Mozilla Open Design

branding without walls
Categories: General

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

583 responses

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. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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)

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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. :-)

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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…?

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.”

  40. 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.

  41. Proesnie wrote on

    Moz://a is the best one!

  42. 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.

  43. 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”

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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 !

  47. 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?

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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)

More comments: 1 2 3 4 … 9