After the fusillade of recent posts and articles on this open design project, it\u00a0 occurred to me that we hadn\u2019t really shared in detail the issues that Mozilla face. So this piece digs a little deeper into the obstacles and opportunities facing the organization.<\/p>\n
Like many, we weren\u2019t completely clear who Mozilla were when they contacted us earlier in the year. Yes, we knew the name and of course we know and use Firefox, but how the two were interrelated wasn\u2019t clear. And the fact that Mozilla is a non-profit? Completely passed us by.<\/p>\n
After a brief bit of research, especially within the tech community, we realized that Mozilla was seen by some as a hero of the Internet. They had stood up to \u2018Internet Explorer\u2019 (in the days when Microsoft controlled most of the world\u2019s browsing) and were one of the pioneers of \u2018open source\u2019. They are a non-profit in an Internet world that is increasingly closed, tracked and monetized.<\/p>\n
This is a great back story, and helps explains the residual goodwill that we encounter in virtually every conversation we have. Yet, somewhere along the way, Mozilla\u2019s \u2018reason to be\u2019 got a little lost. If your answer to the question \u2018why are you here?\u2019 is \u2018to keep updating Firefox\u2019, well that\u2019s not much of a response. Especially when Firefox is caught in a browser war with the very powerful and extremely well funded Chrome.<\/p>\n
But, there\u2019s no doubt that to the tech community, affection remains \u2013 and they would \u2018come back\u2019, if encouraged to do so.<\/p>\n
Currently, the majority of the world\u2019s population couldn\u2019t give two hoots about who is watching their searches, why those ads keep following them and what a walled garden means, let alone who waters it. But, just as hundreds of thousands choose to read The Guardian on paper and millions in pixels, there\u2019s clearly a segment of the world that does care how they use the Internet, and how the Internet uses them. In simple terms \u2013 there\u2019s an audience out there who cares about this stuff, and in a world slowly waking up to online issues, it\u2019s a growing one.<\/p>\n
So it\u2019s no great surprise that Mozilla\u2019s team has been looking hard at how they want to verbally define the organization going forward, which led to the seven themes we shared a week ago (and the tweaks we\u2019ve already started to make).<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_themes_overview\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_themes_overview-1024x677.png\")
If that\u2019s the work in progress on the \u2018verbal\u2019 definition of Mozilla, what about the visual? Well, from a naming perspective, \u2018Mozilla\u2019 is great \u2013 it\u2019s short, memorable and, typographically tasty (what with that \u2018z\u2019 and all).<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_logo\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_logo-300x116.jpg\"){kind=logo}
What many don\u2019t realize is that the name was a combination of \u2018Mosaic killer\u2019 and \u2018Godzilla\u2019 (Mosaic being one of the earliest non-open source browsers). For many years its identity was led by a dinosaur, drawn by Shepard Fairey, way before his Obama\/Hope fame, and it\u2019s little surprise that Mozilla communities across the world adopted or created variants on the dinosaur\/lizard theme with gusto.<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_dino_etc\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_dino_etc-1024x297.jpg\")
A few years ago, a decision was taken to retire the dinosaur, replaced by a fairly corporate looking design system. Slowly things started to look more neutral and less edgy \u2013 which is odd for an organization with some pretty hard hitting things to say.<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_online\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_online-1024x638.jpg\")
It had staked most of its visual estate on a grey piece of lower-case type, written in Meta \u2013 once described as the \u2018Helvetica of the 90s\u2019 \u2013 and the feisty edge of Mozilla\u2019s communications and messaging began to lose their punch.<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_other_meta\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_other_meta-300x199.jpg\")
Now, 18 years ago Meta was truly the meta-typeface, and I too used it on everything, just like the rest of the world. But that\u2019s part of the problem \u2013 if everyone from Mumsnet to furniture manufacturers and children\u2019s charities use the same typography, you\u2019re not going to stand out.
\nAnd the lack of an official symbol of any kind is also a handicap. Many digital brands now combine word marks (think of the Twitter and Instagram) with symbols that encapsulate their brands down into tiny icons (Twitter\u2019s bird and Instagram\u2019s camera). These are identity systems that can cope with any environment and every need, writ large on a billboard or battling it out at 48 pixels. The closest Mozilla has come is a red heart (but that might be a little tricky to trademark) and the occasional use of the lowercase \u2018m\u2019 from the word mark.<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_architecture\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_architecture-1024x711.jpg\")
Couple typographic neutrality and the vacuum created by the lack of a symbol with the happy chaos that is the organization’s brand architecture\u2026<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_subbrands\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_subbrands-1024x842.jpg\")
\u2026its sub-brands\u2026<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_colours\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_colours-300x243.jpg\")
![\"Mozilla_Audit_grads_tabs\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_grads_tabs-300x188.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\u2026and a gradient rich house style which is looking a little behind the times.<\/p>\n
![\"Mozilla_Audit_communities\"](\"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/opendesign\/files\/2016\/07\/Mozilla_Audit_communities-1024x703.jpg\")
Without any clear branding system and the lack of direction from HQ, community identities began to switch back and forth between dinosaurs, lizards, foxes and, er, elephants. Not their fault, by any means, just the classic behavioral tics of a wide-spread organization struggling to keep its branding
\nconsistent.<\/p>\n
You\u2019re hopefully starting to see that something is needed here. What that \u2018something\u2019 is? That\u2019s to be decided, and goes hand-in-hand with the verbal narrative work.<\/p>\n
Since we\u2019re working at speed, it seems likely that we\u2019ll edit our themes down to two to three directions then start to explore those visually, making sure that we dial up the positivity<\/a> along the way.<\/p>\n Watch this space.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"