Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make Firefox support moz://a

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 176 posts

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#81

Post by weaksauce »

matt4077 wrote: post #51
cschmidt wrote: post #40

If you're not a logo geek, this is the major website that reviews logo redesigns, on the new Mozilla logo: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo...

Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even…

You need money to make the things the non-profit cares about, in this case, tools to have a free and open internet. Money pays for salaries of the people employed there; servers to build, test, and distribute software; office space; etc.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#82

Post by matt4077 »

dublinben wrote: post #75
matt4077 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even…

Why are the branding needs of a non-profit organization any less than that of a for-profit organization?

They are not – the are, after all, operating in a few markets with basically the same mechanisms as any market. And the continued insistence of more or less any for-profit company (and non-profit, and government,...) shows that it's effective.

But it was a point repeatedly made in the other threads about this redesign – basically "they're wasting their/our/my money on useless stuff like this when what they need to do is make Firefox use less memory/faster/whatever...".

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#83

Post by slig »

mtgx wrote: post #31
calcifer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will it create confusion? Nobody types moz:// in regular usage, so this only effects you if you are specifically looking for an easter egg or something.

You don't think at the very least older people will see Moz://a and try to type that into the browser's address bar? Also, Moz.com should expect a huge increase in its revenues soon. I imagine they already have the celebration party planned for the weekend.

> Also, Moz.com should expect a huge increase in its revenues soon.

How so? People "savvy" enough to type "moz://a" on a search bar aren't the same type of people interested in the services of a SEO company.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#84

Post by ianwalter »

It wasn't my favorite concept at first, but after they refined it to what it is now, I am honestly in awe. I thought the process was bold and refreshing to begin with, but the fact that they arrived at such an excellent identity makes it all the more amazing. The fact that the logo incorporates a URL scheme is genius and perfect. The new zilla font is dope too.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#85

Post by matt4077 »

amooiman wrote: post #76
matt4077 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even…

The general idea is that 90% of people I tell "I work for Mozilla" respond with "Oh, you work on Firefox?" but we're about so much more than that. My understanding of the motives behind this change is that having better branding that explains we're focused on the internet in general will hopefully expand our reach and recognition outside the tech bubble.

Sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic (see edit). I know why it makes sense for Mozilla to do marketing, and I'm hoping for a bright future for you and your mission.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#86

Post by StevePerkins »

amooiman wrote: post #76
matt4077 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote, to maybe nib the ritual hatred in the bud before mozilla becomes the new Apple: "A logo that not only DOESN’T suck but one that has a strong idea, a fresh execution, a promising flexibility, and, that all of it together, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly, manages to communicate what Mozilla is about." Now if only someone would write an article explaining why considerations such as branding are useful even…

The general idea is that 90% of people I tell "I work for Mozilla" respond with "Oh, you work on Firefox?" but we're about so much more than that. My understanding of the motives behind this change is that having better branding that explains we're focused on the internet in general will hopefully expand our reach and recognition outside the tech bubble.

I'm not sure how a logo change begins to address that. I'm INSIDE the tech bubble, and apart from Firefox and Rust I can't name a single Mozilla project that isn't canceled (Persona, phones) or on its way there (Thunderbird).

If not Firefox, then what DO you work on at Mozilla then? I'm genuinely curious.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#87

Post by bisby »

laumars wrote: post #45
datenwolf wrote: post #23

Until now I didn't realize Mozilla changed their logo. Now I've seen it the typographer in me cries… The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information. So either Mozilla now rebrands themself as moz-colon-slash-slash or they now live with a significant portion of typography-anal nerds who dislike that logo.

Logos fall more in the realm of graphic design rather than typography. They're an avatar thus logos don't necessarily need to be readable - albeit there is a modern trend to use the company name in an interesting typeface as their logo. However there are plenty of examples where a company logo contains no text what-so-ever - including Mozilla's previous logo[1]. So I wouldn't get too hung up on its typographic design…

You dont remember when people got confused and always called Mozilla 'red dinosaur head' because the logo was confusing?

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#88

Post by CWuestefeld »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #80
adamgravitis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I do insist on calling Deloitte "Deloitte Dot".

Also "the Kia Cee-apostrophe-dee" and "the VW Up-exclamation-mark". Not to mention "the Ferrari the Ferrari (sic)".

To be fair, those were specific examples of trying to be silly.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#89

Post by wccrawford »

xg15 wrote: post #22
hkjgkjy wrote: post #5

It's a cool concept - but surely there are a lot of regexps our there that will now trigger in vain. Also search engines will index "moz://a" as a different thing than "mozilla". Likely, the first will be indexed as ["moz", ":", "/", "/", "a"] and the punctuation likely be thrown out, resulting in matches for "moz" and "a".

If someone actually links to moz://a, some crawlers might pick it up. But as a crawler has to parse the url and extract the scheme before it can continue, I don't see potential for confusion. Likely, "moz" wouldn't be in the list of supported schemes and the link would simply be dropped.

I think it likely that there will be regexes out there that auto-link it for people.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#90

Post by ComodoHacker »

DangerousPie wrote: post #16

One of the comments there makes a good point - they should really register `moz://` as a protocol, otherwise someone will grab that at some point and cause endless confusion. On the other hand, "we used this for branding" is really not a great justification for registering a new protocol, is it...

It's not any worse than registering google. TLD to be used for branding.
Post reply on HN