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
Though, yes brand name recongition helps with any such advertising, of course.
"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).
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.
...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.
A stack of reasons - mostly relating to adoption within the workplace. As soon as I fire up Mozilla in front of a newbie they comment along the lines of 'playing games huh' or similar.
Im not suggesting the monster gets replaced with some prick with a laptop looking serious while rubbing his chin as his foxy secretary takes notes in their walnut and leather office - but something a little more businessy wouldn't hurt.
Branding gives you things to hang onto. Some people like their jeans more because missy elliot wears then (or says she wears them). I'd like Mozilla more if I didnt look like a dinosaur geek everytime it starts up.
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.
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.
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
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
But really, at this point, why bother?
...
I build systems for various people and there are some things that has prevented mozilla from becoming the default browser on these systems. For mozilla to become mainstream, it needs (but not limited to):
1) Favorites - in Win2K or XP, why can't it just use my IE favorites? It isn't like they are hidden... they are there in plain sight in their own folder under %USERPROFILE%\%USERNAME%\FAVORITES. If people are to "migrate" they might have to occasionally use "that other browser". Consolidated favorites helps that along...
2) Feel - face it - mozilla just doesn't "feel" like a Windows program. I can't drag and drop the toolbars around and then lock them down like I can in IE (there might be a way to do it, but I haven't found it). If someone could just make mozilla "feel" like IE, we'd have infinitely more users out there. Not only because it would be one less thing to learn, but because people simply wouldn't notice that they were using "something different" which is generally a no-no for non-techies. Heck, I'm a techie and I've found that I don't like using mozilla for this reason. I just don't have the time anymore.
Bah... I could go on but mozilla is for geeks right now. The DOJ has blessed system builders with the complete ability to hide IE as an internet browser. If someone could just make something similar to IE but without all the monopoly shit, millions of PCs could be deployed with a real browser. Until then, I'll keep letting IE fly on the systems that I build.
PS - a really cool unrelated idea that I have thought of would be a spyware/adware/scumware blocker for non-techies who don't know when to click yes/no. If mozilla implemented such a feature, a flock of elected geeks could vote on which software/applets could get installed and which ones would not (or which ones make it to a user prompt). Non-techie end-users could have the option to turn on this "geek wall" and prevent their systems from being infiltrated by the world's best scum. Until then, I'm happy to charge $50/hr to remove this stuff.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
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/
Coca-cola
Redhat
Target
Lucent Technologies
Pizza Hut
KFC
yeah, no big players there.
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
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.
based on past history ;)
as opposed to future history
sorry I couldn't resist.
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!"
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
The AT&T logo is a good example of branding. Show the globe part of the logo to people and most of them will know it's AT&T. The same goes for the Coca-Cola "wave" and the Nike check mark. Those are brands.
The most important part of branding is consistency. When I look at the linux penguin I think of Linux. That doesn't happen when I look at other penguins. It's not going to happen for the averge person either and that's the person you want to target. For people to associate Linux with that penguin, they have to see that pengiun image and hear about Linux at the same time, over and over and over again. The same thing needs to happen with Mozilla. There needs to be an official logo and it needs to be used on everything. The average joe needs to be able to look at that logo and think Mozilla.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
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
The imported favorites are a copy of your IE favorites, copied into your Mozilla profile. If you add new favorites with IE after importing, Mozilla doesn't know about them. New bookmarks added from Mozilla don't show up in IE either.
You've hit the nail on the head!
I've been using Mozilla Firebird (Phoenix as it was known back then) since the day I saw it announced on slashdot. The 0.1 release became my default browser within minutes of installing it.
If the Mozilla team are as dedicated as they sound about making the browser feel like part of the host OS, then hopefully they will address this problem. Windows has a directory for favorites that is integrated into the shell. You click on the start menu, favourites is listed. Why can't mozilla make use of this facility? This is my #1 gripe with the browser.
I've deployed Firebird to all the public access computers at the university I'm a sys admin at - it wasn't requested, I did it because I love Firebird so much that I wan't others to see it, use it, love it and install it on their own computers. But I suspect that students simply won't use it, because with IE, we can redirect the favorites folder to a network location so that favorites follow the users to which ever machine they decide to log on to, thanks to a simple group policy setting. Does this work in mozilla? Not the way the bookmarks work at the moment.
And why does Firebird (and Mozilla) create a profile within a profile? What is the point of that? I've not found a way for a single user to create multiple profiles for themeselves, the Firebird team may not realise but this really makes deploying Firebird to large (windows) networks a very time consuming and difficult process.
Favorites go here "%userprofile%\favorites"
User config goes here "HKEY_CURRENT_USER"
User setting overridden by global settings found in here "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE"
This is the way applications should work under windows OS's. Dear Firebird team, please fix this.