Firefox Icon Iteration 6 (getting close to final)
Alex Faaborg
iterations will be posted every 24 hours or so.
Feedback is of course welcome.
The icon is being rendered by Anthony Piraino at the Iconfactory. The
design has been influenced by a conceptual sketch by Jon Hicks, and a
conceptual render by Stephen Horlander.
==Background Information on the Project==
Creative Brief
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/15/creative-brief-for-the-new-firefox-icon/
Evolving a Product Brand
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/14/evolving-a-product-brand/
Thinking about Refreshing the Firefox Icon
http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/06/thinking-about-refreshing-the-firefox-icon/
Peter Lairo
- the "fur" on the neck should be *similar* to the fur on the tail. The
neck's fur is more pointy and narrow, whereas on the tail it's thicker.
That seems a bit incongruous.
- The water covers the planet *vertically*. That just seems wrong. Most
planets rotate horizontally, and the water (on earth) just doesn't look
"vertical"
(http://images.google.de/images?q=earth&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi).
- 3D effect: The head doesn't look *as hovering* (3D-ish) over the
planet as the tail does. Perhaps because the tail wraps around the globe
and the head doesn't.
- The bright (lit) circle on the top 1/3 of the globe is fine, but the
dark 2/3 looks too dark. And having two "circles" (the globe itself and
the bright part) with differing radii looks distracting.
- The bright (lit) circle has an even brighter frame at the top that
looks like it should be the "atmosphere" but the globe's radius and thus
the atmosphere is actually the dark "wedge". It would be better to have
a bright "glowing" atmosphere.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
The browser you can trust: www.Firefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
"So, why don't we ever talk about the sun's contribution to global
warming? Well, because we can't regulate it, tax it, or make it feel
guilty for what it's doing" (www.WhatYouOughtToKnow.com)
Mike Shaver
> - The water covers the planet *vertically*. That just seems wrong. Most
> planets rotate horizontally, and the water (on earth) just doesn't look
> "vertical"
> (http://images.google.de/images?q=earth&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi).
Hydrologic plausibility is a non-goal, and the planet isn't supposed
to be Earth.
I continue to be impressed by the attention to detail, though!
Mike
Bill Barry
then this one long tuft of fir that appears just too long starts.
Perhaps if that little tuft tucked away underneath it starting at 6
o'clock went over top of the long one it might look better.
- The tufts that go around the planet seem too sharp on edge.
- The two claw tufts at the end are still curved a bit too much, like
they are almost going to scratch the globe. Would it be better if the
top one ran to the edge of the globe and the bottom curved just a little
less?
- On the globe just above the fox's head there is a light landmass, then
a very light arc, then a dark thinning arc. While I understand the dark
edge (without it, the ice at the top would appear to leak out into
space), the light arc almost makes it seem like there is this gigantic
cliff on the landmass which is catching all the light, like that section
of landmass is inset from the rest of the planet. The graphic designer
in me understands the intended affect, but the rest of me can't get out
of the notion that it looks like someone took a scalpel and sliced off a
layer of the globe.
(on another note, as an avid reader of your blog: the awesomebar is not
an ambiguous win, it is a 100% directly unambiguous win, imitated now in
other browsers [to various degrees of success; IE8 still sucks] and
unconsciously depended upon by every Firefox user I have met since its
release: this is the best kind of win of all. I imagine that if you were
to remove it people would feel like they have lost a limb; I know I would.)
Alex Faaborg wrote:
> Note: this is a draft icon rendering for Firefox 3.5, subsequent
> iterations will be posted every 24 hours or so.
>
> http://people.mozilla.com/~faaborg/files/20090522-firefoxIconIteration6/shiretokoFirefoxIcon-i6.png_large.png
>
>
> Feedback is of course welcome.
>
> The icon is being rendered by Anthony Piraino at the Iconfactory. The
> design has been influenced by a conceptual sketch by Jon Hicks, and a
> conceptual render by Stephen Horlander.
>
> ==Background Information on the Project==
>
> Creative Brief
> http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/15/creative-brief-for-the-new-firefox-icon/
>
>
> Evolving a Product Brand
> http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/14/evolving-a-product-brand/
>
> Thinking about Refreshing the Firefox Icon
> http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2009/05/06/thinking-about-refreshing-the-firefox-icon/
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Peter Lairo
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Peter Lairo<Pe...@lairo.com> wrote:
>> - The water covers the planet *vertically*. That just seems wrong. Most
>> planets rotate horizontally, and the water (on earth) just doesn't look
>> "vertical"
>> (http://images.google.de/images?q=earth&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi).
>
> Hydrologic plausibility is a non-goal, and the planet isn't supposed
> to be Earth.
I don't know what "plausibility" is supposed to mean here. I do know
it's not supposed to *be* earth, but isn't is supposed to *symbolize*
earth? It should at least *feel* familiar, and definitely not be alienating.
BTW: "Hydrologic plausibility" made me laugh. :-D
Dao
> - On the globe just above the fox's head there is a light landmass, then
Yeah. Something doesn't feel right there. I definitely prefer Jon Hicks'
globe from last year, which seems to be based on the same idea, but
better executed. So I'd like to see a straight adaption of that, only
with more natural land masses (as in the current Firefox icon).
Justin Dolske
>>> - The water covers the planet *vertically*. That just seems wrong. Most
>>> planets rotate horizontally, and the water (on earth) just doesn't look
>>> "vertical"
>>
>> Hydrologic plausibility is a non-goal, and the planet isn't supposed
>> to be Earth.
>
> I don't know what "plausibility" is supposed to mean here. I do know
> it's not supposed to *be* earth, but isn't is supposed to *symbolize*
> earth? It should at least *feel* familiar, and definitely not be
> alienating.
Dear god. Now I know how Star Trek actors must feel at conventions with
rabid fans.
Justin
Alex Faaborg
Thanks for the feedback!
-Alex
Alex Faaborg
> with rabid fans.
I'm going to find it hard to do a Shatner impersonation in email, but
"feedback... is. the very lifeblood.. of design"
:)
Chris Hofmann
Stardate 20090522.1029
Planet earth?
http://www.actsofvolition.com/archive/2004/february/brandingmozilla#comment18185
or
Planet Unicorn? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-WFEwIfQE
The debate rages on...
-chofmann
Alex Faaborg wrote:
>> Dear god. Now I know how Star Trek actors must feel at conventions
>> with rabid fans.
>
> I'm going to find it hard to do a Shatner impersonation in email, but
> "feedback... is. the very lifeblood.. of design"
>
> :)
>
>
> On May 22, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>