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

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#121

Post by 38kkdiu »

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…

Actually, that review just underscores a problem I have with modern design, which is a focus on aesthetic elegance and cleverness over real usability concerns.

I love design, so I'm not meaning to bash design per se, but every field has its problems. With design, it's a lack of attention to usability as a scientific, empirical, psychological, cognitive, physiological sort of issue. There's too much of a focus on cleverness and theorized or actual aesthetics over real usability.

Design sits at this funny intersection of art and science, and it seems like too often the former is emphasized over the latter.

This design is a perfect example of this, and the review reinforces it. Where's the discussion of usability and confusion? When did they reach out to naive users and pose real-world use tasks involving the logo redesign? When did the review discuss this?

The logo redesign is great unless you acknowledge that it co-opts symbols that have real meaning and can be ambiguous in that regard. Mozilla was well-intended but failed.

To me, this whole discussion is a perfect example of the foibles of the design world.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#123

Post by 38kkdiu »

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…

The problem is that there's nothing unambiguously non-typographic about the design. If they had distorted the symbols so much that they were outside the realm of normal unicode characters, sure. But anyone with that font could reconstruct the logo.

Stuff like this works when the glyphs are recognizable enough, but when the design is such that you simultaneously know that it is not to be interpreted literally. It fails here because the latter isn't clear.

So in this case it is typography. That's the problem.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#125

Post by chm »

toxican wrote: post #42

While I don't like the branding move at all, I think the concern that people will start calling them moz-colon-forward-slash-forwadslash-a is a little ridiculous. Is Sony's line of laptops Analog Wave One Zero? Is Verizon Verizoncheckmark? Is Johnson & Johnson Johnson ampersand Johnson? Is Comcast CComcast? No, because people aren't complete idiots. Those that are going to know/care about Mozilla will be able to tell…

I read "mozza", then I "got" the web reference, and immediately disliked it. I don't really understand how moz://a is better than Mozilla, but I don't categorically oppose it either.

New branding is fine but the choice here is a bit more debatable than the examples you point out, where each of the brand names are spelled 100% with the alphabet. In OP, 3 characters in 7 are not letters.

Edit: Maybe Mozilla could have suggested an addition to UTF-8 and used that new stylized character "://"?

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#126

Post by aristus »

dustinmr wrote: post #96
wott wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, because people aren't complete idiots. Sweet summer child. http://www.gentside.com/le-bon-coin/le-bon-coin-un-ordinateu... http://i.imgur.com/4nMqG8C.png http://www.jofogas.hu/veszprem/Sony_mio_laptop_elado_6040346... http://archiwum.allegro.pl/oferta/sony-mio-pcg-6e1m-laptop-o... https://www.olx.in/item/sony-wio-laptop-ID19koWZ.html

Change languages and you're in a whole other world. Have an Argentine (for example) pronounce Yosemite National Park for you. Or for that matter, ask an English speaker to pronounce Habanero (there's no ñ) or someone from the East Coast to say Oregon or Puyallup. While those are words and names, examples abound in marketing. But to continue my example, Argentines already pronounce Mozilla differently than an English…

"Moh-see-jah"

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#127

Post by newscracker »

toxican wrote: post #42

While I don't like the branding move at all, I think the concern that people will start calling them moz-colon-forward-slash-forwadslash-a is a little ridiculous. Is Sony's line of laptops Analog Wave One Zero? Is Verizon Verizoncheckmark? Is Johnson & Johnson Johnson ampersand Johnson? Is Comcast CComcast? No, because people aren't complete idiots. Those that are going to know/care about Mozilla will be able to tell…

> I think the concern that people will start calling them moz-colon-forward-slash-forwadslash-a is a little ridiculous

Honestly, I'd be happier if someone called it "moz-colon-forward-slash-forwardslash-a" instead of calling it "moz-colon-backslash-backslash-a". I've seen so many people mix up slash (forward slash) and backslash!

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#128

Post by vanderZwan »

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #112
vollmond wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know Rust was Mozilla. I thought it was FF, TB, and "generic OSS projects like Apache but less well-known".

Yeah, Rust is a Mozilla project. Graydon worked at Mozilla, and them interested in taking it as an official project. Why do you think Mozilla is using Rust so much? (See servo, pushing rust components into FF, etc) They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things...

> They're not exactly known for jumping onto new things...

Trying out new web technologies that are experimental doesn't count?

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#130

Post by mintplant »

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.

That's funny, 90% of people I told "I'm interning at Mozilla" gave me a blank stare until I added, "they make Firefox".
Post reply on HN