more it’s starting to make sense. It has a lot of potential as an animated logo and maybe even a functional UI thing of some kind. I want this on my hardware, I want it to glow, and I want to touch it. I really <3 where this is going. I don't think it's ready yet and would like to see it developed more.

    Protocol: Generic, and too developer-centric rather than user-centric. Just like the Eye, this almost conveys the opposite of our mission.

    Wireframe: Very noisy. I didn't even see the M at first. I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Is Mozilla creating a social network? Are we becoming a data analytics company? There could be something that works here, but some of the lines and dots need differentiation. I'd like to see iteration on this concept.

    The Impossible M and Flik Flak: Were these from the Alphabet (Google's parent company) reject pile? They look generic, and already dated. The former looks old, and the latter looks like it's going to be old in like 5 minutes.

    The most viable options here seem to be under the categories of 'Choose Open' and 'With you from the start'. I'd like to see these three options iterated upon.

    I'd toss the rest and go back to the drawing board with each of their respective themes (which are all great btw!) Each of these themes deserves at least one good option.

    I'd like to get some feedback from some non-mozillian non-techies. May come back with additional feedback from other peeps I share this with.

    1. Kez wrote on

      I’m definitely in agreement with the above points. These options don’t feel very strong when compared to the existing Mozilla identity. They lack a distinct connection to the brand and don’t resonate as a result.

      1. Tim Murray wrote on

        Thanks for your comment, Kez. Our existing identity consists of the word Mozilla and a few colors. We lack an icon that’s easy to recognize and relate to, and our visuals don’t express anything about what Mozilla stands for. While we may not have found the exact solution in this first-round concepts, sticking with the visuals assets we have will not serve us well as we seek to grow our audience. This may help explain the need for this work: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/ Thanks again.

        1. Gervase Markham wrote on

          Thing is, our existing identity is “the word Mozilla and a few colors” only in the minds of our brand team, because that’s what our identity _officially_ is. In the minds of most volunteers and even much of the public who know the brand at all, our existing identity is (the word and) the dino. The trouble you are having is that even though this identity is muddled and fragmented, and not consistently used, people don’t think the new ones are better, which is worrying.

    2. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for being a long-time contributor, Lyre. Mozilla is what it is today thanks to volunteers like you. Really appreciate the time you’ve spent putting your detailed feedback together, and please do solicit more from people you know.

  29. Mark Astle wrote on

    As a designer with lots of brand identities to my name, for what it’s worth… The Connector is by far the strongest and most versatile. The Eye is one of those you put into a pitch to pad it out because it’s kind of a neat idea but knowing it’ll never get picked – far too many negative connotations and ugly as sin. One thing though – the typography that sits next to each logo – that’s the bit that really needs the work. Nearly every one uses the same, very dull, and slightly clunky font, (just use Helvetica if you must, at least it’s nicely proportioned) which doesn’t sit well with any if the logo designs. The wireframe version is the only one where the type and logo seems to have been considered as a whole, but as others have said, it’s a bit generic.

  30. Lyre Calliope wrote on

    Ok, I do have to say I really like the Open Button. I like that it looks like the power button on a computer or an electric car. I like that it looks like a key hole. Also, the subtle back/forward thing is really cool. I like the red piece underneath. Is it a smile? Is this a face? It looks really friendly. It looks interactive. It makes me feel a sense of possibility and there’s almost a promise of control in the right hands.. such as my own.

    If this doesn’t end up being the new logo, can I have it?

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for your comments about The Open Button, Lyre. We’ll see what happens to this one!

  31. Yaniv wrote on

    The only one I liked was Moz://a, with the other options I have problem with the colors or shape\design. Good luck! :)

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for contributing your voice to this effort, Yaniv.

  32. Daniele Dellafiore wrote on

    +1 for moz://a and m://

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for letting us know, Daniele.

  33. Teradyne Ezeri wrote on

    Honestly, all of these are just too abstract or geeky for a general brand. With Mozilla’s older “Red Mozilla Dinosaur” brand—or even just the tab with the name “Mozilla” in Fira Sans—it sends a clear and simple message about the brand.

    * Red Mozilla “Dinosaur”: Based off of Netscape, and towering over the competition.

    * “Mozilla Tab” branding: The tab has become an easily recognized staple of browsers on the desktop, and is still used in Firefox Mobile.

    Simplicity can be the biggest plus for branding, especially in a world where people have such short attention spans. Seeing the Firefox and Mozilla logos gives those people something very simple to notice and instantly identify with the company and its products.

  34. Edy Pang wrote on

    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

      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.

  35. youaskedforit wrote on

    It seems to me that many people who have commented did not click on the concepts to read and see more—or perhaps did not realize they could. I don’t know if that would change reactions much, but it almost always helps to read those narratives and to see the various explorations and applications. I see the sentence in parentheses where you’ve invited/instructed people to do so, but you might want to make that more obvious and explicit. I’d make it mandatory!

    Also, I’m curious why a single narrative wasn’t agreed before beginning the design exploration? I understand that Mozilla (like all organizations) is multi-faceted. But it feels like Mozilla has yet to decide what role they want to play in the world, or at least which of the 5 they want to major in. Perhaps the design exploration is a way to help make this strategic direction more clear? I have to imagine that some of the confusion and dissatisfaction in the comments is from a lack of clarity and agreement on the strategic narrative.

    To answer the specific questions in your post:

    Which of these initial visual expressions best captures what Mozilla means to you? – Conceptually: The Connector and Wireframe World. I think they both get at the idea of openness, but specifically through the lens of being open to a COMMUNITY that has the power and ability to shape and reshape the web and make it what they want. Of the two, I think Connector is more unique and original (visually). I feel like Wireframe World has been done before. But with Connector, I have the same concern others have expressed: it might be a little much. I wonder if you can explore a less “tribal” expression that perhaps borrows symbols from programming code instead of circuitry for a softer look and a more recognizable/resonant visual language?

    Which will best help us tell our story to a youthful, values-driven audience? – It depends on what value you think is most important to this youthful audience. Personally, I think the idea of something that is “powered by the people” or community-driven really taps into the whole spirit of the sharing economy, collaborative consumption, etc. Pardon the buzzwords. And therefore, I think The Connector tells this story best. The younger the generation, the less concerned they seem to be about privacy issues. I think they care about two things: 1) social good, and 2) being empowered to make. Of the two, caring about social good feels like a higher-order value.

    Which brings to life the Mozilla personality: Gutsy, Independent, Buoyant, For Good?

    Gusty: The Eye, Wireframe World, The Impossible M
    Independent: The Connector, Open Button, Wireframe World, The Impossible M, Flik Flak
    Buoyant: The Connector, The Impossible M (I believe The Eye has potential to be more cheerful and optimistic without going all purple and Barney on us)
    For Good: The Connector, The Eye (again, with some tweaks to feel slightly less aggressive/big brother-y/less Georgia O’Keefe-y ;-)

    Overall, I feel The Connector speaks to all but Gutsy. The Impossible M speaks to all but For Good. The Eye has potential to speak to all but Independent.

    Which design idea would resonate best around the world? – It depends on the primary audience. If it’s the masses, then The Connector. If it’s a pure developer community, then Protocol. FWIW, I think Protocol is brilliant and clever, but a bit boring tbh. That said, Connector doesn’t exactly feel safe and secure. It has so much frenetic energy. I somehow want to infuse Connector with a bit of the calm and order in Protocol.

    Which design idea has the potential to show off modern digital technology? – The Connector, Wireframe World, and Flik Flak. But what do you mean by ‘modern digital technology’ and how does that apply to Mozilla? When I think of modern and digital I think of flexibility and agility, and I think of systems. Connector, Wireframe World, and Flik Flak communicate those to me.

    Which design idea is most scalable to a variety of Mozilla products, programs, and messages? – Originally, I was going to say the same three as above: Connector, WW, and FF. Because they’re such flexible and dynamic identities, you can create infinite sub-brands and icons for all the current and future products, programs, and messages. But, one of the problems with these identities is that while they are incredible flexible, they don’t necessarily create memorable sub-brands and icons. Everything ends up sort of looking the same. The Eye, however, does a great job at creating sub-brands and icons because its simplicity and more limited nature forces a bit more creativity and personality. I love the executions for All Hands, Maker Party, Speaking Out, and Privacy. They’re fun, clever, clear, and memorable. Much more so than some of the more flexible—and arguably scalable—identities.

    Which design idea would stand the test of time (well…let’s say 5-10 years)? 5 years? All of them should be okay for the next 5. Although, The Impossible M and Wireframe World feel a bit too trendy—especially the former. 10 years? None. But that’s probably a good thing, no? Maybe Protocol. But it really feels too proud of its past. It feels just a bit too insular to allow for 10 years of growth and innovation.

    Which design idea would make people take notice and rethink Mozilla? – The Eye, The Connector, Protocol, Wireframe World.

    Overall, I like the concept behind The Connector but think it needs to be more simple and refined. My close second would be The Eye if you can solve for its various problems.

    Sorry for posting the longest comment ever. Obnoxious.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Obnoxious—are you kidding? This is great. Thanks for running each of the options through our evaluation criteria. These truly are the measurements we’re using to determine which of these directions is the most viable for the future of Mozilla. Really appreciate the care and attention you took to get your thoughts out here.

  36. Luke Tonge wrote on

    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 :)

    post-58335-good-luck-were-all-counting-on-ClLw

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

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

  37. Terry Mesku wrote on

    Not a single one of these designs tell anything about mozilla. Mozilla’s brand has been historical, the type, the dino, the lines and color – are all super strong. With these designs you transform mozilla into something that resembles fashion and clothes, they are based on design trends and most of all, there is absolutely NO relation to what Mozilla is doing…
    Please keep your brand as it is or just give the current one a touch up. there is no need to fix something that isn’t broken.

  38. SL wrote on

    The logos are pretty, but I think they don’t show that Mozilla is really fighting for something that matters.

    They look “good” and “geeky”, but they don’t look “gutsy”.

    If I have to chose, it would be the :// one but I don’t see it as a huge improvement to the original logo. Love the open process though!

  39. Alice Ralph wrote on

    For me, Wireframe World and The Connector are definitely the most interesting. I can see why people seem to like Protocol but it just seems so standard ‘tech’ and bland. At least to my eyes. Wireframe World and The Connector both provide a really fun framework that could be rolled out in really visually exciting ways. I love the idea of the regional flag options.

    The only option that I really dislike is The Eye. The initial ‘M’ reads a bit like a ‘V’ to me. I just think the type is clunky and difficult to read, and it doesn’t offer the vibrancy and flexibility that I think some of the other options have.

    Anyway. Interesting process. Good work! If I had to choose one then I would definitely go for The Connector.

  40. David wrote on

    Please work deeply, currently no one is good, it is my opinion, sorry

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for letting us know your thoughts, David.

    2. Gerardo wrote on

      I fully agree with you

  41. Majken Connor wrote on

    I agree with the bulk of the feedback. These are underwhelming. They feel less clean and polished than the logo we have now. I can’t really express that better (as you’ve asked others to) except to say that I can’t picture another company using any of these except the button, and that makes me think of a music or movie streaming service.

    I think the protocol one is most promising. I am not sure it would be hard for people to read, worth testing. I would guess it would be easier for the nontechie to read as their brains wouldn’t recognize the characters for what they are, and probably see them as the letters they represent.

    Other than that I think we need to be careful of trying too hard to represent specific concepts. It’s a good place to start but we really need something that looks cool, is easy to recognize and “feels” like us. A lot of these are just too complex to get that cool factor at a glance.

  42. Neha Tulsian wrote on

    My vote for Route D: Protocol m:// – Conceptual. Simple. Timeless.
    Communicates the story. But can we add some fun elements to ://

  43. Laura Moreira wrote on

    Hi!
    First of all, i’m loving this open design project. Congratulations on letting us all know the inside view of this fast-paced rebranding.
    I think most of the logos created seem to be very “trendy” and not so much as good logos capable of being used in real life and last through time.
    How do Flik Flak, Connector, or even Wireframe logos work in small dimensions as a tab icon?
    The impossible M looks to hipster/trendy to me and the the Open Button just looks to old (sorry).

    The one that I can see standing the test of time is the Moz://a. I can see the geekiness behind Mozilla and an open door to everything that is yet to be created. I can see ads going like ://reachyourfullpotencial with Moz://a

    By the Way, in the Digital Era, it would be great if we could see this logos in motion :)
    I hope you find this helpfull.

    Great work!

  44. John Roper wrote on

    I really like the M:// one! The only problem I have is that I think the color should be more of an orange or red instead of blue. That color makes me think of Microsoft and or Windows 10.

  45. Drumph wrote on

    Truly disgusting. A complete failure to understand the history, the legacy and the future of an amazing company. Nothing above is the caliber of work that anyone should expect from an agency.

    “There are no duds in the mix” – the delusion in this comment is EPIC.

    If this is the approach to a new logo for Mozilla, it’s pretty obvious a new Firefox logo will be just as horrendous.

    You’re fired. Make Mozilla Great Again.

  46. Sebastián Castiblanco Franco wrote on

    I believe that for a standalone logo, It’s a heavy weight to support all the open-source thinking and philosophy that Mozilla stands for, maybe if we could watch a more developed brand expression would help gain a consistent feeling and lean over this or that option. But for now, I don’t think I could choose one option because I think they all rely on trends and will not survive through time honestly, I think they all work as an exercise and a starting point to go on, feedback is important but at this stage isn;t a very solid path to take. I recommend that in each step, revise and revisit the guidelines, objectives and strategies you people want to print in the brand to make sure it is alligned and giving answers and supporting all that spirit Mozilla represents. I think these excersises are a visual starting point, but needs a lot of work, really.

    Oh, and Mozilla 1 reminds me of Monsters Inc.

  47. Michael Kaply wrote on

    I’ve left feedback on all the other individual designs, but this seems like the best place for overall feedback.

    I think the biggest thing missing from all of these designs is the color red.

    Red has been an integral part of the Mozilla brand from the begining and I think we lose a lot by losing that color.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Very perceptive, Michael. You have not been alone in pointing that out. We’ll be looking at color variants in future rounds of design.

  48. Posted Grubb wrote on

    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.

  49. NetOperator Wibby wrote on

    The protocol logo is the best one in my opinion, it looks awesome.

  50. Marco Frezza wrote on

    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.

  51. Ammar wrote on

    Hi, when I saw the designs, I thought: ok, they are NOT what Mozilla is, and this is my personal feeling.

    The eye-ish is bad as it reflects the surveillance and the origami is a bit hard to recognize.
    Other logos are either too bad colored to be seen (ugly blue… etc) or too abstract for the thing.

    I suggest smmething like the open source initiative or airbnb, where you put an effort to come with some rounded or cube thing that has the idea of your work… Just be open.

  52. tr33ty wrote on

    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?

  53. kktkkr wrote on

    I’m unimpressed with several of these logos, but this is what they currently look like:
    The Eye: Warning sign that stares at you all the time. Yellow and black just isn’t a friendly color combination.
    The Connector: Alphabet soup, as regurgitated from a unicorn. Actually far from connected.
    The Open Button: Circled splitter icon. Feels like you’re making electric devices or cars. Hot pink is an interesting color for a logo.
    Protocol: This URL doesn’t actually work. Perhaps it should.
    Wireframe World: A generic logo for any other company… well, any company starting with ‘M’. For some reason the M shape reminds me of cardboard box go-karts.
    The Impossible M: Band logo. Album cover. Embrace the vaporwave a e s t h e t i c.
    Flik Flak: You should’ve stopped at MOZ, everything below that is a mess of sheet metal.
    I think these concepts should go for a color/font swap and see what comes out.

    It’s a bit early, but let’s vote for some hypothetical awards:
    Most flexible logo: The Connector/Flik Flak
    Most flexible icon: The Impossible M
    Best clarity of message: The Connector (at least, its variations)
    Most print-friendly: Protocol, but that’s almost cheating, so Wireframe World.
    Best mascot potential: The Eye/Open Button
    Best T-shirt potential: Protocol
    Best mug potential: The Eye
    Most enduring: Wireframe World

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      And the award for the most entertaining response goes to…

      Thanks for keeping things light while getting your point across, kktkkr.

  54. Greg K Nicholson wrote on

    So… why not reinstate the dinosaur, with Fira as the corporate font, and red, orange and yellow as the main colours? That’s Mozilla’s identity. That’s us.

    The logo, colours and fonts aren’t the brand – the brand is the set of ideas and values that people associate with the name. We can’t change our brand by changing our logos and colours. So why discard nearly all of our identity? History and continuity are valuable.

    Look at how Channel 4 (in the UK) have changed their brand – their tone of voice, style and positioning – over the last 35 years without ever once changing their logo: http://theident.gallery/menu_channel_c4.php

    If the problem is that Mozilla’s communications and public face don’t express what Mozilla is about, change the tone of the visual design and the language. If the problem is that the wider community isn’t using the brand consistently, help them to do that.

    Has reusing or modifying existing identity elements been considered? Has it been rejected? Why?

  55. Kate Lindsay wrote on

    I think a lot of these are visually attractive, but don’t stand the test of time because they appeal too much to current design trends. The eye I think stylistically stands the test of time, but I it’s hard to get away from the negative surveillance connotations. M:// my favorite concept wise, though I think the design could be refined just a little more. I think you’ve got enough brand recognition at this point that the most users would get it.

  56. Gus wrote on

    • Keep it simple

    • Go to your roots.
    You have a great name (memorable and readable)
    Twitter=Bird
    Starbucks=mermaid
    Facebook=F
    Mozilla=saurian

    • You won’t be able to control how the people will use your brand, so…
    Keep it simple
    (Yes, memorable, strong, flexible, etc., but simple and easy to adapt)

  57. Connor Boyd wrote on

    Personally, each of the concepts are a little too quirky for any kind of timeless appeal. The connector is the concept which I feel has the most potential as it shows a certain cohesion amongst the variety of letters. They are all part to a singular word, just as we are to the Mozilla community. I do not like the way it has been translated however into the various countries and I think its somewhat too friendly – It needs to be refined, and in such a way that it reflects a company that is for the people, for everyone – but that is professional and embues quality, the hard earned foundation and experience of the brand has to be seen – dont forget to show that you’ve done the hard miles, people need to see that.

  58. Keith J. Grant wrote on

    Protocol (“M://”) is absolutely my favorite. It’s brilliant. Big vote for that.

    I also like the look of the Eye. I didn’t think of any negative connotation there; it made me think of Godzilla, not Sauron.

    My other favorite is Flik Flak. The fully expanded one is a bit complex, but I like the little dinosaur look of the MZ when in the shorter version.

    I really dislike the Connector. It looks like an album cover of a one-hit 80s pop band. Not really a fan of the Open Button, either.

  59. Liz wrote on

    I don’t 100% love the plain m and mozilla wordmark we’ve got today, but it’s far preferable to any of these options. Eye of Sauron caution tape – heck no. Many of the others are too visually busy and confusing with line weight that seems like it won’t translate well to scaling up and down (especially impossible M with the thin lines and little dots.) The dots and lines one seems very generic. The “with you from the start” one is the nicest design, but I think would confuse and alienate many people, and be something that pushes people away. Most web users don’t understand what that notation means and printed urls don’t generally use it any more. I am not sure what to say here, and want to like *something*, but I really don’t. Frankly, none of these look representative of the company and its products or philosophy, or the “brand”, to me.

  60. Steph W wrote on

    Loving the open design process… really and truly. So much fun to watch and engage in.
    “Good Fight” – I REALLY wanted to like this one because it continues the dinosaur theme. Originally I was thinking this could work with a color change but no matter how hard I try, I can’t get past the Eye of Sauron and Monsters, Inc connection. The “looking out for you” aspect just doesn’t come across.
    “Connector” – Like the colors much better, but really find all the iterations of it too busy across products and projects and really didn’t see the “Mozilla” written out til someone mentioned in the comments. Like the ability to localize w/ the flags though.
    “Open Button” – definitely my favorite of all of them. Agree that it needs different colors though, reminds me of flickr. I like the “open” button aspect, the “for the people” version, localization w/ flags, the iterations for different convenings, etc
    “Protocol” – Like the look, like the iterations, would like to see more localization ideas. LIke the icons you have going w/ it to demonstrate privacy, fight… leads to more customizability for different events, projects, etc. I like how if folks don’t know it, and see the shortened version it’s an oppty for opening a discussion around “What does that mean?” It hearkens to open web. I know I’m harping, but color… please incorporate reds/oranges. Use/tweak current moz font or similar to maintain continuity of brand?
    “Wireframe” – Trying to find something I like or something constructive for wireframe, I got nothing. Sorry. It doesn’t speak Mozilla to me, it’s too busy for me, I see a jumble of lines not the “M”. Moving on.
    “Impossible M” – Pretty similar to how I feel abt Wireframe. It’s visceral on these two. It looks dated. Reminds me of an educational programming logo from 1970s… sorry can’t remember the name. Not digging the switch between angular and curved w/ some of the iterations. Also, colors.
    “Flik Flak” – love the colors. Other than that, I find it busy, hard to see the “Mozilla”, not really grooving on any of the iterations for the different programs or events. It speaks to me more than Wireframe or Impossible M but that’s about it.

    Overall… please think about color connection w/ history of Mozilla… reds, oranges, Use blues and add greens for contrast to reds & oranges?
    Would REALLY like something that brings the dinosaur in to maintain continuity between history and now. (Dinosaur tail? snout? foot? definitely not the eye, though)

  61. Regnard Raquedan wrote on

    Maybe I’ve been part of the Mozilla community for a long time, but none of the designs are a slam dunk.

    The first design that I thought was OK was “The Connector.” The colors were good mix, but I didn’t see the connection with what Mozilla was about.

    The next design was “Wireframe World” but it would be too generic. But the connectivity aspect and the 3D effect are high points. I’m not high on this but if this was chosen, I would think it’s a tolerable choice.

    Protocol has potential, but too limiting.

    The rest are forgettable.

    Next!

  62. Jake wrote on

    In the spirit of openness and transparency (see principle 8 of the Mozilla Manifesto), please give us a breakdown of how much this initiative has cost. I would like to know how much of Mozilla’s money and time have been expended on this work.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for asking, Jake. Over the last 3 months, our core team of 3 staff people has invested about 15% of their time to this project, or a little over 200 hours, most of which has been focused on community engagement and communication. In addition, our agency partner has had a team working full-time for the past 4 weeks on the design concepts. While it’s not fair to expose our partner’s financial model, because we have the full participation of our community, we are confident that the process has been designed to be both transparent and efficient.

      1. Rudolf Olah wrote on

        You should consider opening up the designs to internal Mozilla employees instead of wasting money on an agency. Agencies are in it to win design awards and more clients $$$ they aren’t in it for the long-run and Mozilla has been around for a very long time. The Mozilla dinosaur and the Firefox logo have been around for a long time and they are recognizable.

        Relying on an agency which is hip to the latest trends is a gigantic mistake. They won’t be the ones stuck with the logo for years or decades to come!

        Please consider an internal design competition and then consider an open to the public competition and consider allowing people to vote on the designs. It’s amazing that the design process isn’t using the open source way of doing things.

  63. Christophe wrote on

    “The Eye” is an awful concept: it gives the impression of being observed and is right at the opposite of Mozilla’s value of privacy.

    “The connector” could be cool. However it bears the risk of llosing the brand image with too much local variants.

    “Choose Open” is graphically a little bit boring and confusing.

    “The protocol” is super cool: looks modern and suggest a committed web pioneer. The :// could be seen as a kind of positive smiley. That’s my favourite in the list.

    “The wireframe” looks like a black-and white terminal legacy; something that is too old and didn’t adapt to the colored internet of today.

    “The impossible M” gives the impression to trick the people. Mozilla changed the world and is true; No tricks here. This logo would be counterproductive.

    “The flick-flack” is cool. Something colorful out of the box. However graphically it’s too complex to be recognized. The pie-chart gives further impression that it’s an office/presentation package. But the grey wordmark in a modern font is nice.

  64. Chris wrote on

    I think designer Paul Rand (not Rand Paul!) said a good logo can be drawn in the sand. These logos are too complicated or faddish. I would prefer a simple evolution of the current mozilla wordmark.

  65. YF wrote on

    I like the Moz://a logo, it is elegant and easy to identify, though not having much meaning and features, but I guess that will not become obsolete.
    But I hope the “:” can be more similar the “i” instead of a colon to helps people correct spelling. Such as increasing the height of the lower point, or add a hat to the upper point. An example for option one, see attachment.

    Other designs are difficult to identify or not impressed for me.

    jb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.key

  66. Michelangelo wrote on

    I’ve taken a look at these ideas yesterday but I’ve decided to take some time before posting my comment.

    Also, if I got it right, these are still high-level ideas that still need to be refined and iterated upon. If this is the case it might explain some of the harsh comments about the overall perceived quality of the artworks.

    As I am a mere engineer with no design education I hope you’ll excuse me if I’ll use the wrong wording. :)

    Cutting to the chase: If I may be blunt none of these logos resonate with Mozilla in any particular way and they all made me feel “meh”. As somebody else has pointed out I’m puzzled by the choice of not leveraging Mozilla’s historical identity in any obvious way: for some reason the historical “red/white” palette has been ignored in all the drafts.

    Somebody has also pointed out that these drafts could be applied to any other company; for some of these drafts I do agree with this assestment; most notably “The Wireframe World”, “The Impossible M” and “Choose Open” are the most generic ones.

    If I were to pick one I’d probably go for Flik Flak because of the resemblance with the beloved Dino. If I can offer a piece of advice: I’d strongly simplify its overall style with smoother lines and less sharp angles to give him an overall feeling of “trustwortiness”. The historical red/white color palette would surely balance that with a bit of our historical sense of “rebellion”. :-)

    About Dino: we mozillians are very fond of it. I’d be the happiest person on the planet to see it coming back in a fresh look. It means a lot for us mozillians, Mozilla and the web. As we look forward to Mozilla’s next challenges we should also keep tight on our roots and “a new Dino” might be the answer, IMHO.

    Of course all these are just my 2c. Whatever the outcome, I’m pretty sure it’ll be outstanding!
    Thanks to Tim and his team for their dedication; I’m sure that replying to all the comments requires a lot of patience. :-)

  67. Tyler Travitz wrote on

    +1 for Moz://a as it really speaks to the core of what Mozilla does. I also like that it can be typed inline.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Good point, Tyler. Thanks.

      1. GG wrote on

        Another +1 on Protocol, Looks really awesome when shortened to M://

        As Tyler wrote, it speaks to the core of mozilla and the people who have supported mozilla to become what it is today. I know a lot of people in my office would switch to mozilla firefox for example (or at least try it out again) simply for the logo, new logo also brings the Idea of a refreshed UI and technologies behind the applications.

        Rest of the logo’s look too…. retro or african tribe-like. And most people in IT prefer simple, clean, futuristic designs.

        HTH and good luck!

        1. GG wrote on

          Oh and Wireframe comes second for me, BUT kinda looks like a nightclub sign

  68. Danielle wrote on

    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.

  69. johnwaid wrote on

    These logos are all lacking in two vital characteristics: robustness and time durability. If this was a student project then the results would be ok, but I find all outcomes here to be underwhelming and far short of the expectation of an international brand. I’m sure they all tried their best, but there’s no wow factor here for me. (I’m very hard to please!)

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John. What international brands do you think do a good job of communicating what their organizations are about?

  70. Ronny wrote on

    I’m with all the comments on the “doesn’t say anything about mozilla”.
    What i think is that it is weird there is no logo exploring the Open source concept further, which is a core value of your brand. Even the most branded and applicable one (with the eye) could have used something to add this value.
    I’m not gonna say the logo’s suck because the designers have worked hard to come up with them and design them. But I think there is room for improvement and I don’t see any proper direction yet. Since I’m not the only one, you might want to review the brief and try again, instead of choosing one direction now and being stuck with it …
    Good luck to all :D

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the good wishes and feedback, Ronny.

  71. MechR wrote on

    My initial gut reaction: Yeesh, these look really bad.

    Moz://a is easily the least offensive. Maybe a bit bland-looking amongst all the crazy ones.

    Wireframe is second-least-offensive, but looks harder to give personality. The India and Japan versions seem to be throwing off the M geometry, and some of the bigger network designs on its subpage come out messy-looking.

    Flik Flak might work with better colors. I don’t quite like the sharp boxy modern-art look though. It feels like a logo-design company’s logo.

    Open Button is an Intel color lawsuit waiting to happen. I don’t like how the symbols look, but I guess it’s friendlier-looking than Flik Flak. Might be salvageable.

    The Impossible M is just tacky. The Connector is an unreadable mess. And The Eye is downright creepy, while also colored like a construction company.

  72. Tyson wrote on

    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

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

  73. njn wrote on

    The Eye: immediately screams Sauron/surveillance to me, which is the exact opposite of what we want!

    The Connector: Not so bad. Certainly flexible. It’s quite large, though. It took me some time to realize that the generic one had the letters of “Mozilla” in it, and now that I see it I’m not sure how successful that is.

    Open Button: doesn’t resonate with me at all. Looks like a power outlet to me. Is it meant to be a face, and customizable? If so, avoiding unpleasant racial connotations with those simple shapes will be difficult.

    Protocol: My favourite. Simple, and the “://” ties into the web. Old school. People might be unsure how to pronounce it? The “M://” abbreviation is hard to attach meaning to, though, and looks like an MS-DOS prompt.

    Wireframe: Doesn’t resonate with me. Very busy, with the knobby vertices and overlapping edges. Took me a while to realize the wireframe can be read as a 3d “M”. The angled “Mozilla” sticks out awkwardly.

    Impossible M: I don’t like the colour and texture choices at all. Even if they were removed or improved, the shape just feels awkward to me.

    Flik Flak: Cute, but very busy and complex. Again, took me some time to realize the shapes spell “Mozilla”. Looks like a house of cards, which suggests flimsiness.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the detailed feedback, njn.

  74. Gerald wrote on

    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

      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.

  75. Omar wrote on

    My favorite one by far is Moz://a. I don’t know if it matters that non-geeks can’t read it because of the organization’s purpose. Mozilla is not a product. It’s a group that tries to make great software. So why not cater to those in the know? The URL would make the reading obvious if people happened upon you by chance.

    My second favorite one is Flik Flak. It can represent the diversity of Mozilla product offerings, if that’s an important branding goal. And it’s very versatile—it can be used in part for product icons (if desired), or the whole thing would work well on letterhead (for example). It’s a clever concept, but I’d love to see the full brand system and whether it will be animated.

  76. Carlos Bravo wrote on

    Will you make a second process please? Here in Chile there was not much publicity to the issue. I think the proposals are vague , do not prove a true identity and lack much subtlety and creativity in design , not adaptable to new technologies . Anyway, now that many know this a second call would not be bad to participate. IMHO, a user Mozilla forever .

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      First Carlos, thanks for being a supporter of Mozilla for so long. It would be great to hear from your perspective what images or symbols you feel would be a better reflection of the Mozilla that you experience.

  77. Elaine Romero wrote on

    I think the Moz://a logo is much better than other design ideas because it gives out a fresh and very recognizable attention to the public. Unlike the other designs, they’re all beautiful too but for me, I think they depict too much and far away from the idea.

  78. Phil wrote on

    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

      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

        Then this is…?

  79. Patrick wrote on

    Wow! I love looking at each proposal and seeing what values they shine of the brand.

    In regards to the EYE, I think it’s great to show heritage! The EYE proposal reminds me of one of FireFox’s competitor’s logo. I think Opera already took this one… (it’s hard to distinguish the two – apart from color)

    When I look at the CONNECTOR, it makes me think of a festivity. However, to see the meaning, I had to look and think I am looking at a Mozilla logo. A little too complex.

    Let’s press the OPEN BUTTON! At first I did not clue into the idea of the elevator door button. I am used to seeing elevator doors open buttons like this:

    The PROTOCOL really captured my attention! I think it is really a good idea. However, when abbreviated, it seems like “MILL” (M://) – this is a minor infraction in my opinion.

    The WIREFRAME WORLD is flexible! It seems like a good way to represent the organization but in a – again very abstract way.

    The IMPOSSIBLE M is, well, impossible! I would need some getting used to for me. I think it is not bold enough. It doesn’t take up lots of space and so reminds me of a lack of – something (ie: innovation, dedication… clearly not what I see in Mozilla).

    FLIK FLAK away! It’s a neat design, looks great for animation. I have trouble seeing the MOZILLA hidden in the folds. It doesn’t seem to fit the screen very well.

    Overall, I am a PROTOCOL supporter! I think it best represents the mission of Mozilla (or should I write Moz://a) and relates to the Web and technology in general shaped by the Web. The idea of the face in text is also cool. The PROTOCOL is standing out the most to me.

  80. Nathan Bylok wrote on

    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.

  81. Umberto wrote on

    Hi, I’m writing as a devoted user from the very early releases.
    I think none of those designs is suitable, though everyone is very smart in its way.

    The first thing I should note is that the color switch from the warm and embracing red towards this cold tones is not very encouraging, so I would love to see those logos on a different color set. I’m well aware that blue is the tone used to express trust and security, but I don’t think that it applies to mozilla, as the commitment for security is already well known; I would preferably focus more on expressing the excitement of the browsing experience and so stick with the red/warm tones.

    For the same reason, please avoid absolutely “the eye”. It definitely look like an evil eye. It’s shouting distrust on every single curve of the logo.

    “The connector” is interesting, but it looks like a touristic logo. Too much complicated (and too many colors). But I like the font used to write the plain text part of the logo.

    “Choose Open” is sad. Absolutely sad. It looks like a logo for the remote control of a tv set. Or for a music platform everyone will forget very soon, though the idea of making it the base for an emoticon was very smart.

    “The protocol” is the one I predict you will choose in the end. It’s moderate and highly expressive of the fact you are a… software house. I don’t like the abbreviation and I think you should never use it in your official documents, in order to respect readability and accessibility purposes, though it was a very cool code.

    “The wireframe world” is very interesting. Looks very much like the logo of an architect and gives a strong idea of the fact you are a solid and creative foundation, but I think it has the defect of not having the name on a horizontal line. Plus the black color is a bit heavy.

    “The impossible M” is my other favorite with Protocol. But again I don’t like the colors. And I don’t like the font used to write Mozilla. I would go for something more rounded to express empathy towards the user.

    “The flick-flack” is very experimental and pleasant. But… it’s totally unreadable.

    You will never do, but in the end I think you should come back to the creation step and do it again.

    Anyway I really think that the old simple text without the dyno was enough. I would have added just a reference to the firefox icon on the “o”. Something like the attached sketched.

    Thanks for the attention. Hope you will choose wisely.

    mozilla

  82. Juan wrote on

    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.

  83. christopher luna wrote on

    Please, just use the bill cipher one!… no my bad, I meant “The Eye”!

    It looks amazing, and the fact that looks like bill cipher has absolutely to do with how cool it looks. :D

    Jokes aside, I actually think the one with the eye is the only one that is interesting. The other ones look just like any other plain generic logo.

  84. Eeva Lamminen wrote on

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

  85. Arhgi wrote on

    Hi,
    I just found out your brand consulting and wanted to thank you for this initiative.

    On my opinion, there is no one that completely matches the goal.

    The eye : I don’t like it. I find it too heavy, and, like some other comments, the eye mostly makes me think of 1984 and mass control.

    Connector : the idea is good but the result is not good. It looks more like a maze than like connectors and it is not readable.

    Open button : this one is quite good and closer to the target. A simple, graphic and easily recognizable logo design. I think you should try with other colours to be sure it really looks like open / on (perhaps use one darker colour for the circle and a brighter color for the rest, not only the bottom). I’m not fan of the pink colour (but I don’t like pink in general).

    Protocol : This one is also quite good. I like the principle and :// that really match the web. But I find the colours are too bland especially the Moz://a with two blue. The blue on the girl t-shirt example is better.

    Wireframe: again a good idea with a bad result that don’t make sense and some declinations are horrible.

    Impossible M : The third one I think are quite good. But I would remove the colours and effects on the side and only keep the lines. In the declinations, please remove these blinky and outdated colours and gradients, else the pictos for webmakers, privacy … really works and match the logo design.

    Flik flak : I don’t understand this one. it doesn’t work, is not readable and too confusing.

    In general, I think you should focus on a less is more principle with a simple graphic logo with a set of simple colours and take care of the font set.
    Also, in most of the cases, the logo variations per country changes too much the logo. I would avoid it.

    Hope this will help.
    Cheers

  86. Nico wrote on

    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.

  87. matiu wrote on

    i am over enthusiastic for the M://
    The argument for me is plain and simple : i can do it with my keyboard.
    It means this is an identity that can be fully appropriated by everyone. Isn’t is the best definition evec of an Open Source project ?

    1. scull7 wrote on

      +1 I concur. The ability of the moz://a logo to be easily typed is a great example of being accessible and open. I certainly would buy a t-shirt with it. I would go with the Mozilla red and Firefox orange though. Make the :// orange and it would be very nice hint back to Firefox and Mozilla’s start as a web browsing company. The typeface could be used to point to the future and then you’d have a simple branding that could end up being timeless.

      1. scull7 wrote on

        Also, I would love to see the dinosaur brought back. You could even incorporate him into the Moz://a mark with some creative use of the “o” and tail of the “a”

        1. scull7 wrote on

          Another theme that hits me with this logo is the idea of being born of the web. Especially with animation you could convey this with letter movement originating from the :// or even starting with http:// and showing a name evolution that ends with moz://a pointing towards the future.

  88. James S. wrote on

    Hard to tell without any application but on first views:
    1. Monsters Inc.
    2. Hackneyed, see Tusk Conservation, BA world tails, etc…
    3. Is this actually an idea that was presented?
    4. Ok, but colours awful and typeface not appropriate.
    5. Not ok.
    6. Trendy risograph print company.
    7. WTF!

    From this lot can only be 4.

  89. Greg K Nicholson wrote on

    We had a logo, but we stopped using it because we thought the wordmark was enough to replace it. It wasn’t, so let’s reinstate our logo and build a clear new voice around it.

    Otherwise, good luck to whoever has to write the next verse of the Book of Mozilla:

    “But the followers of the beast believed not, and they did cease to follow it. And lo came forth the protocol symbols, which did slay the beast. And as the beast lay moribund, it spake forgiveness, for it knew the sorrow of its followers.”

  90. Antoine Valot wrote on

    Congrats on trying to change things up… but you’re skipping the most important step.

    Looks like someone is applying the current fashionable logo designs to the Mozilla brand, without any thought as to the brand strategy. That’s the cart before the horses.

    So what you get is what’s fashionable, and will look dated next year. You might want to look for more seasoned designers, who are no longer as interested in showing off how “on fleek” they are, and more interested in _solving your problem_.

    And that’s the crux: What is the problem? What actually needs to be solved? Just naming a few feel-good values does not a brand strategy make. What about the brand’s audience, category, competitive context, history, position, direction, benefits, promise, archetypes, voice, tone, pace, posture, key messages? Are these defined?

    Abraham Lincoln once said “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” I recommend you hit pause on this premature effort to judge a few arbitrary solutions, and instead engage the community in sharpening the problem. What are the brand’s context, objective, and attributes? Once these are defined, you’ll have some real criteria for evaluating visual solutions.

  91. Proesnie wrote on

    Moz://a is the best one!

  92. Francis wrote on

    Moz://a is the only one that comes close to being OK, it still would need much refinement.

    The others are very poorly executed and/or have a complete disconnect with Mozilla. I’m all for trying something new, memorable, and different than the rest of the industry, but these other options are not good solutions to that problem.

  93. Dafna wrote on

    internet for the people! love the concept, feels open, modular and open for changes, happy and positive.

    some of the others are a bit more code related which makes other people who are not developer feel out of the game and that there are some places that are not “for the people”

  94. Annika wrote on

    None of the logos reflects on gender in IT in any way. It is 2016 and a organization that undoubtedly does great things for Diversity and Inclusion sees no need to reflect that in their public appearance?
    You could be the shining stars to which all the non-white non-male people in the IT Industry could look up to.

    But you just create a logo.
    This makes me sad.

  95. Kean wrote on

    I’m a web designer, so my view will be somewhat skewed. But here’s my thoughts…

    A: The Eye – Fine for a Godzilla logo but doesn’t seem to align with what I’d expect for a company like Mozilla

    B: Connector – Interesting and opens things up for a much wider brand identity however it feels too childish.

    C: Open Button – Not especially a fan of the colour scheme and though I understand it’s not been given the time to be refined it looks the most rushed of the lot. I’m not sure the icongraphy is going to be easily understood without explanation

    D: Protocol – My preferred option of those presented. I think the font could do with some work and be softened in come way, or possibly more closely related to common coding fonts. It elevates the logo beyond only type without the need for any icongraphy that often tends to overcomplicate a logo.

    F: Wireframe & G: Flik Flak – Both of these are just too complex and busy. The Flik Flak logo especially is just too complex and not clear.

    E: Impossible M – Everything about this looks retro, especially with the neon colours. While these have become prominant again in certain industries it just serves to date the logo even before it’s started and seems to look backwards rather than forwards.

    With the exception of the Protocol option none of these, in my view, offer anything more than the existing logo and surely there is no point in making a change unless this change brings something better. The Protocol seems like a good starting point but does need further development to warrant replacing the existing logo.

  96. dwalachn wrote on

    The Eye reminds me of the Eye of Sauron much. as LoL-able and geek as it is, i’m not sure it suits Mozilla that much.

    The Open Button is obscure to me, as in terms of design it doesn’t ticks with my imaginarium in general nor does it spontaneously tick with the idea of Mozilla in my mind.

    The Wireframe World is as much obscure as the Open Button. I get the idea, it just doesn’t do the job to me.

    The Impossible M is just too much of an electro hipster thingy in my opinion. It’s all sophisticated, bright, and cool, but that’s all.

    Flik Flak is absolutely unreadable I-to much time taken to identify the brand, i’d stopped caring before i found out hadn’t i known the brand (plus i find it repulsivly ugly)

    The connector is all nice looking, though you have to figure the letters. Still it’s adaptable, it’s lovely. Still, hard to read.

    The Protocol is the one that’s the most powerful in terms of activity/brand adequation to me, the blue color is reassuring, maybe there could be more work on the choice of the typography (but i’m being pushy) and it has the adaptability of the Connector without it’s flaws in terms of readability.

    So my vote goes to The PROTOCOL !

  97. Michael Kelly wrote on

    As a 5-year contributor/employee, none of these stand out to me. Protocol is the only one that actually seems related to what Mozilla does in practice; the rest could be logos for any company.

    Protocol also has the added benefit of being easily remixable by anyone in the community. I can make a “M://webdev” logo with just some CSS and typing for Mozilla Webdev related things. Easy adaptability by the community is a really nice quality for a logo for an open source community.

    But, as others have mentioned, it suffers from readability problems (especially for non-english speakers), it doesn’t use our colors, and the “trick” behind the logo makes no sense to most people.

    Which begs the question: Why does our logo need a trick?

  98. Nick wrote on

    Sorry, but none of these are any good.

    The eye.. of sauron, really?
    The connector.. too complicated.
    Open button.. looks like a media player icon (a bad one at that)
    Wireframe.. again too complicated.
    Flikflak.. i dont even

    In short only Moz://a and impossible M stand a chance of being something suitable, but they are all bad.

  99. David wrote on

    I dont like any. I prefer the original, with some remodeling, something.
    haha the eye… OF SAUROM ??? WTF?? REALY??
    That´s cool. Moz://a.

  100. Chris H-C wrote on

    I was hoping to see at least one “Wow, that’s neat” design concept… but I confess that my reaction was more along the lines of “No, except for M:// which is acceptable, I guess?”

    If these are the choices, I’d prefer to stay with what we have until we get a design we can be enthusiastic about. (though maybe others are enthusiastic about these designs? I’m a sample of size one, after all)

  101. Luke wrote on

    Protocol is far and wide the best graphical solution here. It’s brilliant.

  102. mpia wrote on

    As a designer i think all of them could be logos of any kind of business. Typography is difficult enough, and none of them is fast recognizable stays in memory. Also i believe that the orange color should remain.

  103. Alex wrote on

    OMG, these are awful. Do not go there. The current logo is good — no need for a symbol, that is so 20 years ago. Need simple, clean type, maybe some color solutions. No crazy “pivots” or “departures” or “realignments” — all of that is garbage. If you want to be cool, as the fans to rate the new crap compared to the old logo. If you want to show attitude, hire an expensive re-brand agency who will give you a jr. designer or two to compile some “ideas” and you will have to hire an illustrator to clean up their sh…ty AI work. Then run with their “solutions” and be proud. People will eventually eat it, and forget the old logo.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for lending your voice to this effort, Alex. The visual assets we have today consist of the word Mozilla in an undistinguished typeface and a few colors. We lack a complete brand system to communicate in a modern way through social media and other digital, motion, and 3D experiences. We have no icon to represent us in small spaces. That’s part of the purpose of this work. Please respond to clarify if we’ve missed your point. Thanks again ~

      1. Ryan Quinn wrote on

        I disagree.

        The Mozilla font is very recognizable, and it has a warm, friendly character with a bit of an edge. While it is undistinguished, that is part of it’s charm, and it echos the proletariat ethos of Mozilla. Mozilla is about making the web an open and democratic place. “Internet for people, not profit,” remember?

        You have the ‘m’ and the lizard head for icons. Then there is Moz, the Lizard mascot that Mozilla inherited from Netscape.

        apple-touch-icon-180x180.00050c5b754e

  104. Rajpriya wrote on

    I like no 1 but it’s confusing to read the brand name, I also loved the concept of :// but it looks simple and something is missing! I also tried to comeup with a logo where your Firefox browser is a big hit and used colors for dark and Internet!

    image

    image-1

    image-2

  105. Rajpriya wrote on

    I like the no.1 color combo but don’t like the brand name cut its confusing to read, I also like :// logo but it’s a little simple… I tried a few combo hope it helps.

    image-3

    image-4

    image-5

  106. David wrote on

    There is some great creative work going on here. Kudos to your team for stretching themselves and not just taking the safe, refresh approach.

    That said, from these examples it seems very clear to me that your team needs the help of a seasoned brand identity expert. These directions all tend toward a visual-first, trend-centric approach. Strategy seems to be surface deep and I can’t envision any of these existing beyond an annual event or seasonal campaign.

    If I had to choose, the wireframe solution seems the have the greatest potential for longevity and evolution over time. You could really make that work well with the right brand strategy behind it.

  107. Daniel Hulse wrote on

    None of the above. If I had to choose, maybe protocol, although it is very boring and needs a lot of work before it can be seen as professional.

    If you want the concept phase to work properly, maybe generate a few better ideas before bringing them to the community. These suck. Most of them simply would not work for a broad-reaching, tech organization like yours. Maybe for a museum or art gallery, but not a tech organization a third of internet users rely on.

  108. Enrico wrote on

    “The Eye” looks menancing, as it reminds me of Sauron or the Big Brother. That’s most inappropriate for a Mozilla logo.
    “The Connector” logo takes ten full seconds to understand, and it doesn’t look very “Mozillaish” to me.
    “The Open Button” should suggest both an elevator’s “open doors” button and a smiley. As a emoticon, though, the expression looks sad to me. Kind of when someone pretends being happy but it’s not.
    “Protocol” is a concept I like. It immediately reminds you of the Internet, which is good. It’s a bit unpersonal though.
    “Wireframe World” I just don’t like it very much.
    “The Impossible M” has a retrò look which match badly with an IT organization.
    “Flik Flak” is far too complicated to me, I don’t like it very much.

  109. Paul wrote on

    I don’t like any. This is the only re-branding that would make any sense:
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Broccauley/Rebrand_to_Spider

  110. Tessie wrote on

    Being that this is conceptual work, my vote is the “://” concept, but I stress that it needs a lot more work. As it is presented, it lacks personality.

    The other concepts, meanwhile, are trendy at best. Maybe too much personality and not enough tribute to the tech. As presented they have no long lasting potential. These seem to trivialize Mozilla and look at if they were designed to look flashy. “Design for design’s sake” as we designers say. It’s usually not the best direction to take things.

    Wishing the project well!

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the good wishes, Tessie. How important do you feel paying tribute to the tech is in relation to communicating other aspects of the Mozilla story (like policy and advocacy work, expanding digital literacy and accessibility, and the like). Do you think our identity should lead into one aspect really well or attempt to encompass all of it?

      1. Scull7 wrote on

        Perhaps a combination of the impossible M and m:// would give you an instantly recognizable logo that could encompass all that moz://a (can’t stop typing that!) represents.

  111. Eliott wrote on

    The Impossible M (design route F) is the way to go ! Easily readable, and between old and new shool, with the typo looking “simple” (and old fashioned maybe with the dots that reminds me of industrial printing canvas), but the colors and the numerous (Moebius ring and Eisher’s paints) references to the infinite being refreshingly modern, especially with the colors chosen and the kind of “flat design” twist to it.

  112. John wrote on

    IMO a logo should stand by itself. If the name is needed to identify the company, then the logo doesn’t do its job. Moz://a could be altered to Mozi//a and still achieve its purpose.

    The black block text on yellow gives me a headache – really – and the others seem overly complicated, or “busy”.

  113. yasir baloshi wrote on

    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.

  114. Cody wrote on

    All good concepts. But not nearly enough! Please keep them coming!

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the encouragement, Cody.

  115. Vampireos wrote on

    Mozi//a ( ‘ ‘)/ +1

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for contributing your preference (and in a very Mozilla way), Vampireos.

  116. Sunny Kalsi wrote on

    The evil / sauron eye is easily the most rock-and-roll of the designs. The rest are sensible but strangely nothing says “Mozilla” as well as that eye. If you’re thinking of re-energising the brand, that’s the direction you should take.

    Of course, there are downsides with it. The yellow makes it seem more like the sauron “all-seeing” surveillance eye, but it’s also the easiest way to communicate the 60s japan-pop feel the logo is going for. However, on the one hand it’s great because it builds awareness of the problem, and on the other hand I feel like a minor colour change could fix the issue.

    Don’t give up on the M()zilla!

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for the sixties Japan-pop reference, Sunny. By “problem” are you referring to privacy and surveillance? Appreciate you adding your voice to this conversation and for your thoughts on The Eye.

  117. Kevin wrote on

    I quite like the “Impossible M” logo. Personally I find it to be the best logo here. It’s simple, aesthetically pleasing, and it’s memorable. It has meaning but it isn’t as overt as several of the others: most people looking at your logo aren’t going to be contemplating its meaning.

  118. MadCatX wrote on

    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…

  119. Dan wrote on

    Simplify it as Moz. (Moz://a).

  120. Joe Lackner wrote on

    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.

  121. Marcos Ortiz wrote on

    By far, my personal favorite is Moz://a. It allows you to play almost with everything you are working on. Great work, by the way.

  122. Ryan Quinn wrote on

    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.

  123. AppleJack wrote on

    I think all of these are amateurish and ghastly. The color schemes are horrible, too.

    Unfortunately, I don’t have much by the way of suggestions. I’ve always liked Firefox’s logo for the most part and, I like Thunderbird’s even more. Why not stick to the classic open source logo style like Tux, Beastie, GNU, Python, Go, etc? Just keep the Dino. It’s fun!

    Mozilla’s excellent reputation negates the need for re-branding. Just keep up the good work.

  124. Chris Sawyer wrote on

    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?

  125. Jim O. wrote on

    After sitting with these for a little while, I think the 2 concepts that have the most potential are The Connector and The Impossible M. The Connector, because of its expansiveness and flexibility. The Impossible M, because of its strength as a cohesive mark.

    The Connector feels like it’s the building blocks for a whole visual language, and it gives me the sense of many different pieces working together. That feels like it has some nice parallels with Mozilla’s mission.

    The Impossible M, visually, feels like it has a ton of unrealized potential that needs to be explored. I could see a lot of different takes on the colors and shapes that make up the M, even potentially breaking those shapes apart in a way that brings the visual style a bit closer to The Connector. For a single indelible mark, The Eye, Protocol, and The Impossible M are the best candidates. The Eye is too creepy for me, and Protocol feels stuck in the past and tied to a bit of internet arcana that – while clever and recognizable to many people – seems limiting.

    Both The Connector and The Impossible M could benefit from a lot of refinement (which I know is coming). The most glaring execution issues, to me, pertain to the wordmark that goes with each one. The word “Mozilla” needs to not feel stuck-on or like an afterthought, but like an integral component. Some low-hanging fruit as far as bringing the wordmark in line with the logo mark: for The Connector, using a typeface that picks up on the roundedness of the other shapes. For both, using a typeface whose ‘M’ slants outward on the sides – even if not in as extreme a way as the ‘M’ shapes do in both logos – rather than an ‘M’ with straight-up-and-down side strokes.

    A last word on The Impossible M: I get that part of its ‘backstory’ comes from vibrance, creativity and diversity, which are all great things to connote. But I think it’s a bit hamstrung by its retro vibe. In an age when we no longer need to be so concerned about viability for printing processes (color separations, moiré dot patterns), the dots feel like an unneeded throwback. I would encourage everyone (especially the designers!) to look beyond this specific visual style, and judge the concept based on the underlying shape of the mark.

    Just my 2 cents. (OK, maybe that was more like 20 cents.)

  126. Sam Stuewe wrote on

    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

      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

  127. rodrigob wrote on

    Where do we get to vote ? On the comments ? I would go for “The Connector”,

    The eye is plain out scary (it screams “invasion of privacy” and “sauron”).

    Open button, The Impossible, Wireframe world appear straight out ugly to me
    Flik Flak is underadable, and I suspect will print/read bad in many formats
    Protocol seems too geeky for me, I believe most people will not understand the :// reference. It is also rather boring visually.

    The Connector has a clear brand identity, is bright, easy to spin-off, and appeals to my visual taste. Although I agree with comments above that it might become outdated when fashion style changes, but logos are not forever. When we get there, Mozilla will update again.

  128. Ben wrote on

    [ T H E E Y E ]
    Love the contrast, but the yellow and black remind me of too many power tool/construction company logos. Very Utilitarian. Playful with the eye but still feels industrial.

    [ T H E C O N N E C T O R ]
    Love the mark when the typeface is attached, but feels too kid friendly and not future friendly. Also reminds me of the London 2012 Olympics logo. The typeface though is beautiful. I DO enjoy the playfulness and colors of this one.

    [ O P E N B U T T O N ]
    This one is awkward to me. The many faces feel visually forced and cold. Not Mozilla.

    [ P R O T O C O L ]
    A little too 1990’s to be future-proof. Doesn’t convey the fun and creativity coming out of Mozilla. Very clever though.

    [ W I R E F R A M E W O R L D ]
    This one is strong and fun. Feels very modern, but with some 1980s influence. For some reason I feel like this logo would be a better fit for a production company or music magazine.

    [ T H E I M P O S S I B L E M ]
    This concept is my favorite. Strong, modern, and potentially timeless. It’s fun, but professional and forward looking. Good structure throughout. Looks great on everything and would be fun to sport on a t-shirt.

    [ F L I K F L A K ]
    Really bums me out. It’s SO busy and reminds me of paper and gardening (for some reason). :P

    I love all the creativity put into these concepts. I am by know means a design authority, but these are just some of my thoughts! :)

  129. Ezhik wrote on

    The URL one looks like the current Rambler logo.
    The circle one looks like a previous Rambler logo.

    I rather like the wireframe one, but it doesn’t really feel like “Mozilla” to me. Are you going to rebrand Firefox and such to go along?

  130. alex wrote on

    I prefer Protocol and The Eye.

  131. Max Exter wrote on

    Every one of these fails the first question I would ask, which is, is the new design better than the old?

    Protocol is the best of the bunch, but contrary to your writeup, they’re all duds. The last thing Mozilla needs right now is to screw up the branding. With any of these you’ll end up with an inferior design and you’ll confuse the general public at the same time.

  132. juan wrote on

    M://

  133. Ethan Queen wrote on

    Keep the logo you already have.
    Changing logos will do nothing for you as a brand.
    I really dislike all of the ideas above. They are just horrible compared to the current logo.
    I’ve no idea why companies think it is a good idea to change a well established, simple logo.
    Every company that I have seen do this, changes the logo to something that pales in comparison to the original. Please don’t follow suite.

  134. N. wrote on

    None of these speak to Mozilla’s brand, and none contribute anything to speak of aesthetically. Erector Set “M” is far and away the strongest treatment, its simplicity an asset to versatility, but is quite bland (still preferrable to garish and/or twee palettes in the others!!!). “://” is lost on most users now that full URLs are rarely displayed, plus is too narrow to speak authentically to your mission anyway.

    Is this to jettison your tarnished reputation now that you caved on DRM? ‘Cause these designs just rub that bland type of corporatist capitulation in everyone’s faces.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks for taking the time to go through the designs and share your thoughts, N.

  135. Maciej Lisiewski wrote on

    1. The eye:
    – not readable, despite being font-based
    – vertical iris caries negative connotations, at least in western culture. that connotation clashes with privacy and freedom championed by Mozilla. Message-wise the worst of the lot
    – heavy and dense – at 1/3 of the size will be a dark blob

    2. The connector:
    – WAT.
    – recommended reading: http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/12/do-almost-anything

    3. Open Button
    – looks like a generic button you’d find on a washing machine
    – I don’t read this symbol as “open”, it carries no meaning to me

    4. Protocol
    – I love it. It’s so much better than the others it feels like they were included as the obviously bad choice to give an illusion of decision making
    – works with Mozilla mission messaging
    – aestically pleasing
    – lacks technical gotchas alternatives have

    5. Wireframe world
    – lacks meaning

    6. The impossible M
    – feels dated, 80’s Ikea catalogue style
    – the least bad of the ones that are not protocol

    7. Flik Flak
    – double WAT

  136. gazugafan wrote on

    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.

  137. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on

    I wish Mozilla used clear, simple language to communicate with your audience. I find marketing language such as Mozilla’s “personality” being “Gutsy, Independent, Buoyant, For Good” off-putting.
    Alas, there is no constructive way of saying this: I don’t like any of the logos. I dislike “Moz://a” the least.
    I say this with lots of love for the company: Mozilla needs to do better. Both w.r.t. your logos and w.r.t. the language with which you communicate.
    The main things I associate with Mozilla are: web, open, education.

  138. Srap wrote on

    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

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

  139. Gerardo wrote on

    In my opinion, the best one is Moz://a, the protocol syntax is a nice wink and a recognizable icon for a lot of people that use the web daily.
    I like the ideas behind the rest of logos but it seems that more work is necessary.
    Regarding puzzles, they are funny and geek but I think a logo should be very easy to read and understand for everyone.

  140. Vincent wrote on

    The Eye’s yellow-black color combo is way too crass and doesn’t allow for much variation in color. It also has a certain obscene sexual vibe to it.

    The Connector looks like the London 2012 logo. From the exact outer shape down to the lower-right zig-zag.
    And by now it has been pretty much established internet-knowledge that the London 2012 logo could easily be mistaken for a rendition of the act of cunnilingus.

    Open Button looks like the work of an amateur. A bad one even.

    Protocol isn’t too bad. But googling it would suck.

    Wireframe World looks kinda cool, but also pretty similar to Medium.com and the additional “MOZILLA” type is somewhat awkwardly placed.

    The Impossible M is pretty bad.

    Flik Flak has way too many details for a logo and simply doesn’t work as such.

    I very much like the current “mozilla” brand. Why not just simplify/focus your current branding by getting rid of the dinosaur and all other decorative branding elements? The current “mozilla” is pretty good. Slap some nice foreground/background/accent color variations/themes on it (like, one for each major project/product or so) and you’re good.

  141. Matt wrote on

    Honestly I wouldn’t rate any of them over a 4 out of 10.

    Of the bunch, the :// design is the best, but that’s about like saying that a punch to the gut is better than a punch to the groin, you really don’t want the punch to the gut, but it is better than the punch to the groin.

    I’ve seen it suggested over on Ars-Technica that a new logo that would tie in with the past (and thus transition the brand) is the old Netscape symbol, but updated with an M instead of an N. I’d honestly get behind something like that.

    For these, I’d say the lizard eye is (A) Not really evocational of a lizard eye (more of a cat eye), (B) too evocative of Sauron of LOTR (And thus being spied on), and (C) Horribly 1970’s in color scheme.

    The abstract tribal Mozilla is too busy and too colorful. There’s a reason why most companies don’t have more than 3 colors in a logo (seriously, go look at all the big companies, you won’t find many that use 6 colors in a logo).

    The on button looks too generic, there’s too many items that have an on button. You’re losing your branding with that one, and you may have issues with keeping it as ‘your logo’ if someone copies it due it being so generic.

    The wire frame logo would be decent if you were, say, a 3-D printer company, but as it is, it’s too monotone (the opposite of the tribal issue).

    The abstract unfolding Mozilla has too many colors, and too many facets. I like how the Mozilla is hidden in the design, but you’ll also need that logo to work in monochrome, and I don’t think it will.

    The impossible M is too simpllistic, and looks like it was done in Microsoft Paint. It would be ok for a smart phone icon, but not a company logo. Plus the color scheme screams ‘blah’.

    Finally that leaves us with the Moz;//a, which is the best of a bad lot. It’s cute and geeky, but it’s also going to be confusing to people like my mother who’s 75, and actually computer literate (more so than a lot of people younger than her). If it confuses her, it’s going to absolutely brain stump the average user ‘I use the internet for e-mail and adult entertainment’ crowd. Which unfortunately, are a lot more as a potential customer base for Mozilla than the geeky nerds are.

  142. Henry I wrote on

    Personally, I believe that the second option (“For the Internet of People” – “The Connector”) is the best, and the one that gives you the most flexibility for new designs, colors and patterns.

  143. Charlie Hayes wrote on

    These all look a lot worse than the current mozilla logo. Please leave ‘do nothing’ as a possible outcome of this design exercise; do nothing gets my vote.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks for your input, Charlie. This process has helped us refine our thinking on this project. We’ve embarked on this project because our current brand assets are limiting our presence in contemporary life and don’t communicate Mozilla’s purpose in the world. For more about this you can check out: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/creative-strategy-on-view/

  144. Andrew Ameden wrote on

    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.

  145. Olivier Breton wrote on

    Hi Tim,

    I didn’t like any of the logos here as I felt like they failed to capture the essence and legacy of the Mozilla brand. Being a designer, I couldn’t help myself but play around with this and came up with a logo.

    Drawing from the roots of the brand, I went back to the iconic dinosaur head and tried to condense its feeling into a simple, but recognizable shape: to me, the spikes. I felt that the word itself needed a strong, but approachable type so I used a condensed version of Myriad Pro. Finally, the bold RGB red used to color the old dino head seemed like the perfect touch to at once 1) confirm the connection to the brand’s visual legacy, 2) add a pop of color and energy to visually symbolize the trailblazing nature that has always defined Mozilla, and 3) to maintain a connection to the web, by using the classic RGB red.

    Let me know what you think.
    Olivier

    mozilla-logo

    1. SL wrote on

      I really like this one!

  146. Yuri wrote on

    I hate to say it, but they’re all pretty bad. :(
    Moz://a is the easiest on the eyes out of the bunch, but I think the :// would confuse some people.

  147. Stephy Miehle wrote on

    I’d like the “Moz://a” a lot more in a monospace (or mono-esque) typeface. The capital M makes it feel a bit like a Windows file path when abbreviated as M://, though.

    Perhaps lowercase?

    mozilla

    1. Stephy Miehle wrote on

      Eek, that screenshot looks a little fuzzy resized! This uses Input by Font Bureau: http://input.fontbureau.com/

  148. Rory O’Kane wrote on

    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.

  149. Robert wrote on

    Please, please, don’t come up with stuff that looks like it belongs on the abstract wall of a art museum. You must think of the computer users that have never used Mozilla software to entice them to try it out, not run them off. Ugly will surely run everybody off.

  150. Liam wrote on

    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

      agreed

  151. Rob wrote on

    I also feel the samples are all underwhelming. None of these feel iconic, or representative of an established online entity of the level of importance of Mozilla. The Moz://a one is certainly the best, but only in the sense of being the least terrible. The “O” version either looks like an eye or a uh.. well, part of the female anatomy. The rest are just too busy and confusing.

  152. Remi Guillemette wrote on

    Sorry but the only one I find cool is Moz://a. But I don’t think you should count my vote because for most people (excluding geek and webdev like me) the :// does not mean anything…
    I find the others too abstract to mean anything or (sorry) too ugly. The eye is also a really bad idea in this age of absolutely surveillance…

  153. David Tjia wrote on

    Great work guys! I love all of them in context of branding only, but by far it lacks a lot in technology aspect or maybe in reflecting Mozilla’s vision and mission.

    The Eye, the moment I looked at it, it was too imposing. It has really strong presence, but it just doesn’t fit with Mozilla. And I’m sure, a lot of people will have said it looks like LOTR Sauron eye icon, so please stay away from it.

    The Connector feels like the previous London Olympic logo. At first I just can’t read whatever you are trying to convry through it, it just looks like a person is swimming to me. But after some time looking at it, I understood it, but it could give people wrong impressions just like I did.

    Open Button feels normal to me. It could work with less ornaments and thinner lines. But right now the brand just gave me an impressions that you guys are working in medical field.

    The Protocol is the one has the best concept among all. You might want to try Mozi//a. It has better composition right now it is too disturbing when I looked at it. One thing concern me is that it lacks personality of Mozilla.

    Wireframe has nice concept. Though I doubt 3D is the best approach for you guys. Maybe you want to try 2D looks and taking wireframe of your homepage of Mozilla and use it as your icon. And change the looks of the wireframe because right now it is too ‘classy’.

    Impossible M rubs a wrong impression to me. It has retro looks with half-tone patterns. You might want try another looks by deleting all the patterns and change the M with a bit of serif looks such as Garamond or Georgia. But for the future I would say please just stay away from this if you able to.

    Flik – Flok is really bad to me personally and my eyes are hurting. It looks overly complicated and it is like your first ever concept before designing everything else and you think it could work so decided to put it among the final concept list.

    Yeah that’s my opinion. Other seasoned designers might be better in giving opinion, but if I have to say something, those above is my opinion. I would love to see more of concepta because right now it is too early too decide. You could get something better in the future but you might not. Bear in mind that the branding will becomes the looks of your company for 5 – 10 years to the future like.you said and I feel like you really should lenghtened time schedule to decide everything.

    Please forgive me for any misspeling. Great work guys!

  154. EZmonkey wrote on

    As a person in the design field, I’ve been curious to see how this was going to play out. My feeling here is that all of these pieces are unrefined conceptually and aesthetically. They seem far from being representative of a professional and largely recognized organization.

    I believe it has to do with the fact that you are making designers do something that should take time at a “rocket-fast timeline”, forcing them to just crank out the first thing that comes to mind.

    Also, it is weird to me that on the first round suddenly we are seeing digital renditions of concepts, that might even try to pass off as a finished product, with examples of logo’s on t shirts and such. I mean the logo’s even already animate. How is that a first round? How is this considered a consideration of a route when it seems all fixed? It seems completely counterproductive for the design firm to have put in so much work for animation and mock ups on so many concepts, when in the end one only gets one brand identity. Like 90% of the stuff here for show is guaranteed to be in the trash bin. That is the wrong allocation of time,. They should have not bothered with all the fancy show off stuff, and focused on the real deep conceptual place at this early stage.

    I would have thought an open design process would have started with conceptual directions and multiple sketches for each way of thinking. I don’t know who is deciding on how the process is to be open, but whether it’s open or not, the process used here to come up with a brand seems a bit whack.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks EZ, for sharing your perspective as a designer. It’s good to hear from you.

      When we entered into this open design process, we stated that we didn’t how it would proceed or turn out. To our knowledge, this kind of brand refresh has never been done at this scale before. We’ve learned in this phase of showing initial work that it can be challenging for people to assess. To some, it looks like final design. To others such as yourself, it looks like ideation spread thinly in too many directions.

      We need to show enough work to prove that a concept will extend across the many facets of Mozilla, but not go too far in refining the design in any one direction. There’s no rule book to follow in finding the right balance.

      You’re right in pinpointing that our timeline for this work is fast, and that the proof of concept is seven times what it would be for a single direction. We are also doing this in the open, which requires another level of communication not found in a typical brand assignment. It’s a Herculean task and one that johnson banks has taken on with good humor while producing inspiring work.

      These are initial, first-round concepts. Even though each direction is shown in an extended fashion to prove that it can work across a variety of programs, communities, and products, refinement in the designs are still to come. When the story of this open design process is written, we’re hopeful that the design community will benefit from this experiment as much as Mozilla will.

      Thanks again for joining us for this review. Please stay tuned and continue to give us your feedback.

  155. Bryan wrote on

    I like the use of colors in B The Connector, but it’s too difficult to read. If the design could be made easier to read, I would like this one for how fun and warm it feels.

    Route D seems pretty neutral and I think everyone could be able to read it.

    I’m in camp B and D.

  156. Alex Keybl wrote on

    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.

  157. Luca Barbato wrote on

    M:// seems the best by far.

    The impossible M has potential as long you do not use textured dot fill. It make the whole thing feel 70’s comic.

    The eye is just scary (and full yellow is in itself terrible for logos), by far the worst.

    The rest really doesn’t seem to leave much impression.

  158. Anthony Thompson wrote on

    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.)

  159. Name Here wrote on

    So, after 18 years Mozilla has decided to throw away all the equity and brand recognition they’ve built up for… what? One of these designs? Does it have to be one of these new ones? I like the current brand.

    I like the fire fox.

    Stop wasting money on things that don’t matter.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Name Here, This is not a redesign of the Firefox logo. Mozilla does much more than make the Firefox open-source web browser. As time allows, please have a look at this https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/ and read more about why we are engaged in this work on earlier blog posts on this site. Thanks for letting us know your thoughts.

  160. Weather wrote on

    The open button reminds me too much of a standard digital interface on Sky TV. I love protocol because of it’s immediate code reference but it may only express your brand to particular people and not be universal enough.

    My own style would be impossible M but for you, mozilla, I like flik flak. It’s super flexible, modern and easy to see how it could be used in other engaging ways.

    The eye would be my runner up and is another fun contender with lots of application potential. The reason it’s a runner up for me is because of Moz foundation. While it’s iconic and references the Moz dino, the eye is too “all seeing eye” to be non aggressive. Flik flak while less referential is more modern and more fun.

  161. Samuel Herschbein wrote on

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The current logo is fine and everyone knows who it denotes.
    IMHO a waste of time and money. Corporate masturbation: it doesn’t add a value, but makes the people involved feel good.

    1. The Internet wrote on

      Well you know – people who can’t code or produce anything actually useful need to explain their presence in the company somehow – how about a logo redesign, or new stationary, or email footer update.

  162. Anon wrote on

    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.

  163. Dear God Please No wrote on

    Please do not use any of those, those are ugly. They have nothing to do with Mozilla and what Mozilla is. Big disconnect for me.

  164. Michael wrote on

    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.

  165. Tom D. wrote on

    NONE OF THEM!

    1) They are a total disconnect from your current logo. If any one saw any of the new logos on there own, they would not have a CLUE what they represent.

    2) There is also a complete disconnect from the product/service you are providing. Conceptually, what do any of your new logos have to with the concept of ‘web browsing’?

    You should start over by coming up with variations of the current logos or by visualizing the concept of browsing.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tom. You are not alone in thinking that Mozilla is a web browser. While Mozilla makes Firefox, the open-source web browser, it does so much more. Mozilla is a nonprofit that promotes an open, free and accessible internet through technology and networks of people as well as products. From being a leading advocate for net neutrality in legislatures and courts to teaching the web in communities throughout the world, it champions a healthy internet for everyone. This post may help explain why we’re engaged in this work: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/ And please have a look at the earliest posts on this blog for more information. Many thanks for being a part of this conversation about Mozilla.

  166. Richard Bell wrote on

    I think Mozilla’s current branding looks just fine but if I was to pick from these options I’d probably go with Option C, the open button, I find it to be aesthetically pleasing. I do find the protocol from option D intriguing, I’d kind of like to see what Option C looks like with that incorporated but I can see how it might give a technologically inclined people only image

  167. Steve wrote on

    The Eye – This one falls into a couple traps. The yellow and black color scheme has long indicated danger, or necessary caution. This in itself kills it, but the Eye of Sauron really drives home the forbidding feeling of it. Not a good idea.

    The Connector – Looks like an Olympics logo. Attempts to be trendy at the cost of readability, yet manages to remain unremarkable.

    Open Button – A decent idea, but the current iteration comes across as the kind of thing you would see on the side of a plastics manufacturing plant.

    Protocol – The best of the bunch at this phase. Not too complicated, and neatly references what the company is about. The font is perhaps a notch too generic, but it doesn’t need much dolling up to reach a usable state.

    Wireframe World – An interesting concept, but ruined in it’s current state by an absolute lack of artistic balance. Both versions feel wonky in a very off-putting manner.

    The Impossible M – This one strongly resembles a VGA graphic from the mid 80’s. Imagery reminiscent of 30 year old technology is not what I would use to represent a modern company.

    Flik Flak – This one also attempts to be trendy, this time at an extreme cost to readability. The eye does not flow naturally through the lettering, and gets caught in the angles and margins instead. It is an excellent example of how not to use a modern art style in a company logo.

  168. Ed “The Dick” Critic wrote on

    Lizard Eye looks bold, a little tongue in cheek, it reminded me of the older (original?) Mozilla logo with the dinosaur head. But having looked at the full blog post, it just doesn’t portray the right feel for Mozilla, because it actually can look clumsy, and sometimes lazy, because all there is are a bunch of thick black lines, patterns and yellow.

    Protocol’s typographic treatment looks bland, predictable, the idea looks like it took a few minutes of doodling and not much thought went into it, especially the rendering, a commenter posted a mono spaced version here and that looks so much cooler. But this fact remains, the colon is forced to be an i, when it is in fact a colon. Let me make an example, what if I tell you this `i` is meant to be a colon? As in, My favorite colori red. Yes, it is the same thing, you may wishfully want it to be different, but a colon is not an i. Your company name is then Moz:lla. I’m using Moz:lla Firefox. And, oh you write code do you, oh so does Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, everybody writes code, and there is no such thing as the M protocol, stop making shit up.

    The Connector is a mess, it is fussy, forced, too abstract, and if someone doesn’t know it’s supposed to be “Mozilla”, they can’t read that. The way the sub groups are done looks like a bunch of random lines thrown around.

    Wireframe world looks like you are a 90s company, and you’ve never had the budget to change your logo since.

    Impossible M should have been rejected before this stage, it doesn’t do anything and it’s ugly, it’s just an M that has been dicked around too much. If you are a designer and you shop this to a client, I think they might actually be cross with you.

    The Open Button / smiley. Trying too hard to be fun, funny and losing sight of the larger picture. It’s ugly, complicated, too fussy, difficult to distinguish between them, and no one would care to.

    FlikFlak, seeing the whole picture of the branding strategy, this feels a little bit like Google (before Alphabet), but it is incomprehensible, too abstract, too fussy and complicated. But this looks the best among all of them. But you should reject this as well for your own sake.

    No amount of random netizen feedback is going to give you the solid answer you need, because while people can tell you what they like and don’t, no one can generate the full brand vision you really need to proceed. And btw, your current logo is better than all of these combined.

  169. Andrew wrote on

    I have used Firefox for over fifteen years. I am a Mozilla fan.

    NONE of these proposed designs are better than what you have now — none of them. Your current logo doesn’t need replacing. I much enjoy the current Mozilla logo, it’s very nice.

    What Mozilla should be concentrating on right now is not rebranding, but making Firefox and Thunderbird as good as they can be. And if Thunderbird is going to a good home outside of Mozilla, send it off in style.

    Loyal Thunderbird users are still waiting for a decent address book, native contact sync with Exchange servers, CardDav support, and other features. And a mobile version of Thunderbird for Android would be a nice thing to have sometime in the future.

  170. Taldren wrote on

    Moz://a is the only one that i’d consider a worthy entry. The rest are horrible, in my honest opinion.

  171. Kris Haamer wrote on

    I love the connector. Other’s are just meh.

  172. Adam wrote on

    I have already made some comments in response to others, but I would like to add further in the other options.

    Open internet, flik pik and internet if the people and the dots and lines one are all to abstract. They don’t seem to communicate anything about the brand or who Mozilla are. If picked to me they would be a wasted opportunity.

    The plain M looks to over simplistic and dated. It is not a strong character in the way it is represented.

    Previously I have commented about the Monster eye and also the Moz://a. Options they are by far my favourites, but it really depends in how Mozilla is going to expand over the next few years. If all you are going push is the browser, then the Moz://a makes the most sense. But with thunderbird as well, the eye makes a much better all encompassing brand.

    I know the eye has some links with LOTR, but but that reorientation is different, as it is in fire. I can see the option above as a proper lizard eye or in the word Mozilla, which is a clear distinction.

  173. Jack wrote on

    Take the Protocol color scheme (or blue, black, and white), put it on the Eye logo, and you have a winner.

    Connector is too messy. Button reminds me of ’90s tech company logos, particularly Motorola. Protocol is not legible enough. Wireframe has a disconnect between the logo and the name. Impossible M doesn’t stand out, it just looks like an M. Flick Flack has aspect ratio issues and it’s too complicated.

  174. Jack wrote on

    Inverse colors

    out

  175. Sergio Durán wrote on

    Interesting desition to change your logo, I suggest you going with the Moz://a one but maybe with your red lizard made in material or pure flat design, could be amazing :)

  176. Gobelpepitai wrote on

    None of these represent mozilla to me. I like the idea of a dinosaur logo though.

  177. DK wrote on

    Wireframe concept is the best so far. Wireframe kinda looks like a graph, which is schematic representation of networks.

    1. Opera
    2. I just don’t get it. Are we talking about an internet company or a rug manufacture?
    3. Too primitive. Even pathetic. Looks like this one has been thrown on the table during mind storming session and due to a lack of good concepts, they decided to present it without thinking it through.
    5. Been used a lot during the past decade or two.
    6. Can anyone read it without explanation?

    1. DK wrote on

      missed the one in a circle. Looks very oldschool. 90’s or something.
      3. → M://
      5. → impossible M
      6. → Origami?

  178. leonardo wrote on

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

  179. Bruno Vázquez-Dodero wrote on

    Sorry for my english speaking at first. I’m form Spain.

    Protocol (which i see is the most commented one) would make a perfect rebranding to be the most boring brand in the world. Even the color doesn’t say nothing but a Facebook lookalike.

    My little contribution is a question: Does the rebranding pursues to be liked into the Mozilla geek community? Or does it pursues to be more likeable to people that are not now in the community?

    The actual Mozilla community choosing means making it more specific, more geek, more for the fans, more narrow…

    I like a lot the idea of “The Connector” playing with colors and shapes in different versions for each country and other logos. But i don’t know if it would make the perfect logo. If i would have to vote now among these options, it would be “The Connector”

  180. John Huston wrote on

    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

      Thanks for your input, John.

  181. AliNR wrote on

    The Open Button

  182. Reece wrote on

    I vote for Moz://a. It’s actually related to the “things” the Mozilla foundation produces. It’s sleek and professional while clearly conveying the org it is representing.

    The Eye: Looks like The Eye of Sauron has conquered Charlie Brown’s t-shirt, and it’s staring angrily at me.

    The Connector, Flik Flak, and Open Button are too abstract.

    Impossible M is retro and does not meet the criteria of being modern.

  183. C. wrote on

    Like many others I feel like Eye and Protocol are the best of the chosen 7 logos, the other ones are too abstract and don’t have much recognition value, at least for me. They look like one-off art projects or website design, not a recognizable company logos.

    However, I don’t see the point in chosing a new logo for Mozilla. The new ones (including Protocol and Eye) are less readable due to font sizing and abstract letter design (“o” & “ill”). The old font is very recognizable, doesn’t require contrasting colours or background colour to make it work. Keep it simple please.

  184. Xel wrote on

    They all feel… Either soulless or amateurish. They look like generic company logo #74020. Or in case of last ones – make no sense.

    The only one worth of mention is Moz://a – which is still not good, but at least it is clever.
    Seriously – go back do drawing board, preferably internal.

  185. Blerb wrote on

    I kinda don’t like any of them. Why not make something simple like Moz://a behind tail of firefox? http://cdn.geckoandfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/FFX_05_THE_LEAP.jpg
    That would look neat and simple and certainly warmer than any of those.

    1. Mary Ellen Muckerman wrote on

      Bierb, thanks for your input. Our research has shown that people don’t distinguish Mozilla and Firefox from each other, and we think it’s important that each brand have its own identity so we’re known for the breadth of our work. So one of our main goals is to create a set of visual assets for Mozilla that ultimately feel related to Firefox, but also distinct from it. Appreciate the reference to the Firefox imagery.

  186. leon wrote on

    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

      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.

  187. Joe P wrote on

    Now that there are so many browser options and Chrome and Edge advertise so heavily, protocol is important. It reinforces the idea that Firefox/Mozilla is a browser to the less geeky who will need to consider our alternative.

    Moz://a is obviously a browser. You might be surprised how many people don’t know Firefox is a browser when I tell them I use it and not Chrome.

  188. YUKI “Piro” Hiroshi wrote on

    I think the second route https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-b-the-connector/ seems better than others. The “eye” reminds me that someone monitors me. The face like icon seems less natty. Moz://a seems too geekish. The wireframe seems too complex in Z-dimension. The impossible M seems antique illustration. The last one has too complex silhouette and too many colors.

    But I chose the second route as a passively better one. I hope that more better plan appears, with more simple silhouette (which can be drawn with just one color, for color-blind people) and more positive impression…

  189. m.Amin wrote on

    i am a firefox fan and use this
    just Moz://a
    it is best and show your work then use this logo

  190. Rob L. wrote on

    First and foremost: Marketing design-by-committee rarely, if ever, works. This has been proven time and time again. Also, it seems like these new logos are all *too* drastically different from what you use currently. “What feels right” to me here is to have it be more of a gradual change – but still a distinctive move forward. Don’t go for show-stopper – you’ll just confuse people, especially people who know little or nothing about what Mozilla is/does.

    Second, and this is much more subjective, but most of those design concepts are flat out unacceptable in my mind. Some are borderline “WTF?” — what’s with the MC Esher meets Timothy Leary one? Wow. The only one that’s even remotely close to decent is the ‘ Moz://a ‘ one, but in that one the colors are … *shivers*

    1. Mary Ellen Muckerman wrote on

      Rob L., thanks for weighing in. We agree that marketing design-by-committee is not the right way to go, and rarely produces the best end product. But we do believe that being transparent and participatory is. All of these comments are helping inform the next step as we start to narrow in on and refine fewer options. So we appreciate your contribution!

  191. Denis Savenko wrote on

    Don’t like any. It’s not mozilla. But if we should choose from this – m:// is better. But i don’t like color, like Facebook on t-shirt. But concept is the best.

  192. FF MozUzer wrote on

    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=

  193. FF MozUzer wrote on

    Re,
    About “The Eye”, Mozilla IS dangerous, but not for his community !
    Is dangerous for closed source project, not innovative enterprise, malicious standard, etc. because the lizard protect his users/community. ;)

  194. AK wrote on

    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.

  195. J L wrote on

    A logo should instantly say who you are.
    Those ideas do not recall to me what you were, nor suggest where you are going.
    Sorry to say.

  196. Barry Johnson wrote on

    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.

  197. Guillaume Carrier wrote on

    Yes, definately, Moz://a is the best logo!

    You can even type it on your keyboard with normal characters, that’s cool!

    [http] :// has been with the web since day one, and it’s going to be with us for a foreseeable future.

  198. Hans Andersen wrote on

    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.

  199. Steve Dupuis wrote on

    I like the Moz://a protocol graphic. For me, its why I use XFCE for my desktop software – clean with no clutter – an attempt to reduce unnecessary distraction.
    The products produced by Mozilla could have their logos placed underneath the main graphic – Firefox, Thunderbird et al for each.

  200. Jonathan Pritchard wrote on

    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.

  201. Hardy Cherry wrote on

    Your current Mozilla, word logo isn’t broken, perhaps it would be better to not fix it at all. All of these logo ideas are just so weird. By the time people start associating Mozilla and Firefox with one of these ideas you will be ready for another change. Microsoft, Apple, Google and Adobe, among others, have had the same or nearly the same logo for years, and years, maybe with minor tweaks. These changes are complete overhuals that will hurt branding and recognizability instead of helping it. The current lowercase mozilla logo with the firefox iconography has already stood the test of time with minor tweaks, why would you want to break that by doing something so different?

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Hardy, thanks for contributing your comment. You are not alone in believing that this is a design exercise to replace the Firefox logo, so apologies for any confusion we may have caused here. We are working here on the Mozilla brand to create visual assets (such as a core icon) that will allow us to communicate in a more modern way and make our mission accessible to more people globally. You’re correct in pointing out that brands evolve and change to reflect the work they do in the world and to attract new followers. In our case, we don’t have enough to work with, and even though Mozilla is well known, it is not understood. Earlier blog posts on this site will hopefully help explain why we are engaged in this work. For a quick review, please see here: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/ Thanks again!

  202. BH wrote on

    Leave the old one as the image for Firefox/Mozilla. This new stuff is for the birds and a few other things. The old trade mark is what people will look for when they are looking for the download, not some new junk that some techie wants to put as a splash screen.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi BH, thanks for contributing your thoughts to this review. This design exploration is for Mozilla, the nonprofit behind the open-source web browser Firefox. It is not a replacement for Firefox. Mozilla believes the Internet is a global public resource accessible and open to all. To learn more about Mozilla, if you have a chance please visit: https://www.mozilla.org. Thanks.

  203. Hervé costa wrote on

    I found the connector logo the one seems to me the most appealing. It’s possible to reconize easyly any options made from, it’s colorful and soft lines. Any feeling about our “hardshape” society. It’s look more something about the feeling of giving who stand better within the community.
    (bad english, isn’t it ?)

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Herve. Completely understandable, and thank you for being a part of this review process.

  204. Robert de Forest wrote on

    You’ll want to take a look at the comments over at Ars Technica:

    http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/08/mozilla-is-changing-its-lookand-asking-the-internet-for-feedback/?comments=1

    As mentioned by Matt above, the comment by Zaskar about gradual transitions is particularly strong.

    My own impression is that most of the brands you have presented have obvious derivations which they reflect more strongly than Mozilla as an organization or its illustrious history. The Eye belongs to Pixar. The Connector is a deconstructed subway map. Open Button is a power button. Protocol is a URL (the most relevant of all of them, but still coat-tailing at best). The Impossible M comes from Escher. The two whose origins are not obvious to me (Wireframe, Flik Flak) are both too complex and too clever.

    The most successful brands are the simple ones: McDonald’s Golden Arches, Volkswagon’s badge, Amazon’s smile. A good brand is not a brain teaser. It isn’t showing off how clever you are. It is easy to draw, easy to recognize and easy to defend as a trademark.

    Even the old Netscape “dawn of N” was too complicated and too generic at the same time.

    My recommendations:

    Stop trying to say something with your brand other than “Mozilla”. For that matter, “Mozilla” is already your brand. Just develop that. Maybe, _maybe_, consider shortening it and stylizing the M or the Z, but if you do, be careful not to tread too close to Zillo.

    Consider the color-blind and the cost of printing color vs monotone. If your brand depends on color it will fail.

    Avoid references to other things (eye of Sauron, power button, Escher). It risks confusion and makes the trademark harder to defend.

    Your brand should not require explanation.

    Your brand should be timeless. “Retro” is not good.

  205. Ditrich Schmidt wrote on

    I preferr the Moz://a!! This is genious!!

  206. Amir Farsi wrote on

    Hi.
    I think protocol is the best logo for Mozilla. This will help people to more think about internet protocols and what is http:// ?

  207. FF MozUzer wrote on

    Re,
    Like Sam, seems that my image did not get attached, though I do not know why. So I have uploaded it elsewhere:

    https://framapic.org/gallery#dNIAbgDd5C02/TSjnJhxOTSm0.png

  208. Haomin Yuan wrote on

    I’m usually cautious when it comes to giving design feedback w/o any background information, as feedback should always come w/ understanding of the concept. This is especially true for branding. However, since these are being presented as is, here are some of my opinions.

    1) The eye.
    As many have pointed out, there are various associations w/ the eye. The way it’s depicted, it’s usually associated with something monstrous. When paired with the font, it becomes a bit more childish. So I see the design is more suited for a children’s publishing company, that creates interactive experiences for kids.

    2) The connector.
    This by far seems the most flexible system. The square variation is difficult to read, but that is fixed by the 2nd form that spreads the letter forms out. The ability to create patterns, and changing colors adds to the flexibility. The style doesn’t tie it to any particular era, or industry. The country variations becomes interesting, and can allow the brand to speak to region specific consumers.

    3) Open button.
    There is probably a story behind the shapes chosen for the button, but it’s a bit difficult to understand as is. The attempt to create a character’s face out of the motif seems slightly force, but it can be fun. However, the trend of creating specific characters as representations have sort of faded in the past couple of years, and seems to mostly relegates itself to the telecommunication companies. So the design can become dated quickly, and may not be industry aligned.

    4) Protocol.
    The :// is conceptually relevant, and easily understood for people who are familiar with the internet, or computer languages. However, the type choice, font weight, and the coloring all scream 90’s big corporate tech company, like Microsoft and IBM. It distances itself from the casual consumer. It can make a suitable logo if “corporate” is the concept. The M:// motif also comes of as authoritarian, as if Mozilla is giving off commands. While the text in black is kerned way too tightly.

    5) Wireframe.
    Wireframes have been used a lot in recent years for tech business, especially for social media related ones. Some can be seen as variations of an overall branding language, like Medium’s new branding. So there’s a sense of familiarity. However, “draping” the wireframes with flags seems to be a disconnect with a concept that is not really apparent. Condensed fonts also oscillate between on trend and being dated.

    6) Impossible M.
    This is playing heavily on nostalgia by harkening back to the 90’s MTV era, which doesn’t necessarily fit a company that is trying to be a leader in technology. While that trend is making a come back recently, like all fads, it can fade quickly. The brand also doesn’t seem to match the audience it’s trying to appeal to, nor does it really seem to match the identity of Mozilla, unless there’s a major business shift.

    7) Flik flak.
    This is very reminiscent of branding for art schools from the 2000’s. It is difficult to understand its connection to mozilla’s brand. It is also a bit difficult to read. Not necessarily on trend, doesn’t seem to be on brand, and not really innovative.

    In general, majority of the logos seem more on trend than on brand. 2, 3 and 4 seem workable if more refinement is put in. The connector seems to be the most flexible system. Understanding the brand story for each might make one stand out a lot more than the others.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Haomin, If you have not had a chance, please click into each logo to find a blog post related to each. Background information can be found on previous posts on this site. For more information on why Mozilla is engaging in this work, please see: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/ Thanks for being a part of this open design process.

  209. Caroline wrote on

    I love the color and patterns The Connector can make. However, it has low legibility and gets messy fast. This is great for patterns and products, but not so great for people trying to understand who you are.

    Protocol, Moz://a is my second favorite and the most successful based on the goals you have outlined. It’s is scalable, instantly speaks to what you’re all about and is still eye catching.

  210. Doc Billingsley wrote on

    +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?

  211. Tom wrote on

    Wireframe and Moz://a are the only two that look remotely professional, imho.

  212. Enrico wrote on

    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

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

  213. Gwarsbane wrote on

    To be honest I don’t like any of them much.

    The one that I dislike the least would be Moz://a. But its too close in color to facebook.

  214. Janne Koschinski wrote on

    I really like the moz://a design, although I think it could benefit from a different color scheme, closer to the original mozilla color scheme.

    I did a quick mockup in about a minute to illustrate that (a design agency could always obviously improve on that): https://dl.kuschku.de/images/Mozilla_Foundation_logo_redesign.svg.png (SVG version at https://dl.kuschku.de/images/Mozilla_Foundation_logo_redesign.svg )

  215. Rodrigo Portillo wrote on

    Its not a good idea.
    People who use Mozilla is not designers. Most of them, who really cares, is coders and specif developers. Other users just dont care. Designers prefer use Safari or Chrome, even caus it use Webkit.
    Now you guys are asking to coders and common users to decide wich is the better design? Its not make any sense. A good design is not about taste or preferences. A good design is about function and use.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for your recommendation and insight into developers and Firefox, Rodrigo. This design exercise is for Mozilla, the nonprofit organization that makes the Firefox open-source web browser. It’s not a replacement logo for Firefox. At Mozilla, we believe the Internet is a global public resource that should be accessible to everyone, and work to keep the Internet healthy for all. Firefox is one of the ways we work to keep the Internet a level playing field. As time allows, have a look at some of the earlier blog posts on this site to learn why we are applying open source principles of transparency and participation to this brand initiative for Mozilla. Thanks for being a part of this effort.

  216. hipunk wrote on

    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!

  217. Quentin wrote on

    Moz://a is the best choice here, but i’m not sure its the right choice for the foundation.

  218. Optical Illusion wrote on

    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.

  219. Bernat Nacente wrote on

    – The Eye: Hard to read, the “all hands” mascot is more like a cartoon tv mascot. It’s a no^3 for me.
    – The Connector: Lots of colours which is nice, colourful logos are attracting to people but It’s too complicated. It should be simpler.
    – Open Button: So 90’s but not a in a good way. Only 2 colours and “neon-like” ones. And I don’t get the meaning of the logo, if it has any. Also a no^3.
    – Protocol: Clear logo, “subtitles” are hard to read, space the letters a little ;). But too geeky. Nice, professional but too geeky maybe. If target is geek, it’s perfect though.
    – Wireframe world: It’s like a logo for an exhibition from MOMA about contemporaneous design. I don’t think it’s a logo for a browser/app/computer foundation. I love it but not for this.
    – The Impossible M: Typo is kinda meh. Electric blue is not the best choice (like Open Button) and the different density dots, left ones merging into one another. And it’s M? Or AVI? Or AVAI? Or ALAI? No^2.
    – Flik Flak: Great legilibity, great choice of colours (bright, saturated but not too much). But… what the duck is that thing? A building? A playground? Card castle? Too complicated.

    The perfect combination for me: The simplicity and specially the typo from Wireframe world, the colours from Flik Flak or reduced number of colours of The Connector.

    Hope it helps.

    1. Simon wrote on

      Yeah, good call on Wireframe. Aesthetically, it’s the best of the lot by a mile – but it’s the wrong logo for the job. You’re right… it’s a logo for an art gallery, not for an internet foundation…

  220. GG wrote on

    This is all very ditsy. It seems like you’re trying to become something you’re not. But you can’t make mozilla innovative by choosing an innovative logo. All this effort is for naught.

    If you must waste your time, I suggest taking the high road and making the “Foundation” of Mozilla Foundation more prominent. You can’t beat em and you can’t join em, so just be you.

  221. Luke wrote on

    Tim,

    Senior designer here. The second one is by far the best. It’s fun, warm, dynamic, open and fluid. It stands for the heart and ‘why’ of Mozilla. Many of the others represent the the ‘what’ and will date very quickly.

    A lot of comments for the m:// option but this is because of the distorted tech focussed reader base. Again this is a very superficial and kitschy ‘diagram’, it doesn’t surprise me people like it as it triggers their ego because they get it. That is not good enough reasoning to use it.

    Again, go with the second. Be bold.

  222. Wei wrote on

    All the logos choices so far are not friendly, and will likely turn off your users. You should do something more similar to the Firefox for the Mozilla logo which is an example of something quite a bit friendlier.

  223. Tony wrote on

    I will put my hat in the ring, and say Wireframe World stands out for me. Stylistically it is cool. Further, it allows flexibility to evolve in the future through the simple line and node diagrams.

    The Eye looks great, but i will defer to previous comments about privacy issues…

    The Connector reminds me of an ‘olympic’ or ‘world cup’ brand. However, i like how it is staggered and doesnt read as a world on the first pass. Maybe something can be done on the colours?

    Of the rest, Protocol and open button are boring, and the impossible M looks like it will date very quickly. Flik Flak is cool, but it is too hard to read.

    Overall, Wireframe World wins it for me.

  224. Jarvis Cochrane wrote on

    Of the seven options, I only find ‘The Eye’ and ‘Protocol’ appealing. The rest are, to my sensibilities, more or less unintelligible and and examples of the worst kind of echo-chamber corporate marketing design fetishism.

    For reference, I’ve just looked up the current mozilla.org site, and I actually like the current branding. But, of course, you’re running with the current fashion for design-heavy content-light pages, so it’s pretty, but takes ages to load and doesn’t tell me anything.

    Personally, I’m looking forward for the day when the pendulum of fashion swings away from designers and back to users.

  225. Salman wrote on

    I will go with the “for the internet of the people”. It looks elegant and the flags designed from it are pretty interesting concept and I believe it has unlimited possibilities to be utilized in different ways.

  226. Tejashree Morje wrote on

    Moz:lla is the coolest. Some of the other logos are too complex.

  227. yohann nizon wrote on

    M:// is the best :)

  228. UserNotFound wrote on

    Moz:lla (Protocol) is the absolute best of all ! Already lovin’ it

  229. Göröcs Lajos Zsolt wrote on

    I think the 1st and the 3rd (Moz://a) is the best and most imaginative designs of the Mozilla’s Creative Team. Those designs are powerful.

    jb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.key

    jb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.key

  230. Onur Morruk wrote on

    For me The First one (The Eye) The Good fight Looks pretty nice

    Best regards to everyone

  231. Sebastian Bengtsson wrote on

    Moz://a is the only one I can reproduce from memory 5 minutes later. But it needs polishing to not look like sub-branding for IBM.

  232. Ricardo Silva Cordeiro wrote on

    The “Moz://a” is the best idea, needs improvement regarding the typography to be more contemporary and friendly. And then further develop the coordinated image. The color palete isn’t working also, too muted, think more in the lines of a new generation/energetic/display color (being careful to not exagerate on saturation).

    The lizzard eye logo looks cool… but for a new pixar movie :) Besides it wouldn’t stand the test of time.

  233. Jay Hughes wrote on

    These are fabricated logos that mean more in limited numbers of cultures.

    Animals, i.e. the Fire Fox, has more universal appeal as it denotes a member of Nature’s domain.

    Why is there any need to change a universally known logo to one devised in Britain, is beyond me. The UK has a particularly narrow cultural spectrum.

    Just leave well enough alone, and keep on improving one of the InterNet’s best browsers.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks for your input, Jay. You bring up a good point that any brand identity needs to be universally appealing regardless of cultural understanding. Your comment also underlines the confusion between Mozilla and Firefox–this brand identity is for Mozilla. There’s more about how we got here and why we’re working on this here: https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/creative-strategy-on-view/

  234. Yegabebar wrote on

    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.

  235. romain wrote on

    Quick feedback on the concepts:
    Flik Flak is beautiful but hard to read.
    The Eye has kind of Big Brother thing.. that eye lokking at the user.
    For the rest, IMO, seem a bit oldschool, not modern.

    Wireframe World and Protocol are the best ones.

  236. Arkeen wrote on

    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.

  237. Andre Zlatin wrote on

    Let me give you my ratings to these designs in numbers 1 to 10, as well as my opinion and points for improvement:
    The Connector (6/10) looks too much like the logo of radio station Galgalatz (see image below), maybe you should make it more hollow or have no curve at the edges or folds, or make any changes to differentiate it, otherwise you would seem to be a copycat. Otherwise, it needs more substance. Maybe a bit of three-dimensionality in certain design elements, and a less confusing frontpage.
    Protocol (9/10) is simple which is good, however the font choice is pretty bad, the logo needs to have a more modern font.
    Choose Open (8/10) seems like a good option, however it has a poor color choice. I would recommend refraining from “harsh” colors and combinations of such as they strain the eye, and I would also recommend to make the logo not curvy at the edges of it’s elements, that way it’ll look more modern and pleasing to the eye.
    Wireframe (5/10) is not memorable at all, since it has no substance. You need to be careful with wireframe logos because it gives off an impression of a generic company, also the circles between the lines seem to be unnecessary.
    The Impossible M (7/10) needs certain changes that will make it as modern as needed, for example, make the logo more flat and less based on outlines.
    Flik Flak (6/10) is bad, because it is diagonal, and a logo needs to fit for our displays and writing patterns, the small MZ version is more than enough. Either way, it’s too much like Cartoon Network so it needs colors that aren’t childish.
    The Eye (5/10) speaks surveillance too much, and just looks ridiculous, it’s a logo that feels too “fat” and “Opera”-esque. It has substance but it proves to be a copycat and invoke the incorrect feelings. Maybe change the colors or make it less “fat”.

    1997

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks very much, Andre, for your thoughtful review of the work. We hadn’t seen the radio station logo before–thanks for sharing.

  238. Spencer Schutz wrote on

    Moz://a is the only one that resonates with me as a designer and consumer.

    I think you could even lose the : and just use the // and it would still work

  239. anthony camp wrote on

    I hate to say it but none of these work there is elements in some that do, and others which are great but not for you, but all in all, they seem to borrow too much from elsewhere

    I have ether seen these designs before or something way too similar

    On my opinion, there is no one that completely matches the goal.

    The eye : I don’t like it. its a common design mistake from the 2000’s It is way too heavy, the same concept has been used for Security and Anti Virus Marketing and, like other comments, the eye mostly makes me think of 1984 and mass control oh and the god damn eye of sauron “and the you can not clearly read the name” and this why other company’s stopped using it before

    black and yellow a two colour combo used most for “caution” should never be used unless your a security / maintenance related field – noted use – Norton and JCB and “Free Kevin” Stickers circa 2000

    Connector : the idea is good I like it, very late 90s with the use of colour and almost cyber tribal style, but no one will get it, you will get annoyed in professional meetings
    when they don’t get it, and may opt to change it after adoption “but if you do not care and do not adopt the habit of explaining the link lines are actually letters” then its a winner just keep the base concept logo with plain text Mozilla “the one you can actually read” and discard the rest and discard the customized one per country as that is pointless “a unneeded expense with no actual benefit”

    Open button : this one is quite good in the fact it is a simple, graphic and easily recognizable logo design. the only catch is you cant use it, the design has been used before or at least too close for comfort, ” button faces” most peeps didn’t even see it also the colour scheme is not a good mix ether

    the Open button graphic has been used or bares incredible resemblance to graphics used in video games, specifically comes to mind “hard reset” or “Prey” at least three cyberpunk video game, or some of the designs by Designer Republic, and those like myself fond of the cyberpunk style but we can at least make them instantly recognizable right now it is not, the choice of colours are the same used for gender rights activists, and a medical brand “as well as one i rather not mention”, and these colours are not good on lighter coloured websites getting printed and finally the colour blind may have issue

    if a logo cant work in black and white and not be mistaken for something else, avoid it

    Protocol : This one concept has been done on and off for over a decade, add a unique symbol at the end change to white and light grey, then it becomes usable and unique again, in its current form its boring, difficult for colour blind to see difficult to be printed and not original

    Wireframe: again a good idea thats been used before bad implementation bad font
    choice, – could be salvaged the variation with flags “again pointless” and does not convey unity

    Impossible M : again a design concept that seems to take too much design inspiration from elsewhere, I would remove the colours and effects on the side and only keep the lines. In the declination’s add a simple polygonial shaded gradient effect,
    remove these blinky dots and colours as these are the exact ones used again elsewhere and resembles a fashion brand or from one of the promotional videos seen on MTV “neon blue, royal blue and canary yellow” and again not that font

    Flik flak : extremely poor implementation not readable and too confusing it would only be useful as a fold out with spaces animation intro so you can actually see the characters, in a after effects animation, so not worth trying to fix this design, it would need massively reworked and even then “its been done before”

    In general, I think you should focus on a less is more principle with a simple graphic logo with a set of simple recognized mozilla colour scheme and maintain the original font, as most of these jump too far from that and no longer become recognized by the brand

    Also, in most of the cases, the logo variations per country changes too much the logo. I would avoid it.

    I created a minor quick edit for example if you wish help we would be happy to

    bgh

  240. Warner Young wrote on

    I like the Moz://a one best. Yes, it’s geeky, but it’s relatively readable and isn’t too busy. The busier a logo, the worse, IMHO.

  241. Douglas Tofoli wrote on

    I liked the Protocol. A logo which could also be expressed by text. “Moz://a”. Without saying that the “i” and “ll” was pretty creative.

  242. Richard Newman (:rnewman) wrote on

    Thanks for soliciting feedback. I know that design reviews require courage, and open reviews more so, so lots of respect due for that!

    Brief thoughts on each:

    The Eye:
    – Visually strong.
    – Hard to read as a result!
    – Aggressive and tiring; triggers lizard-brain fear/disgust centers (particularly in multiple, as in the Maker Party logo).

    The Connector:
    – Reminiscent of the terrible London 2012 Olympics logo.
    – Color opportunities are interesting, but ultimately lead to a total lack of coherence; this ends up as a plain wordmark with some angled squiggles above, which is nothing.

    Open Button:
    – Probably the weakest of the bunch. The colors are honestly painful.
    – Text shows off the difficulty of kerning and weighting “Mozilla”.
    – The icon itself is just confusing. Meaningless until the other examples show it to be a face, and then it looks emotionless and sad.

    Protocol:
    – This seems to be getting positive opinions from folks, but to me it seems trite and a little amateurish.
    – You’ll either get it, and raise your eyebrows at the bad pun making it into the logo of such a large organization, or you won’t get it and it just looks like a telco’s bad wordmark from 1994.

    Wireframe world:
    – One of the better offerings, IMO.
    – Visually strong, simple enough to use as a logo when it matters, works vertically and horizontally.
    – Doesn’t try too hard to evoke very abstract concepts.

    Impossible M:
    – I like the concept of the impossible M, like the abstractness.
    – I hate the mid blue. It evokes unstyled HTML and bad Excel infographics. Mozilla has been around for a while; slightly more muted colors wouldn’t go amiss.
    – Would like to see this explored more, particularly around width and the use of uprights instead of slants.
    – Reminds me very much of Monogem’s logo, which I feel is very strong: http://www.monogem.com/

    Flik Flak:
    – The agency partner ran out of good ideas at 6, didn’t they? I can’t find anything to redeem this at all.
    – Visually cluttered yet uninteresting, hard to use, hard to scale.
    – Can you imagine someone drawing this on a napkin from memory?

  243. Stephanie Hobson wrote on

    I’m sorry I don’t have time to do these designs and the feedback justice but I will write out a few thoughts here and hope that some feedback is better than no feedback:

    Eye:
    Doesn’t seem as extensible as the others, doesn’t speak to modern tech, not very approachable.

    The Connector:
    Don’t like Mozilla logo but love this as a design system. Great potential for scale-ability. Bold, fun, and friendly. Would love to see more iterations on this one.

    Open button:
    Doesn’t look like a button, doesn’t say open. Faces all look unhappy. Not as scale-able as other options. Possibly my dislike of the colour scheme is overwhelming my other feelings :P

    Protocol:
    My heart wants this one (with different typography) but I don’t think it speaks to a non-tech audience. Protocol is disappearing from the address bar in the browser, I don’t think many will understand this concept – but it sure does speak to me personally.

    Wireframe:
    Would like to see more iterations on this concept. I don’t like the dot and line combo because it fades into the background (lines are too thin?). I do like the privacy logo and the flags with the solid sides. This seems like a really flexible set of design tools, I’d like to see it refined.

    Impossible M:
    The “M” says 80s TV production studio to me, I feel like I’ve seen it somewhere before. It looks bold in black and white from a distance. I like many of the project logos. The optical illusion is a neat concept. I’d like to see this iterated on – especially the colour pallet which gives me a bit of a headache.

    Flik Flak:
    Too busy, too sharp, not techy, not very welcoming, feels forced, doesn’t scale well.

  244. Alx MAX wrote on

    I can’t imagine a world without the Firefox browser and given its long history in the browser landscape I think Moz://a is one of the best logos. I also like the [lizard] eye logo. As Megan Geuss said on Ars Technica, “it’s the -zilla in Mozilla”.

  245. Anar wrote on

    Please make it more SIMPLE as much you can! Neither protocols are used, nor open-source browser features, nor convertible features, addon modules are interesting for your users. 99% of users like and use Mozilla, because it is FAST, LIGHTWEIGHT, NEEDS LESS MEMORY and EASY to install! Think please, about the majority, how would they see and understand Mozilla. Unfortunately, none of mentioned logos show those features.

    I would suggest you the following concept:
    Train, Railway Wagons – using the letter “M”, but in hyperspeed style.
    Combination of Colours Blue-Green: Blue is for free(-dom), lightweight, cool and fast. Green is for easy and relax. You may find attached just a sample of the concept. It is very draft and should be developed.

    Regards

    m

  246. Need No Name wrote on

    I’m leaning strongly toward protocol (“Moz://a”). It’s concise, quickly recognisable by people familiar with the brand, informative to those who aren’t, looks good, and is clever (cleverness seems to be something all the designs are aiming for in some way). The others each have some of those strengths, but I think the word “Moz://a” nails them all.

  247. Michael Kedl wrote on

    The Protocol one is the nicest of the official new choices. I like the colors and the “idea”. But M:// really reminds me of DOS and old things for some reason (and not really in a good way).

    Looking at the page again I prefer the existing white on red mozilla all lower case and the font choice at the top of the page over any of the official new choices.

  248. TheMrMelc wrote on

    The Connector is really cool cause like the new Android logo (during device boot), it can draw almost all letters with this kind of animations. It is clearly my favorite one.

  249. Eric B wrote on

    Not sure why people are comparing these to Firefox when it is replacing the Mozilla parent logo. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/identity/mozilla/branding/

    Protocol seems like a nice evolution although the lowercase “m” in your current logotype has a bit of brand recognition. Not sure why you would change that.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks, Eric, for your thoughtful input. The conflation with Firefox definitely underlines that we have an opportunity to communicate all the things Mozilla does aside from making Firefox. It also drives home the need a memorable brand identity for Mozilla.

  250. nort wrote on

    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

      Thanks very much for your thoughtful review, Nort.

  251. Fabio wrote on

    Oh my… they look pretty terrible in my opinion. Protocol and Flik-Flak are the less terrible. Flik-Flak is colorful and happy, but it’s quite confusing, Protocol is a brilliant idea, even though someone could not understand what it means. If I must take one, I’d vote for Protocol.
    Stay away from The Eye, it’s intimidating.

  252. nate wrote on

    Protocol if it must change. Keep it simple

  253. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hi
    Continued designed logos.

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

  254. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hi
    I call from IRAN.

    18

    19

    22

    21

    22-1

  255. Firefox Anonymous wrote on

    I have mixed feelings about those new mozilla’s identities: “Mozilla is… something weird”?

    What do you thing about something simple? An open door to the world wide web? Not sure, I’m not a designer… Or something like a web forming letter “M” on top of earth globe? Mozilla is still about transparent community-based open web, that has not changed, right?

  256. bhamtown wrote on

    Out of all the logos presented above, Moz://a is the best.

  257. ijoe wrote on

    I’ll probably only be parroting what other have said above (don’t have time to read every single comment) but, random input from a random internet user:
    1. The eye logo probably stays the most true to the old dino head icon, may be a little too aggressive looking. If was being used in FF it would make a nice SSL cert warning splash page.
    2. Doesn’t scale down to a 16×16 tab icon at all, too abstract, color overload etc.
    3. Simple, but doesn’t obviously reflect the company from what I can see (is there an ‘M’ in there, or something else?). Maybe looks a little to much like a power on/off button icon.
    4. Probably the least polarizing of all of them, good simple neutral look. It’s kinda boring but not likely to result in excessive complaining. The minor geek reference is good.
    5. Unique, but again, probably doesn’t scale down very well. If this is used, the wire frame portions facing away from the viewer should be a lighter shade to make it less flat and jumbled.
    6. Another ‘generic’ option that isn’t going to cause major problems but also isn’t that interesting. I’d go with the :// icon before this one.
    7. Would look really cool unfolding itself in a gif animation but otherwise fails every practicality and versatility test a logo would normally be subjected to.

    I’d probably just go with the Moz://a option, or otherwise rework the zilla eye into some other forms and pick the one that looks the least like a surveillance company/Eye of Sauron.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks, ijoe, for taking the time to review–looking forwawrd to hearing your thoughts on the next round of designs in September. Wanted to clarify that this project is focused on Mozilla’s brand identity. To your point, we’ve been working through how the identity will play with our products and projects.

  258. Matrix Akira wrote on

    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.

  259. Jarrod wrote on

    Before you move ahead, I suggest you reevaluate what it is you want to say as a company. The various rationales for each logo presented thus far, show Mozilla lacks a unified vision or understanding of the message that needs to be conveyed. This is reinforced by the number of people commenting on how each logo doesn’t “feel” like Mozilla. That core message, that core brand hasn’t been defined yet.

    To get on the right track, first examine the Vision for Mozilla and what it you do. You don’t have to do it here, but i would gather a team of people and answer the following questions:
    ○ What do you want people to think and feel about Mozilla?
    ○ How do you want people to interact with your company and products?
    ○ What is Mozilla’s goal?
    ○ What does Mozilla really do?
    ○ What is Mozilla to the consumer?
    ○ What is Mozilla compared to the competition?
    ○ How should Mozilla make people feel?
    ○ What aspects of Mozilla matter to your Ideal Customer?
    ○ Who is the Ideal Customer/User for Mozilla?
    ○ What aspects of Mozilla do you want to push/emphasis?
    ○ What is the message?

    Take what you get from answering those questions and then narrow down that information over and over until you are left with a few words that encapsulate Mozilla. Do NOT try to be funny, clever, witty, smart, arrogant, demure, or lie when answering the above questions and refining them into a few words. Be honest and frank.

    The one to three words you come up with to describe Mozilla should be at the center of the brand. The brand then needs to be at the center of every decision Mozilla makes. If it doesn’t fit the brand it doesn’t fit Mozilla.

    From the brand, every logo/identity you then create should be a reflection of that core. The various takes on the core idea may be wildly different in the creative phase, but they should all be speaking to the same brand.

    Hope that helps.

    1. Michael Sheldon Reed wrote on

      I am a graphic designer and old-time Firefox user. This comment is the best I have seen on this forum.

      Mozilla guys, if the branding firm you hired didn’t suggest all of this to you BEFORE submitting ideas, fire them now.

      Know who you are before you try to explain it to your target audience, and by extension, the public, because that’s what brand identity is supposed to do.

  260. Ismo Hääväräinen wrote on

    1. HAIL SAURON!
    2. WTF is that supposed to be? Some tribal tattoo on funny mushrooms?
    3. Would be okay if Mozilla was a media player, but it isn’t.
    4. Easily the best of the bunch.
    5. Would be okay if Mozilla was a vector graphics editor or CAD, but again it’s not.
    6. Well… at least it’ll work on Windows95 with no video driver and 16 colors.
    7. Wut?!

  261. Cochonou wrote on

    The eye is probably my favorite. It shows a lot of potential, is a very striking and memorable image, keeps the Mozilla dinosaur heritage, and leads to many interesting variations. However, it still needs to be worked on: the coloring and font are probably too agressive. It would probably be easy to suppress the “sauron eye” effect if you avoid giving a yellow/orange color to the eye.

  262. Yanov Cutajar wrote on

    Definitely the Moz://a one. The rest seem to be trying way too hard.

  263. Greg wrote on

    Sorry, but none of them…
    Moz://a is fun, but not good enough to represent Mozilla.

    Please don’t do it wrong !

  264. William wrote on

    It’s really bad design. Guys, don’t do it. Don’t kill us.

  265. Shanike De Silva wrote on

    I wouldn’t say i “dislike” any of the designs. But i don’t like them either. There’s no oomph in any of these logos.

  266. Alexis Paul Bertolini wrote on

    Moz://a is the only logo than can be seamlessly transferred to text (ASCII) and by far the only one that has a connection with what mozilla actually is.

  267. Benjamin Christine wrote on

    Not sure if any of the above say that mozilla is an established business. Almost feel a little startupy and trendy, no feeling of longevity.

  268. Dan wrote on

    “The Eye”: might be the better one for me, although I can understand the confusion with the eye of Sauron and surveillance. However, people that know a bit about Mozilla and its fight for privacy can easily dismiss this idea. I think user “Jack” on this page had a neat idea to change the colors. It actually removes the “warning/danger/caution” connotation, and is more relaxing to look at.

    “The Connector”: kind of cool, but difficult to read. Good for people who like to think outside the box, but could be hard to identify for the average Joe. Although, I particularly like variations created by user Anthony Camp on this page (particularly the left ones with the neurons). Maybe that the key for this one is to not let the logo speak for itself, but to leave the name of Mozilla next to it.

    “Open button”: looks awfully similar to WampServer’s logo and colors. Hardly evokes anything close to Mozilla for me.

    “Protocol”: the play with :// is fun, and I think everyone can relate with it (understand the reference to http://), but overall this one looks very close to Facebook’s logo. Maybe change the typo and/or the colors? The blue on blue looks quite outdated for me.

    “Wireframe world”: don’t know how to say it, but it doesn’t work for me. I don’t like looking at it. Maybe because of the black and white? The difficulty to see the “M”? The too simple structure? Anyway, it doesn’t evoke something good or pleasant, for me.

    “The Impossible M”: overall, I think all of these logos look quite old and do not inspire “coolness” (something you could expect from a change of logo, and also something Mozilla needs). But this one takes the cake! Was it designed on Windows 3.1? I can imagine that it was deliberately designed to look old, but why? Also, I think it resembles one of the previous logos of another brand (can’t put my finger on it though).

    “Flik Flak”: very hard to read for me (more than The Connector). Also, it would be more suitable for a parcel distribution company, IKEA or a company specialized in making and selling origami.

    To me, most of these logos look a bit outdated, to the exception of The Eye, The Connector and Protocol. Was that something Mozilla wanted? If yes, then go for it! I can’t understand why, but I’m no marketing/advertisement expert. If Mozilla wanted something new, I would advise refining the Eye, the Connector and Protocol designs, in terms of fonts and colors (and maybe some other tweaks).

    Anyway, I think this exercise is a really good idea from Mozilla, a good thing for the brand and for the community! I know that you only submitted these designs for comments, but you should also pay close attention to the designs made by other commentators, some of them are really cool.

  269. Leandro wrote on

    I think that The Eye logo with those same colors and fitted into a full dinosaur face would be epic. Maybe even too epic to be mozilla’s logo though: I can’t help actually hearing some hunting music playing inside my head imagining that!

  270. Radin wrote on

    The Moz://a one is the best!

  271. Mathieu D. wrote on

    Hello all,

    Maybe all these logos represent a big effort to think about mozilla and its goals,

    But, sincerely, I’m not sure there is a good one,

    And if I have to choose only one, I agree with some of us, saying the coolest could be moz://a.
    Not because of its meaning (protocol ? protocol of web… ?), but because it’s the better logo in his shape : not ugly color, and a readable logo (for techies only ?).

    It’s hard to represent what mozilla is, because mozilla represent a way of thinking the web, as an open web, a respect of individual privacy / security, an open source movement, …

    The question for me is : does mozilla need to change its branding ?

    Because the actual one seems better than all these actuals proposals ?

    I don’t have the answer… but, personnaly, I think I would’nt change ‘mozilla’ logo, just maybe add a symbol representing the main idea of mozilla ?
    Promote an open web, secure, for everyone.

    And I think, yes, it could be a good idea, to distinct Mozilla & Firefox logo :
    Firefox is clearly identifiable by his red panda.
    Mozilla was identifiable by his dinosaur… but, it’s meaning something ‘old’, and… extinct… so maybe change this to another symbol, clearly identifiable, just to be able to say : that’s Mozilla, the one who promote the open web ! & that’s Firefox, the browser that let you in control of your web surfing !

    Hope it will help…

  272. Jamal wrote on

    +90 for Moz://a

    Simple and minimalist :)

  273. sebastien wrote on

    None of the above. I have a lot of trouble finding any one attractive. The stories behind are nice, but I feel a bit cheated when I see the result.
    A is too scary

    B, E and G are too complex and hard to read
    C I can’t really find words for

    D is the least bad, but maybe too geeky
    F is not a serious proposition

  274. Smidge wrote on

    Disclaimer: I originally wanted to include a lot of swearing, but then I stopped looking at The Connector & Flik Flak and tried to offer something a bit more constructive instead.

    Having had a look through the options my overall impression is that most of these designs are pretty abstract and a bit complicated – they make for awesome posters and t shirts and ad campaigns but they’re not necessarily iconic.

    If you’re talking replacing the Mozilla wordmark and ingraining the new branding that deeply into your DNA I think that the Protocol design is the cleanest, simplest, most iconic in its current form, while making a fun statement about your culture. Perhaps it resonates more with tech-geeks than with all people though.

    2nd place in my estimation goes to the Open Button design, which I could see perhaps used as a wordmark with the open button element in place of the ‘o’ in Mozilla for instance. It does feel a bit sterile however, like an insurance company logo – it’s a bit corporate.

    I agree wholeheartedly with comments I’ve seen that The Eye as a design can have a negative connotation. Perhaps this could be softened somehow without losing the lizard eye effect – for instance I had a more positive response to the eye element used in the context of a monster face in the ‘keep the web wonderful’ t-shirt. Perhaps if this design incorporated more elements of a godzilla/monster face it would better represent the -zilla rather than a panopticon environment / all-seeing eye. The shape of the wordmark in this design is already shaped somewhat like the snout of a beast and perhaps this could be emphasized, teeth or nostrils added et cetera. The more I think about this design, the more I feel that it has the best potential for improvement and the boldest/most iconic colour scheme.

    I actively dislike the remaining designs. I feel strongly that they’re overly abstracted, cluttered, and complicated. Wireframe World looks like a fantastic landing page for a website, Flik Flak looks awesome on a t-shirt, The Connector would be an on-fleek print on a pair of leggings, and the Impossible M looks music-festival-poster trendy. I’d hate to see any of them with the level of frequency that I see the Mozilla wordmark (this is the most friendly way I could think to word my reaction to these ones).

    Thanks for the chance to throw feedback at this, and good luck.

  275. Gervase Markham wrote on

    One very important consideration, which I hope the brand team are taking into account, is that the logo chosen doesn’t just represent Mozilla to the world, it’s also a brand for the community, in the way the Firefox logo isn’t. Which means that if a lot of Mozillians think “boy, that’s ugly” or “our logo is embarrassing”, it may have a significant negative effect on people’s willingness to identify as Mozillians. (And it means people will try their utmost to use alternative or older branding, thereby defeating the point. See what happened when they tried to ‘deprecate’ the dinosaur.) So my key hope for the new logo is not that it scores half a percentage point higher on some consumer acceptability metric, but that our community _like_ it and feel “yes, I’m happy having that represent me and what I do”. So my comments come from that perspective.

    * Route A: I like the eye, but I wonder if yellow and black is the right colour combo.
    * Route B: far too clever for its own good.
    * Route C: I don’t see how this is particularly a Mozilla logo, as opposed to any other company.
    * Route D: I like this one the best. It’s clever, but still obvious what the word says. It’s got the right mix of geeky and approachable.
    * Route E: I really didn’t see this as an M until the blurb explained it. Again, not seeing how this logo is particularly Mozilla rather than any other company.
    * Route F: The idea of using various impossible/Escher designs as different logos is really interesting, but you’ve made it hard for it to be appealing by choosing some truly horrible colours :-| So it’s difficult to judge.
    * Route G: well maybe, but I’m not convinced.

    Not sure if the colours are up for discussion – I hope so – but I’d prefer a red/black(/yellow/orange) logo like our previous one. Gives some visual continuity with the dino.

  276. Simon wrote on

    I like the m:// approach. It’s techy, it’s nerdy and makes you look twice. At least at the start, then you get it an it’s invisible again. That’s good.

    I’d keep the current Mozilla font though. The Mozilla wordmark is already a brand in itself. Would be a shame to lose that.

    mozilla-2

  277. Ferenc Szabo wrote on

    Last attempt as a simple logo

    mozlogo

  278. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hi
    replace logo

    999999999

  279. Bill wrote on

    “With you from the start” is the obvious choice. The others are stretching.

    The colors enhance the Mozilla story, which is what colors should do; however, in keeping with the “nature” of the internet/web they could/should change with the season.

    jb_Mozilla_design_pres_edit_3.key

    1. Bill wrote on

      I also like how it can be shorthanded to M://

  280. DT wrote on

    What about this concept?

    Mozilla

    1. Christoph Walz wrote on

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

  281. X-Raym wrote on

    These are nice illustrations, with interesting symbolic representation, but not really nice logos for branding. Too much details maybe…

    The moz://a is modern and cool, but what myspace proves with their my_, is that it is not that a good idea to replace letters by symbols in a main logo. That’s why their rollback.

    I would have love seen something more related to the Dinosaur and mostly to the mythological aspect of The Book of Mozilla.
    https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/book/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mozilla

    These apocalyptic prophecies leaves place to a powerful imagery full of beast, fire, etc, that could be perfect for branding.

  282. ayla wrote on

    This people were creating logo for the London’s Olympics? The “clarity” is the same :/

  283. User Firefox wrote on

    Moz://a is the best.

  284. Muhammad Abdullah wrote on

    I am loving this one :-D

    mozillanewlogo

  285. JohnB wrote on

    All of the logo’s are ugly.

    As for the company motto, perhaps: “Mozilla – now with corporate wankspeak.”

    Just keep it simple guys, something an art student could whip together in 5 minutes and which actually looks cool.

    Don’t rebrand Mozilla in a way that makes the company look like a bunch of robotic humanoids – spouting pre-scripted corporate slogans – that just gives the image of yet another disingenuous company, smiling to your face while lying to you and picking your pocket.

    Don’t go full-on-corporate with the rebranding.

    1. disappointment wrote on

      “something an art student could whip together in 5 minutes and which actually looks cool.”

      There is no good graphics of any kind, neither minimalist logos nor complex illustrations, that an art student could “whip together in 5 minutes” with any kind of refinement.

      It think this developer & engineer mindset that art and design is something you can “whip together in 5 minutes” is one of the reasons why this Mozilla’s identity design open source project is kind of doomed. No design project (or an art project with a client) can succeed, if the client doesn’t appreciate the work and the process that is done.

      Most developers and especially engineers who don’t code, if they were put doing a visual design project and demanded good results from them, would be totally mindblown about the amount of work and iteration and thinking that it takes to do for example an identity to a company. It’s strange that nobody says “yeah you could whip together the process flowchart in 5 minutes” for engineers, but as a designer it’s not a rare case to hear that kind of bs.

  286. Karel Súkup wrote on

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

  287. Kaz wrote on

    I agree with some of other commenters.
    The Eye is cool and keeps theme from old dinosaur head logo, but I an eye could be associated with invigilation, all seeing eye and stuff.
    The Protocol is IMO the best one but as mentioned earlier it could be to geeky for most people and unreadable.
    I’ll vote for Open Button (maybe with some changed colors? – I’ll change pink to orange and the blue to some brighter shade ). It’s simple, yet customizable and catchy and most readable from other projects.

  288. Ben Francis wrote on

    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.

  289. Andrew Trapp wrote on

    In the interest of balance, full feedback on all 7:
    The Eye
    -Kinda creepy (especially the all hands)
    -Too much of a “Sauron” vibe, which should probably be avoided
    -That arrangement of black and yellow indicates “danger” or “caution”

    The Connector
    -Very clever how the lines spell out Mozilla
    -I like the different community/country logos
    -Whimsical and exciting

    Open button
    -Kinda looks like a sad robot
    -“Open” is not something I think of when I see the logo

    Protocol
    -Appropriately nerdy
    -Like the colors
    -Plenty of opportunity to utilize it for things
    -Might be too simple
    -Design might get old quick

    Wireframe World
    -Hard to tell it’s an ‘M’ at first glance

    The Impossible M
    -Looking at it for too long makes my head hurt

    Flik Flak
    -Little confusing
    -Kinda takes away from the technology aspect of Mozilla
    -The angle of the different sub-logos can make them difficult to read

    My overall opinion would be a blend of Connector and Protocol. Protocol for the more techie side of things, Connector for the community branding. The biggest advantage both of them have to me is that they both say “I represent Mozilla”. I look at them, and I get the same impressions and feelings that I get when I see Dino, the Firefox, or even the Thunderbird. That’s important to me, and that’s why I like those two the best.

  290. Tiago Henrique wrote on

    “The Eye” is the best!

  291. Ivan Tottene wrote on

    Hi, good morning everyone.
    My opinion: The option “With yout from the start”
    [PROTOCOL] is the best option.
    It translates the purpose of the group in the web.

  292. Martin wrote on

    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.

  293. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hi

    iran

  294. Marek Holly wrote on

    Ok, I’ll just leave it here.

    mozillalogo_comp

  295. Pelusa wrote on

    Most of the options seem to have a focus on aesthetics rather than functionality. Basing the visual identity of a big organization in graphic fads will lead mostly to a bad decision.

    Regardless of that, option B seems the best to me. Apart from its great system, it feels neutral, warm and fun (values that the current Fox has), but at the same time brings new flavour. The weird writing makes it interesting and yet completely recognizable.

  296. Pacifica wrote on

    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).

  297. PABLO PETZEN wrote on

    The Open are the best of then, but hey guys you can do better than this!
    Mozilla had such amazing logos like Firefox and Thunderbird.

  298. Leandro Rossa wrote on

    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?

  299. Yaroslav wrote on

    The Connector and The Protocol are my two faves.

    The Connector can be worked into anything (as was shown with regional logos, think how much you can do with this marketing-wise?), and the lines making the letters can be remembered easily.

    The Connector needs some work with the font (too corporate), but other than that, this is the best simple choice logo and would bode well along with Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

  300. Stan K. wrote on

    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

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

      1. Stan K. wrote on

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

  301. Edson Marcon wrote on

    A really impossible M
    excuse me please, is a draft design

    mozillacor2

  302. Filip Šimeček wrote on

    I like the protocol.

  303. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hi
    The best logo for mozilla. May name is hamid panahi. I call from IRAN.
    please like.
    please like.

    best1

    best2

    best3

    best4

  304. Thiago Silva wrote on

    2 AND 3

  305. v1nce wrote on

    more polished version after I got censored.

    First I expected to have to choose the best among the best and not the least ugly.

    the eye: not the worst but right now it looks like a mix between caterpillar and opera
    connector: 70′ olympics collides with identicon. outfashioned and no personnality.
    open button: maybe with good colors it would not be that bad. But the others “faces” version look childish
    wireframe: reminds me of zune or just any topology graph. no way
    impossible M: maybe with other colors and angles.
    flik flak: impossible to read

    the least ugly (and smart) is
    moz://a but it still needs reworking (color scheme, font) and as some others said it would not be easy to google

    Please hear the 90% forumers that scream those design are bad.
    Not because they’re haters or nostalgic but because we all all feel those designs are just … bad.

    And please stop trying to justify yourself telling Mozilla should change its identity because of this or that
    What do you prefer ?
    to be known (only) as the company that makes firefox ?
    to be known as the company that didn’t listen their users and choose a crappy logo ?

    Will you have enough courage for a online poll ? if so I guess results would be
    80% none of them
    15% moz:lla
    3% the eye
    2% another one

  306. Ricardo wrote on

    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.

  307. Pamela Jennings wrote on

    Protocol is my fav. It’s lean, clean, brand is clear, offers lots of options for off-shoot logos. The Eye = spy, for me that’s a nope. The Connector is too Keith Haring. Flik Flak is a confusion.

  308. Christian Ohrfandl wrote on

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

  309. Ricardo wrote on

    My small contribution.

    MOZILLA-LOGO

  310. Cosmin wrote on

    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

      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.

  311. Martin wrote on

    Mozilla = Open and Transparent?
    Why not a transparent logo/knockout logo where the letters are see through and bleed off the edge of the negative space? Then you can have anything behind the logo – an image, a photo, a pattern, a color, or have things run through the letters.

    Play with the positive/negative space.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Interesting design idea, Martin. Thanks for passing this along.

      1. Martin wrote on

        After reviewing your documentation, i think playing off being a “hero for the web” might be a way to go..think comics -can you be comic-ish but with corporate taste? I keep coming back to this since your descriptors sound like a comic book hero (this is not a bad thing)

        This way you could come up with some sort of visual cohesion, and you could think of your regional brands as heroes (don’t make characters – just think of your text as a hero in a design system).

        This would then tie into the historic pop art roots of the dino, and your stated goals can be reflected in your “hero”.

        E.g. Superman is noble, of good character and strong/indestructible and can fly and has a shield
        “Mozilla” is open, transparent, good full of hope, etc. and has xyz distinctives/visual representation.. What does hero mozilla look like? (A hopeful see through logo suggesting vibrancy and playfulness yet corporate responsibility :p )

        Then you can open up all sorts of avenues for tutorials, visuals with friendly and accesible “comic/stories” which may take more work, but could be a huge distinguisher between you and your “competition. (Think svg and html and keep it simple).

        Go to your roots. Go to your roots. And soar.

        I hope this doesn’t get lost in the mix.

        All the best . Intrigued to see what comes next.

  312. Angelos Chalaris wrote on

    I like the eye and moz://a. Especially the second one is very much in line with what Mozilla stands for. The eye looks a tiny bit ominous, but I like it, too!

  313. Jakub wrote on

    I think that “The Eye”, “The Connector” and “Wireframe World” are the best projects. In my opinion the remaining logos are too old-school, reminding me those awful websites ;_;

  314. lzap wrote on

    The godzilla logo is the best logo ever created in the IT industry. I love it. Keep it alive.

  315. Ricardo wrote on

    I made eyes “nervous” style cartoon to keep alive the “soul” of the old mozilla logo (no “kill him”), contrasting square letters to seriously Mozilla Foundation. Eyes now not seem to look like take privacy. I focused on the simplicity of the logo that is also easy to recognize.
    Forgive my poor English. By Translate.

    Portuguese: Fiz os olhos “nervosos” estilo cartoon para manter viva a “alma” do logotipo antigo da mozilla (sem “matá-lo”), contrapondo letras quadradas para dar seriedade a fundação Mozilla. Os olhos agora não parecem observar parecendo tirar a privacidade. Foquei na simplicidade do logo que também é fácil de ser reconhecido.

    Logo-Mozilla

  316. christopher wrote on

    As a nerd, I feel the Moz://a is a perfect embodiment of the mission…As for the eye, the world today is too intent on knowing others business, and it feels to me that the message has a negative connotation…”we are always watching”…the remaining I can sum up with one word…huh? they make no sense…I see the word in the tiles…AFTER it was pointed out…same for the glyphs…just my $.02

  317. Joanna Ngai wrote on

    https://medium.com/@ngai.yt/first-impressions-of-the-next-mozilla-logo-4568e5e10164#.8jusoaup2

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks, Joanna. Great post! Really appreciate your participation in this process and your recognition that visualizing “The Internet” is a challenge. Including other aspects of Mozilla, from policy and advocacy work to our community building efforts in parts of the world that are just coming online, and it can be an awesome challenge. I’m curious what you mean when you refer to Mozilla keeping our current logo, which today is a word mark. (The Shepherd Fairey- designed dinosaur was retired in external communications many years ago, and is only used internally and on the Mozilla Developer Network.) In a modern, connected world, is a word mark and a few colors a sufficient enough toolkit to communicate? In addition to helping communicate the totality of Mozilla, that’s why we’re engaged in this work. Thanks again for being a part of this.

  318. malcolm dew-jones wrote on

    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

      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

  319. Ted Curran wrote on

    I think Mavericks United is the most potentially iconic of the bunch. It’s instantly distinctive from other major corporate logos, and it appears to stand up to a lot of variation in color, pattern — it looks good no matter what you do to it. It makes an instant impression upon the mind at first glance, even from across the room. Most of the other choices here can’t say the same.

    Many of the other choices here are either visually unclear and unreadable or they just seem “small” and not befitting the #2 browser in the world. This isn’t just a browser for geeks or techies — this is the browser my 75 year old mother uses and the default browser on my infant son’s tablet. It’s a household name, and the logo should be equally accessible.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for your comments, Ted. To clear up one misconception, this is not a design exercise to replace the Firefox logo. Mozilla is the nonprofit maker of the Firefox open-source browser, yes, and is also the champion of a healthy internet. Believing that the Internet is a global public resource that should be accessible to all, we teach the web around the world, engage in policy and advocacy work to ensure that the Internet stays equitable, and help create some of the core technologies that help the web perform. Our ultimate design for Mozilla needs to help tell the entirety of the Mozilla story. Thanks for participating in this conversation. If you’d like to learn more about the origin of this initiative, please see https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-were-talking/

  320. Zoe wrote on

    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?

  321. hamidpanahi wrote on

    Hello
    I’m Hamid Panahi. 7 logo at the top did not fit a browser for your logo. I designed the logo I think it would be better. Please design a logo that I have to put the survey. Thanks.

    best1-1

    best2-1

    best3-1

    best4-1

    1. SALOME wrote on

      Beautiful and new. like 2

    2. SALOME wrote on

      Logo (2) of the above really nice. Who is the designer of this logo?

  322. whormongr wrote on

    personally I like flik flak and wireframe

  323. tom dickey wrote on

    Why is an open source foundation worried about re-branding? Going Corporate? If you pick an eye, cube, or triangle design we’ll get the hint.

  324. Yorghos Carabas wrote on

    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

  325. Daniel Nielson wrote on

    Gotta say, I know this isn’t a vote or anything, but all of these are pretty bad. Moz://a is the least offensive, but but that’s just because it’s the blandest. Overall, it’s not very good. Also, now I’m imagining that M:// appearing everywhere and just getting annoyed.

    – The Eye looks like a bad attempt at a logo for a Mordor based construction equipment manufacturer.
    – The Connector just looks like bad bus seat cloth, or like an explosion at a silly string factory.
    – Open Button is just outright terrible. All the icon variations are difficult to identify, colors are terrible, and it honestly just conveys nothing.
    – Protocol is bland, the harsh blue – which seems to be a theme here – is awful, and the M:// iconography is just annoying.
    – Wireframe is not immediately visually recognizable, and it’s focus on perspective just makes what should be a simple design overly complex(look at it as an element on a page, not by itself) from a design and layout standpoint.
    – The Impossible M uses really terribad colors, but even with better colors, it is just visually annoying to look at.
    – Flik Flak is way to difficult to visually decipher and just plain exhausting to look at.

  326. Dwight wrote on

    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.

  327. K. Loos wrote on

    I would also select the Protocoll Logo – it’s the best one from the seven selections (five of thems are bad or very bad for me).
    The illustration with the protocoll is simple and genial in his appropriate form. The color for it, is – as well – a good option.

  328. Mike wrote on

    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.

  329. Matt Livingstone wrote on

    Mozilla’s heart, soul and future is Firefox. Browser. OS.
    I submit an alternative approach.

    mozilla-rebrand-m-livingstone

    1. Paulo Vianna wrote on

      I’m with Matt. I would even cut the “illa” out, and just leave MOZ with the firefox globe as the ‘O’. Or if the goal is really to alienate half the users, M(firefox logo)Z://@

  330. Mario P. Ronci wrote on

    i like that even though there are some unproductive comments here. Theres a majority of a powerful community engaging in a conversation that can only help the branding process. Ive noticed agencies only test websites but never brand identities. I think this will become more common in the future openly sharing with your audience.

  331. Mike B wrote on

    The Eye
    – too bright
    – too heavy
    – resembles Eye of Sauron (surveillance)
    – a little bit like Opera
    – and Monsters, Inc. (am I the only one?)
    + plus for using dinosaur theme

    The Connector
    +nice colors
    + flexible
    + quite unique
    + has potential
    – but designer didn’t exploit it all

    Open button
    – like a sign on the washing machine
    – terrible colors, they don’t carry good associations,
    + but I actually like how this is closed, solid, compact

    Protocol
    – I like it but the emoticon :/ shows dissatisfaction, sadness

    Wireframe world
    – I think the designers didn’t put much effort into that,
    – cluttered
    + there is nice meaning in the links structure, like building the web together but it has to be more transparent and lighter, you should delete few lines to make it clearer, but good concept

    The Impossible M
    + both modern and have some resemblances from the 90s,
    + it is something I could draw on the back of my notebook on a boring lecture,
    + this logo works on everything
    (my favorite)

    Flik Flak
    – when I look at it I have no idea what I’m looking at,
    – cluttered,
    – colors are a bit sad,
    – it not something that stays in your mind, maybe changing the colors could help

    In the Mozilla’s logo I would like some element of mosaic and Godzilla :)

  332. Lucas Silva wrote on

    I’m from Brazil , Huehue . I liked the model PROTOCOL

  333. Hubert Wolfram wrote on

    In my opinion if you really have to choose any of those, “The Connector” is the best. The logo at the first look is not very obvious but after you spend a while trying to figure what does it represent you actually notice that it’s Mozilla letters presented in very nice and modern way. Also it’s very nice that the logo concept would eventually be present in like local fan pages as shown on the picture, people like that kind of connection with a company!

    1. Hubert Wolfram wrote on

      Oh and definitely don’t choose “The Eye”. It’s so creepy that I don’t want to see it anymore… It’s something e.g. I would see in like Windows 98 that pops out in the middle of night. Yikes. Really creepy.

  334. Eli Bildirici wrote on

    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.

  335. Daniel wrote on

    I like Protocol. Mostly because I’m a Geek.

  336. Gustavo H. Kolansky wrote on

    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

  337. Scott Vachalek wrote on

    As popular as the protocol logo is, I don’t think it’s going to stand the test of time. Already browsers hide as much of the URL as they can, and the protocol stopped mattering a long time ago. Everything is HTTP or HTTPS now, and there is a strong movement to go HTTPS-only (although I don’t give it good odds vs. inertia).

    I think probably even the great Internet masses still remember typing out “semicolon backslash backslash” (I know, but they didn’t) but I don’t know how long that will be true for.

    On the other hand, I really like the concept behind the Open Button, but it needs to be done in something other than “icon blue”.

  338. Adam Beecher wrote on

    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.

  339. Michael wrote on

    The design brief above all else.

    Chime with ‘conscious choosers’, more millennial, edgier and cooler design
    Reflect the new core personality: Gutsy, Independent, Buoyant, For Good

  340. Rafael Silva wrote on

    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.

  341. gareth wrote on

    I hate the ones at the top of the page. I don’t think they have the dynamism and modernity I’d expect from Mozilla. They lack any sense of heritage (which can be a good thing some times) but they also fall into the trap of following design fads and fashion. A good logo needs to stand the test of time and not look out of date next week.

    I only had 10 mins to put this together. It’s just a quick exercise in the direction I’d take it.

    I’m not gonna explain it, I don’t have the time at the mo,(deadlines), if you like it, it is a good logo.

    I’ll do a blog past about it at some point.

    Good luck with the new logo hunt.! If I can help get in touch.
    Cheers from the UK

    :)

    mozillalogo

  342. Arun wrote on

    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

  343. hamidpanahi wrote on

    hi
    may name is hamid panahi. from IRAN. new logo.

    dragonSkin

  344. jan wrote on

    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.

  345. NotADesingerawd wrote on

    “Protocol” is the most elegant by my humble opinion.
    I really like the simplicity.

  346. Peter Manfredini wrote on

    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

    Druck

  347. Andreas Hloupy wrote on

    Hell, what do I know … the :// seems a good starting point, that’s about all.

    Mozilla-2

  348. Ali Nassiri wrote on

    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

  349. Kimberly M wrote on

    “The Eye” and “Protocol” are the strongest imo. They are simple, impactful and utilitarian across multiple mediums (web, print, merchandising). The others are too complex; would be more appropriate for events, campaigns or the like.

  350. Maxluan Cruz wrote on

    Gostei do “For the Internet of People”

  351. Orson wrote on

    I like the :// one. However with browsers starting to hide the http:// part of the url it feels like tying yourself to something that is on the way out. Probably not a good idea for a fresh rebrand.

  352. Gayas wrote on

    6th one looks cool

  353. magus wrote on

    To everyone here who said that the ‘dinosaur’ does not reflect the ‘mission’ of Mozilla, but rather the roots in technologies: The company is called Mozilla. You know, the word that sounds almost like Godzilla? Which is why it has a dinosaur logo?

    I say run with that. Everyone loves dinosaurs.

  354. Paul wrote on

    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.

  355. Salvatore Monteforte wrote on

    Hope you like it

    Progetto1

  356. Erik Spiekermann wrote on

    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.

  357. Erik Spiekermann wrote on

    “the word Mozilla in an undistinguished typeface”

    So, using Helvetica Bold in the Protocol is distinguished? What you call “undistinguished” is just about far enough from the mainstream to not be fashionable. Anybody who knows anything about type (like our clients at Firefox) knows that “distinguished” gets between the message and the reader and will quickly become outdated and embarrassing. Using Helvetica, however, is about as mainstream as it gets. Not cool, just boring. As you can see on this website, Fira reads pretty well on a screen, which was the purpose of the exercise and which is where the brand Mozilla lives.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Erik, It’s an honor to hear from you, and thanks for contributing your thoughts. Sorry for any confusion. We were referring to the Meta Bold used in the current Mozilla word mark, not the use of Fira Sans. These initial design explorations are experimenting with type that could be use to reinforce the concept, but nothing is finalized. We look forward to hearing your thoughts when we reach that point. Thanks again.

  358. Erik Spiekermann wrote on

    Who uses wireframes anymore?

    1. Michael Sheldon Reed wrote on

      Please listen to this guy. He is a design legend.

  359. Hamid Abbaszadeh wrote on

    I like the Protocol Moz://a but it’s like //build/ logo. The current one is better.

  360. Stacey wrote on

    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.

  361. Maik wrote on

    Sorry, but all off them aren´t nice enough for mozilla. :/
    Protocol is atm the best I think, but it doesn´t “feel good”.

    I also like the comment from Vince:
    “Please hear the 90% forumers that scream those design are bad.
    Not because they’re haters or nostalgic but because we all all feel those designs are just … bad.”

    I´m one of those 90%.

  362. D3 wrote on

    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.

  363. Victor Vincent wrote on

    +1 For the Open Button. It’s really catchy and doesn’t look anything else I can think of now.

  364. JG wrote on

    No dinosaur is not mozilla

  365. Iain Gibson wrote on

    Some interesting ideas here. My vote is for the ‘Impossible M’ concept. It can be translated in a number of ways using shapes, colour and animation. It can also be adapted to suit different cultural needs, or events which will keep it fresh, relevant and up to date.

  366. Hugo wrote on

    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

      Thanks, Hugo. We love you, too.

  367. Todd wrote on

    How about this?

    Mozilla-2

  368. bcy wrote on

    – “The Eye” uses the same two colors already present in that often-used Javascript logo, and the eyes look kind of creepy, although I can understand how it’s a visual pun on (Mo)zilla and reptiles.

    – “Open button” uses two colors that are hard to make work together in my opinion, and that makes it even harder to integrate visually. Also those two colors together have a cultural significance that’d make me think it’s more about dealing with gender issues than technology.

    – “The connector” is nice, it’s clever, it doesn’t have any other visual meaning like “The Eye” , it’s colorful and doesn’t have a boring shape, but conversely that makes it hard to memorize as a whole.

    – “Protocol” is simple, one of the most readable, can be typed easily (Moz://a, bam) which can make it really efficient for communication over websites such as twitter. It’s also easy to remember. While not everyone will get what it means, it will certainly please technology-inclined people, who are those who do proselytism.

    – I find “Wireframe World” rather bland despite its rather complex and uneven shape. Many people nowadays uses this kind of picture when they want to quickly represent the internet or social networks, it doesn’t say anything about Mozilla. This may as well be some random silicon valley start-up’s logo.

    – “The Impossible M” has kind of a retro look and rather strong colors, but using an impossible shape is something rather common, and when flattened it just becomes a large M, thus losing all specificity. Moreover, I think its icons look like they’re from Win98, but hey, who knows, maybe design trends will get back there soon :)

    – “The Flik-Flak” is interesting: a few colors easily associated to firefox’s and geometrical shapes that still create a whole coherent shape, with many possible variations, from complex to simple.

    Now if I were to rank my preferences:
    1° The Protocol and The Flik-Flak: both are original enough (hey, it’s hard to come up with something), look modern enough, don’t have colors that may be hard to integrate in another context, and can as simple or as complex as needed.
    2° The Connector: like the two previous ones, but it doesn’t have an easily memorized global shape other than being a colored square, although I recognize it’s clever.
    3° The Impossible M: despite what I said, it’s still recognizable enough, but might be hard to simplify into small icons.
    4° Wireframe World: cookie-cutter logo.
    5° The Eye and Open Button: the weird territory. They both bear too much meaning that have nothing to do with mozilla, namely surveillance and gender issues (no, really, I could totally see the Open Button used by a radical sectarian masculinist group who’d use the blue color to mean how men should dominate that tiny pink stuff at the bottom; I may be over-interpreting, but I can’t shake off how weird it looks).

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback.

    2. AlexW wrote on

      I was just about to go through all the designs when I found your entry. I’m absolutly with you. I prefer “Protocol” for it’s the clearest of all. But as a second thought I suggest, that you take the actual Logo and modify it a little. Most people know those little changes that companys like Lufthansa and Apple did. Enough to make a difference, small enough to take the people with you.

  369. Vladimir Khablov wrote on

    omg.. You better do it in-house without asking your audience!

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Vladimir, thanks for checking out this design review and providing your comment. As an open-source organization, Mozilla believes that transparency and participation prevail over decisions being made out of public view, even decisions made by us. We’re extending this thinking to a new realm with this open design project. We’re learning as we go how to strike the right balance between the voices of our audience and the expertise we have in house at Mozilla and in our brand agency partner johnson banks. Were grateful at the level of community engagement and are drawing lessons from it that will be applied as we move from these initial concepts to the next phase of design. Thanks again for being a part of this effort.

      1. Dom McLoughlin wrote on

        Does this mean that the final mark will be produced by JB?

  370. Randell Jesup wrote on

    I’m a mozilla contributor since ~2000 (pre-Mozilla1.0) and employee since 2011. I have to say that none of these excite me; in fact most leave me scratching my head about what it’s supposed to convey. The least-bad (and I use that term on purpose) is probably Protocol, since at least it doesn’t leave me scratching my head.

    Don’t forget that there is accumulated history here; connecting to that history in some way is a *plus*, not a minus. I realize designers might want to build things totally new… but that has real risks/downsides. Also I think these go too far on the “concept” side, to the point where they only make sense if the concept/design goal is explained.

    1. jgreenspan wrote on

      Thanks for your input, Randell. Great point that acknowledging and incorporating our heritage and history is important. The eye logo in many ways nods at the Dino, but we agree there is an opportunity to continue to work on that link.

  371. Weverton Soares wrote on

    Moz://a, pleeease!

  372. Emma wrote on

    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.

  373. Andrew Borysenko wrote on

    Hi guys!
    I’m a designer who are specialize on branding.
    So I got to say, that:
    First one is pretty neat, nut that reptile-looking eye is freaking me out. And I’m not having a phobia. Guess, that those who have it woudn’t be enthusiastic about that look.

    Second is too overwieghted by lines and colors, looking childish and lame.

    Third is boring and associates with some company who’ s making microwaves and other stuff for housewives.

    Fourth is really nice and my personal favorite. It looks minimalistic and cool. And it has very clear reference to it’s web specific.

    Others is just unserious. Yeah, there some trends now, but it’s really bad.

    Best regards!

  374. Sam wrote on

    Moz://a

  375. Ramzi Ibrahim wrote on

    I was annoying enough to give feedback on each option post… sorry.

    In short, The Connector (I think it’s the best option here, and the best developed so far), and Flik-Flak are my favourites.

    3rd place would be the idea of M:// but not its execution. Good concept; meh execution.

  376. Szabó Ferenc wrote on

    My proposed logo

    mozlogo2

  377. Nenad Diczkov wrote on

    I’ve been in the industry for years so, this might be a bit more technical. Well the problem is that most of them are very poor in fact. Despite some of them being graphically interesting, they’re usability, communication value and durability are very questionable while visually they’re either generic, overly simplified or just visibly “forced” to work. Apart from Route A, the yellow black one. With a few minor tweeks it could be a great system and a very iconic one. It has minor applicability flaws but that’s very solvable, but it’s not just the best one among these, it’s overall great. Different in a good way, that is to say that it steps out of the overly crisp clean and generic design and the bland web product aesthetic and moves into a more graphically engaging one which I thing will be a beneficial factor even to the new users. It shows guts and reliability and has a classic value that it will surely acquire over time.
    The others I think will fall very very VERY flat as they have zero mnemonic value as such, they’re systems are very uninteresting, forgetable and in some cases horribly banal or in the case of Impossible M, just too trendy. Which you’ll agree isn’t really a great thing considering you’ll probably have to burn another fortune to refresh it in a few years. The moz://a is something I’d buy from 99designs, so is Route G… I believe those two are something a first year design student would think of. That scafolded generic M is just a copy of the Melbourne city identity and Route B is just plain unreadable, and the pattern approach is not something a web product/service should rely on too much. Patterns are very ungreatful for web usage.
    All in all I don’t think this is a great way of deciding either. Lay people tend to react on emotion but don’t understand the complexity of applying the system and maintainting it. So this overly democratic way of approaching this problem is much like being a high school girl who can’t decide what to wear and asks a bunch of friends, without having an attitude of herown.
    Still, I vote Route A, it’s great in every way and a brave, involving and friendly way of communicating Mozilla. It says Mozilla visually! And the character is very cute which is gonna be a great asset since people will relate with it better. Also the system is so effortlessly open that it’s gonna be a breeze to apply it to all kinds of stuff.
    Good luck with it, but despite what people say, test run them all and you’ll see that every one except A will become very very weak in the long run. And you wouldn’t want to change your logo in another few years like DC comics had to.
    Cheers.

  378. Niclas Hultgren wrote on

    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.

    jb_Mozilla_D_protocol_1_Edit1

    jb_Mozilla_D_protocol_1_Edit2

    1. Dom McLoughlin wrote on

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

  379. Mart F wrote on

    I’ve been in corporate logo design for 15 years, and every single one of these designs looks like they are trying to hard. Too much time has been spent in a boardroom trying to find something too unique that they honestly just look awful.

    When i’m designing a logo for a large company, I do my best to imagine every scenario that a company’s branding will be used. In particular as to how it will look outisde of a building headquarters.

    You take one look at Microsoft and Google, Netflix, etc they all have brands which are identifiable, but incredibly simple. This company has clearly gone over the top to make something original they just look messy.

    Go simple, Go clean.

    Call me :)

    moz1

    moz2

    1. LauH wrote on

      That’s it !
      For me, it’s the best proposal so far.
      We can immediately see that you know what you are doing.
      And, your analysis of what is going wrong with the first proposals is very relevant.
      I like how the change of color of the letter ‘z’ translate the emphasis on this letter when we pronounce the word ‘mozilla’.
      Tim Murray can you get in touch with Mart F ? ASAP!!! :)

  380. Bruno Fleurquin wrote on

    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.

  381. Jake wrote on

    I have to say that I’m not really liking any of them. Not one of them is appealing to me, but I’m just one person I guess. If I were to design it, I would stay true to the lowercase lettering, and incorporate colors from the Firefox logo. Here is a concept that I came up with using that idea. There is also a hidden “F” in the “M” if you turn it sideways.

    mozzilla_logo

  382. Rodrigo Cesar Banhara wrote on

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

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

  383. Marek Holly wrote on

    The best idea of all is ://. No need to put anything more there. Simplicity will support the idea much more than artificial graphical semi-amateur orgies. Keep it simple.

    mozilla_v2_mrk

  384. Mrk wrote on

    THE EYE WIN

  385. gh163 wrote on

    alle 7 Vorschläge sind der größte Reinfall!
    ich kann nicht verstehen, wie man ein super Logo total abschaffen will.
    wenn überhaupt, würde ich das bestehende etwas verfeinern.
    für mich sind die neuen Vorschläge zum Scheitern verurteilt!!!

  386. Glori Winders wrote on

    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.

  387. Ardhian wrote on

    The protocol is simple and strong. But if you want something more playful, the connector would be the best design among the rest.

  388. Cameron Dawson wrote on

    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

  389. Lee H wrote on

    I like ‘The Connector’ the most. It looks tribal and worldly which reflects the message you are trying to convey. It’s a very anthropologic and diverse logo. I wouldn’t pick this specific design, but I would vote for this direction.

    The eye is creepy, the impossible M looks like MTV style, Moz://a is very obvious and boring, and flik flak is confusing, but I’m drawn to potentially learning about the reason behind it. The rest are meh.

  390. Steffen Vogt wrote on

    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.

  391. Pierluigi PETRA wrote on

    Dear Tim,
    If you have to make a choice from the seven logos, I think Protocol will be the only one. The concept is ok, it resumes all the aspect of the company without forcing the image with strange meanings or ideas. The problem is the font. The character of this font is anonimous, too common and without personality. You need more work, I think. If you find the font you will find the logo too.
    This is what I think about.

    1. Pierluigi PETRA wrote on

      some ideas

      mozilla1

      1. Pierluigi PETRA wrote on

        re some ideas

        mozilla1-1

  392. Yury wrote on

    My logo.

    MOZILLA

  393. Yury wrote on

    New logo.

    mozilla-4

  394. Julia Canzani wrote on

    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.

  395. Sam wrote on

    Moz://a is the best for me.
    – By looking closer to the actual logo, it connect to the past success of the Mozilla foundation instead of a new identity. Mozilla has nothing to hide from its past and should be proud of.
    – As easy to write in text area as Micro$oft and still keeping its unique identity.

  396. John Karahalis wrote on

    I thought the Firefox OS branding was wonderful, especially because it could be used to convey privacy, protection, and safety (recall images of the fox wrapping around people and the big tail awning at MWC). Given its alignment with the mission and its connection to the more-familiar Firefox logo, I almost feel like it would make a good logo for Mozilla itself.

    (This assumes, of course, that it’s legally possible. I recall we worked with a third party to develop it.)

    Goodbye_from_MWC2014

  397. Colorgraphicz wrote on

    Some logos are weird – I fell for the yellow black all seeing i logo and for the moz://

  398. Paul Burke wrote on

    A little late, but +1 to those supporting the Wireframe>Protocol direction. The idea is simple and ties Mozilla to the web in a user-centric kind of way. It’s got a personaliity that says ‘doing’, not just thinking.

    I do wonder if turning the “i” into a colon is overkill – perhaps the two backslashes are enough?

    That said, it’s the concept that has promise – the actual mark still needs a lot of exploration around typeface, which I look forward to seeing on this blog!

  399. Jelle wrote on

    Ah hell, as the above can stand up to scrutiny I thought let’s bash something together in a jiffy. Can’t be much worse than the listed ones. Consider it a concept.

    mozilla2

  400. Mike wrote on

    I think the Eye is by far the best logo. The Connector is cool, but the letters are all out of proportion and it’s not a good look. Protocol has the same misshapen feel, though it is a decent idea. Impossible M is bland; not good for mozilla. flik flak is wayyy too busy and complicate. The letters don’t look good. Wireframe looks a lot like Medium’s old 3D logo. Open Button is nice, but doesn’t feel like Mozilla

  401. Carl wrote on

    I like The Eye, but it might be better with classic Mozilla red instead of yellow

  402. Niklas wrote on

    “For The Internet of People” is my favorite. A colorful theme represents the presumably more youthful and playful attitude of them as opposed to many big brands, and there are countless variations possible as indicated with Egypt and Brazil. However, the design has to be accompanied by a more readily readable name. The colors and forms of some other themes are completely over-the-top imo. I wonder how they ended up being among the last seven.

  403. Pierluigi PETRA wrote on

    I think that the logo may have less profound meanings but more visual impact. Mozilla remembers an animal, possibly prehistoric, but nice and good. For this reason I developed these two proposals.

    mozilla-6

  404. Farhan wrote on

    Helloo!!! How can I participate in this competition? Where I can Submit my logo concept?

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Farhan,
      Thanks for your interest! This is an open critique, not a competition. We are welcoming feedback and ideas, so if you’d like to attach a sketch in your next comment, we’d be appreciate seeing it. Thanks ~

  405. Armin wrote on

    When we’ll have a winner?

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Hi Armin, we are currently on track to make a final design recommendation in October. Thanks for being a part of this creative review process.

  406. Lizbift wrote on

    This is a short comment and probably you didn’t see it, but I like to say that I really love your current logo, the little fox hugging the world it’s simply adorable. Just an opinion, I will be glad with the final choice as long as your services keep being so good.

    1. Tim Murray wrote on

      Thanks for letting us know how happy you are with Firefox, Lizbift. You’ll be pleased to learn that this Open Design initiative is for Mozilla, the nonprofit behind Firefox. By teaching people about the Internet around the world, advocating for equal access to the Internet, and developing core technologies that will help the Internet continue to grow, Mozilla is helping to keep the Internet a global public resource, accessible and equal to all. Firefox, the open-source Web browser you use, is one of the ways we demonstrate our values in the world. Thanks again for being a loyal Firefox user.

  407. Anna Kohler wrote on

    I usually don’t say anything if I don’t have anything nice to say, but these are all terrible. The only decent one is the Mozi://a one. I seriously can’t even imagine how you came up with these ideas, it seems like zero thought was put into them and you just started designing random logos without even caring what mozilla is or what it stands for.
    1. the eye – terrible idea, like everybody said.
    2. the connector – seriously? it looks like a bad Olympics logo, the horizontal version looks like a person swimming + it’s unintelligible
    3. open button – looks like a music app
    4. wireframe world – Paint 101, awkward layout and font, looks like it was made by my 5yo niece, even though the idea is not that bad, just horrendous execution
    5. the impossible M – again, it looks like a bad Paint job. The idea is not bad but absolutely terrible execution. I would be embarrassed to go to the smallest client with that, even if I was working for free
    6. flik flak – way too much going on

  408. Alexandre Soares da Silva wrote on

    “The Eye” is the best option! Strong and versatile!

  409. Joshua Bere wrote on

    “The Eye” has an interesting aspect about it. Would love to see applications

    Bere-Avator