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. 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.

  2. Gayas wrote on

    6th one looks cool

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Salvatore Monteforte wrote on

    Hope you like it


  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Erik Spiekermann wrote on

    Who uses wireframes anymore?

    1. Michael Sheldon Reed wrote on

      Please listen to this guy. He is a design legend.

  9. Hamid Abbaszadeh wrote on

    I like the Protocol Moz://a but it’s like //build/ logo. The current one is better.

  10. 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.

  11. 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%.

  12. D3 wrote on

    I choose either this:
    or this:

    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.

  13. Victor Vincent wrote on

    +1 For the Open Button. It’s really catchy and doesn’t look anything else I can think of now.

  14. JG wrote on

    No dinosaur is not mozilla

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Todd wrote on

    How about this?


  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. Weverton Soares wrote on

    Moz://a, pleeease!

  22. 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 :×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.

  23. 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!

  24. Sam wrote on


  25. 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.

  26. Szabó Ferenc wrote on

    My proposed logo


  27. 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.

  28. 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.



    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

  29. 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 :)



    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!!! :)

  30. 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.

  31. 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.


  32. Rodrigo Cesar Banhara wrote on

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

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

  33. 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.


  34. Mrk wrote on


  35. 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!!!

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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”


  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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


      1. Pierluigi PETRA wrote on

        re some ideas


  42. Yury wrote on

    My logo.


  43. Yury wrote on

    New logo.


  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.)


  47. Colorgraphicz wrote on

    Some logos are weird – I fell for the yellow black all seeing i logo and for the moz://

  48. 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!

  49. 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.


  50. 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

More comments: 1 6 7 8 9