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

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#51

Post by matt4077 »

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 for non-profits...

edit: the last sentence was apparently interpreted as an actual question, when it was meant as a plea for someone to do an eloquent write-up of the non-profits-also-need-marketing case that I could link to.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#52

Post by roryisok »

pmontra wrote: post #29
agjmills wrote: post #20

Does this mean that http:// is httpill? httpsill ftpill ircill sshill

Good ideas for some http processing libraries. We already have httpotion and httpoison for Elixir and httparty for Ruby. A pill has its place between them. Seriously, I disliked all 4 logos that made to Mozilla's shortlist. Moz://a wasn't the worst one graphically, but changing name to something unspeakable and ungooglable doesn't feel right. However I'll keep using Firefox. Hopefully they won't waste many energies i…

> but changing name to something unspeakable and ungooglable doesn't feel right.

they're not changing the name. they're still "mozilla". they will still have "mozilla.org" and you'll still be able to google it. it's just a new logo. people are so over-reacting to this

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#54

Post by roryisok »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #39
tokenizerrr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because search engines are using Firefox, right? This is an easter egg within the Firefox web browser. No search engine is going to notice a thing.

No, the issue is the new logo is "moz://a", so when people don't get that it's supposed to mean "mozilla" they'll type it in as "moz://a".

only people who don't know how to use the internet will do that

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#55

Post by adamgravitis »

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…

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

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#56

Post by roryisok »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #36
jo909 wrote: post #25

I think the bikeshed should be painted orange!

It is well understood by those of us who are more literate in these things that a bikeshed should have a combination of transparent windshield walls and solid green roof. I therefore propose we tear down the existing, functional, bikeshed as its blue walls (which would not look good in orange) are constructed of a material which is not transparent.

no need to hate on the blue walls. people who park their bikes in bikesheds with walls made of transparent materials shouldn't throw stones.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#57

Post by notheguyouthink »

roryisok wrote: post #26
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.

> The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information I don't know if its ironic that this sentence had a typo and some non-working markdown Anyway, the purpose of text may be to unambiguously convey information, but the purpose of a logo is to look cool and be memorable

Fwiw, the Markdown works just fine. Hackernews doesn't support Markdown.

I'm not sure what you call this weird thing that HN does support.. but it's certainly not markdown.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#58

Post by thresh »

Yeah, that will totally solve Mozilla's now so slow fading into irrelevance.

VideoLAN.org website stats tell me that Firefox hits percentage dropped from 26.3% through Jan 2016 to 21.2% through Jan 2017.

Of course this is not a 100% reliable measure, but stats usually don't lie about that.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#59

Post by roryisok »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #57
roryisok wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information I don't know if its ironic that this sentence had a typo and some non-working markdown Anyway, the purpose of text may be to unambiguously convey information, but the purpose of a logo is to look cool and be memorable

Fwiw, the Markdown works just fine. Hackernews doesn't support Markdown. I'm not sure what you call this weird thing that HN does support.. but it's certainly not markdown.

markhalfdown? or... italics

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#60

Post by notheguyouthink »

roryisok wrote: post #52
pmontra wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good ideas for some http processing libraries. We already have httpotion and httpoison for Elixir and httparty for Ruby. A pill has its place between them. Seriously, I disliked all 4 logos that made to Mozilla's shortlist. Moz://a wasn't the worst one graphically, but changing name to something unspeakable and ungooglable doesn't feel right. However I'll keep using Firefox. Hopefully they won't waste many energies i…

> but changing name to something unspeakable and ungooglable doesn't feel right. they're not changing the name. they're still "mozilla". they will still have "mozilla.org" and you'll still be able to google it. it's just a new logo . people are so over-reacting to this

Imagine how they would react if Mozilla changed their logo to some non-font design?

"What are we supposed to call them now? Circle? Circle square-rectangle? What is the world coming to, why would they call themselves Circle!"

Post reply on HN