MozillaZine

Mozilla Branding and Visual Identity Proposal

Thursday October 23rd, 2003

Steven Garrity has written a proposal for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundation and its products. The document, which does not necessarily reflect current mozilla.org thinking, recommends dropping the red Mozilla dragon head, clairifying the names of the various products, bumping the version number up to 2.0 when the switch to standalone applications takes place and making the icons more consistent. The Mozilla branding strategy and the Mozilla trademark policy give some insights into the Mozilla Foundation's plans for the Mozilla brand but note that both documents are currently under review and are likely to change in the future.

Thanks to Slashdot for alerting us to Steven's proposal.


#1 Whatever

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday October 23rd, 2003 10:01 PM

Reply to this message

This seems good.

#2 speaking of slashdot...

by an_mo

Thursday October 23rd, 2003 10:42 PM

Reply to this message

the mozilla.org sidebox syndication in slashdot seems to be stuck in the 1.4 era

#3 Re: speaking of slashdot...

by MozSaidAloha

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:16 AM

Reply to this message

I'm thinking the new mozilla.org website broke /.'s mozilla.org RSS feed.

#4 Good

by wvw

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:18 AM

Reply to this message

Good article!

#5 Worth considering - esp. the plea for 2.0

by masi

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

A good article, which many points valid for app design in general.

And I stronly agree on calling the suite 2.0 rather than 1.x.

#12 Re: Worth considering - esp. the plea for 2.0

by jgraham

Friday October 24th, 2003 5:58 AM

Reply to this message

> And I stronly agree on calling the suite 2.0 rather than 1.x.

Listen. People keep saying "bump the version number to 2.0 because the suite is (eventually) disappearing and we want people to know there's a new product". However, such a suggestion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that version numbering should work in a post-seamonkey era. You can view the code output of Mozilla.org as two seperate parts - the backend code that is common to all applications (i.e. the GRE plus a few other bits), and the front end code that is application specific (i.e. the Firebird frontend, the Thunderbird frontend, and so on). Traditionally (i.e. in seamonkey), these bits of code have always been developed and released concurrently and so the version number for the frontend and the backend was always the same, at least for the core components (note however that Seamonkey 1.5 comes with chatzilla 0.9.{something}). In a world where seamonkey is no longer being developed*, there is a much greater distinction between the backend code and the frontend products. In particular, they do not have simulatneous relaeses and have not been developed for the same length of time. The backend code retains the seamonkey version number e.g. 1.6a at present. Since the backend code is for developer use, it has developer naming conventions, in particular a major version number change occurs to indicate incompatible API changes. The frontend code can have version numbers that are totally independent of the backend code version numbers e.g. Firebird has reached 0.7 and Thunderbird has reached release 0.3. So saying that we should bump the backend version number to 2.0 to indidate the fact that the *birds have reached 1.0 seems perverse.

Now you could argue that when Mozilla browser and Mozilla mail** reach a stable status (i.e. they are no longer billed 'Technology previews'), they should have their version numbers bumped to 2.0 to distinguish them from the Seamonkey frontend which will still be at version 1.something (having the same version number as the backend for the historical reasons mentioned), or maybe bundled together and marketed as "Mozilla Internet Suite 2.0 (based on Gecko version 1.something)". However no one actually seems to be suggesting that - everyone is saying that the 1.something version of the backend should be changed, which makes no sense at all.

*This world seems increasingly unlikely to exist anytime in the near future, but lets assume that, even if Seamonkey is being developed, it is not being promoted to end users, which seems more likely.

**These names also look increasingly unlikely (although I don't have much evidence for that staement)

#13 Clear and simple versioning

by Malc

Friday October 24th, 2003 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

No, there should be a Mozilla 2.0 Suite that bundles the components and replaces the current monolithic app. Having version numbers all of the place for different components confuses the end-user. You want separate version for the components in development tree? Fine. But for clear branding and productisation of the Mozilla Suite, everything needs to appear under the same banner.

That's Mozilla Suite 2.0 which includes Mozilla Browser 2.0, Mozilla Mail/New 2.0, Mozilla Chat 2.0, Mozilla Composer 2.0, Mozilla Calendar 2.0, etc., even if that's based on the development versions of Mozilla Firebird 1.9, Mozilla Thunderbird 1.1, Composer++ 0.8, [Gecko 3.1???] etc.

#25 Re: Clear and simple versioning

by tniem

Friday October 24th, 2003 9:12 AM

Reply to this message

Why not a MS approach? Call it Mozilla Brower 2004 or Gold version or something snappy. That way the end user does not have to see what developement version it is, they just get the nice markatable name?

#26 Re: Clear and simple versioning

by jgraham

Friday October 24th, 2003 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

Clear and simple is fine. I should say, however, that I can see no evidence there will be a post seamonkey 'suite' in the sense of 'single download that provides a number of applications'; instead there will be a set of complementary applications from which the user may pick those that he needs. In that sense a "suite" version number is not needed. I also think those looking for a unified naming scheme over this set of applications would be much better of pursuing a path that doesn't lead to artificially high "version" numbers - for example a naming scheme (Mozilla Browser 2004 or whatever). It is pretty clear that most people involved in the project dislike version numbers undergoing inflation without solid technical reasons. Having said that, the way the project works, it's hard to imagine how name based numbering would work - few companies that employ such a scheme release nightly builds and 3-4 major point releases in a year.

#30 Re: Re: Clear and simple versioning

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Friday October 24th, 2003 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

> I can see no evidence there will be a post seamonkey 'suite' in the sense of > 'single download that provides a number of applications'

That has always been the plan. The suite will continue, it will just be the components that will change. When installing the suite, you'll be able to pick which component you want to install. In addition, although THIS is not quite so clear, the components will also be made available as stand-alone products. Therefore, there IS a need to have a clearly identifiable number that corresponds to the suite itself.

#34 Re: Re: Re: Clear and simple versioning

by jgraham

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

Where does it say that? The development roadmap certianly doesn't make it clear that the applications will be bundled togather in one tarball*.

*OK, zip or installer if you like. But tarball sounds better.

#31 Re: Re: Clear and simple versioning

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Friday October 24th, 2003 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

To be pefectly clear about this: Mozilla != Seamonkey.

#46 Re: Re: Worth considering - esp. the plea for 2.0

by twifkak

Monday October 27th, 2003 12:43 PM

Reply to this message

>Listen. Okay...

>...at all. I don't think people are going to want to "upgrade" from Mozilla 1.6 to Mozilla 1.0. /That's/ the problem.

#6 Good article

by Phobeus <Phobeus@gmx.de>

Friday October 24th, 2003 1:43 AM

Reply to this message

In fact a really good article, interesting in reading. I completly agree with the autor and think that there is still a lot of work to do, do make it more attractive to the end-users. They often get easily irrtated now... :-/

#7 My twopence worth

by tobypowell

Friday October 24th, 2003 2:57 AM

Reply to this message

I think this article has some strong points, especially re: version 2.0.

I also believe that a grouped branding approach would be nice, as demonstrated on the view onf the windows XP start screen... I suggest a globe with the firebird red bird in front of it as a starting point.

However, I think one of the MOST important things that the mozilla project is missing as a whole (with the sole exception (here's the disclaimer) _in my experience_ of Netscape 6 / 7 ) is that the procedure to download a simple plugin like Flash is way beyond the likes of Granny Brown. While Using IE a message pops up saying "click here to download the latest version", whereas I've never found it that simple in Mozilla (esp as my FB is REFUSING to play flash atm. GRRRR). Perhaps this problem lies with the vendors (Quicktime et al) but the biggest problem for hypothetical Granny Brown is that it doesn't *just work*

#14 Flash

by Malc

Friday October 24th, 2003 6:43 AM

Reply to this message

The problem with installing Flash is that it makes the browser restart. GRRRRRRR. Really irritating when you're in the middle of a dozen things, which is why I've been seeing pages that require Flash for 2 months now but haven't yet installed it...

#21 Re: Flash

by jrobbio

Friday October 24th, 2003 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Not if you install it with the xpi found at extensionroom.mozdev.org . They don't have the version 7 for it yet though.

Rob

#22 Re: Flash

by jrobbio

Friday October 24th, 2003 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Not if you install it with the xpi found at extensionroom.mozdev.org . They don't have the version 7 for it yet though.

Rob

#33 Re: Re: Flash

by tobypowell

Friday October 24th, 2003 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

"the xpi found at extensionroom.mozdev.org . "

My point entirely. How does Grandma Brown know that?

#23 Re: Flash

by doron

Friday October 24th, 2003 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

#28 Re: Re: Flash

by MTO

Friday October 24th, 2003 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

I agree on the plugins being a very important issue as well. I know some will not agree, but if we are targeting end-users, then Flash should be installed by default, or at least be prompted if they want to install it.

Ideally, it would prompt for installation of Flash and other media plugins such as RealAudio & Quicktime, for example.

As for that existing "flash.xpi", if it is hidden, in the sense that users dont even know such thing exists, it's like not having it... I think the best option would be to prompt plugin installations, or at the end of the browser installation (assuming it would have an installer in the future) it could show a start page showing where and how to install those.

#32 Re: Re: Re: Flash

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday October 24th, 2003 11:21 AM

Reply to this message

"As for that existing "flash.xpi", if it is hidden, in the sense that users dont even know such thing exists, it's like not having it..."

There's nothing to stop Macromedia from updating <http://www.macromedia.com…od_Version=ShockwaveFlash> so that it prompts users of Mozilla-based browsers to install an XPI, much like IE users get prompted to install an ActiveX control.

Alex

#40 Exactly

by adipose

Friday October 24th, 2003 5:25 PM

Reply to this message

There is an easy way to install flash on Fb, so what if it's obscure? The same is true of the way to install Flash on IE. The average user has no idea how to do either, but Macromedia+IE handles it for them. If Macromedia changed their page a little, Macromedia+Fb could handle it just as easily. This is the point of the XPI.

This "not just working" isn't a Fb problem per se., but Macromedia for not exploiting Fb's abilities properly. That said, it's perfectly understandable, as Fb doesn't have a huge market share.

-Dan

#8 My twopence worth

by tobypowell

Friday October 24th, 2003 3:00 AM

Reply to this message

I think this article has some strong points, especially re: version 2.0.

I also believe that a grouped branding approach would be nice, as demonstrated on the view onf the windows XP start screen... I suggest a globe with the firebird red bird in front of it as a starting point.

However, I think one of the MOST important things that the mozilla project is missing as a whole (with the sole exception (here's the disclaimer) _in my experience_ of Netscape 6 / 7 ) is that the procedure to download a simple plugin like Flash is way beyond the likes of Granny Brown. While Using IE a message pops up saying "click here to download the latest version", whereas I've never found it that simple in Mozilla (esp as my FB is REFUSING to play flash atm. GRRRR). Perhaps this problem lies with the vendors (Quicktime et al) but the biggest problem for hypothetical Granny Brown is that it doesn't *just work*

#24 Re: Flash

by doron

Friday October 24th, 2003 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has had this for years - <ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pu…ws/win32/jgksyc/flash.xpi> for example.

#9 maybe not so good?

by stvb <ste-ve@freenet.co.uk>

Friday October 24th, 2003 3:23 AM

Reply to this message

A well presented article but what looks good doesn't necessarily mean that the ideas are good.

For example the comment: "The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity."

On what basis is this comment made? The author's opinion? Someone else's opinion? mozilla.org's opinion?

It is annoying when points are made like this as though they are facts and not just opinions.

Because the author doesn't like the lizard logo there is no reason to replace it?

What evidence is shown in the article that the logo doesn't reach people other than the developer community or won't do so in the future. Yes it's not a brand like Nike that is recognised by millions of people but who is to say that one of the proposed logos is better than the current ones.

I'm not against people putting forward ideas just that their ideas be taken into perspective in that it is just one idea.

In my own case I think the current logos and release numbers are well thought out and don't need changing!

#10 Re: maybe not so good?

by tobypowell

Friday October 24th, 2003 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

I understand what you're saying regarding the logos being recognised in the future by other people, but I have a different reason why I think it might need changing.

I don't think it works very well at 16x16 or 32x32 pixels. The same is true of the *birds logos.

Having said that, Mozilla has been a lizard ever since the year . (NN3 about:mozilla et al) and I think that is a brand that could be built on, but I think it needs to be simplified if at all possible. Darnit I wish I could draw then I could better explain what I mean

#11 Re: maybe not so good?

by Ashato

Friday October 24th, 2003 4:23 AM

Reply to this message

You can't deny the lizard is inconsistent with the *birds icons set (flames). Now I think the author has a good point when stressing the importance of visual consistency between the apps ("stand alone, or together"). The *birds icons set are great, because they're different yet similar, just like the Office icons set. And they look cool, to me at least. I fail to understand, nevertheless, why the author recommands for Firebird a globe + F. What's the consistency with the recommanded Thunderbird icon? FWIW, I'd vote for a Mail icon with the enveloppe + blue pyre, and for a Web icon with the globe + red pyre.

I agree with the major version change as well. Sure, from a developper point of viex, the APIs won't change for the switch, but for your average Joe User like I am, it's a quite a change between SeaMonkey and the *birds. So why not have the things clarified?

Now, I'm not so enthusiatic about his propositions concerning the renaming of the birds. "Mozilla Mail" is a clean and simple name, agreed, but something itches about "Mozilla Browser". Why not "Mozilla Web" ? I mean, consistent names would be "Mozilla Mailreader" and "Mozilla Browser" *or* "Mozilla Mail" and "Mozilla Web", and I much prefer the second option.

#17 Re: maybe not so good?

by vicne

Friday October 24th, 2003 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

Because of the dispute it caused, I personally don't like the bird names (though I admit the ability to build many words with the same suffix is a good thing). I was thus surprised to see designers spend so much time tuning beautiful sets of icons representing no more than codenames. However, I don't see why the lizard/dinosaurus branding could not be used further. Regarding the consistency between Browser and Mail, I admit it's a bit strange and there seems to be no consensus to decide if it's best to name a software as a tool (Internet Explorer) or as an "concept" (Word). What makes Mozilla (and Netscape) special is only to use the object the application works upon ("Mail") as the software name (kind of "universality", as if you renamed Calculator "Numbers" or MS-Word "Text"). My feeling is that if consistency matters here (but does it ?), it would be more cleaner to use tool names. For example : Mozilla Browser, Mozilla Composer, Mozilla Reader (for Mail & News), Mozilla Organizer (for Calendar), Mozilla Debugger, (don't know for Chatzilla), etc. and the suite could then be ... Mozilla Communicator ? :-)

Anyway, I couldn't agree more that among the suite and its individual components : - The naming should be consistent (most probably everything beginning with Mozilla) - The look and feel should be consistent (application and document icons, theme, menus) - The version numbering should be consistent (be it 1.x or 2.0). (Remember the MS suite Word 6/Excel 5/Access 2 ? I don't advise switching to years numbering however :-))

But that's just my opinion, any comment is welcome of course...

#20 Re: Re: maybe not so good?

by kepardue

Friday October 24th, 2003 7:43 AM

Reply to this message

I personally like Mozilla Navigator and Mozilla Messenger, myself.

I don't care for Mozilla too much though. Gecko would be an awesome name for a browser. Not to mention fewer syllables so it would roll off the tongue much better. YES, I realize that Gekco is strictly the name of the underlying technology, but how cool would it be?

Maybe another lizard name... Ameiva? Sounds like a lot of technologically vague names for things. Ameiva Mail, Ameiva Browser... Ameiva Communicator. Oh well.

Ken

#18 Re: maybe not so good?

by vicne

Friday October 24th, 2003 7:36 AM

Reply to this message

Because of the dispute it caused, I personally don't like the bird names (though I admit the ability to build many words with the same suffix is a good thing). I was thus surprised to see designers spend so much time tuning beautiful sets of icons representing no more than codenames. However, I don't see why the lizard/dinosaurus branding could not be used further. Regarding the consistency between Browser and Mail, I admit it's a bit strange and there seems to be no consensus to decide if it's best to name a software as a tool (Internet Explorer) or as an "concept" (Word). What makes Mozilla (and Netscape) special is only to use the object the application works upon ("Mail") as the software name (kind of "universality", as if you renamed Calculator "Numbers" or MS-Word "Text"). My feeling is that if consistency matters here (but does it ?), it would be more cleaner to use tool names. For example : Mozilla Browser, Mozilla Composer, Mozilla Reader (for Mail & News), Mozilla Organizer (for Calendar), Mozilla Debugger, (don't know for Chatzilla), etc. and the suite could then be ... Mozilla Communicator ? :-)

Anyway, I couldn't agree more that among the suite and its individual components : - The naming should be consistent (most probably everything beginning with Mozilla) - The look and feel should be consistent (application and document icons, theme, menus) - The version numbering should be consistent (be it 1.x or 2.0). (Remember the MS suite Word 6/Excel 5/Access 2 ? I don't advise switching to years numbering however :-))

But that's just my opinion, any comment is welcome of course...

#15 Interesting (APOLOGIES FOR LENGTH)

by kepardue

Friday October 24th, 2003 6:50 AM

Reply to this message

Very interesting indeed. This article would assume, however, that equal work be placed on each of the stand alone components, which I honestly don't see happening. Work seems to be progressing relatively quickly on FB, but not as quickly on TB, and Calendar seems to be currently at a standstill. At the same time, work is still being done on the Mozilla suite. How much quickly could the suite be churned out if development just *stopped* on the seamonkey suite and focused on the new components that are recommended in the suite? (Browser, Mail, Calendar, Composer) That might put them out in late 2003 as opposed to early 2004. I know a lot of the fixes for seamonkey go into the *birds, but what's the point in fragmenting the thing further?

I definitely agree with the look and feel of the OS idea. As long as the core technology and rendering remains the same across the board and is completely cross platform, the user interface that delivers that to the user should be irrelevant to the actual browser program... which would mean that it *can* be changed to fit the needs of each OS.

As far as marketing goes, I agree with the comment that this individual doesn't have the right to say that Mozilla as a name works and the Lizard doesn't. Now, I /personally/ agree that the lizard doesn't work, and if it were up to me the name Mozilla would be written off as some overly-technical affectionate geek name that's too complicatedly silly for end users and not professioanl enough for business, AND that the *bird names NEED to go the way of the dodo in light of the originally planned Mozilla Mail/Mozilla Browser names--I think they'd have to for legal reasons, anyway... BUT that's my own personal opinion. *Lets out a breath of air for one dreadfully long run on sentence*

Has the Foundation considered hiring a third party for usability testing? Instead of making decisions about what they thing the user likes or not, actually getting the users' opinions? Would it not be worthwhile if they were to hire some company that would test the browser with just as many Granny Johnsons, as white collar business execs, as geeky high school/college kids, as middle-aged house wives? Let THEM dictate what works best for their operating system and needs. I don't see that happening though, because that philosophy means that the programmers' pride would be stomped, feelings hurt, and pet bugs/features could be ignored.

Also concerning visual appeal, I agree that the team should put more of a focus on works best for users. We went from drab, bulky, dead-body blue in seakmonkey to cartoonishly preschool in *bird. In fact, probably the best thing would be somewhere in between. But of course, don't take my word for it, that's what the usability group mentioned above would be for! Speaking for my own experience though, I for one have a fiancee that I can't for the life of me convince to switch from the big "e" because Mozilla looks too unappealing and *bird looks too colorfully amateur.

It would be a stroke of genius to integrate the visual look and feels of the separate components to each other, which in turn would integrate with the visual look and feel of the OS. It bothers me that Mozilla is becoming so fragmented even as it is pulling itself together into a legal organization, and look and feel is one of the biggest reasons. A unified visual is, IMHO, paramount in Mozilla succeeding. Just as equal is that the programs sing well together. Even if they are physically stand alone products, components from one need to be used in the other, and they need to be somewhat seamless from a user's perspective.

Look at other companies who have taken the same approach... Microsoft Office has a unified look and feel, very similar icons to one another, and in an even more broad case, Macromedia's MX suite programs all share a common icon/interface look and feel. There needs to be a better consensus of and attention to this from the point of view of marketing the browser to end users, much more than, "Hey Arvid, make something up for us."

I've been feeling pretty badly for the Mozilla organization lately, I feel as though I'm watching a child trying to grow up but is making a lot of mistakes along the way, some of which may potentially have serious consequences for the organization's product... but this article gives me a little hope. Okay, I think I'm done now. So very sorry for the length of the post.

Ken

#16 One other thing

by kepardue

Friday October 24th, 2003 7:01 AM

Reply to this message

An important thing to keep in mind for developing the look and feel of Mozilla (for the Windows OS) is the upcoming look and feel of the next version of windows: <http://winsupersite.com/reviews/#whistler>. Of course this is going to change, but it should serve as a general idea to the Mozilla team.

Ken

#19 Re: Interesting

by MarkHB

Friday October 24th, 2003 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

Re: "How much quickly could the suite be churned out if development just *stopped* on the seamonkey suite and focused on the new components that are recommended in the suite?" I've heard this before, and two things about it strike me. First, unpaid developers work on what they wish, so there is no way to "command" that work shift to the birds from seamonkey. Second, I'd like to point out that some of us out here in userland prefer the all-in-one monolithic process over the Birdland separated apps (and in my case, I mean "prefer" at the conceptual level -- it's not that there are particular things I don't like about the birds, it's that I like having all the apps in one process space).

Re: "I definitely agree with the look and feel of the OS idea. As long as the core technology and rendering remains the same across the board and is completely cross platform, the user interface that delivers that to the user should be irrelevant to the actual browser program... which would mean that it *can* be changed to fit the needs of each OS." The whole raison d'etre of XUL is that there aren't enough programmers interested in maintaining platform-specific front ends to keep parity. Perhaps it could be possible to define default skins on a per-platform basis, but even those need committed maintainers.

#27 Re: Re: Interesting

by jgraham

Friday October 24th, 2003 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

> The whole raison d'etre of XUL is that there aren't enough programmers interested in maintaining platform-specific front ends to keep parity.

Well, sort of. As I recall, the original reason for XUL was that maintaining platform specific front ends was difficult. However, XUL makes that a lot easier, particularly if you're looking at simple things like changing a menu item from one place to another. Although it is unreasonable to expect a totally-native look and feel on each platform, there is definite room for improvement in this area. There is already some platform specific chrome (MacOS in particular works a lttle differently), and a lot of platform specific c++ (some of which hooks into the chrome via nsITheme) so it's not unreasonable to want improvements in this area.

#29 Re: Interesting (APOLOGIES FOR LENGTH)

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday October 24th, 2003 10:52 AM

Reply to this message

"How much quickly could the suite be churned out if development just *stopped* on the seamonkey suite and focused on the new components that are recommended in the suite? (Browser, Mail, Calendar, Composer) That might put them out in late 2003 as opposed to early 2004. I know a lot of the fixes for seamonkey go into the *birds, but what's the point in fragmenting the thing further?"

The majority of code in the Mozilla Application Suite and the standalone applications is the same. Gecko, Necko, NSPR, NSS... it's used by all the programs. The main differences are in the UI (both the actual UI and the toolkit used), which people tend to think makes up more of the code than it does, because that's the bit they're most familiar with.

"Has the Foundation considered hiring a third party for usability testing?... I don't see that happening though, because that philosophy means that the programmers' pride would be stomped, feelings hurt, and pet bugs/features could be ignored."

Netscape ran several usability studies over the years.

Alex

#36 Re: Re: Interesting (APOLOGIES FOR LENGTH)

by jgraham

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:06 PM

Reply to this message

> Netscape ran several usability studies over the years

I seem to remember from bugzilla the Netscape usability studies being primarily used to block any improvements to the UI that people tried to make ("No really, our usability studies show that people like the seven different types of search in Netscape 6"). The results of such usability studies also tended to be unavaliable for anyone apart from the Usability Engineers to see, so no one could assess how flawed the studies were.

Of course, that is probably the point Alex was making...

#38 Re: Re: Re: Interesting (APOLOGIES FOR LENGTH)

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday October 24th, 2003 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

"I seem to remember from bugzilla the Netscape usability studies being primarily used to block any improvements to the UI that people tried to make ('No really, our usability studies show that people like the seven different types of search in Netscape 6')."

If the findings of a usability study suggest that a UI improvement has a negative aspect on usability, is it an improvement?

"The results of such usability studies also tended to be unavaliable for anyone apart from the Usability Engineers to see, so no one could assess how flawed the studies were."

Or assess how good they were, for that matter. Often usability studies are filmed and therefore making the resulting videos available could have privacy implications. I do not know if Netscape's usability studies were filmed but, in any case, Netscape had no obligation to make the results of the research they funded and conducted themselves publicly available. Even just uploading the data obtained from feedback forms takes time and effort, especially if they need to be purged of references to top secret Netscape-only enhancements, like shopping buttons.

"Of course, that is probably the point Alex was making..."

Generally, I think usability studies are great. I don't know anything about Netscape's though; maybe they sucked.

Alex

#42 Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting (APOLOGIES FOR LENGTH)

by jgraham

Saturday October 25th, 2003 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, usability studies in general are a good idea. I just got the strong impression that netscape usability studies did suck, not least because of the mess of the Netscape interface.

#35 Lizard

by remline <remline@hotmail.com>

Friday October 24th, 2003 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

Personally, I love the red Mozilla dinosaur/lizard guy. :-)

#37 No images?

by tomsommer <webmaster@tsn.dk>

Friday October 24th, 2003 3:15 PM

Reply to this message

Am I the ONLY one not seeing ANY images on that page? I only see the ALT text.

#39 Re: No images?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday October 24th, 2003 4:27 PM

Reply to this message

"Am I the ONLY one not seeing ANY images on that page? I only see the ALT text."

I used to see them, when the document was first uploaded but now I don't. Viewing the source reveals that the image paths are correct relative to the document location; however a nefarious <base href="..." /> makes the images load relative to <http://stage2.silverorange.com/actsofvolition/>. Which is wrong.

Alex

#41 Navigator...

by galio

Friday October 24th, 2003 8:17 PM

Reply to this message

I strongly agree neraly in all the issues exposed, except in that of "Mozilla Browser"... It isn't a name, it looks like oral speaking. That will led to people calling it simply "Mozilla", and that is what we don't want. As it is a really good name, with a lot of visual identity, history behind it, and all that, I think that Navigator is a perfect name. It sound to navigate = browse in an ellegant way. I'm from Argentina, and here we call browsers "navegadores", so it can also be good for the spanish-talking community :-P. Returning to the lighthouse (taking care of not violating copyrights) or some ex-NS logos from the gold era will be nice. A word with an "f" isn't as non-suggestive as the red flame, but it isn't very nice, and it looks like inspired in M$IE 1.x :-(. Look at NS 2.x's icon...

#43 Alternative names

by the_Rebel

Saturday October 25th, 2003 9:14 AM

Reply to this message

mozilla.org previously said that the name "Mozilla Firebird" was only a temporary name that would be replaced with "Mozilla Browser"

It seems now as if a group of people want mozilla.org to reneg on that promise. That should not be allowed to happen. The Firebird name needs to go away and the sooner the better. Using it as a basis for marketing to end users is completely wrong and is directly opposed to what mozilla.org said that it would be used for.

If people do not want "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" then how about the following alternative?

The Mozilla Suite could consist of Webzilla, Mailzilla, Chatzilla, etc.

Marketing : "Using Webzilla? Wanting Mo' of a good thing? Download the Suite and try Mo' zilla!" ;)

#44 Re: Alternative names

by jgraham

Saturday October 25th, 2003 9:17 AM

Reply to this message

No more "zilla" names are legally allowed.

#45 Right on!

by Tweebiscuit

Sunday October 26th, 2003 2:23 PM

Reply to this message

I just want to ast a vote of support for this guy's work -- he's spot on. Visual identity and cohesiveness is key, and something that has been sorely lacking from the Mozilla Project in general. The lizard is terrific as an icon (in the sense of a visual touchstone, not in the techical sense) for the development end of things, but doesn't make for a good consumer icon, especially now that the other applications are moving towards different animals. Let's do this!