This seems good.

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

Good article!

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.

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... :-/

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*

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*

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!

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

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

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

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...

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!" ;)

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!