Mozilla unveils new logo, font, and design

[Sailfish]

REF://
http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/

[excerpt quote=\"
Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
refresh.
\" /]

I'm sorry but ... #meh

--
Sailfish
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex

[Wolf K.]

On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
> refresh.
> \" /]
>
> I'm sorry but ... #meh

The story says this mess was voted on.

Who the f%*k got to vote?

Yuck.

--
Wolf K.
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Wolf K. graced us with on 1/18/2017
1:39 PM:

> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF://
>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>> refresh.
>> \" /]
>>
>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>
> The story says this mess was voted on.
>
> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>
> Yuck.
>

The same ones who voted that it was a good idea to rebrand both;
Personas to Themes and Themes to Complete Themes? :-)

[WaltS48]

On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF://
>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>> refresh.
>> \" /]
>>
>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>
>
> The story says this mess was voted on.
>
> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>
> Yuck.
>

I guess those of us who follow the Mozilla Blog posts and the Planet feeds.

At one time I recall users complained that they had no say, or that
Mozilla never informed them.

Then somebody tried posting things they might like to be informed about.

Then they complained about that.

YMMV

--
Visit Pittsburgh <http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/>
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

[Ed Mullen]

On 1/18/2017 at 4:23 PM, Sailfish's prodigious digits fired off:

> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
> refresh.
> \" /]
>
> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>

Harsher reaction but, hey, in this forum, I'm exercising restraint. Let
just say:

#alonglistofexpletivesdeleted

Idiots.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move the bodies.

[Mark12547]

In article <tfSdnU7AYu3Xsx3F...@mozilla.org>,
ejEM...@edmullen.net says...

> Harsher reaction but, hey, in this forum, I'm exercising restraint. Let
> just say:
>
> #alonglistofexpletivesdeleted
>
> Idiots.
>
>

Yes. It looks like something I would have expected from the early days
of the world wide web.

Between Thunderbird leaving Moz://a and the aggressive attempt of
Moz://a to get Firefox caught up to Google Chrome (and right now I am
using Google Chrome at least until Moz://a catches up), I am not
convinced that Moz://a will be in my future.

And the new logo definitely doesn't give me any warm fuzzies. :(

[Ron Hunter]

On 1/18/2017 3:23 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
> refresh.
> \" /]
>
> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>

I guess it is better than a green dinosaur.. Or not.

[Daniel]

On 19/01/2017 10:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
>> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF://
>>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>>
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>>> refresh.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>>
>>
>> The story says this mess was voted on.
>>
>> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>>
>> Yuck.
>>
>
>
> I guess those of us who follow the Mozilla Blog posts and the Planet feeds.
>
> At one time I recall users complained that they had no say, or that
> Mozilla never informed them.
>
> Then somebody tried posting things they might like to be informed about.
>
> Then they complained about that.
>
> YMMV
>

Gee! I wonder who that "somebody" was, ah, Walt! ;-P

Daniel

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.38 Build identifier: 20150903203501

[Daniel]

"Thunderbird leaving Moz://a" .... Hmm!! Not the way I remember it!

[Jeff Layman]

On 18/01/17 21:23, Sailfish wrote:
> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
> refresh.
> \" /]
>
> I'm sorry but ... #meh

Well, the :// idea isn't too bad, but the Zilla font? Of course we need
another font which doesn't distinguish between lower case letter l and
the numeral 1.

On the latter point, why are there two separate sets of numbers?

--

Jeff

[PietB]

Wolf K. wrote:
> The story says this mess was voted on.
> Who the f%*k got to vote?

Trump: vote-by-tweet.

-p

[PietB]

Sailfish wrote:
> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/

Try moz://a in your browser and have fun.

-p

[WaltS48]

On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:

> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF://
>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>> refresh.
>> \" /]
>>
>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>
>
> The story says this mess was voted on.
>
> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>
> Yuck.
>

Which one would you have voted for?

> Here’s what we’d like you to do, if you’re up for it. Have a look at the seven options and tell us what you think. To make comments about an individual direction and to see its full system, click on its image below.


<https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/now-for-the-fun-part/>

I liked The Eye, but you know some would have complained about any choice.

All the blog posts are here if anyone cares to follow along.

<https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/>

But as we have seen with 2.8 million US voters. Our votes don't count. 💩

[Disaster Master]

On 1/19/2017, 7:48:32 AM, WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaim.com> wrote:
> But as we have seen with 2.8 million US voters. Our votes don't count. 💩

They count, you just lost. Big time.

[Desiree]

Already tried that...DuckDuckGo has no idea what to do with it. The
search results are hilarious.

[WaltS48]

That's bug 1331968.

[Wolf K.]

On 2017-01-19 07:48, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
>> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF://
>>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>>
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>>> refresh.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>>
>> The story says this mess was voted on.
>>
>> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>>
>> Yuck.
>>
>
> Which one would you have voted for?

[...]


I didn't see any of them. Where would I have seen them? Etc.

[WaltS48]

On 01/19/2017 09:38 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 07:48, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>>>> REF://
>>>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>>>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>>>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>>>> refresh.
>>>> \" /]
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>>>
>>> The story says this mess was voted on.
>>>
>>> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>>>
>>> Yuck.
>>>
>>
>> Which one would you have voted for?
>
> [...]
>
>
> I didn't see any of them. Where would I have seen them? Etc.
>

I put two links in the post that you chose to snip.

The first one is the one you want.

The second is the whole story.

First site I've seen the new logo.

<https://discourse.mozilla-community.org>

[Wolf K.]

On 2017-01-19 09:47, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 01/19/2017 09:38 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
>> On 2017-01-19 07:48, WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 01/18/2017 04:39 PM, Wolf K. wrote:
>>>> On 2017-01-18 16:23, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>> REF://
>>>>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>>>> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
>>>>> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
>>>>> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
>>>>> refresh.
>>>>> \" /]
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry but ... #meh
>>>>
>>>> The story says this mess was voted on.
>>>>
>>>> Who the f%*k got to vote?
>>>>
>>>> Yuck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which one would you have voted for?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> I didn't see any of them. Where would I have seen them? Etc.
>>
>

> I put two links in the post that you chose to snip. [...]

I snipped it because it's no longer relevant. Unless you can point to a
website that enables time travel.

Have a good day,

[rebro]

Do you mean moz://a in f:refox? ;-)

[Mark12547]

In article <IIWdnb-8VZ7SCh3F...@mozilla.org>,
www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid says...

> Try moz://a in your browser and have fun.
>
>

There is an extension for that!

"moz://a protocol handler"
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/moz-a-protocol-handler

After that extension is installed, one can key in either of these two
URLs as the address to go to:

moz://a -> Mozilla home page

moz://a/firefox -> Firefox home page.

However, that extension is NOT flagged as compatible with
multiprocessing, at least according to the "Add-on Compatibility
Reporter".

[PietB]

Mark12547 wrote:

> PietB wrote:
>> Try moz://a in your browser and have fun.
>
> There is an extension for that!
>
> "moz://a protocol handler"
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/moz-a-protocol-handler

That was to be expected: add-ons to unscrew what's screwed up.

-p

[The Real Bev]

On 01/18/2017 01:23 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF://
> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Mozilla today revamped its “brand identity”: a new logo, font, color
> palette, language architecture, and imagery. This is the first time the
> company, first founded in February 1998, has done such thorough brand
> refresh.
> \" /]
>
> I'm sorry but ... #meh

How do these people convince themselves that shit like this is important
enough to spend any time at all on, much less brag about?

When I first started working at CSC in 1978 the logo was a simple red (I
think) CSC in a nice Times Roman font to match the official company
typeface, which was the weighted proportional font on IBM Executive
typewriters. Beautiful typeface. I turned out some brochures that
looked liked they could have been typeset. Pay no mind to the fact that
it was no longer possible to find somebody who could fix an IBM
Executive typewriter -- I almost cried when I found that out.

Then it was decided that they needed to modernize the logo. They hired
some firm of graphic designers to come up with something worth what they
were paid to do. The new logo was heralded with much pomp and
circumstance, even though it resembled nothing so much as a set of red
plumbing elbows assembled to form a CSC.

Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this shit is important?

AND you'd think the text of the Mozilla announcement would have been
written in the new font (typeface, actually, but who's counting?) rather
than whatever sans-serif font was actually used, but NOOOO.

--
Cheers, Bev
Children, your performance was miserable. Your parents will
all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less.

[Mark12547]

In article <Oq-dnf7sLYA-9hzF...@mozilla.org>, bashley101
+m...@gmail.com says...
> Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this [stuff] is
> important?
>

(Stronger word was originally used in place of [stuff].)

Well, it's not like they need to pour resources into closing the 5-year
head-start Google Chrome had on Firefox to multiprocess, to better
utilize the processing power of multi-core processors.

And it's not like they have to reverse the 7-year slide of Firefox
market share on desktop computers.

And it's not like they are tight on money, and it was just out of good
will that they had recently sent me an email with an opportunity to
donate to their work.

So why not spend time and valuable money coming up with a new logo that
reminds me of a throwback to 1990s and the early days of http:// (or was
that moz://a)?

Of course it is important, so important that they even took the time to
create an extension to map moz://a and moz://a/firefox to their site!

New Firefox! New Moz://a! New Coke!

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Jeff Layman graced us with on
1/19/2017 12:37 AM:

Oh, but wait, the true horror is just now becoming clear.
Biggy REF:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/mozillans_call_for_new_moza_logo_to_actually_work_in_browsers/
itsy REF: http://tinyurl.com/hp2nol7

[excerpt quote=\"
Developers are sufficiently concerned about those outcomes to have added
a Bugzilla thread calling for Firefox to support the logo when typed
into the address bar.
\" /]

Not even "about:moz://a" returns DnD fantasy quip :-)

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what rebro graced us with on 1/19/2017
8:39 AM:

That'd rightly be F:refo/^h\ yes? :-D

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
1/19/2017 5:45 PM:

<snip interesting backstory />

>
> Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this shit is important?
>
> AND you'd think the text of the Mozilla announcement would have been
> written in the new font (typeface, actually, but who's counting?) rather
> than whatever sans-serif font was actually used, but NOOOO.
>

I agree and as to their stated purpose for the change:

"We want to be known as the champions for a healthy Internet. An
Internet where we are all free to explore and discover and create and
innovate without barriers or limitations. Where power is in the hands of
many, not held by few. An Internet where our safety, security and
identity are respected.

Today, we believe these principles matter more than ever. And as a
not-for-profit organization, we’re uniquely able to build products,
technologies, and programs that keep the Internet growing and healthy,
with individuals informed and in control of their online lives."

My guess is that those care about those goals will in a few months
forget that the significance of the logo had anything to do with
aforementioned goals. Now, if they had also introduced, or even just
announced, new features or services that were clear advancements toward
that stated goal, they it may have made more sense.

So, meh.

[Ant]

<https://www.google.com/search?q=moz%3A%2F%2Fa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial>
for Google results in my SeaMonkey v2.46 web browser. :P
--
"Ants. There's a size for every picnic, a colour for every occasion, and
a bite to let you know that they are there. Apart from the bite, that
could describe a Basenji pretty well." --Len Reddie
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.

[Ed Mullen]

On 1/19/2017 at 8:45 PM, The Real Bev's prodigious digits fired off:

Iremember them but what ever happened to CSC?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good!

[Ed Mullen]

On 1/20/2017 at 1:33 AM, Mark12547's prodigious digits fired off:

I'd like to teach the world to sing ...

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

"Computer Department: Mistakes made while you wait."

[Wolf K.]

On 2017-01-19 20:45, The Real Bev wrote:
[...]

> Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this shit is important?

[...]

They're business people. The kind that confuse style and substance. You
know, the kind who think that buying a $1,000 watch proves they have
superior taste.

[rebro]

Am 20.01.2017 um 07:37 schrieb Sailfish:
> My bloviated meandering follows what rebro graced us with on 1/19/2017
> 8:39 AM:
>> Am 19.01.2017 um 11:39 schrieb PietB:
>>> Sailfish wrote:
>>>> REF://
>>>> http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/18/mozilla-unveils-new-logo-font-and-design/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try moz://a in your browser and have fun.
>>>
>>> -p
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean moz://a in f:refox? ;-)
> That'd rightly be F:refo/^h\ yes? :-D
>

Thanks for the joy of enlightenment! :-D

[The Real Bev]

As far as I can tell, it's still around. I never regarded it as a
particularly good company in any way, I was just hired by somebody I
really liked, who ran the contracts before me. We still have lunch
every couple of years even 38 years later!

http://www.csc.com/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z2JMwpQzN1g/TgJo5JaLyAI/AAAAAAAAXWU/BLccKyeebIg/s1600/CSC_logo9.gif

I ran the CSC contracts at JPL, which sounds a lot grander than it
actually was. Mostly HR functions (but not that shitty HR attitude) and
persuading the powers that be that NO goddammit we couldn't apportion
raises in the usual on-the-curve way -- anybody that JPL kept (all they
had to do to get rid of a contractor was say "Your contract is
terminated" without having to do any of that nasty paperwork that the
EEOC demands) had to be in the top 10% and everybody who survived
deserved a damn good raise. I could only get a few each time, and they
mostly went to the smartest highest-paid people, which caused a LOT of
resentment among the rest.

Nobody fought for me, of course. I was sad, but also glad, when I was
finally terminated for insubordination!

--
Cheers, Bev
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter." - Churchill

[The Real Bev]

On 01/20/2017 07:16 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 20:45, The Real Bev wrote:
> [...]
>> Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this shit is important?
>

> They're business people. The kind that confuse style and substance. You
> know, the kind who think that buying a $1,000 watch proves they have
> superior taste.

Superior? HAH. Not when REAL superior watches cost in the tens of
$thousands!

[Wolf K.]

On 2017-01-20 17:39, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 07:16 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
>> On 2017-01-19 20:45, The Real Bev wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Repeat: How do people convince themselves that this shit is important?
>>
>> They're business people. The kind that confuse style and substance. You
>> know, the kind who think that buying a $1,000 watch proves they have
>> superior taste.
>
> Superior? HAH. Not when REAL superior watches cost in the tens of
> $thousands!

That's not for the watch, that's for the bling that proves they
super-superior.

;-)