Slashdot Mirror
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
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."
Mozilla could use a good branding and marketing scheme to take part of the browser market for IE.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Mozilla Firebird Forever!
/.ed allready...
They should pick a mascot that everyone can identify with... like a penguin or something.
We're still to see 1.0
Firebird rocks
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
The main reason you'd want to brand is to leave an imprint in the mind of somebody who's a potential consumer. People who are already using Mozilla probably won't be affected by the presence or absence of branding -- it's likely been branded enough for them. Unifying it might mean dropping the dinosaur connotations or the magical bird connotations, one for the other. But really, at this point, why bother?
Unless this is going to be part of a bigger marketing strategy by Netscape or AOL or whoever...?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Lets pull a Netscape and leap up to Mozilla 7.0 :)
...wasn't it? Good luck going to 2.0.
You should come up with operating system that everyone uses and then get like 95% of the desktop market, and then bundle the browser with the OS and call them inseparable.
Seemed to work for the case studies I've investigated.
"Ow, my server!"
It seems that this article points out the need for consistency, AFTER the Mozilla organization already figured it out. In his own article, he shows how nice and consistent the new FireBird and Thunderbird icons are. And how consistent the naming is now. What's the problem here?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Though, yes brand name recongition helps with any such advertising, of course.
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundations product and project line - by Steven Garrity
Summary
This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.
As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.
Keep What Works
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.
Lose What Doesnt Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.
Products, Projects, and the Foundation
The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.
The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.
They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.
Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.
The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.
Version Numbers
The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.
The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version
We're still to see 1.0
Yeah I know, I've been using it since the first release of Pheonix (I think). What do you think about 0.7? In my opinion it didn't change much, but I know some bugs have been fixed, and it's certainly stable, although as I never had any problems with the previous version... oh well, it's a step (if small) in the right direction.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's product and project line - by Steven Garrity
Summary
This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.
As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.
Keep What Works
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.
Lose What Doesn't Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.
Products, Projects, and the Foundation
The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term "Mozilla" is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.
The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.
They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.
Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People can't use software that they don't know how to ask for. People can't tell others about software that they don't know what to call.
The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.
Version Numbers
The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.
The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.
The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:
* Mozilla Browser
* Mozilla Mail
* Mozilla Calendar
* Mozilla Composer
The Visual Identity So Far
As the software produced by the Mozilla project stabilizes and matures, so too should its visual identity. The Mozilla 1.0 suite was generally internally
Recommendations are all well and good, but who's going to actually do the design work and make the media buys?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Unfortunately, workalikes are going to make consistency difficult.
:) 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.
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.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
based on past history, we need to have mozilla 1.999.99.99999a before we can have 2.0
Branding is a cruel practice, and should only be used when necessary.
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.
yeah as the browser needs to burn CD's rip audio, encode mp3, have content controls in it and 90,000 other half assed features like Microsoft.
good idea dude...
dhtml is soooo awesome.. only a luzer would use something else....
dude.....
Wooo! dont you just love Steve Ballmer... I want his poster in my cube... and my Microsoft hat and windows logo golf shirt....
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.
here we go :)
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's product and project line - by Steven Garrity
Summary
This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.
As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.
Keep What Works
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.
Lose What Doesn't Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project. Products, Projects, and the Foundation
The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term "Mozilla" is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.
The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.
They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.
Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People can't use software that they don't know how to ask for. People can't tell others about software that they don't know what to call.
The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.
Version Numbers
The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.
The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.
The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:
* Mozilla Browser
* Mozilla Mail
* Mozilla Calendar
* Mozilla Composer
The Visual Identity So Far
As the software produced by the Mozilla project stabilizes and matures, so too should its visual identity. The Mozilla 1.0 suite wa
...isn't it?
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.
The title is Towards Mozilla 2.0, I was merely saying that while Mozilla can continue to evolve, I hope Firebird will also progress for many years to come (ie, build 2.0).
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
As long as things are kept simple, light and work well then branding will only help. If that helps then I'm for it
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I hope they follow this one. In Mozilla I have to consciously remember that the address bar does not work like every other Windows app I use, because it's not a Win32 Edit control, it's a unique Mozilla widget.
It's true the IE edit box works slightly differently -- you click it once to select everything, then again to select words. And you can double click sections to select just a word. In Mozilla it's totally different; you can't select words automatically, and you click once to select individually and then again to select it all (I think.. today I finally uninstalled it).
Also it's up to 1.5 and they still don't have middle-click scrolling. I've tried mozscroll and whatever the other two projects are. Three projects and they're all painful to use.
each release seems to get better over time. I think they are on the right track. I have introduced many to the Mozilla browser and they say it works fine for them. No crashing like IE does, and no major security risks like IE has. Plus Mozilla is multi platform, so it can be used on more than Windows and Linux, even OS/2 Users can enjoy it.
I just wonder what will happen with that Plugins lawsuit against Microsoft, how will that effect Mozilla?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Obviously you're trolling for hate responses but I'll reply anyway with something valid.
For a couple of years I had thrown in the proverbial towel regarding browsers and used IE with the feeling that MS had "won". But a while back I revisted the idea of using an alternative browser and was pleasantly surprised with what I found in Mozilla Firebird. I find it aesthetically pleasing, it has built in popup blocking, tabbed browsing, mouse gestures (optional extention download), and a myriad of other features that IE doesn't have. And I haven't found any compatibility issues while viewing websites. So if you are seriously wanting an IE alternative, there are options for the open minded person.
Just my thoughts.
Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0
Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation's product and project line - by Steven Garrity
Summary
This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.
As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.
Keep What Works
First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.
Lose What Doesn't Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.
Products, Projects, and the Foundation
The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term "Mozilla" is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.
The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.
They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.
Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People can't use software that they don't know how to ask for. People can't tell others about software that they don't know what to call.
The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.
Version Numbers
The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.
The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.
The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:
* Mozilla Browser
* Mozilla Mail
* Mozilla Calendar
* Mozilla Composer
The Visual Identity So Far
As the software produced by the Mozilla project stabilizes and matures, so too should its visual identity. The Mozilla 1.0 suite was generally intern
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Infact, my guess is his webserver would be a good place to put the branding irons right about now. I can just see all these machines with a 'M' scorched into the side of them. That will keep the laptop rustlers away.
<apology type="for_slashdotted_server_troll"/>
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Branding is what you do when you haven't got a better product than the other guy, but you want people to think you do.
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.
If you want to improve usability you can do it by using different icons for Mozilla itself and files associated with Mozilla (for example html-files). Currently I have Mozilla and a html file added to my Windows coolbar and they both use the same icon. InternetExplorer has the face "e" for IE itself, and a document with the "e" in front for associated files. Please do something similar for future versions of Mozilla. I really want to see from the icon if a file is a html file or the Mozilla executable.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
Mod him down!
The poster has goatse in URL field.
Should've submitted as AC, like people usually do for mirrors.
Nader-2004
branding is a great idea; however, it's an all-or-nothing game. Mozilla must either commit 100% to developing brand identity or not commit at all. Consistency in branding communicates something deeper to the public: a consistent brand image communicates [whether true or not] consistency in the entity itself. It shows that the entity has a common goal toward which they are working. When people see the brand's logos, they immediately recognize it as familiar. In order for Mozilla to be successful (which I hope / know it will be), the public must be able to identify it as one specific piece of software (or software package). For example, when people see a Mozilla icon/logo, I should be able to say, "oh, that's THE Mozilla." They shouldn't need to wonder, "hmmm... that looks kinda like a Mozilla icon I saw a long time ago, but I'm not sure." Consistent branding works: just think of the logos/icons for all of the following entities: Nike; Microsoft; Coca-Cola; Pepsi; AOL.
Give Mozilla a unique selling proposition - something that you can tell a prospective user about why they must switch from IE to Mozilla, i.e., "You should switch to Mozilla because it does X", where X is something obviously good, and not easily done with IE. For 95% of prospective users, X !=
- 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.
Mod him down!
Should've submitted as AC.
RTFA, Mozilla 2.0 *IS* Firebird 1.0
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
You mean he beat you to it
Given the current mechanics of software distribution and product awareness, I'd argue that a bundling approach to the Mozilla suite/browser would be more effective than looking for a replacement of the red lizard and the like. The lizard is dead; long live the lizard!
I thik Mozilla could stand a more user-friendly Web site. Whatever look you come up with, the main page should be familiar and easy for non-developers to navigate. The home page is intimidating. If you want a chance to compete with IE and Netscape, make the main Web interface and download accessible for those users. Link to the 'community' for those who are interested in more than a just finding a browser.
Can I bum a sig?
As long as I can smash all the bars up in one small line. There is nothing more that I hate than having 15 bars covering half the screen with jumbo icons such that I cannot even see the page I'm wanting to look at.
I have File-Help, the back, forward, stop, and refresh buttons (all with no text & small icons) address bar(no idiotic go button to click), and google way off to the right to stop the popups. One line and the rest of the screen is web page.
Something along those lines is what I want from Mozilla, without having to create my own theme to get it. And since it's so small and inconspicuous it can be in black and white with icons drawn in mspaint freehand with a mouse.
Work on your grammar skills and you'll be trolling with the best!
Blar.
But how will unifying the brand image attract them, exactly?
Case in point: Suse consistently uses the little green chameleon as its brand. But how many people out there, if you were to ask them what a little green chameleon makes them think of, would say Suse?
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? The fact that it's a free product makes it extremely cost-ineffective to go through the intensive and expensive motions of effectively branding.
Don't get me wrong, these are just my first impressions to the idea, and I think it could be something special if the open-source community could effectively brand something on the larger economic world when it comes to free products. I'm just having a hard time visualizing how it could be done.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Isn't self-consistency more important than consistency with the operating-system?
I'd rather have Mozilla (Firebird) working the same way on every operating-system. (no button-swapping) Or at least put the option to adjust the buttons to my DE-standard.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
They should NEVER have bothered with the developer names Firebird, Thunderbird, etc. From the start they should have called them Mozilla Browser, Mozilla Mail, etc. They have lost fast name recognition until the change does occur, and they have created a lot of confusion. I remember telling a lot of people to switch to Mozilla. I didn't tell anyone about Firebird because I knew the name wouldn't stick for long. Others on the other hand, have been name-dropping Firebird all over the place. Imagine when it's changed back. You will have Netscape, Mozilla, Firebird, Mozilla Firebird, etc. No one should be expected to keep up with the names like this. Most people will just stick to I.E. and not bother with avaluating what looks like too many choices to them
/. is the last place to seek advice about branding.
When the Germans conquered all of continental Europe did the English keel over and die? The war is far from over buddy.
Perhaps I'm just missing something here (like the images from the article), but who gives a crap about what Mozilla looks like when it's very easy to make your own or modify a theme? The whole point of Open Source is "Do What You Want", not "Do what they let you".
Using the word "brand" of course raises my anti-marketing hackles, but that's just me.
Anything is possible given time and money.
Is it like Mod-zilla rhymes with Godzilla, or is it more like Mozzerella, or is it something else entirely?
I hear most often pronounced Moe (of the Larry and Curly kind) and zilla, like z then illa as in gorilla.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Seriously... this isn't flame bait or trolling... Does it really matter what they do? Netscape as anything other than a service name doesn't exist any more. That brings the only significant source of exposure for any of Mozilla's stuff to an end. AOL isn't rolling out Gecko, nor are any other major ISPs.
Coding web applications that support IE (which virtually everyone has in a commercial or home environment) that also work with identical capability that customers have grown to expect in Mozilla can more than double the cost of a project. I know a bunch of major web-enabled applications that are in the process of removing Netscape 7.x+/Mozilla as required support platforms, because its just not seen as a platform that has any growth potential (unlike even six months ago).
The one place Mozilla could've gotten a significant exposure to the general public might've been the Mac, but its still an inferior browser in nearly every way to Safari/KHTML.
And don't get me wrong, Mozilla is all I use here, but I could care less how well it integrates into the OS, or how the general public views it, because I know perfectly well the general public could care less, and won't ever particularly care about it. Sucks, but Mozilla and Netscape took too long building a buggy bloated browser, and missed their chance once again.
I always thought more open source software esp. the precompileds that come with major distributions should adapt a uniform gui. I know alot of people would complain about that but since it is open source you could custimize to your liking. But I am thinking about the sake of the project/company they NEED to have standard and uniform interfaces if they want to attract "Joe Sixpack" and end esp. PHB's and Corporations.
for example: If exec A uses mozilla 1.2 and then goes to show it off to exec B but now mozilla is up to 1.5 and think are "different" he is going to leave an unfavorable impression of mozilla.
Here is a good example win95/98/se/me/nt/2k what is different to the user? Nothing that matters: It looks and acts the same(minus stability).
It's all Politics
Let's take a look at all successful organizations that use red as the prominent color in their brand...
Basically, nobody.
Red is, for the most part, the color of poison in nature and people tend to avoid red stuff. Red is a warming. Red means stop. Get the picture?
Mozilla rocks and it needs only minor adjustments in branding. As a previous poster mentioned, offering options to replace IE is a good start. Another step might be to change the default theme to "Modern" instead of that f'n ugly standard theme.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Interestingly, I had requested a press kit or at least press-ready logos for Mozilla awhile back for inclusion in a presentation I'm writing. Got a quick response saying it sounded feasible, but nothing since. I ended up scouring the web and finding a lizard picture but it wasn't the best quality for the resolution I need.
... send out a press release along with a link to the press kit. Heck, if you can get a contribution pool (I think wire releases are something like $100), make a press release each time a major release occurs.
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.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
The real problem with browser branding is that currently people fail to see the browser as something which should be branded. It's a utility product that allows you to view sites, and that's about it. Who cares what's beneath?
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.
Nader-2004
I have been saying this for about three years now. Well, ever since the opensource mozilla project started, however long that is. Mozilla should be a household name by now, but it's not. Maybe they would have more than 2% market share today and AOL wouln't have practically dumped them if they had focused on PR more. Better late than never, I guess.
I don't click on a lizard icon to launch "mozilla", I click on (a poor image of) a flame, which maybe is supposed to look bird-like, maybe not. When I launch the mail and newsgroup reader, I click on a blue version of the same flame with some sort of square-ish shape in the foreground.
Seperating the mozilla suite into firebird, thunderbird, and whatever the other one is named was (and is) a great idea for usability, but it hurt their branding process. Not only do most people not recognize the icon (it is the only allowed app on a public terminal I support), the lizard icon isn't anywhere in the browser.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Here's the beta version: http://website-beta.mozilla.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... choosing a logo that isn't an obvious rip off of the logo of the Toronto Raptors. Uncanny similarity, don't you think?
I'm shocked and awed that the Raptors haven't filed a suit against them yet.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
There is a notable opportunity for another browser to wiggle back into the browsing scene. MS isn't producing additional standalone browsers; I wouldn't expect to see version "7" of IE until it comes integrated into Longhorn. MS browser innovation/imitation is at a standstill until that day, providing plenty of opportunity for another browser to make itself notably superior (preferably Firebird).
Isn't this what happened to Netscape?? Perhaps they'll call the next version of IE "version 8"!!
HTML mirror here. Image server is hosed, so I couldn't get the images.
I could have sworn that the people who make the Godzilla movies were threatening to sue due to the similarity...
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
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 is far more satisfying to develop things with wide usage.
And of course the other thing....a lot of the benefit of having mozilla out there is in helping keep micorsoft in check (as is the case with linux and other open source things). The more people using mozilla, the more effective it is.
I strongly disagree with you.
Mozilla has replaced my browser, and the browser of all my friends (all ten of them! woo!) and relatives because of one simple fact: it's faster.
Mozilla will never die because it is not some company that lives off of profits. I believe that even if no donations are made to the MF, the applications shall continue to prosper and thrive in the open-source and practical communities.
Plain and simple: Mozilla roxors.
Insert clever one liner here.
Like GNU (GNU's Not UNIX), maybe Mozilla can rename itself MINIE (Mozilla Is Not IE). Or how about just NIE?
and keeping Firebird.
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.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
..MS open up their source code to hackers -- err, they just did that, but they call them MVPs
One of the main things about the average surfer, I find, is that (s)he simply doesn't know about it.
How true it is.
Most people take whatever is dished out to them that "came with My PC".
It takes an extra-ordinary effort for them to get and install software. Either
Since AOL gave up fighting the browser war, after being paid $750 million, the potential avenue of distributing 50 million free CD's with Mozilla is not going to happen.
Deliberately downloading software isn't what 90% of PC users do.
The only hope is for clandestine download, perhaps using an IE security hole, in innocuous pieces that don't compromise BW, via an adware/spyware/virus mechanism (something like Gator, but not so obnoxious).
Then, once people get used to this "virus version of IE", they might start telling their friends how good it is.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Find the laxadasical fwibble before midnight!
I'd like Mozilla more if I didnt look like a dinosaur geek everytime it starts up.
mozilla -nosplash is your friend.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
Wasn't Davezila already sued for using 'zilla' in it's name? and that anything to do with a lizard and zilla in the same breath is under fire from the japanese company that owns Godzihrah?
Try again, AC.
The entire article reads like a little manifesto from a graphic designer who Knows Better Than Everyone Else How It Should Be Done.
Just give him the job, already, and move on.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
it's about time someone shoved a smokin' hot poker up that lizard's ass. Get a move on little pony!
Make Mozilla popular by writing a "must have" game or application in XUL. That is what should be branded, not the browser. If people want the app, they get mozilla.
... Maybe not for cash, but its being sold nonetheless. It is being sold as a replacement for I.E or whatever, and what is eyecandy to you, sends to a lot of people messages about the care which has been taken over the project as a whole. Make it look like a good, well planned, well designed offering and people will tend to believe you.
1. IE loads instantly. I don't see why speed would be a consideration.
2. Mozilla is ugly as sin. At least IE is plain and clean looking.
3. Do you seriously think someone would listen to the advice of a guy who uses the term "roxors"?
We recently moved all 100+ users in our company to Mozilla 1.4 (from IE; score one for the Rebellion). Most of our users are highly non-technical, and the overall repsonse to Mozilla has been very favorable. People really like the logo, and it seems to stick in their minds. Our major issues right now are getting the calendar to work properly and roaming profiles. If we could take care of those 2 things, we would have a basically problem-free product.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You want to introduce users to Mozilla by clandestinely downloading it? What kind of customer loyalty do you hope to gain? One of the things that makes Mozilla different than IE is the constant care and attention that they give to their users. Your "clandestine" means do not do that, resorting to means only used by script kiddies and spammers.
How about showing all of the incons as the Ole Orange (Red?) Dinosaur taking a big bite outta that god D*mn Butterfly. Or Even better - Clippy
I don't know about the rest of you, but I love the new Firebird icons. If Thunderbird gets a set that compliments them, the icons situation will be wonderfully complete.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
But they have effectively branded it. Check out a couple of icon sets at kde-look.org and tell me how may you see coming with IE icons! Of for a quiter example check out Opera. Browsers are like everything else, we want to feel like where using the fastest and the best, branding adds sex appeal (and can increase usability!), just like with everything else.
Quack, quack.
Brand does not necessarily imply marketing or corporatism, at least not on the most basic level.
* The Jewish faith is branded with the Star of David. You see a six sided star, drawn in the form of two equalateral triangles, and you think "Jewish".
* The UN is branded with that baby boy blue color. You see a guy with a baby blue helmet on, you think UN.
* The Red Cross. You see it, you think Red Cross (or Switzerland -- doh!).
A common look and feel allows for folks with vastly different experiences and requirements to correctly identify the same item. It also inherently provides an additional signal of stability and care to many.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
that it doesn't matter what icon or symbol they use, as long as they use it consitantly across all applications.
The example that keeps popping into my head are auto manufacturer logos. Both the name or symbol of the manufacturer and the model are both prominetly displayed on the back of most cars. Sure the model logo may change, but you still know that car's a Ford or Chevy . Right now, none of the mozilla logos do that.
Personally, I like the M within the sapphire. It's a great blanket logo that can be combined with other smaller logos in the corner. Say, Mozilla Firebird would be a Sapphire M with a small globe in the lower right corner and Mozilla Thunderbird would be a Sapphire M with an envelope in the corner. Both icons incorporate the overall Brand of Mozilla but still differentiate themselves as different applications.
You see this on marketing type websites where there is a random picture of some attractive person wearing nice clothes, seemingly there just to take up space. Do people actually get warm fuzzies from that or what?
Sorry for the OT rant
"Read Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 and let us know what you think."
/. - please only expect uneducated opinions and replies saying RTFA!
What the hell are you thinking? This is
BTW, I agree with your sentiments. Branding and platform consistency are important. The people developing Mozilla are good at what they do... but branding and appearance is rarely an engineer's forte.
Dude...You should get modded down. You are redundent!
"Brand" is a word. In this context used, the indication is Marketing Speak. I don't care what the actual subject matter is, to my ear I hear "I am in Marketing".
To paraphrase the Old One:
"One you set to the path of Marketing, forever will it dominate your destiny...You will become an Agent of Evil"
This is an idea in the same vein as "Linux/Gnome/KDE needs to become User Friendly/Easy to Use/Dumbed Down for the Sheep". Fine, do the work, someone might use it, but leave the rest of us to make our own choice, thank you.
Anything is possible given time and money.
"the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary."
and why is that then ?
its technology driven not business driven. It can become a prominent name through good features, speed, reliabilty and so on. better spend the time worrying on producing decent software than perimeter issues.
Every joe off the street coming in and announcing to others (in this case to thousands of readers! how's that for publicity?) that they know how Mozilla should look, what it should be, and how the project should be run better than the Mozilla team does, they just can't code/do whatever other work themselves. The noise from these "armchair developers" as well as clueless users in this and other major projects has increased to the point that the usefulness of some of the primary communication channels for larger projects (bugzilla.mozilla.org, the main cygwin mailing list, several of the openoffice mailing lists, etc) has been decreasing rapidly. The signal to noise ratio just gets worse and worse.
/. hits, copy link location to instead of using the link).
In general, I think one of the things which would be a large factor in the future success of many large open-source projects would be strongly discouraging most input in crucial communication channels while finding better ways for non-developers to channel their input. In the case of a community as large and often discordant as that of Mozilla, it may even be a good idea to hold elections for community/end-user representatives who present concisely the concerns of the community without taking an "armchair developer" approach to things.
BTW, I was once the "armchair developer" type myself before I saw the light- I think I was part of the reason for Gerv's Unofficial Mozilla Spell-checker FAQ (bugzilla doesn't take
I use Mozilla partly because of the inherent trust that comes with a piece of software that's offered openly, with no hidden source code, no hidden agena, and no marketing. It's just a browser, and has nothing to hide behind but its own merits. On its own merits, it wins. And that's why I stopped using IE, and eventually Windows.
Being able to customize the look yourself or download a theme from the public makes software feel like it's mine - not something I'm "borrowing" under license.
Lets leave marketing to the "other" kind of software. IMHO, this kind of thinking contradicts the basis of community that open source software is built on.
I've read through a good chunk of the replies here, and I keep coming across people saying "well you can change icons like this", "or do a splash screen like that." etc. The problem is, is that 90% of the computer users simply want to install, and be done with it and see nothing but a desktop icon. They don't want to go changing icons, or splash screens, or whatever. That's what this author is trying to get at. He makes a good point about the computer geeks and their clever naming, etc. It seems as if programmers have this holier-than-thou attitude. "If you don't like something, you should change it yourself or not use it." I know that it is a hobby to most people and there is no commercial gain to be had. It's almost like OSS (or whatever you want to call it) is like old school punk rock. You want the recognition, but you always fear being called a sellout. In the software world, you want to have this really great piece of software that is free and takes over the world and throws Microsoft off its pedestal. But at the same time, you don't want to conform to the game they are playing. Yes, people often don't know about non-MS ways of doing things on a computer, but Microsoft has done a halfway decent job at making a computing experience consistent to the average Joe computer user. And so people come to expect that out of others. I personally am willing to do things a slightly harder, or different way. I know that when I use free software, that things may be a little quirky, or there may be some weird fixes that I have to implement to get it work all the way. I've made that choice, but there are many out there who won't/can't/don't make it. They just want it to work out of the box for a million years without a hitch.
Consistency in a UI should not raise anybodies hackles. Its important and if you add to that clean, well thought-out interfaces, you end up with a product that is simple and a pleasure to use. Branding as marketing jargon may not be the right word.
Quack, quack.
If I have to read another 1999-era Red Herring/Business 2.0/dot bomb article about how "Netscape Navigator's success was due in large part to it's strong branding effort blah blah blah" I think I'll go freaking nutzo.
Hey, dumbass, I think you already have.
Who gives a crap whether or not an open source project has a good "brand"? It's not like people are trying to sell it. The ones who care, know about it already and aren't going to care whether or not it's a catchy name.
Wow, you completely missed the point. Surprise, surprise.
Maybe you want Mozilla to remain in the 0.02% percentile, but the rest of us--that means, the real computing world, not your little IRC Linux buddies--use programs with friendly names. Why? It says a lot about the program and its developers.
1.) It's catchy and stays in people's minds.
2.) It's friendy, therefore relaxing them for their user experience.
3.) It reflects on the attitude of the developers, that they will go the extra effort to concentrate on every detail and not just code up really slow XUL interfaces. Which is why people love interfaces that are colorful and sleek. Because it means the developers go that extra mile to not only provide a product, but provide one that is friendly and looks good.
Get off your high-horse. You're completely retarded. "Aw, man, who cares? Nobody's trying to sell it. Let's just forget about it with the excuse that people who are already using it know how to pronounce it." Yeah, that'll reel in the users for a product we're trying to replace IE with.
The only thing wrong with Mozilla is that people don't know how to pronounce it. Is it like Mod-zilla rhymes with Godzilla, or is it more like Mozzerella, or is it something else entirely?
According to you, it doesn't matter! People using it already know how to pronounce it! Wowee!
"Sufferin' succotash."
1. Who cares how fast it loads? Anything within a second or two is fine. How fast it renders is what matters. Mozilla out renders IE but IE does a decent job too. For arguement's sake, the few milliseconds IE is slower than Mozilla are not a big deal in the scope of things.
2. There's an IE theme to make Mozilla look as downright shitty as IE available from here.
3. No, since everybody knows it's spelled r0x0rs.
correct, it is the "Mosaic-killa"
With the previous version, under Linux, me and a few guys I know had the same problem.. Sometimes it wouldn't take keyboard input anymore, either in the address bar or in the forms on a page. I haven't seen it happen in 0.7, and I'm very happy about that!
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.
Here's someone who know's what he's talking about.
/.
And forgive me, it is spelled r0x0rs.
God forbid an intelligent gamer reads
Worse yet, someone who doesn't even know about Mozilla themes, or what really matters in a browser.
Insert clever one liner here.
How about a mirror or two - It's impossible!
Cole
The branding effort is a good idea and will help get wider adoption. But there should be a parallel campaign to organize pressure on major websites to be mozilla compatible (and say so on their sites). I've been pleasantly surprised to see a few major sites that say "best viewed with .... or Mozilla 1.x", and it's a boost to brand awareness.
But more often big sites just ignore Mozilla. For example, the International Herald Tribune looks all funky in moz 1.5.
But firebird is taken also. Always bugs me when I go to a new machine and do an emerge firebird, only to install the wrong thing.
It's pronounced Moe-zilla.
"Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
"Germans?"
"Forget it. He's rolling."
Wow, you're ignorant of both my thoughts and attitudes. I don't use Linux and I sure as hell don't use IRC, but I do use Mozilla every day, and I encourage people to use alternative browsers whenever it's appropriate. I work with and support 150 end-users of real-world software, so I think I have a general understanding of what they expect from software.
Why? It says a lot about the program and its developers.
If they cared about "branding" in the first place, they would have chosen a better name and logo the first time around. Not waited until they'd completely lost the browser wars, and then tried to resuscitate a corpse of a project (in terms of market share, not code quality) by relying on late 1990's marketroid-isms.
Get off your high-horse. You're completely retarded.
Screw you. Ad hominem attacks on me and juvenile name calling only serve to support my point that you're a bitch.
Yeah, that'll reel in the users for a product we're trying to replace IE with.
This only serves to show how out of touch you are with the "real world." Mozilla and Netscape lost. Get over it.
According to you, it doesn't matter! People using it already know how to pronounce it! Wowee!
Like I said, I use Mozilla every day, and I didn't know how to pronounce it until the kind gentlemen in this thread pointed it out.
What does the fact that everyday users don't even know how to pronounce it tell you about the Mozilla dev team? Like I said, if they actually gave a rat's ass they would have chosen more appropriately when they had a chance.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Shut up! Let the mozilla group work they way they have been for years. They made the best browser by themselves, they don't need your help. A page and a half, guidelines do not make.
Go on now, mod me down. But you know that I speak the truth.
still happens to be very very rarely with .7. :(
Shut the fuck up!
Well, I'm a professional graphic designer... so here's my take on this.
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.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Shut the fuck up! This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
I don't see any forks outside of Mozilla team AND that would be not a browser. Can be Gecko used really for non-browser projects?
There was so much of marketing screaming about XUL, but are there any XUL applications out there?
Last time I've checked on xul-planet, most of examples crashed the latest stable Mozilla release I had. How can you call it as a development platform if your examples do not work as described and expected?
Less is more !
we won't read the article, and still tell you what we think!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If XUL got some steam behind it, that would be a killer app. Cross-platform apps is a good idea, and will eventually become a reality.
:)
I don't think the dragon is such a bad idea. It's just not properly used - it should be about empowering the user, so that the user feel powerful and in control like a dragon.
But I'm fanciful and weird, so nevermind that suggestion
Stop the brainwash
Strong branding won't help.
My advice, make it compatible with IE widely used
extensions or die.
For more or less complex DHTML content,
I had to do 2 separate versions, tired, guess
what browser I write content for now?
More and more I see IE only Web applications
and damn bugs never got fixed.
We need to brand M0zil]a with teh AOL cr@p. We all love the A0L branding in N3tsc@pe so much, I need 30 megs of AOL artwork and ads to slow down Mozilla. If you're still not convinced, just check out how popular Netscape has become since becoming branded with A0L. AOL Rox0rs!!!
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
...is not the fact that Branding is shining shit and calling it gold ...is not the fact that they chose a cool fire-breathing lizard that may or may not infringe on the copyright of a certain cool fire breathing guy in a rubber suit ....is not if people are GOING to get confused ...IS the fact that people already ARE confused.
/. reader that is having an issue with "their internet."
How many times have you tried to help someone who isn't a
To the overwhelming majority of the uninitiated, MSIE IS the internet. Outlook Express IS email.
These are the people that do not install programs they just bought from CompUSA, but "I got this disk and I downloaded it and the goddamn thing keeps asking me where to put the thing! I don't care, I just want it to work!"
These are the people that think they need to install the software each and every time they want to use it.
These are the people that wind up with automatic 1-900 dialers in their Start Menu.
These are the people we need to sit down with one at a fucking time and teach them - gently - the difference between their PC and their TV.
The Mozilla organization should first and foremost worry about keeping their product top-notch and let themselves get widespread like theyre doing already.
How did I find out about mozilla? A friend told me about it, showed me where to get it, and I got rid of Opera. I've shown it to a half dozen people over the past year and they all use it as their primary browser.
Interesting side note - 5 of these 6 people were ASTOUNDED at the fact that they could also use the mozilla mail client; that they were ALLOWED to use mozilla as their mail client, and nobody could force them otherwise. Yes, I'll probably create a few more pro-bono tech support calls for myself, but thats time I'm more than willing to donate to educate my "family."
Basically, they sould stop wasting their time with this. Redo the website for the stupids, and get back to writing good software, and let the rest of us evangelize. Its not like they're trying to MAKE ALL THE MONEY or something.
or ARE THEY?!?
[random thoughts]
Branding. What the hell are they going to do, set up a paypal account and use that cash to buy TV spots.
Maybe that just need to call the 2.0 release "Mozilla... Optimized!"
God forbid Mozilla goes for-profit. There will be rioting in the pipes
[/random thoughts]
s'wut i sed.
1. Take your basic product name - ie, "Mozilla".
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
As boring as Windows already is, I certainly don't want to add Mozilla to list of yet another boring app.
I think one of the reasons why Mozilla is so great is absence of marketers. All the stupid buzzwords, and spin tactics they use to try to sell a product are what turn me off on a product, and I think there are many like me.
I have convinced many people to switch to Mozilla simply by showing them the features (tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, form management, etc). After that I leave it up to them. So far I have seen bout 95% of those people move to Mozilla because they like the features and not the branding.
Netscape was branded and look where it ended up.
Specifically, what is the difference between installing the Browser of 1.5 only versus installing Firebird 0.7? Are they based on the same components? Or does one use entirely different technology? Can I switch from 1.5 to Firebird? Is the mail component of 1.5 the same of Thunderbird 0.3? I had heard the Firebird was going to replace 1.5. How? Simple questions and I can't find the answer to any of them.
Why don't they just call it Mozilla...
It's the fact that the msn.com site is the default homepage of that other 95% of web browsers.
This isn't really off-topic, but... many IE users are comfortable and familiar with MSN's portal site. Seeing the mozilla start page isn't nearly as welcoming as a page telling you the news and where to go to get weather, directions, and the latest J-Lo gossip.
It intimidates the hell out of those poor wretches who read this crap.
I think I'm gonna cry.
As for your other questions, you might want to forget about all this - you seem to be getting confused already. Go download Opera. Or maybe just go play out side. You don't need the internet.
One item that I did not see mentioned specifically but was marginally addresses was simple icon consistancy within an app. This applies to the Windows version as well in the latest distributions that I have seen. The icons used on the panel (in gnome, I forget what Windows and KDE call it) are not the same as the icons that are distributed for the app itself. Right now on debian I am still getting a dragon in the red star for icon used in the Gnome menu, but the panel is using the split with an M on the upper left and a Netscape style ship wheel to the lower left. I could live with any consistancy, and perhaps it will need some help from the package builders. If I had a choice I would probably like something like the M used for the browser on OSX, but anything clean, recognizable, and consistant would be good.
like g-a-r-y, only different
No other software you run usually has it. It's a bit jarring. (Which is why I also cringe when I launch Adobe Acrobat... ugh)
Although it is nice to know when you launch it whether or not another instance is already running (splash-screen, no existing instances, no splash, then you're just opening a new window).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Your sig is wrong. That quote is commonly misattributed to Voltaire, but it was actually written by Beatrice Hall in her writings about Voltaire. She wrote that it was something he would have said, because it was in line with his beliefs. Unfortunately, he has been misquoted ever since then.
Tim
The mainstream Netscape 4.x users I support have had a hard time accepting, trusting Mozilla and it usually takes a long time before they really believe that Yes, this really is the new Netscape they know and love. It's even better.
First they had to click on the little blue lizard, now they have to adjust to the obnoxious orange lizard with a big icon that looks like a scab. Harsh colors and a look and feel that has all the clunkyness of old Netscape with just enough differences to confuse. So anytime Mozilla (or Windows running it) crashes they react in horror.
Maybe they aren't the most tech savvy, some do better than others, but I think many are just put off by the goofy changing face of it. Actually I've had one tell me they hate the name Mozilla too. Not that I care, but it is the state of mind of my end-users.
I've had to ween users over to new platforms before so I know it takes time and hand-holding, but you would think it needn't be such a hard-sell for Netscape 4.x users of all people.
I love Mozilla and now that Mozilla is giving the end-user some attention I really hope to see some tools or at least some docs for deploying, customizing, locking down, maintaining and using Netscape in the mainstream non-geek enterprise world.
Please post if something already exists, I haven't found much for us techs who actually support Mozilla.
I can't figure this article out. He admits the lizard/'zilla bit has some recognition and then says no one knows the Firebird & Thunderbird thing which causes confusion. His conclusion: stick with the 'zilla.
Next he decides to go completely the opposite direction and says get rid of the lizard and keep the flames for icons. WTH? Is confusing people by using the opposite name from the imagery supposed to help this useless branding thing?
i'm just going to go install Orbit theme anyways
In case you were too busy thinking about Mozilla 2.0 to notice... there will not be a Mozilla 2.0 We're getting Firebird and Thunderbird in its place. The current version of Moz is the last version of Moz.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I knew I was spelling it wrong, but I couldn't find the right spelling. Thanks for correcting me. :)
Sir Haxalot to the rescue@!!!!!
I don't get it. Can somebody explain to me the connection between the Mozilla name and the Netscape roots?
> you click it once to select everything
Mozilla: that's how it works
IE: That's how it works
> then again to select words
Mozilla: Double-click to select a word
IE: IE doesn't select words, it's all or nothing
> And you can double click sections to select just a word
Mozilla: Works
IE: Doesn't
> you can't select words automatically
I just did
> and you click once to select individually
Select what individually?
> and then again to select it all
Mozilla: Initial click selects all, One click selects a position, double click selects a word, triple click selects it all
IE: Clicking, single or double, toggles all or nothing
> I finally uninstalled it
fool
> middle-click scrolling
*scrolls the mousewheel* - yup, mozilla's mouse scroll works fine, so does IE's. The only difference is that IE's is smooth & slow, Mozilla's is direct & fast.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Here is a reason why Linden Hall School has chosen Mozilla lately - Windows XP Home. Why? Well we use ISA with authentication as our proxy server. This enables access to various age/class groups to the Internet. The problem is - in order for there to be pass-through authentication your OS has to be a member of the MS Domain.
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!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
In my experience, most Windows users don't use Mozilla because they never heard of it (at least, the ones I teached Mozilla never went back to IE). Some users are actually willing to pay for spam filters, popup blockers, download managers and tabbed browsing.
I want to put a box in my homepage that looks for MSIE user-agents and displays something like "Are you using Internet Explorer? Did you know that there's a better browser with popup blocking and download management included? Try Mozilla! (link to end-user website)".
The Mozilla folks seems to agree with me on this, but there's still a barrier: English. Windows users worldwide are used to their fully localized environment, and afraid of anything in foreign languages. The language packs are too buried in the site. Mozilla's new user-oriented website is a great idea, but there should be localized versions of it, with easily accessible downloads of localized software.
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
I read a few more of the links and am on the right mental page now. Thanks.
A giant butterfly net!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
After thinking about it for awhile, I'm not sure that all of the recomendations necessarily make sense.
Branding does make a superficial sort of sense, but branding alone isn't going to make the fence sitters pick a side. By and large most users are fence sitters, they use IE 'cause they bought an M$ OS, and that's what it had. They didn't have to go and download a new browser.
The one I hold no truck with is the meshing with the OS. Several reasons, first is, where do you draw the line? Second, should a browser be poking that much into OS internals for the sake of a few icons? Third, this is a web browser, not a filesystem browser, if you see your OS icon, it's local, if you see your browser icon, it's remote. Fourth, the move to seperate applications vs. an appsuite means lighter, less bloated applications, why bloat them with a bunch of OS-specific code that isn't required for core-functionality? Fifth, the themeability of the chrome makes this redundant.
If this really is a need, write a seperate application to handle it for those platforms. That is the better way to handle it. Let the browser browse, and the themer theme.
The one good suggestion in that section was to move the menu items to where the OS user expects them, that is a legitimate usability concern.
However, identifying that one of the best features of the dev effort has been the willingness of the dev team to say no, was a very good inclusion. Hopefully the developers will exercise it once again on the issue of meshing with the OS.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I think you are right about non-geeks not wanting a hole lot of change. So configure mozilla to behave more or less like IE, and your girlfriend wont know the difference. Except in time she will get used to not having annoying pops all over the place. I think you are making a big mistake by letting her in on the secrets of cookies and - perhaps - giving her a confusing interface, which doesnt look like the one she knows. If she is anything like my girlfriend (or my father or most my non-geek friends) she just wants the damn thing to work and be able to use it. And now, please. Mozilla should do what apple has done with Safari. Almost no buttons, a stylish and simple design. And it doesnt default to an absolute geek-page (even containing the unholy word "compiled"). Geeks are good people. But they tend to design programs like they want them, and not how their girlfriends want them. And mozilla is definately designed by geeks :-)
The Mozilla "dinosaur" theme is older than the Raptors. Netscape was using the "Mo-zilla" character on it's site as early as Fall of '94, which, incidentally, was the same time the Raptors were having a contest to design their logo.
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.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I thought that the strongest new brands in a market with name recognition is to be the opposite of said brand. Pepsi's market share rose when it had it's "New Generation" campaign (implying that the old standard, Coca-cola, was the Old Generation). Avis car rental saw a gigantic increase with it's "We try Harder" [than the other companies]. Burger King versus McDonalds. Fox versus the Big Three. Heck, Linux versus Windows.
Consumers seem to think in simple dualities. There is the iconic brand... and then there is the one that is the anti-brand.
The problem for Mozilla? It is a product that is nigh identical to IE. Functionally they are the same (with only minor variations and where it differs siginficantly [that you need to do a third-party install] isn't a major selling point). To some extent it's the difference between a Chevy and Pontiac, not a Harley and a Honda.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I don't care if it was deliberately offensive. that was a funny jab. if I had mod points, etc. etc.
Good article - well thought-out. I agree with most of the suggestions.
I like the Mozilla Mail icon (the mail message with the blue flames) - maybe something similar for the Mozilla Browser icon? (A globe w/red flames?).
All in all, a good article.
The standalone version of the Mozilla Calendar is called Sunbird.
a) If you're worried about sites tracking you, why not just set Mozilla to "Limit maximum lifetime of cookies to current session". Yeah it's an option. So once you close your browser, all the cookies are gone.
b) If you have a site where you really want the cookie set in a more permanent manner, you can just turn off that option, let it get set, then turn it back on. You can clear the cookie out later through the cookie manager if you change your mind.
I find that (b) happens so incredibly infrequently that this is a much smoother browsing experience. No dialog window to click for every site I go to.
Just my $.02
Mozilla 2.0 *IS* Firebird 1.0
Now, that's great branding!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I agree in general with the common branding suggestions but I would say keep the Mozilla name only for the browser (Mozilla browser) and have a different but common brand for the rest of the independent Mozilla applications. The way it is right now sounds too much like the old Netscape suite (Netscape browser, Netscape Mail, Netscape Calendar etc) and we all know how that turned out.
Dreamcast?
Hey - Why limit ourselves to version 2.0? I use lots of various applications and deciding what version your on can be just as creative as designing a whole new set of icons and logos for a program. Sure for a week or so we'll have a nice clean 2.0, but in a month or so we will have to deal with the next version. Then what will we do?
OpenOffice 1.0.1, OpenOffice 1.1
Windows 95, 98, ME, XP
Shareware 2003-10-10-1223
version 123, 124, 125, etc
Word 200, Outlook 2002
Then we can tack Alpha, Beta, RC, Experimental, Learning Edition, Service Pack 1, Professional, Home... hell why not limited edition like cars?
Graphics are clear and simple, but how should mozilla deal with it's version numbers? Lets hear it marketing people. I need to know.
Switching workspaces (WMaker) does the trick too.
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
Leave alone the fact that it came across as very much a "rough draft" but I am cetain I know what inspired this piece:
That hideous Firebird 0.7 site!
Really, "MozFound", what were you thinking?!?
A article about consitent branding in OSS projects. On /.. And not a half bad one I might add. I'm positively suprised!
BTW: One chance of branding and public awareness was missed: The Mozilla release partys back then! They where unusual and would have been the best possible occasion to gain substancial public awareness of Mozilla and the OSS movement in whole.
I had actually expected the whole OSS/Linux community to raise a massive boo-hay about this and even come as far as MTV having a 3 minute report on some big Mozilla release party event in some post-modern superhip location in London, Berlin or San Francisco.
But I guess that one was lost. Maybe we should do this for Mozilla 2? Have every big town in the world make a release party at some cool place and drop the word at every place where the press is about to pick it up. And offer Mini-CDs with Mozilla on it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
i wish someone would build some redhat-9 RPMs of mozilla-5 with xft support as the old style fonts suck after using redhats new font system...
I'm sure you do realize that mozilla and IE save bookmarks/favorites differently. IE uses individual files for each favorite, where as mozilla uses one file that is basically a webpage itself to hold all of your favorite website needs. There just isn't a practical way for mozilla to use IE's bookmarks if you consider how many profiles mozilla is run on that DON'T have IE.
With that said, you can still find some free wizards to in various places.
If you use the Luna * theme for Mozilla Firebird, run some special customizations with the UI, it'll look EXACTLY like IE (put the location bar in it's own dialog, add a go button, get rid of the search bar, switch the stop and refresh buttons, add the bookmarks and history button, and you've almost got yourself a direct copy (without the sponsored media button and a search button -- but you already have a search bar that you got rid of))
Making toolbars moveable has been slated for AFTER Mozilla Firebird 1.0, so at least you know they are on it. But there are so many programs that don't have moveable toolbars that your argument is invalid anyway.
Regarding making a non-Microsoft Internet Explorer, I think that is a horrible idea. If you can't get used to the Options dialog in Mozilla Firebird, then you don't deserve to be called a teckie. I know some pretty slow people that fell right into that, and away from IE's checkbox heaven.
*Luna does not yet run under MF 0.7. It does run under 0.6, though.
Get Firefox!
Come up with some cash to throw the way of the appropriate Japanese movie studio and make sure that the big red lizard gives Godzilla a good beating in his next outing.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Part of the aim for Mozilla 2.0 is to have the Calendar as a standalone app. This will not happen unless there are more people who are good at JS to help code the calendar. Just look at the code that you can install from http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar and come and make your offers to the newsgroup. Without a lot more help we'll never make a 1.0 quality release :-(
Mozilla is a lame name. "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" are the kind of names I'd expect from MTV VJs or Counter Strike players.
Introducing a new product to corporate customers is hard enough. We shouldn't have to justify names chosen by a bunch of 12-year-olds on a popcorn evening.
We see the Swastika, we think "Third Reich Germany".
Good points
Before thinking about branding it wouldn't hurt to writte a GOD DAMN INSTALLER!
One big thing that everyone seems to miss, the product names should include a word explaining what the product does. So Firebird transforms into Firebird Browser, and Thunderbird transforms into Thunderbird Mail. Just because you know what Firebird and Thunderbird stand for doesn't mean that Joe Sixpack will know. It would be great to give him some clue.
...that by "tabs" you mean "tits."
The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
IIRC, the lack of a strong visual identity started about the same time Toho started suing people for using *zilla in conjunction with a lizard or dinosaur logo. There's some more about this at Davezilla's Notzilla page.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
I bet that when MS finally release Longhorn, IE7 will come with lots of "new" "innovations" added, which will let people return to the included browser without having to go through the trouble of installing additional software.
:P
Back to [] one.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
No it hasn't. What are you talking about? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd swear this wasn't blue.
Suggestion for your sig:
"I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then, he vanished.
Change the quoted part to "I think not,". It makes the joke work better.
There just isn't a practical way for mozilla to use IE's bookmarks if you consider how many profiles mozilla is run on that DON'T have IE.
r ks.html
What is the difficulty in making mozilla look here %userprofile%\Favorites for bookmarks instead of here %userprofile%\application data\Phoenix\Profiles\Default\(random).slt\bookma
It doesn't matter how many users use IE or Mozilla on a system. If mozilla gets it bookmarks from %userprofile%\favorites, it will quite simply, "Just work"
I understand that Firebird/Mozilla use a single file for all the bookmarks - some users prefer this, that is all well and good, however if you run multiple systems, it makes far more sense to have 1 file per bookmark. Not only can you organise your favorites using the shell/file manager, but you can easily merge all your bookmarks and sync between multiple systems without having to worry about overwritting and losing previously stored bookmarks on the other system.
I love Mozilla, I hate it's bookmarking/Profile system. It's hard work deploying Firebird to a large windows network because of the way it stores profiles and bookmarks.
That being, why not have an open submission of logos? Allow people to submit their designs, then have a popular vote to whiddle down the entries. Let the final decision go to the Mozilla foundation. The current lizard head design just doesn't strike one's memory IMHO. The sad thing is that most people associate the IE logo as being the Internet and will just click on it without thinking that there might be something else out there (or caring).
Windows users can easily substitute their own Mozilla splash screen. According to an old FAQ, one need only save a copy of their desired image (any size) as mozilla.bmp in the same place as mozilla.exe.
How about a calculator, a MySQL front end, a storybook creator, a solitaire games, a program to run adventure games, a Minesweeper clone... maybe one day an office suite.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
What we are talking about IMHO are two separate issues. I'm all for the branding and believe it is an important part of usability. But I think of customizability as a separate, although almost (depending on the technical inclinations of the individual) equally important. A branded and well designed interface doesn't not mean it can not be customizable, most truly well designed interfaces are. Anyhow, I'm not talking about forced consistency, but consistency by default..
Mozilla is a good example, because it does so many things right, including theme support and customizability.
Quack, quack.
What is the difficulty in making mozilla look here %userprofile%\Favorites for bookmarks instead of here %userprofile%\application data\Phoenix\Profiles\Default\(random).slt\bookmar ks.html
It doesn't matter how many users use IE or Mozilla on a system. If mozilla gets it bookmarks from %userprofile%\favorites, it will quite simply, "Just work"
That all depends on what version of windows we're talking about... I bet %userprofile% doesn't work on 95/98 or nt 4.0.
Why should Mozilla standardize on a moving target?
This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
But if you actually bothered to read the part of my post that you actually quoted me on, then you would know that mozilla currently saves it's bookmarks and profile under %userprofile%, so why should saving this in the 'correct' place under %userprofile% not work?
For info: %userprofile% works on all currently supported windows platforms.
i've done some elite design work in my time and i had to pause @ the condemnation of the lizard ...because it's not widely recognized on the internet at large...
"Lose What Does Not Work
The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.
Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project."
that statement is an amalgamation of so many generalisms, i can't believe the author could be taken seriously as a brand designer. lose the lizard, based on this assessment ? now we know we have to keep it.
sorry.
As a peripheral member of the OSS community (user) I'm no stranger to the idea of financially supporting free software (which I gain the benefit of using).
What I would love to see would be a way to donate money to be put specifically towards UI development. In fact the whole donation thing is pretty disorganized.
Quack, quack.
Even though you can see IE's Favorites under a special folder under Moz's Bookmarks, I think the bookmark management could and should be much easier. In particular, I hate having to go to the 'Manage bookmarks' dialog to reorganize my stuff... it is so easy in IE, you can drag and drop directly from the Favorites tree.
I love Mozilla but I think this would be a great improvement.
I think IE loses the browser domination the day Sony ships the Playstation 3 (with a non-IE browser, which will probably be Mozilla).
Well, that depends on how visible the browser is.
OK, I accept that a greater number of hits by a Moz based browser would force sites (banks especially) to support Moz, but in the wider context of this discussion - which is about branding and Moz having a strong brand identity - this isn't necessarily true.
If Sony integrate the browser correctly, the only brand which will be visible is the Sony brand - PS3 users won't care what they're surfing with, all they'll care about is that they are surfing. Essentially, the browser vanishes.
Microsoft have picked up on this too - hence the line that IE6 is the last browser all future browsing capability being integrated with Windows. IE will vanish, but browsing will be accessible from explorer/outlook/word or however they implement it.
From the "Joe Sixpack" of view, having a "browser" as a seperate application begins to look like an optional and unecessary extra and a strong brand just serves to emphasise its "seperateness".
Bah... I could go on but mozilla is for geeks right now.
:)
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?
Why? For the same reason that 30%-40% of posts in a discussion about XFree86 are about it needing to be reworked or replaced.
Mostly, because it's true
" Mozilla Project should adopt a simple, strong, consistent visual identity for the Mozilla products including consistent icons across applications"
Are you saying the red star and communist imagery havent already achieved that ? Mozilla communist imagery
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Can you come up with a single example of when somebody was harmed because of cookies?
No, but I can think of an example where somebody was harmed by kool-aid.
the level of abuse required to encourage substantive input from you, Knave Haxalittle.
Your first post falls short of even lackluster karma prostitution.
May you spend an eternitiy coding SAS.
Right off the bat, from reading the headline, this article seems to miss the point. When looking to the future, Mozilla Firebird should be the focus. Firebird will eventually lose the controversial name and be simply 'Mozilla Browser.' This, along with Thunderbird (soon to be 'Mozilla Mail') are really the future of Mozilla much more than the old Mozilla suite which is reaching 2.0.
Here's the Mozilla branding road map. Lets hope Mozilla sticks to this plan. I really think it is the best route for future development.
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.
Branding ala Tom Peters' writings seemingly is not the strong suit of the Open Source community. The author is right ... Mozilla is a strong name. But the logo fails because it is only a "partial dinosaur" (the head) that doesn't have enough internal contrast or definitive external outline. Check out this stylized whole dinosaur that scales well to see how this might be resolved.
welcome to soviet websurfing comrade, where the web surfs you...
Who the hell wants to browse the web on a TV screen? The text looks like crap and gives me a headache almost immediately.
In your list there is nothing that many people use everyday today - it's either not targeted for it or or written poorly or not finished at all. Sorry. Try again.
Less is more !
I couldnt agree more with this post. In open source in general there are WAY too many different versions of everything. OK, I convince an average user to use Mozilla, so they go to get Mozilla and.....which Mozilla do they get? They couldnt care less about learning the differences, it will be considered too much trouble and they will go back to IE because its simple.
If you have a well known product, KEEP THE NAME THE SAME! If there are significant differences, call it something like Mozilla - Accelerated Edition or Mozilla - Basic Edition. At least people will recognize the brand. Take Windows. Version 3.11 and XP are TOTALLY different products, yet M$ keeps the name the same. Why? Because PEOPLE RECOGNISE IT! They only have to sell the name Windows.
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
the mozilla logo designer was a huge Raptors fan, and thus was so inspired. I think you're just trying to grab attention with controversial statements.
The red dinosaur design was adopted to satirize the supposed communist nature of open source.
This is the original post by Jamie announcing the open-sourcing of Mozilla. Communism joke from the beginning. Hehe. This is the first appearence of the red lizard, which he credits to Shepard Fairey of BLK/MRKT, who has done, among other commercial ventures, the whole wacky Andre the Giant has a posse/OBEY thing.
This one was a freebee. If you think it looks suspiciously like the Raptors logo, then he's to blame. But have you looked at the two side by side? Moz has a more imposing profile with cool scales down his neck, while the Raptors dino is sleeker, with a different profile. Clearly Fairey chose to depict Mozilla the Lizard in that industrial-looking, side profile as is the harsh, contrasting style that he uses in all his works.
Moreover, how is looking like the Raptors logo supposed to somehow make Mozilla better?
Have they ever won a playoff title? (I jest, I jest)
Stop trying to cover your ass.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You know, Netscape, the first browser to really have it's own brand? Seriously, has the author never heard about the relation between Mozilla and Netscape? It sounds that way.
The plan from the very beginning was that Mozilla would be the fun development branch with 12-digit version numbers and embedded nerd humor (see about:mozilla) that appeals to hardcore open-source, linux-using, branding-is-for-dweebs types, and the branded, commoditized, productized, tarted-up version would be distributed as Netscape 6 (and now 7). The Mozilla code has a brand, it's just not well connected to the Mozilla organization, and it doesn't need to be. Their job is to write good code. It's AOL/Netscape's job to provide branding and marketing for that code.
0 1 - just my two bits
the slowness of mozilla, firebird is like 5% faster than normal mozilla, and mozilla .98 is faster than firebird at times..
they need to optimize the compilers they use and also have cleaner code and code that isnt used, stripped out.
I showed my mom linux and she liked it. and she hasnt used a computer since she worked on xerox machines with unix.
she tried windows and liked the kde environment in linux better.
The reason why she hated it is most likely your fault. The settings you chose.
If you wanted her to switch, you should have at least make the cookies act about the same. For someone who never sees a single pop up for a cookie and now has to deal with them them, the only thing they are thinking is "more pop ups", "How annoying, "Mozilla sucks".
I agree most people do not have a clue what a web browser is, and they think the www is an extension of MS. You got past that part, but you need to make it enjoyable. Sure it is nice being in control of your cookies, but if it is more annoying than dealing with pop ups who cares.
Unfortunately, the OSS community is like that. Example, Linux. Installing and upgrading software/lib is a huge pain in the but compared to windows where you just click on it, hit ok for the location and other options and it is done. And things need to just work with out having to understand what is under the hood.
It needs to be easy, defaults should make people happy unless they know what they are doing. It also needs to mimic how people work, not how things work.
Eh sorry, guess I need a [/rant]
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
But consider what a Web with Mozilla at 20% of the browser market would be like, as opposed to one entirely dominated by IE. Can IE's grip on the browser market be reduced down to 70%? I think so. Watching some poor girl in one of my CS classes struggle to try and read her email on her brand new Toshiba laptop, thanks to IE crashing every 2 minutes (literally), makes me think that it might not be as hard as expected.
The goal is not to overthrow IE (at least, not realistically). The goal is to force web developers to cease and desist IE-only crap. Sub-5% of the browser market is easily ignored, but 20% is not. The goal is to prevent the "Microsoft-Only Web" from happening. That's a bit dramatic, but there are more IE-only sites than I care to acknowledge.
So when something by MS is designed simply (like IE), it is bad.
But if you make a computer with one mouse button, and iTunes software that only does a few things, like Apple, it is good.
Ive said it before, and Ill say it again- its just a web browser. Get a grip.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
It just feels wrong.
I like to think of myself as a logical person and I like to be able to justify my choices and opinions.
But recently I've been noticing that, in fact, I make decisions based on gut feeling then justify those choices with whatever logical argument applies.
Cookies just feel wrong. Spyware probably hasn't hurt anyone either but it still feels wrong. I like open source software because it feels right (and then I justify it with arguments most people on/. will be familliar with).
Cookies are a symptom of what is wrong with the world, Orwell's 1984 is not a future to be scared of, it's here now! It has crept up on us by stealth.
Cookies are just one part of a whole and if no one speaks out sooner or later you're locked in the ministry of love with a rat on your face screaming "Do it to Julia!"
"Do it to
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
Mozilla has replaced my browser, and the browser of all my friends (all ten of them! woo!)
/. ...
What kind of friends have you got!? If I had 10 friends, I wouldn't need to be trolling on
This is to allow you to start up Mozilla with different personalities (default email addresses, bookmarks, theme, proxy settings) which may or may not be useful to you. It is particularly useful to use when multihoming your machine (your home directory, really) with Home/Work/School/Other configurations.
In order to make a secondary profile, you need to have installed the profile manager (and the users have to be able to get to it). Otherwise you use the default profile.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
My friend...there comes a time in all our lives when we need to move on...to a new girlfriend who knows how to appreciate Mozilla...eerrrr....Firebird...b ird..eeerrrr....never mind just change your bird!!!!
eeerrrr...Thunde
Well hanky panky guy,
I can log into any Unix workstation via ssh or a dedicated xterm and load Mozilla. When I do, my "home" directory contains all the setting for every application including Mozilla. So my bookmarks, app settings, desktop environment, etc. are all centralized and apply to any station.
$20 bucks for free!
This only serves to show how out of touch you are with the "real world." Mozilla and Netscape lost. Get over it.
Lost what? Mozilla is still around, and becoming more relevant every day, now that a most people who give it a good try like it as much as IE (which I don't think was true even 6 months ago).
If Microsoft decides to agressively add commercial and prorietary stuff to IE (which you know they want to do), they know they will lose a lot of people to mozilla quick. The fact that there is a good alternative means a LOT. They can't "control the internet" anywhere near the degree they'd like.
Anyway, so you think that just because microsoft is far ahead now, they will be forever? I mean, do you know how long forever is? The idea that there was a "war" that was "won" once and for all is just incredibly simplistic and silly.
If they cared about "branding" in the first place, they would have chosen a better name and logo the first time around.
Man, that doesn't even make sense. I mean, maybe they didn't care back then. So what? What does that have to do with now? Are you suggesting that just because something was done poorly in the past, you should just accept that that is the way you will do things till the end of time?
flask of ripe urine
pressed to bsd lips
bsd drink up
He's the creative director of Silver Orange, a company with a great track record for producing highly usable designs. They recently got noticed (again) for another outstanding intranet design, and their e-commerce sites perform very well - funny, sales actually increase when you make sure "normal users" can figure out how to buy.
Even if we programmers don't give a damn about visual identity, it's nice to see designers worrying about such things and wanting to contribute - especially when they have a track record of making things nicer so more people use them.
While I'm commenting, I'd also like to recommend people check out the silverorange labs, currently featuring some cool simple CSS tabs.
Now if only we could get more PR people to donate their time to Mozilla...
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
We owe a lot to Mozilla. Before Mozilla I was stuck using slow and buggy as Netscape 4.7, remember that piece of crap? Now I use epiphany a GTK2/Gnome2 front end to Gecko and I couldn't be happier, webpages load, they load quickly, and they load correctly. When people ask me if they should use linux the first questions is, what kind of webbrowser is there if IE doesn't work on it. I personally thing Mozilla is one of the best open source projects ever.
Popping up a box for every site that wants to store a cookie on your system (even if you select always allow/deny) is really overkill. It's annoying for a typical end-user and, for the most part, unnecessary.
Just set Mozilla to only accept cookies from the originating website and disable them in mail and newsgroups. This kills the annoying "track you across websites" type of cookie by random 3rd parties serving ads and those used by webbugs. It leaves the cookies set by the visitted website alone (and do you really care if PC Magazine knows you just visitted yesterday).
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Definitely, I've seen firebird spreading slowly but surely to everyone I know, whether online or in person. It's overtaken at least 10 of my acquantances in the past few months, and it just keeps going.
When are the developers going to get it? Their whole thing with trying to subvert the native OS GUI is a dumb idea. Mozilla internally is getting better, really becoming a good product. But the GUI is so bad I only use Mozilla as a backup. If it was as good or even close to Safari I'd switch every now and then because it usually renders better and quicker. It is just so ugly. No matter what the platform. Linuxheads need to "get" the GUI and especially the philosophy of KISS and ease-of-use. The other issue is RAM usage. Mozilla is bloated. They are going to separate the parts soon but this is long overdue.
What do you think?
If they are looking for good global branding, don't they realize everbody in Japan calls it Mojeera?
Okay, it wasn't that funny anyway, but I couldn't resist.
Looks good for your age..
Branding mozilla products is absolutely a relevant and great idea, and I have some lengthy thoughts.
Designing brand elements (name, logo, and slogan) for a particular product should be evaluated from a corporate level. The Mozilla Foundation's stand-alone products can be branded separately so that each has its own unique brand elements. However, they should share some common elements to reflect their associations with the Foundation and to collectively define the identity of the Foundation.
The Foundation is relative difficult to be branded since its value is intangible, and general consumers will have difficulties in associating the value with their over-commercialized life. Thus instead of branding the Foundation, we could utilize each product to define one aspect of the Foundation's values, create common elements consistently hold across all the products, and link the common elements to the Foundation.
For example, for Mozilla Thunderbird, I would pick the M icon as background and add the mail icon (or simply the word "mail") on top of it. Similarly, all the products' logos will have the same neat M as background, while each of them have clear words or pictorial stuff that communicate what product category it's in. Those icons with flame inside are beautiful, but they don't communicate clearly what product category Thunderbird is in. They could be ideal logos if some marketing communication programs are designed and deployed to help consumers associate the flame with the concept of email client.
Now, these products collectively define a set of Internet tools such as a browser and an email client. Moreover, they are strongly correlated in both visual effect (the M in common) and intangible value (freedom, quality, and innovation). The next step is to link them to the Mozilla Foundation by making the M the Foundation's logo. As a result, Mozilla Foundation will convey meanings to consumers that it's about innovation, freedom, and quality. Any product properly associated with the Foundation will deliver that message as well.
I'm reasonably geeky - thats important for my point. Although Mozilla isn't my default browser, it's on my systems for when I'm testing sites etc... - my default isn't IE either, its Opera. Mozilla still feels too clunky for me to use it, and Opera imo is much more refined and things are where I'd expect them to be. When I went to update it a while ago... I was presented with Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird on the front page, along side the standard Mozilla. Which confused me a hell of a lot, as I don't keep up with Mozilla's activity in any real detail, so having 3 applications really puzzled me. So, I just went and downloaded the normal Mozilla application not knowning what the other 2 were. It wasn't really until a few days ago that I found out what the hell they were. And I'm reasonably geeky! Mozilla's site etc... all seems to be geared for geek's who'll know what Mozilla Thunderbird etc... is and what it does. Adding a few universal icons and getting a good brand won't get more users. I'm reasonably geeky, but I didn't know what the hell they were. How will the average joe public know? The whole Mozilla idea needs to be looked at - and decided whether it's geeks or your average joe bloggs orientated. It can't be both. Until Mozilla's site is streamlined, and normal average people can go, download mozilla, and then leave without being presented with the entire developement tree, without the standalone versions of the mozzila app's confusing them, and then WITH universal branding and tidying up of the interface; Mozilla will be no better off than it is now.
Smartfilter censorware blocks access to the site. Obviously my employer doesn't want me viewing hot open-source browser-on-browser action.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I have recently searched for a new up to date browser to test some stuff on windows.
:=)
I end up downloading
- netscape 7.1
- mozilla
- firebird
and you know what: netscape look closer to mozilla that mozilla to firebird
you don't know what product you have and you end up loosing yourself.
my opinion on your document: GOOD, fantastic marvelous: I just hope people will follow it
I recently switched to Mozilla frustrated by the serious security problems in IE. My sister's machine got hacked by a trojan which took me 3 hours to figure out and fix. This wasn't the fault of her not updating thou. Patches at the time didn't exist and the solution was to halariously just shutdown scripting in IE. If you want to make Mozilla popular amoung general users tell them that so far it hasn't been seriously hacked and that once installed and setup it will it will run for months without needing yet another windows update every week which in some cases won't even save your system from harm. The popup blocking and other neat features are nice but it's the fact that once setup it's very trouble free that impresses people. The only trouble I've had with Mozilla is it can be a little bit of challenge to install the Sun Java Plugin.
I have found a bug on Mozilla 1.5.
If you go to This Page, This Page, This Page, and This Page with Mozilla 1.5, Windows' version, you will see that Mozilla doesn't display the entire message.
However, if you use the Opera Browser, version 7.20 (win version) or MS IE, on the same pages, you will see that Opera and IE display the pages without any error.
I want to know if this bug have been filed or not. If no, please tell me the best way to file the bug report.
Thank you !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Nice article. Mozilla org. work towards Firebird 2.0, although any development for Mozilla in general is great!
Aviation Art
Looking at your previous posts, it is apparent that you're a massively spiteful and destructive dickhead. You contribute nothing, you help nothing. You leave the world worse than you found it. You make it your mission to attack anything that is open-source and praise anything that is closed-source. You attack the underdogs and praise the unethical. You are such an asshole your posts should come with a warning label so the newbies will know you're completely full of shit and are out to demoralize everybody who tries to create something. I hope your family hates you because of your horrible spineless whoring attitude and your undeserved superiority complex. You need to stop posting and try to become a human being again. Really.
I've lost my account settings (and all of my email) twice now. Do not use Mozilla mail!!! I don't know how it loses its settings, but there's no archiving feature either.