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.


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

  1. Edson Marcon wrote on

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


  2. Filip Šimeček wrote on

    I like the protocol.

  3. hamidpanahi wrote on

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





  4. Thiago Silva wrote on

    2 AND 3

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Christian Ohrfandl wrote on

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

  9. Ricardo wrote on

    My small contribution.


  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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 ;_;

  14. lzap wrote on

    The godzilla logo is the best logo ever created in the IT industry. I love it. Keep it alive.

  15. 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.


  16. 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

  17. Joanna Ngai wrote on

    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.

  18. 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…

    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

  19. 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

  20. Zoe wrote on

    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?

  21. hamidpanahi wrote on

    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.





    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?

  22. whormongr wrote on

    personally I like flik flak and wireframe

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

    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.

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

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. Matt Livingstone wrote on

    Mozilla’s heart, soul and future is Firefox. Browser. OS.
    I submit an alternative approach.


    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://@

  30. 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.

  31. 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

    – 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 :)

  32. Lucas Silva wrote on

    I’m from Brazil , Huehue . I liked the model PROTOCOL

  33. 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.

  34. 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 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.

  35. Daniel wrote on

    I like Protocol. Mostly because I’m a Geek.

  36. 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 …


  37. 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”.

  38. 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.

  39. 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

  40. 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.

  41. 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



  42. 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

  43. hamidpanahi wrote on

    may name is hamid panahi. from IRAN. new logo.


  44. 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.


    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.

  45. NotADesingerawd wrote on

    “Protocol” is the most elegant by my humble opinion.
    I really like the simplicity.

  46. 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.


  47. Andreas Hloupy wrote on

    Hell, what do I know … the :// seems a good starting point, that’s about all.


  48. 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

  49. 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.

  50. Maxluan Cruz wrote on

    Gostei do “For the Internet of People”

More comments: 1 5 6 7 8 9