Slashdot Log In
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
Posted by
michael
on Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:49 PM
from the brand-new dept.
from the brand-new dept.
sgarrity writes "I've written some recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's project and product line. I argue that the Mozilla Project should adopt a simple, strong, consistent visual identity for the Mozilla products including consistent icons across applications that mesh with the host operating system. Read Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 and let us know what you think."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Mozilla needs it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla needs it (Score:4, Informative)
I've been popup free for almost 2 years, I have forgotten about them and when I see someone else use a browser that lets them through, I cringe.
Parent
Re:Mozilla needs it (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem comes in when my girlfriend sits down at my computer. First off, I had to get her to belive that Mozilla was a web browser, and that IE was not necessary. That out of the way, she hated it. Having to deal with cookies annoyed her, she didn't care and just wanted it to work. She never even tried the tabbed browsing really. About the only thing about it that didn't annoy her was the lack of pop-ups, and even then some of the sites she went to were the kind that used pop-ups in the design of the page, so she didn't even appreciate that feature that much.
Basically, all of this is to say that most people aren't going to switch, no matter how the program is branded. They are used to IE, with all of its security holes. They want a program that just goes when they click on the purple monkey. They are willing to install another program which blocks pop-ups based on the title text, and to train that program. In all, they are afraid of change. And that is what Mozilla needs to overcome, it needs people getting their friends/girlfriends/family to use it and see the advantages. As long as it looks reasonably clean, and functions close to IE, that is enough. And damn well don't go changing the interface between versions, once you have something that works, don't fix it, you'll just scare and alienate people.
Parent
I don't understand this cookie-phobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway do yourself (and your gf) a favor and just turn off the cookie-paranoia.
BTW, most people I've shown Mozilla were very impressed with tabbed browsing, it's definitly a feature a lot (of course not all, but definitely many non-techies) like.
Parent
Browsers need a "read-only" switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the audience you're speaking to. This is a demanding crowd here. We are the types to complain when someone tries to set a cookie in our browser when all we want to do is read an article. I've never understood this. I too am a cookie conspiracy theorist and deny cookies to the end of days.
I admit there are times though when cookies are useful (e.g. e-commerce, user preferences, etc.), so I'll allow cookies where they are warranted. In Firebird or Mozilla, that means dancing through a couple of menus to sway these settings. I'd love a little switch say on the status bar that quickly allows me to toggle between a "read-only" mode where no cookies or tracking can take place and a less strict browsing mode that allows cookies, etc. I know I can be tracked by IP address, but goddamn cookies all the same.
I mean 95% of the time I just want to read some nouns and verbs and to hell with everything else.
Parent
Re:Mozilla needs it (Score:5, Insightful)
The key thing here is to give them useful features without bombarding them. The popup stopper is a killer app, no doubt. But cookie prompts are just too much, so I set cookies to be limited to the current session. Fixes the tracking problem without sacrificing convenience. I turned off saving of forms and passwords, and they learned to like re-entering passwords since it meant their son couldn't see their financial data. One mom also enjoyed being able to right-click on the Monkey and turn him off. Woohooo!
They key is in presentation. Don't install a firewall that prompts them constantly. Or a cookie manager. Or a download manager. If there isn't a way to secure a system without prompting the user everytime, then it won't be accepted.
Parent
Why we've used it here... (Score:4, Interesting)
This never used to be an issue until XP Home. XP Home can't be joined to the domain - so all these girls that come here get a never-ending request box for authentication whenever they attempt to use their XP Home-installed home computers.
It's not that MS couldn't make this work for us (caching domain authenticated logins) - it's that they don't want to. Proof? Mozilla doesn't have a problem caching this information one time. All a student has to do is fill in the info once, check the 'save password' option, and they're good to go. IE can't do this. If you use anything that includes an MS domain authentication, it will conveniently forget it.
My only wish is that I could get Moz to default to that authentication in 'options' so that the student wouldn't even have to push the 'enter' key.
Again, thanks Moz devs!
Parent
Re:Mozilla needs it (Score:5, Insightful)
Also Internet-aware cellphones (many of those use opera), IE's constant flow of security issues and complete lack of development and of course Linux desktop inroads especially in governments will contribute to the erosion of IE domination.
In 3-4 years, IE will still make up the majority of hits, but the remainder will be far too large to ignore.
Honestly I don't see "branding Mozilla" influencing that developments in any way, although it sure can't hurt...
Parent
What people really want... (Score:4, Informative)
Though, yes brand name recongition helps with any such advertising, of course.
I have to disagree here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have to disagree here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
well, i'm a professional designer (Score:5, Insightful)
Good logos are very very simple. Good logos can be boiled down a strong one or two colored silhouette built with simple lines and shapes. Moreover, good logos are clearly recognizable at both small and large sizes.
The human brain reads and interprets simple shapes very quickly. Furthermore, the brain remembers and recalls simple shapes faster then complex graphics. This is, more or less, a psychological fact.
When you take a glance at a good simple logo it gets stuck in your head. Even if you've only seen it once, and you can't quite pin-point the company associated with it, there's a good chance it will seem "familiar" to you. Familiarity is essential to a good brand. People like to use things they feel familiar with... even if their sense of familiarity is coming from a near subconscious level.
It should also be noted that simple logos are easier to slap on everything. They are easier to print, it's easier to use as decoration, etc etc.
Honestly, Tux is not a very good logo. Most people don't know what that orange and black rendered penguin is all about (trust me, I guarantee you they don't). It's only the geeks like us who know what Tux is. Common people remember the RedHat logo, or the Suse logo... but not tux. If Tux's shape was simplified (kind if like what IBM did with it http://www.humanist.de/erik/rza/ibmlinux.jpg ) it would be much more recognizable to the general public.
And as for Mozilla. Well, Mozilla currently has that lizard head and the "M." Both are fairly simple (think the lizard could be simplified some more though), yet Mozilla.org doesn't stick with them. They don't place these logos all aspects of their products, they keep creating new icons and splash screens, etc. Mozilla.org needs to work on their branding. They need to pick one general logo, and they need to boldly place it everywhere.
Parent
Re:well, i'm a professional designer (Score:5, Insightful)
Tux is good(TM). Why? Because it is not a logo, it is a mascot that's associated to a brand (Linux). And as a mascot, it's near perfect, because pinguins are cool. Don't believe me? Go out with children or teenagers (hell, with most adults) to a sea park and notice where they stop and rest. Pinguins are among the must-stops, because people like them. And it's good marketing to associate that "like"-ness with the term "Linux".
Actually, it doesn't matter how the pinguin really looks, in the mind of the general public the connection "Linux = this new pinguin operating system that is neither Microsoft nor Apple" has been made. With "in the public" I mean that I can hear non-geeks talking about it at the next table in the pub. That's just like the animals on ORA covers, it doesn't matter which ones or how complex they are, the overall similarity is the part that gets communicated.
Come to think of it, dolphins might be good mascots for other projects.
Btw, please note that I'm writing about marketing and not about ads-only campaigns. As you did, too. And, last but not least, I agree with you on the lizard and the inconsistency of Mozilla's public face. Of course, because nobody thinks this is a lizard. It looks like a dinosaur - and dinosaurs are cool, too. Ask your children, they'll tell you. And I mean that earnestly - when one starts a marketing campaign, children are the most honest reviewers available. You just have to take their opinion seriously.
Parent
Spot on. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, Camino is really the only workalike left around. By workalike I mean is built from the same source code base, customized. I guess my terminology isn't very good here.
Standarize icons and names. Make them visually appealing. Make the default styles blend in with the OS/Window Manager.
I have to laugh, one example was of the two Mozilla apps placed prominently on the Start Menu right where IE and Outlook Express are by default. Is this an option in a full installer? If not, put it there.
Then people like myself, who run an ISP can standardize on Mozilla and when I send my installers out I can have them install the app. Even better, have a custom installer file so I can add in OUR servers and make them default in the Mail application.
Now no matter what platform my installers run into, they can install my Mozilla package and have the right settings. Minimalistic training required.
Re:Spot on. (Score:3, Informative)
I have to laugh, one example was of the two Mozilla apps placed prominently on the Start Menu right where IE and Outlook Express are by default. Is this an option in a full installer? If not, put it there. :) Make it an option to gently 'replace' IE and Outlook Express. Replace the shortcuts, import favorites, e-mails, and contacts by default. Import Server Settings, proxies, the whole nine yards.
Windows XP does this by default. Those top two buttons are the user's default email program and browser. W
Re:Spot on. (Score:5, Insightful)
I use Mozilla as my primary OS X browser. Mozilla what? I dunno -- Mozilla. I'm probably well into the 99th percentile of the computer using population as far as familiarity with Mozilla goes and I still can't keep straight the differences between Camino, Firebird, Thunderbird, Phoenix and the rest of the Mozilla projects. Let alone the new names that result after each lawsuit or C&D letter.
I realize that the open source community loves endless new not-really-clever names, coming up with ludicrous justifications for why something isn't infringing and arguing about what should begin with GNU/. But if the Mozilla people want to appeal to a wider base, they need to realize that mostly people don't regard changing software as a hobby.
Parent
Branding is Cruel (Score:4, Funny)
We need to weigh the pros and the cons. Mozilla will undergo a great deal of pain when we apply the branding iron and will no doubt scream in agony. However, we will be able to separate it from the other browsers when it escapes out onto the open range.
He makes a lot of good points... (Score:4, Interesting)
The server is getting pounded now, so it's tough to see the examples, but the icons and look for the Mozilla applications have always bugged me.
The Mozilla Thunderbird icon is nice in that it finally represents something related to the purpose of the application, but I find it too subtle in a lot of ways. Especially on a small Windows toolbar, where it looks a lot like a slipcase.
A visual facelift would be wonderful, though. Maybe get the Cute guy to work on it a bit... he's already proven himself competent, and having one person working on all the art wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
Re:Any color but RED (Score:5, Informative)
Redhat
Target
Lucent Technologies
Pizza Hut
KFC
yeah, no big players there.
Parent
Mozilla is a development platform... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't this kind of efforts be aimed at the consumer projects forked off mozilla and not on mozilla itself? IMHO mozilla should be about robust technology.
KISS (Score:3, Insightful)
Rus
Marketspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that we should make Mozilla's icons a bit more consistent across applications and platforms, but I think the Mozilla lizard is just fine as far as logos go.
When you're going up against Microsoft and its built-in IE, you're fighting a losing game; the proper way to beat Microsoft is to play a different game than the one they want to play, because they own the field, the ball and they set the rules.
"Branding" is just another word for shining sh*t and calling it gold.
Re:Marketspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
The AT&T logo is a good example of branding. Show the globe part of the logo to people and most of them will know it's AT&T. The same goes for the Coca-Cola "wave" and the Nike check mark. Those are brands.
The most important part of branding is consistency. When I look at the linux penguin [tamu.edu] I think of Linux. That doesn't happen when I look at other penguins. It's not going to happen for the averge person either and that's the person you want to target. For people to associate Linux with that penguin, they have to see that pengiun image and hear about Linux at the same time, over and over and over again. The same thing needs to happen with Mozilla. There needs to be an official logo and it needs to be used on everything. The average joe needs to be able to look at that logo and think Mozilla.
Parent
A simple way to improve usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A simple way to improve usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Great Idea... Some Other Suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
- cross-platform
- thwarts the evil M$
- is a really cool open-source project
- and so forth
Lose the dragon. It's difficult enough to introduce something new into a corporate environment, and mythical firebreathing critters are of no help. Doesn't have to be boring - just not too strange.
Re:Great Idea... Some Other Suggestions (Score:5, Informative)
X = Popup Blocker
X = Handles CSS properly
Parent
Re:Great Idea... Some Other Suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
X = Themeable (no, IE is not *really* themeable)
X = Mouse Gestures
X = Pie menues
X = Block ads
X = Control javascript (beyond popups)
However, these are also not very motivating for most people. Of course, there is also the negatives list:
X = Doesn't work on website foo
X = Doesn't support plugin blat
X = Takes longer to startup
X = Requires an extra download
Some of us can swallow these, but most people can't and won't.
I really like Firebird and install it on all my machines, but I still haven't found a way to sell it to the non-tech crowd. Maybe once it gets enough momentum, all these small benefits will pull people in. Doubt it - but here's hoping.
Parent
Press Kit (Score:5, Interesting)
If Mozilla had a full press kit explaining the project and including press-ready logos I think they'd see more coverage (and more serious coverage) of their package in the mainstream press.
Additionally, it is quite inexpensive to send out a press release over the newswires. When the Thunderbird/Firebird products are 1.0'ed (or 2.0'ed)
It won't make front page headlines, but it would be alot better than the current situation.
Bigger problem (Score:5, Insightful)
By establishing IE as a client-run COM control, Microsoft only further implemented that idea. You can hardly brand something that people view as a tool.
For example, what sports cars do you have in your garage? Ferrari or Porsche I'd assume. And what's the brand of your kitchen sink? Eeeh, who cares, some crap made in China and purchased at Home Depot. The same with the browser - when the sites are more or less the same, and it's the sites you care about, who cares what brand the browser is.
Extreme marketing. (Score:5, Funny)
Put Mozilla stickers all over San Francisco
Dress people up in Mozilla suits and send them screaming through New York City
Mozilla streakers at sporting events.
A Mozilla based reality show.
Have Mozilla claim their source code is in Linux
Pay companies to give them unrealistic bench marks.
Re:Extreme marketing. (Score:4, Funny)
We all pitch in $10,000USD and get a second commercial in the next superbowl, which features the Moz development team singing an off tune inspirational song!
Parent
The idea of branding is lost on some ./'ers (Score:4, Insightful)
Secret to Branding (Score:5, Funny)
2. Get permission from a celebrity to put their name in front of it.
3. Put next year's number on the end.
4. Add the letter's "X", "XP" or some abbreviation
with an "X" in it.
Therefore, Mozilla 2.0 should really be -
Madden Mozilla 2004 SSX
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason you'd want to brand is to leave an imprint in the mind of somebody who's a potential consumer... But really, at this point, why bother?
For the exact reason you state: the potential consumers. Branding would be useful in getting more people to give ol' Moz a try. One of the main things about the average surfer, I find, is that (s)he simply doesn't know about it.
Re:"potential consumers" (Score:4, Interesting)
Branding goes hand-in-hand with a large marketing strategy designed to get that brand into the mind of the consumer. How does Mozilla accomplish this, exactly?
At the moment, they don't, but this is precisely what needs to be done. Brand the image and increase the word-of-mouth.
But it doesn't have to be. Anyone contributor with some free time can do simple things that would help -- common icons, logos, etc. The entire image doesn't need to be reworked, but small things can be.
But how many people out there, if you were to ask them what a little green chameleon makes them think of, would say Suse?
The same applied to all logos out there at one point. McDonald's? Nike? MS Windows? Obviously, only someone familiar with the company will identify the logo. But make that logo something memorable (or easier to remember, in any case), and more people will want to find out what it is.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see how this would be a bad idea outright for the Moz team.
Parent
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
They might know if their browser was secretly replaced with Mozilla, but only because some things would act "differently" and other things wouldn't work at all. They might even think its a bad thing if their purple monkey went away! "Someone broke my 'the internet'!"
Mozilla's first branding strategy needs to be overcoming this browser apathy. Whether that means the purple monkey is replaced by an ugly red dinosaur head, pop-ups and pop-unders allowing you to take pictures of your neighbor's ugly red dinosaur heads, or a TV-radio-billboard blitz of ugly red dinosaur heads happily surfing the web, I can't say. And while secretly replacing their browser was pretty obviously a tongue in cheek solution, just think: someone could distribute a BHO that replaces every current X-10 and porn pop-under with an ugly red dinosaur head telling them "Mozilla is great, it doesn't have these stupid advertisements! Click here to get rid of these windows forever!"
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not suggesting the monster gets replaced with some prick with a laptop looking serious while rubbing his chin as his foxy secretary takes notes in their walnut and leather office - but something a little more businessy wouldn't hurt.
Branding gives you things to hang onto. Some people like their jeans more because missy elliot wears then (or says she wears them). I'd like Mozilla more if I didnt look like a dinosaur geek everytime it starts up.
Parent
They could start with ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm shocked and awed that the Raptors haven't filed a suit against them yet.
Tsk... (Score:5, Insightful)
And at the time, they looked nothing alike anyway (Moz was green and anthromorphic).
Over time, the green guy logo evolved with the Moz project, notably turning Red (almost as a joke) to revel in the socialist nature of the Mozilla.org foundation when Gecko went open-source. It got pretty silly, Soviet-inspired designs with stars, sickles, and even fur hats.
I guessed the like the image of a Red, more realistic looking dino, with the flames and everything. I don't think it was because Mozilla.org members are all Toronto fans (Bulls I might believe).
And since no one could confuse a web browser with a basketball team in the marketplace anyway, I don't think we'll be seeing any trademark infrigment suits anytime soon.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
I build systems for various people and there are some things that has prevented mozilla from becoming the default browser on these systems. For mozilla to become mainstream, it needs (but not limited to):
1) Favorites - in Win2K or XP, why can't it just use my IE favorites? It isn't like they are hidden... they are there in plain sight in their own folder under %USERPROFILE%\%USERNAME%\FAVORITES. If people are to "migrate" they might have to occasionally use "that other browser". Consolidated favorites helps that along...
2) Feel - face it - mozilla just doesn't "feel" like a Windows program. I can't drag and drop the toolbars around and then lock them down like I can in IE (there might be a way to do it, but I haven't found it). If someone could just make mozilla "feel" like IE, we'd have infinitely more users out there. Not only because it would be one less thing to learn, but because people simply wouldn't notice that they were using "something different" which is generally a no-no for non-techies. Heck, I'm a techie and I've found that I don't like using mozilla for this reason. I just don't have the time anymore.
Bah... I could go on but mozilla is for geeks right now. The DOJ has blessed system builders with the complete ability to hide IE as an internet browser. If someone could just make something similar to IE but without all the monopoly shit, millions of PCs could be deployed with a real browser. Until then, I'll keep letting IE fly on the systems that I build.
PS - a really cool unrelated idea that I have thought of would be a spyware/adware/scumware blocker for non-techies who don't know when to click yes/no. If mozilla implemented such a feature, a flock of elected geeks could vote on which software/applets could get installed and which ones would not (or which ones make it to a user prompt). Non-techie end-users could have the option to turn on this "geek wall" and prevent their systems from being infiltrated by the world's best scum. Until then, I'm happy to charge $50/hr to remove this stuff.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does somebody have to say this every time a piece of software from the open source community is evaluated as a replacement for a piece of proprietary software? Granted, in some cases it is justified, but this is just absurd. I'm sorry, but not being able do drag-n-drop toolbars does not make Mozilla a geek-only toy.
If somebody is using new software, they need to accept that they are using new software, and not insist that it behave in exactly the same way, shape, form that their old software did. If they want IE they need to use IE.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does. Automatically. It's called "Imported IE Favorites" in your Bookmarks menu.
The imported favorites are a copy of your IE favorites, copied into your Mozilla profile. If you add new favorites with IE after importing, Mozilla doesn't know about them. New bookmarks added from Mozilla don't show up in IE either.
Remember that IE is so integrated into the Windows shell that a simple directory window has a "favorites" menu, so even if you do all of your web browsing in Mozilla you will still see the favorites everywhere.
Parent
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've hit the nail on the head!
I've been using Mozilla Firebird (Phoenix as it was known back then) since the day I saw it announced on slashdot. The 0.1 release became my default browser within minutes of installing it.
If the Mozilla team are as dedicated as they sound about making the browser feel like part of the host OS, then hopefully they will address this problem. Windows has a directory for favorites that is integrated into the shell. You click on the start menu, favourites is listed. Why can't mozilla make use of this facility? This is my #1 gripe with the browser.
I've deployed Firebird to all the public access computers at the university I'm a sys admin at - it wasn't requested, I did it because I love Firebird so much that I wan't others to see it, use it, love it and install it on their own computers. But I suspect that students simply won't use it, because with IE, we can redirect the favorites folder to a network location so that favorites follow the users to which ever machine they decide to log on to, thanks to a simple group policy setting. Does this work in mozilla? Not the way the bookmarks work at the moment.
And why does Firebird (and Mozilla) create a profile within a profile? What is the point of that? I've not found a way for a single user to create multiple profiles for themeselves, the Firebird team may not realise but this really makes deploying Firebird to large (windows) networks a very time consuming and difficult process.
Favorites go here "%userprofile%\favorites"
User config goes here "HKEY_CURRENT_USER"
User setting overridden by global settings found in here "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE"
This is the way applications should work under windows OS's. Dear Firebird team, please fix this.
Parent
Re:I'd love to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Be a Good Desktop Citizen (Score:3, Informative)
Try Firebird. You'll be surprised how much better than Mozilla it is.
Re:Oh god not again (Score:3, Insightful)
Many developers do care.
I know I am a lot more interested in contributing my limited free time to a project if lots of people are actually using the thing, so I don't feel like I've wasted my time making something that is more or less irrelevant outside my little geek circle. For me it
Re:Godzilla? (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, a judge declared that the -zilla suffix was not an infringment, and had become a ubiquitous bit of culture.
Re:We can't have 2.0 yet! (Score:5, Funny)
as opposed to future history
sorry I couldn't resist.
Parent