Evolving the Firefox Brand

Nothing intuitive about any of it, who cares.
Don’t screw with what has been working.
Longtime Seamonkey user.

System 2 for the first two categories (master icon and browser icons) combined with System 1 for the other two categories. The System 2 ones for new apps and services just don’t seem to fit the theme. Just my $0.02 :)

System 2 FTW

I loved the system 1 icons.
In my opinion, is more familiar with Red Fox and Mozilla Foundation brand.

They both look great, however System 1 looks more modern, and slightly better than System 2.

This one is easy. System 1. It’s overall just the better looking one. System 2 looks like a bunch of stickers that I can’t take seriously, even though the quality is high. Problem is, System 1 is in a while different league.

I like all from “System 1” except “masterbrand icon”, I prefer “masterbrand icon” from “System 2”.

I love all of these designs.

We have a problem where our developer edition and nightly logos are two similar and rely on nuanced color to distinguish one from the other. People who are color blind will have a hard time.

Our current logos have some additional elements that help people tell them apart, but these new simplified designs do not.

Check out what it looks like in a color blindness simulator..

system 1 is more modern and looks more cohesive.

I love the system 1 Masterbrand icon!
I think that the system 1 browser icon is better than the system 2 browser icon because it keeps the blue and overall color scheme that I associate with the browser. I think that removing the overall color palette from the browser icon would be a huge loss.
Overall I like system 1 more than system 2. I think that sticking with a warm palette for the new apps and services helps tie the brand to the existing known browser brand. I find the range of color in the singularly focused browser icons in system 1 to be distracting. The blue could either become warmer towards purple or the use of purple/magenta could go away so that the blue stands out more.

I do not like the System 1 icons. The half-low-poly design looks too plain and it isn’t majestic like a fox should be. The System 2 icons are better in that regard, however they would look strange on differently colored backgrounds. There needs to be something in the middle. And by that note, the current icons for Quantum, Nightly, and Developer Edition fit the bill. Perhaps even keep the blue gradient circle in the new System 2 icons? I like the design of the current icons of a fox encompassing a world. I don’t think it really needs to change, and I would like to see some icons for the other apps and services based off of the design of the current Quantum icon.

I prefer icon set #2, however I’m not a fan of either. If the old firefox icons were kept, I would feel most happy.

Hello!

I love the design and the curvy modern aesthetic with vibrant colours. They feel friendly and fresh. I strongly prefer the first system, as I feel that the icons fit better together, wheras in the second system they all fit together except the Quantum/Nightly/Developer icons, which do not seem like they share a design aesthetic and stand out. Additionally, I like how the ‘master’ logo is not the same as the quantum/developer/nightly logos in the first system, making the overall brand feel broader than just those three browsers. However, I really love the paw on the fox, as I feel that it is one of the most endearing qualities of the current logo, and I would love if the paw were added back to the new logos.

Theo

System 1 all the way! More unique and memorable

I love the second one but I do not like the new apps and services icons

I love the first system, though, the second system’s Browser Icons get to my feels (mostly because of the paws) however If I understand correctly, the ones from the first system are better because of their simplicity and distinctive elements (such as the big ears and no paws :( ) as they’ll be easier to read in any size.

Personally I prefer System 1 as a whole. The colors feel like they create a more cohesive branding, and I’m not a fan of the light gray backgrounds on System 2 icons. All designs however are quite modern and eye-catching and I applaud all of the designers who created them!

First of all, I think the decision to update the design identity is spot on. For the systems, I don’t think second one is consistent. It feels like 2 sets (brand and browser, and the rest) have been put together as an alternative. Having different colors for different apps is not a bad approach but I think orange flame is already a well known brand color of firefox. Therefor I think you should proceed with System 1.

Firefox is the browser, full stop. The “master brand” that it and all other products should fall under is Mozilla.

These designs are terrible—they look like they were designed by some marketing douchebag who is trying to apply everything he or she learned in their overpriced degree program without any real-world experience. The existing Firefox logo is great—probably the best one you’ve ever had.

Stop wasting money on things that aren’t necessary! All of your time and resources should be put into code and standards advocacy for an open, private internet.

Fire your entire marketing department. They serve no purpose in an open source project. Stop acting like a corporation. It just continues to turn people away from your products.

System 1 feels more consistent. But I personally don’t like Masterbrand icon.

Please don’t simplify the logo too much. I’ve used Firefox almost exclusively since around 2005 and I miss the more detailed logos. I’d have to vote for system 1 since the general browser icons seem more familiar to the brand.

System 1 for the Masterbrand.
System 2 for the General Purpose Browser Icons.
System 2 for the Singularity Browser Icons.
System 1 for the App Icons.

Choose colours that work with all these choices, and it will look modern and fresh

I think System 1 is the best option out of the two, at least it shows greater potential for development. The outline-based iconography of System 2 feels too generic and doesn’t remind me of Mozilla in any way, except for the Masterbrand Icon and the Browser Icon. System 1 shows depth and maturity, and is more reminiscent of the Mozilla brand, now modernized. My main feedback with System 1 is that it could have a simpler color palette. As its stands, it feels a bit messy. Some icons, like the ‘photo’ one, could also benefit from simplification, as the four dots in its current form feel unnecessary. The Masterbrand Icon of System 1 is very good. It is both perfectly abstract and also very clearly depicting a fox. The geometry of this language makes it look more thoughtful, mature, calculating and gives more room for variety. The icons from System 2 all have the exact same structure and patterns. It makes it slightly more consistent at the expense of being boring and generic. System 1 FTW!

I like the idea of using System 1 for the Masterbrand and System 2 for everything else.

System 1, all the way. Animals are a very successful way to brand things (think of Frontier’s wildly successful talking animals campaigns), so you want to maximize that– make the fox easier to identify, more recognizable.

For the master icon (again, system 1), tweak this design so it’s clearly a fox– its maybe a bit too abstract for the general consumer– and that’s the mission of firefox, to empower and protect the general consumer.

For the general-purpose browser icons, I think these are a huge improvement over the current firefox icon, simply because the Fox’s face is in profile, making it easier to identify. I’d suggest working with the colors/gradients around the face so that the face is nice and easy to read– the human brain loves faces, and abhors not being able to see them clearly.

Also with your color choices keep the color disabled or color impaired in mind– the logos should be able to reduce down to black and white in such a way that the logos aren’t dependent on color.

Again, love system 1. Go with a Fox’s face over abstract fire. Faces are more personable; fire can get lost in ambiguity.

I saw the first set of icons and thought “wow, that’s really good”. Then I saw the second set of icons and thought “wow, that’s really good too!”

I’ve been a mozillian since 2002 and have used Firefox since Phoenix 0.1 (yes, really). The Firefox icon has a tremendous amount of personal meaning to me.

This post gives me confidence that as it continues to evolve, it’s in good hands.

System 2 is preferable because it is easier to distinguish from each other. At the end of the day, I’m going to stick all of my applications from Mozilla in a folder named Mozilla except for the one-maybe-two apps I use frequently. System 1 is more color thematic and that’s probably the worst quality to have when distinguishing icons; both MS Office and Google Docs use a different color for each application for exactly this reason.

Version 1 just doesn’t seem at all like Firefox; it seems like a different product or brand entirely. It doesn’t feel recognizable, and looking at it, I’d never have connected it to Firefox in any way. It also seems confusingly similar to the icon of Gitlab.

Version 2 feels very much like an updated version of the Firefox identity. I can look at it and *immediately* think “that looks like Firefox” with no prompting; it’d be different, but recognizable.

2

System 1

I like to see the progress here! It feels like the right time to refine the brand identity further.

My thoughts:

The browser icons for System 1 maintain the current Firefox identity, and the soft rounded edges do connote the general sense of “fun” of the original Firefox logos. But while the new non-browser icons are “fun,” I feel like all the sharp, >120-degree corners have been shaved off to make it kid-friendly. System 2 still feels like Firefox to me: the colors and shapes still maintain a sense of identity, and carry forward the sharp corners and charm; it maintains more readily identifiable relationships with the existing work. Smart, mature, and less tethered to a specific trendy motif.

Both System 1 and System 2 are mostly cohesive; again, the browser icons seem like they stand out from the rest. System 1 has a lot stronger color synergy. While the masterbrand in System 2 carries over the Firefox legacy, the “ribbons” identified in System 2’s style don’t have as strong a relationship to the browser icons.

I can see how both System 1 and System 2 will expand; they will each run into their own difficulties as the product lines expand.

Both systems reinforce the ideas of speed, safety, reliability, wit, and innovation — I appreciate the bold color choices.

System 2 feels like it prioritizes people over profit; the lines are fun with balanced counterforms, maximizing legibility at a wider range of sizes. I feel that System 1, though, sacrifices personal identity for brand cohesion at a cost of making it harder to see what each shape represents, particularly with the new apps/services icons.

Thanks for sharing your progress so far!

I like system 2 better. cleaner

It think system 2’s fiery tale swoosh is more evocative of FireFox.
And system 1’s fox head is really hard to differentiate from the GitLab fox.
The cleaner lines of the rest of the icon set are nice vs the muddled/blocky aspect of system 1, but lack overall brand cohesion

System 2

I love the system 2 better, it keeps the firefox sign more simple and recognizable. However, in the general purpouse category, I think version 1 does better

System 1 is ICONIC! Can I get that shirt in XL?

System 2 100%. System 1 is way too close to Gitlab.

Also, there appears to be a severe length in time between comment actually being posted from submission.

I really like System 1’s icons for the single focused browser icons, but I prefer the System 2 masterbrand. I think System 2’s Firefox Quantum icon would be better with the blue sphere/circle in the background (similar to the current icon)

System 2 seems more distinct for my aging eyes.

I really like the design of system 1. The way the colours blend together and the more distinctive styling makes it very aesthetically-pleasing to me. System 2 is nice but it reminds me too much of a sticker.

I prefer system 2, as the master icon is way more “foxy” andere resembles more Thema current logo than the Others one, that features the foxes head.

Next, I like the three main browser Icons of system 2. Their shape is more appealing to me.

However, for the remaining logos I prefer system 1.

Best, Johannes

I prefer the first system for 2 reasons

The icons look much more movers modern

It stick week with what people think of Firefox, burning orange with shades of blue

Also I believe that they will be easier to use to create meaning because they are not outline based, the other ones have very thick outlines so it will be complicated to create different shapes.

I also just find them more beautiful but that’s just my opinion.

Also for your animations, if you use this first icon set, then you could use panels that fade and slide into position and change in gradient based on position. I think this is more or less un heard of, and I think will look pretty cool.

I think System 1 is more fresh, state of the art, and fun. At this stage though, the Masterbrand icon for System 2 feels more finalized, or mastered. In music production blending all the instruments and levels so that it sounds like one unit is the mastering process, and System 2’s main logo has that fully-realized effect. All the shapes and colors are blended well enough so that it feels like a single image and logo, whereas System 1 still has the feeling of being separate shapes that haven’t been fully integrated into one logo.

Some ideas to help mix logo 1 a bit could be to use a slight glassy effect you see in Apples OS, where an overlaying menu you swipe overtop the existing screen blurs and glasses out the screen behind the menu. Either applying that effect to the diamond fox head, or increasing the transparency of the diamond so that the contrast between diamond and ears isn’t so strong could potentially help. Overall, I do prefer the fox head logo and would rather have it on my phone and computer screen.

Pros for System 1
It’s playful and fun, and makes me feel creative and like tinkering and exploring the interface.
I get the sense of people being the priority with this set.

Cons for System 1
I wonder if in their simplicity they aren’t communicating a detailed enough icon. The rocket, lock, and photo frame are easy enough to make out, but the others almost seem more like buttons. The learning curve (however small it may be) to learning what icons match to what systems might be slightly higher for System 1. I love this system though, it’s awesome.

Pros for System 2
A more clear and direct set of logos, easy to interpret due to more detail. The general purpose fox icons are equally clean and fresh for both systems IMO.

Cons for System 2
For whatever reason, the first thing that comes to mind when looking at the new apps and services is mid-2000’s Hp printer design. There’s probably no concrete correlation, but yeah this feels like companion icons to hardware where design is second instead of leading-edge design for a software suite. This set of logos has a slightly dated feel to me, and maybe it’s the more classically corporate look that’s signaling that effect.

I think both systems can be stretched for new products in the future. A VR icon for when browsers and social media have integrated a sort of social virtual reality could be a good exercise. A mail icon could be done easily enough on both systems as a creative exercise as well.

First impression is that the system 1 masterbrand icon looks very similar to the GitLab logo, that might need to be changed.

System 2>

System 2 is so much more internally consistent. I don’t like System 1’s design nor colours.

That said, I feel like some of the shapes of the “new apps and services” from System 1 might work better than the shapes of the System 2 icons for easy recognition.

I definitely prefer System 2 though.

The new icons look awesome! I’d probably go with system 2. It’s hard to miss the similarities between the system 1 masterbrand icon and GitLab’s logo

Neither system for the “Singularity focused browser icons” are telling me that they are related to Firefox — they could be the logo of any hip startup or sleek mobile app. The same goes for the “Icons for new apps & services” and the Mozilla brand as a whole.

For me, animals wrapping around an item are recognizably Mozilla products. If you were to branch out the Firefox brand, I would like distinctive elements of the Firefox logo to always be kept, such as the fox’ head and/or thick flames — the color scheme alone is not enough.

System 2 is the winner so far. Seems like a great evolution of the current system, and that masterbrand icon retains the recognition of the existing Firefox icon even without the fox head.

The shading is spot on – it’s beautiful, vibrant and stands out in a sea of mediocre browser icons. System 1 feels less refined, and the more blocky use of colour feels less sophisticated. Looks more like a young startup rather than an established, trusted brand.

I do, however, feel like the singularly-focused icons need a bit of work. The same icons in System 1 feel slightly more refined and recognisable.

I also think that the masterbrand icon in System 1 isn’t right. It’s too techy, has lost a lot of personality. Could be for anything really.

I really like the system 2/bcus its look good in silluette,

But it still need improvement

System 2 and not even close. Sleek, clean and new. Love it!!!!

So… is System 1 intentionally a clone of the GitLab logo? Because it is. I’d seriously consider System 2 for that reason alone.

At an overarching level, I feel that the “fire” (being the emphasized syllable in Firefox) is a more suited center for the brand rather than “fox”. “Fire” also signifying innovation and advancement (almost always with positive connotations) while “fox” seems somewhat limiting from the perspective of future evolution and diversification. It would therefore be good to maintain the “fire” aspects of the branding rather than relegating that to the vaguely warm color scheme.

The System 1 masterbrand logo reminds me of Gitlab (this will be the case for many techies) and will continue to be a source of confusion, going forward. Also, the singularly focused browser icon in System one looks a lot like the Google Picasa icon ported to this color theme. Coming to the color theme of purple+yellow+etc mishmash, it reminds me a lot of Ubuntu — System 1 icons for new apps/services could so easily be mistaken for Ubuntu branding.

System 2 masterbrand seems to have more character specific to the Firefox (unlike generic abstracted shapes), and still leaves room for future brand evolution and diversification with the theme of “fire”. The pointy tails in the System 2 browser are most easily associated with speed, which is a great match for all the marketing around Firefox Quantum. That aspect would be good to reinforce, going forward.

System 2 logos/icons also seem to carry the connotation of being “lean” (system 1 logos seem to connote full/fat, in contrast), but this is a very minor point.

If sought, I’m happy to offer my feedback through the evolution of this work/process. Feel free to reach out via the email address I’ve provided.

And… Focus needs to be a completely different colour. There should be no confusion about which app I’m opening. So, no orange or blue, gimme a different colour.

All of the designs look awful especially the System 1 which looks like a ripoff of the Gitlab branding.

This is a tremendous waste of time and resources, and you should be ashamed.

Hi , I like most of the work done here but if have to choose by system for each system it would go like this :
1- Master brand : i would choose system 1 as it has more character and would be instantly recognizable as a fox , system is too close to the browser icon and not close enough as without the fox head it looks like a group of circles with no purpose
2-general purpose icons : i would also choose system one as i think the blue globe is essential to the Firefox browser brand and it adds contrast and omitting it would be a mistake
3-Singularily focused browser icons : i would also go with with system 1 as it has more color and character and would be more recognizable.
4-New Apps and services : I would like if system 1 had the colors of system 2 , as they are more vibrant and distinguishable , and the current color scheme of the system 1 icons look too similar to tell them a part.
Good Luck.

I personally like the system 1 icons better but I think that the overall firefox logo should be more similar to the browser logo as most people think of firefox as a browser and different logos could become confusing and damage the brand. I do really like the system 1 overall logo but believe that it should have more continuity. I think that the fox logo could look cool in different colorways too. Also that firefox t-shirt with the system 1 logo looks fire.

System 1 for sure.

So i’m Really torn. I prefer system 2 for most things, however I VERY MUCH prefer the System 1 Masterbrand Icon – mostly for the swag possibilities. Also, it’s clearly a fox which is a must imo

System 2 is amazing !!!!!!!

Don’t care. I’ll get used to anything you come up with. I’d really like more security with my colorful logos.

Unless I’m missing info about integration, I think you’re making a mistake with both systems.

I could go either way with the Masterbrand icons. What I reflexively do not like is the almost immediate falloff in comprehension with the lower-level icons.

My suggestion would be to choose one of the Masterbrand icons based on community feedback and market testing, then the integrate all of the other icons into that Masterbrand. By which I literally mean superimposing the lower-level icons on the main, company wide rebranding.

Fortunately, each of the Masterbrand icons presents space in which to do that, so you don’t have to start over. Without some kind of integration, however, I think you will be diluting the value of your new Masterbrand logo, regardless of which one you pick.

System 1 looks great.. with the exception of the masterbrand icon. It makes no sense to me in System 1. However all the other icons in system 1 are lovely.

System 2… The icons are beautiful… But are horrible for branding and could easily be confused for other icons.

I don’t think the “new apps” level of system 2 has visual hints enough to link then to the other levels. Looking at the whole system 2 all together, I can understand the connections, but I don’t believe that if one see one of the lowest level icon alone, he/she will connect it to the rest of the brand family.

The icons of the system 1, on the other hand, have a consistent and distinctive image as a whole. Colors, lines, concept are obvious and strong enough. I don’t like the general purpose bowsers level of system 1, they could be more geometric to match the other icons of the system. I think the icons of that level in system 2 would work better in system 1 (with the proper adjustments, more sharp lines, less gradient).

I think, System 1 indicated no envolved for Firefox, because it have the same colors and design principle with the previous. So Maybe System 2 is the best for me

I really like the System 2 and it is at the same time close to your existing brand and different from other brands (system 1 looks like the GitLab brand identity and I find it very confusing).

I think that system 1 is a drastical change, and maybe that is what we need.

All of this work looks like you are designing a brand of children’s toys. Is Mozilla a toy browser? Can adults count on it for professional work?

I like system 2 better! Feels more streamlined and yet has the familiarity of Firefox globally identifiable.