NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Mozilla’s Firefox seems to hold a place dear in web designers’ and developers’ hearts as a bastion of open sourceness; to be honest, I’m not the most well versed in these matters so I don’t know if there are better open source browser options that have more street cred than Firefox — I’m sure there is some browser in beta called Cucumber (or whatever) that is more hardcore. But I digress. Point is that with Firefox there are no secrets, no here-is-the-latest-thing-and-you-will-like-it, it’s all about involving others. And their process to upgrade their huggable, foxy icon to coincide with the release of Firefox 3.5 was no different. Perhaps to an excruciating degree.
Back in May, on the blog of Alex Faaborg, Principal Designer on Firefox, the process of redesigning the icon began, then we got a rare chance of seeing the brief for the redesign, where they also let us know that, rather than going back to near-legend Jon Hicks (who did the logo back in the cave ages of 2007) for the upgrade they were going to work with Iconfactory. And then the design process began with “Iteration 1.” And, lord have mercy on the designers, they posted another 13 iterations for the public to comment. You can access all iterations from this final post, I don’t have the mettle to take you through all of them.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, this was excruciating, at least for me and putting myself in Iconfactory’s shoes. I can’t imagine putting up every two (or four or eight) hours worth of work up for feedback before proceeding. Specially when all the iterations are things that you can decide on your own or in feedback with the client with a simple exchange. Making a big deal out of every iteration is, well, just making a big deal of it. But, definitely, major golf claps for exposing the whole process for everyone to see, I think it’s a great exercise.
Old Firefox logo in black and white, with new Firefox logo in color overlaid.
Specially when the changes are so minimal. Looking at the before and after images requires Sherlockian powers of deduction, even more so than with yesterday’s Victoria’s Secret post. The changes are very subtle and, if you ask me, they are as good as the original intentions of the logo. I can’t say it’s an improvement because I don’t think there wasn’t anything in the previous one, merely two years old, that needed 14 iterations to improve. This is simply two ways of rendering a fox over a non-descript globe. You can make it more furry, you can make it less furry. You can have more land, you can have less land. You can have more shine, you can have less shine. Etcetera. Both options are perfectly acceptable. You could even see the inverse exercise, with Jon Hicks coming in in 2009 and fixing Iconfactory’s logo from 2007. This isn’t a shot to either company, as both icons are perfectly well crafted but it’s a clear case of tomato and tomahto. Or, well, fox and fohx.
Thanks to Paul Quinn for first tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
jRod’s comment is:
i do like the new one better, although to the average Firefox user, it most likely wont be noticed because of the subtle differences.
i like the smoother color and the slightly more glossy appearance on the globe. all in all, a really nice change.
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:54 AM
Kevin’s comment is:
That brief is obsessively great. wow...
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:59 AM
Doug Bartow’s comment is:
I just dropped Firefox for the new Safari. Very fast, and synched bookmarks on multiple computers via MobileMe is really nice.
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:59 AM
Ryan Adair’s comment is:
I like the way the new tail wraps around the globe. A nice touch that adds depth.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:15 AM
Anderson Wilson’s comment is:
In two years they'll go back to the old tail.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:24 AM
Nisio’s comment is:
I do appreciate when brands finesse they're marks, but sometimes there is a limit to how tiny the increment of improvement can be, to me this breaks that limit. Especially considering that the most common way I see the firefox logo is on my dock, all wee and small, so where the new identity is a bit nicer, I doubt i'll see it at 32 pixels.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:25 AM
Matthew Roosa’s comment is:
kudos to Ryan, I think that is the most noticeable and important change that I can see as well. Everything else seems like an ever so slight change to the deliciousness of the icon, but showing obvious wrapping of the tail seems very important to me while adding much more depth to the icon.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:27 AM
Daniel’s comment is:
What an amazing waste of a lot of people's time! I fail to see the need, or the effective outcome, of this redesign exercise (aside from Google-favicon effect, where a ridiculously miniscule change generates a disproportionate level of exposure).
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:32 AM
PXLated’s comment is:
Geeeez - Mental masturbation to the Nth degree!!!
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:35 AM
D’s comment is:
I actually prefer the old version, but agree with Armin that either version would be acceptable to move forward with. What I like about the old version is the stronger contrast in colors within the fox. The very minute changes are hardly noticeable at the small size my Firefox icon sits at the bottom of my screen.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:37 AM
John Ryan’s comment is:
I agree with Ryan and Matthew, the tail is the biggest change. But, to me, it's the angle of the end of the tail that has made the most impact on the overall look.
In the original, the tail curled back towards the snout quite aggressively, which gave everything a sense of counter-clockwise motion (i.e. the red panda was running around the globe backwards, or the globe was rolling over the red panda from right to left).
The subtle changes to the tip of the tail (now better following the curve of the globe) makes it look as if the red panda is either cradling the globe, or crawling clock-wise around the globe.
Much better.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:37 AM
Anderson Wilson’s comment is:
This icon doesn't look good when reduced. This would have been an good objective to aim to correct.
On Jun.23.2009 at 11:53 AM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
Multiple comments courtesy of my ADD brain:
Nuance. In my career designing graphics for television (pre-HD) there was seldom any place for nuance. But now, thanks to better reproduction on screens, nuance matters.
I think this is a fine update of the Firefox logo. I'm a little dismayed that the original designer didn't get a crack at it. Where's the loyalty?
OK. For one minute I'm going to put my client hat on and order off the menu. Or, combine menu items. I like the improved rendering of the sphere, but I believe they sacrificed better definition on the fox. Perhaps they should have reconsidered the lighting, realizing the namesake Firefox should have been the focus of key light and the fill. Maybe then, they might have removed the unnecessary shadow below the sphere.
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:11 PM
jinushaun’s comment is:
Waste of time. The old logo was fine, and the new changes are minimal. In fact, I prefer the old logo more because of the higher contrast in colours.
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:18 PM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
@PXLated
Isn't that the name of Moby's new band?
I think the logo would look good on a drum kit...
if he used a drum kit.
Tymn’s comment is:
To those who think that this was a waste of time, it is NEVER a waste of time improving your company image. Whether that is your logo, website, etc.
Even though I feel that the new logo is an improvement, it is still unfinished.
The tail, globe and bottom shadow are the best improvements that add more depth and will look great in the dock! However, the fox body and head rendering seemed to be ignored all together. I would have liked to see more dimension added to those as well.
It looks like they tried to remain consistent with the original shadows without realizing that they were wrong to begin with.
Chad Kaufman’s comment is:
Besides the obvious change—the tail—there are changes that make more impact on the composition of the logo. Before there was a lot of awkwardness with the continents on the globe and how they either lined up with, or overlapped the foxes body (Some pointed directly to his nose, overlapped his hand, there was an island before, etc.). While the tail wrap is a nice addition in larger sizes, the effect has very little impact at smaller sizes the way the globe changes do.
One thing that I do not like is the change of contrast in the new logo. Old fox was brighter and popped a little more, which I think is more appropriate for the Apps name
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:43 PM
Nate H’s comment is:
Bill - the original designer now works for Opera. Since that's Firefox's competitor they had to find someone new.
I think the new logo is not an improvement and actually fails to correct existing problems. The arm should join the body, not lay underneath it. This is a big reason it looks like a flat sprite and not 3d! Also, the shadow of the firefox against the globe suggests it is a flat object. Both issues are not addressed even when the brief explicitly desires to make the fox look 3d.
The '3d tail' doesn't look like a tail, instead it looks like a flat cut-out has been wrapped around a sphere. This logo is a big failure not because it looks bad but because it has not addressed one of its main goals.
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:51 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I like it. It looks more cleaner,and much smoother, it looks a lot less rough. Well done.
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:53 PM
Hannes’s comment is:
I like the improvement, particularly the tail looks much better in the newer version. Not only in regard to the new wrap-around, but also the flames
Staring at the logo this long, the paw starts to look incredibly awkward, in both versions, although I would say the newer, smoother iteration makes it look even more like a tentacle. Because it originates from under the fox it seems as if it is the left, not the right leg.
On Jun.23.2009 at 12:58 PM
andrea’s comment is:
nice improvement, but i won't really be able to notice it on my application dock, on which it's less than half an inch large ..
On Jun.23.2009 at 01:20 PM
leaveitB’s comment is:
>>Geeeez - Mental masturbation to the Nth degree!!!
Agreed. Nothing was wrong with the first one.
Just job security going on. Shame.
Anonymous’s comment is:
Too subtle. Not just the changes, the overall logo. The way the tail curved in before made it stick out more, and now it's just part of the circle. The spine fur spikes are less pronounced, so just mean nothing and there is a generic blur of orange-brown. Think of the scale in which this is used 99.8% of the time.
Overall, it's a glare exercise. And half the icons on my dock (or in any iPhone) use this overdone, by-the-book glare thing, so look the same as every other icon, instead of having it's own identity.
At least my t-shirt is now all retro, having the "old" FF logo.
On Jun.23.2009 at 01:39 PM
Jacob’s comment is:
I prefer the old logo simply because the fox had nine tails, which contains a subtle bit of Asian mythology.
On Jun.23.2009 at 01:43 PM
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
Whatever happened to design for impact? Hopefully the public doesn't notice — they'll get a good sense about how much money is wasted in our industry.
On Jun.23.2009 at 01:58 PM
bobby’s comment is:
it's not just about open-sourceness.
firefox follows web standards, unlike some other crappy, bloated, antiquated browsers out there (yes, IE, i'm talking about you).
On Jun.23.2009 at 02:04 PM
Chris R.’s comment is:
Yawn. Sounds like Mozilla needs to find something else to design.
Neither of those would look good embroidered. I kid, of course.
On Jun.23.2009 at 02:04 PM
Jeremy’s comment is:
Since the new tail's colors are less intense, it dilutes the "fire" part of the name/concept a bit.
On Jun.23.2009 at 02:17 PM
David H’s comment is:
The new logo definitely improves on the old, but the neck looks odd. That blurry gradient doesn't work for me: I like the sharp contrast in the original.
On Jun.23.2009 at 02:18 PM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
Just looks like the logo has orbited and landed in front of a sun spot to me ,and now the poor fox is clinging tighter to the globe for protection. Smells more like a publicity ploy than a logo update.
On Jun.23.2009 at 03:10 PM
Mike Beltzner’s comment is:
Thanks for the write up!
We're pretty dedicated to the open feedback process, but as you point out (and can see merely by the comments on this blog) it's pretty easy for people to have an opinion, especially about aesthetic opinion and / or trivial aspects of the design.
Being open means that we always communicate why we're doing things, how we're making the decision, and invite people to comment and share their ideas and opinions. It does not mean that we are beholden to their feedback, must wait for it, or even must heed it. Just that we invite it and allow anyone the opportunity to influence our decisions, as well as indicating why we decided the way that we did.
So while Anthony at the IconFactory did go through several iterations, in my experience it was no more than when I've had icons designed for other projects. You get a concept, it gets refined, eventually you get to a final version. Tight iterations were required as we were doing it all through email, and it's hard to do long iterations when you're not sitting in front of the design as a group and able to talk about it. All we did was also allow others to help us mull between iterations.
I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the process was painful, or more painful than any other icon redesign process. It's just that we shared that pain publicly. Also, "pain" is probably too pejorative a term; change is hard, especially when you're changing one of the most recognized brands in the world.
On Jun.23.2009 at 03:11 PM
Nathan Pitman’s comment is:
@Mike: I'd be interested to know what prompted the logo refinement. It seems so minimal to the untrained eye that I can't really understand what motivation there might have been?
On Jun.23.2009 at 03:23 PM
VonK’s comment is:
This logo sits tiny as possible in the dock at the bottom of my screen, magnification turned off.
The only time I ever see the Firefox logo at this size is after the browser updates and I go to that temporary launch page. Unless they've got the old logo next to the new to show off the update, no one will notice.
The differences are minimal and while they make the icon more appealing to some, they don't add anything to the average user's perception of the brand.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:05 PM
Mike Beltzner’s comment is:
It was motivated by a few things, first and foremost to clean up what was looking a little old and dated beside newer icons produced since 2004 (gradients weren't smooth, colours seemed washed out, the fox was "stamped" on top of the globe) and we wanted to freshen it up a bit. Some sizes and resolutions were actually deformed (this screencap of versions of the 16x16 - which we're revising again - in context shows that) and we didn't have a vector version of the actual icon we were using in the product.
So there was a bunch to do. :)
The result is minimal, but if you read the specification, intentionally so. It's not a rebranding, it's not a huge revision, it's an update to an exiting and loved brand in order to execute even better on the initial ideas that went into the logo. More flame/fur combination, more of a 3d feel (I agree with the poster who said we didn't get this perfectly right, but it's definitely better than before) and deeper, more saturated colours to draw the eye.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:06 PM
Mike Beltzner’s comment is:
Oh, and we also wanted to produce a 512x512 version of the logo for the soon-to-be-everywhere high dpi monitors. So getting a vector version was important :)
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:07 PM
dg3’s comment is:
Still looks like the fox is humping the Earth.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:09 PM
Johnny S’s comment is:
The continents on the globe have moved like Pangea. Thus, this is not a minor change, but something that has literally taken millennia.
Firefox's logo has always seemed a bit overdone to me. Too many little details, too precious and literal (look, it's a fox! it's tail is fire! it's around the world like the Internet!). I'd like to see something more stylized, something that could be done in monotone and retain its impact.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:14 PM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
@Mike: It's nice to hear your explaination. Sometimes in evaluating a logo I (& others) tend to negate considering the plethora of other reasons for a redesign of a logo other than a rebrand.
Although I still think the 16x16 rendering is missing the mark, I can clearly see what you were talking about. Also (not as much) the matters regarding the flame/fur combination. But, after your explaination and looking back at the first rendering, it is clear that that was an objective.
Way to step up to the plate for your team. Not a home run, but a solid RBI double.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:20 PM
Ryan Gonzalez’s comment is:
Really, it's not a huge update; the majority of people won't even notice that it's different. But for people who do notice these subtle changes, it'll be appreciated for its refined detail.
The only thing that I dislike is the increased gloss on the globe. I mean really, who wants MORE gloss on stuff? Yuck.
Overall, not a bad design.
The process of how they got there, though? Strange and counter-productive. You can't design through 14 versions of a project with a method like that. Gut instincts left to the designer are the way to go.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:33 PM
Mike Beltzner’s comment is:
@Ryan: generally I agree with you; more iterations and refinements leads to weaker design. However, it's important to note that we weren't only doing design here, we were doing acceptance. The best way I know to do design is to have designers use their instincts and get multiple sketches and proposals, then to pick a direction and go with it. That process wasn't available here due to time and requirement constraints.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:41 PM
Designer_on_fire_2009’s comment is:
I think this option is much better. The flames and the fox really work together.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:43 PM
Meagan Burns’s comment is:
Upon first inspection the logo looks a lot like the original with a few minor changes (specifically a more matted fox), however after reading the initial brief, the new icon really solves what the mozilla team was requesting. It's nice to see a redesign that isn't a complete overhaul of the original, well designed idea.
On Jun.23.2009 at 04:43 PM
Nate H’s comment is:
Well here's my low-fi mockup of what I'd have done.
On Jun.23.2009 at 05:19 PM
Su’s comment is:
See, I knew this would happen.
I'm curious if the people dismissing this as trivial, minimal and not worth doing would say the same of Matthew Carter's redesign of the MoMA logo. (Typographica, Typophile.)
I don't have the time at the moment, but it'd be interesting to see if there's already overlap in who's commented and how.
On Jun.23.2009 at 05:25 PM
Su’s comment is:
And the saddest thing is that if you people actually cared enough to, you know, look it's EASILY discernible that the changes are in fact significant, if subtle. Yes, it's the "same" image, but it's not like any of you can honestly argue all they did was shift a couple outlines two pixels over.
On Jun.23.2009 at 07:01 PM
Mario Amaya’s comment is:
The real Firefox, the animal, is a kind of panda. Not a fox. I'm surprised that nobody has pointed it out yet.
On Jun.23.2009 at 09:02 PM
Andrew Sipe’s comment is:
Personally, I like the conceptual rendering better then the recent update: firefox_timeline.jpg
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:39 PM
Mog’s comment is:
Mario: Several people have already referred to the animal as a red panda.
I agree with the comments above in that I like how the tale wraps around the globe (rather than merely being "stamped on top"). I also agree with the comments above that the subtler color changes sort of dilute the "fire" side of the icon.
Me? I'd ditch the symmetry and have the "fire" part extend up above the earth just a little, perhaps bending back to make more of a teardrop (or, um, flame) shape. Every web browser logo/icon is round; anything that could get the icon out of that crowded territory while keeping the design familiar yet making it more dynamic gets my vote.
But I'm not a "real" designer or anything.
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:44 PM
Nate H’s comment is:
Andrew - the concept is absolutely better, look at how much better the fox's shadows against the globe are. Instead of looking like paper pressed against it there's actual depth.
On Jun.23.2009 at 10:45 PM
Nikabrik’s comment is:
I just think it's a shame that Jon Hicks came up with a very cool logo that was a huge leap forward from the original, and when they needed a few changes, they didn't keep some loyalty to the guy who gave them such a good logo.
Essentially Ideafactory got paid a bunch of money to add some lines, play with the gradients, create a vector version, etc., but it's all on the back of Jon's idea, his *design*. The new 16x16 version is hardly specifically joined to the updated logo... it's just a tiny version of the round orange Fox on the blue globe.
Maybe they offered this job to Hicks and he turned it down, but if that was the case, I'd understand it... the logo may have needed a vector version, but it didn't need this "update".
On Jun.24.2009 at 03:28 AM
Nisio’s comment is:
@ Su,
re: See, I knew this would happen.
I'm curious if the people dismissing this as trivial, minimal and not worth doing would say the same of Matthew Carter's redesign of the MoMA logo. (Typographica, Typophile.)
If the MoMA logos most common application was 32x32 pixels on a dock, then for me the answer to your question is yes.
On Jun.24.2009 at 04:14 AM
Su’s comment is:
Nisio:
Nice try. But The MoMA changes are much more easily argued as irrelevant at any scale. The Fx image might most commonly be rendered at icon size, but that isn't remotely its only application, as with the museum's. It has to look good in all of them, from that icon, to t-shirts to print materials.
To return to my original point, did you look to see if there was a difference? Because I did. And the 3.5(RC2, so possibly not final) icon in the Windows Quicklaunch bar—I forget if they're 16 or 24px—is quite obviously changed.
On Jun.24.2009 at 06:50 AM
Nisio’s comment is:
Nice try? Was I in a competition?
Allow me to quote myself from my first post:
'I do appreciate when brands finesse they're marks...the new identity is a bit nicer'.
So yes, i did see the difference, and yes I'm quite happy when brands go into the finer details on their logos,
However I do think the most common application is relevant and I don't think in this case the changes warrant the expense or the press.
It's just my opinion, (it's not an attempt to convince people that I'm right - so there's no trying going on here :).
On Jun.24.2009 at 07:20 AM
Wally Torta’s comment is:
Mike Beltzner's thoughtful, professional comments make a nice contrast with the snarky whining so many of you display here. Does anyone else see the irony of a commenter complaining about the redesign being a "waste of time", following a dozen comments saying exactly the same thing?
On Jun.24.2009 at 07:46 AM
Nate H’s comment is:
Wally - there are only three comments that say "waste of time" and two of them are saying it isn't, including yours.
Su - you're crazy, eh? Also, the 16 x 16 icon you like in RC2 is the very one that's being replaced in RC3 because it's so unpopular (check the latest post on Alex's blog).
On Jun.24.2009 at 09:01 AM
PXLated’s comment is:
"snarky whining" - Nahh, just quick, honest opinions.
On Jun.24.2009 at 09:20 AM
Andrew M’s comment is:
Haven't had time to read all of the comments above so pardon me if this has already been said...
On a daily basis users will never see this logo at this large of a size. 95% of the time they will see a 32x32 icon which means none of these details will be noticed by users other than BN readers and FF groupies. We should put the logo in the context of real use and application. If this new logo is for a poster then this is an awesome redesign. :)
This redesign seems more like a PR campaign. Why do companies that don't need a redesign seem to redesign every few years and companies like Google who desperately need a professional logotype stick with the original?
On Jun.24.2009 at 10:17 AM
Su’s comment is:
Nate:
Su - you're crazy, eh? Also, the 16 x 16 icon you like in RC2
Please cite where I said I liked it. While you're looking for that quote, please also notice I specifically referenced the version. I actually thought the RC2 version was a bit muddy, and thought it'd be interesting to see if anyone ostensibly looking mentioned it. So points to you there, at least.
On Jun.24.2009 at 11:29 AM
James Re’s comment is:
@Mike Beltzner Thabnks for the personal response here. I love that.
The logo is pretty sweet and seems to nail the brief dead on. In my view it must have been worth the process just to have a vector version. I have dealt with not having one in the past and man thats way more of a pain in the ass that a measly 14 iterations.
good jorb!
On Jun.24.2009 at 12:51 PM
Logo Bang’s comment is:
I didn't think it was much of an update. I still like the design but I guess it was enough of a change to firefox to keep the new design. I like it nonetheless.
On Jun.24.2009 at 07:42 PM
Alex Faaborg’s comment is:
To answer some of the questions asked above:
I just think it's a shame that Jon Hicks came up with a very cool logo that was a huge leap forward from the original, and when they needed a few changes, they didn't keep some loyalty to the guy who gave them such a good logo.
I think this is a fine update of the Firefox logo. I'm a little dismayed that the original designer didn't get a crack at it. Where's the loyalty?
Jon worked with us on the 2007 concept drawings and renderings, which introduced the idea of having the tail wrap around the horizon of the the globe. However (as the commenter Nate H also explains above), Jon is now on staff at Opera, and bound by a non-competitive agreement. He is of course extremely talented, and they are incredibly lucky to have him. We kept Jon up to date as each iteration came in, so he was looped in to all of the discussions, but in a read-only kind of way since he is now at Opera.
Here are some more complete credits to recognize everyone else involved with both designs:
The new version by Anthony Piraino is an evolution of the previous rendering of the Firefox icon which was created by Jon Hicks, based on a sketch by Stephen DesRoches and the creative direction of Daniel Burka and Steven Garrity. More information about the history of the Firefox icon is available in our creative brief.
The real Firefox, the animal, is a kind of panda. Not a fox. I'm surprised that nobody has pointed it out yet.
Yes, in the literal sense. But we like to think of the Firefox as more of a mythical creature, he is quiet and has a somewhat feathery tail. The Firefox is friendly and protective, stoic and soft.
The very minute changes are hardly noticeable at the small size my Firefox icon sits at the bottom of my screen.
the majority of people won't even notice that it's different
Evolving the Firefox icon is a little difficult in that it of course has a very functional purpose of being a software application icon (in addition to being a logo). This icon serves basically as a road sign for people to access the Internet, so we opted to do a very conservative refresh. If people can't consciously notice any changes, that's totally fine, since they will definitely still be able to get online. I'm finding that when people compare the new rendering to the way they picture the Firefox in their mind, it appears the same. But when you look at it directly next to the previous version, like at the top of this post, there are a number of differences. So the icon didn't really change, it's just that the old rendering got older.
Also since the Firefox logo serves primarily an icon, in terms of visual design this introduces certain expectations for lighting and textures since the icon will appear along side other application icons, and each operating system has clearly designated aesthetics. These guidelines keep our computing experience cohesive, (although in a "half the icons on my dock (or in any iPhone) use this overdone, by-the-book glare thing, so look the same as every other icon" kind of way.)
Details like the gloss tend to change given the context of the logo. For instance, they don't appeared when embroidered, and a crop circle requires a monotone silhouette.
You can't design through 14 versions of a project with a method like that. Gut instincts left to the designer are the way to go.
As Mike mentioned we do everything in public, since Firefox is an open source project. So while 14 versions might seem excessive, that is only because companies like Apple operate by only showing the final version, and no one will ever know how their designs evolved internally and cloaked in total secrecy. Even people inside of Apple don't get to see the draft artwork, it arrives to the teams finished. But somewhere, on some hard drive, I would imagine there are 14 or more versions of most of their icons.
Also, while we are always eager to get feedback, the feedback doesn't drive the design since that would quickly degrade into an environment of design by committee. So we maintain a boundary on design projects between transparency and collaboration. Instead of inviting more cooks into the kitchen, we are putting on a cooking show. The designer in charge can still rely on gut instincts. This way other people can benefit from the complete access, and we can benefit from getting a constant read on how people feel about the design work, and avoid accidentally pulling a tropicana.
On Jun.25.2009 at 02:11 AM
Brandon DeLoach’s comment is:
Mad props for working in the word: "Sherlockian" Firefox continues to be the slightly nerdier friend you know you should probably hang out with. This logo update continues that tradition.
On Jun.25.2009 at 03:44 PM
Darran’s comment is:
They got rid of 'Britain'!
On Jun.26.2009 at 04:49 AM
JP’s comment is:
Where can I download this Cucumber!?!? It sounds wicked!
On Jul.01.2009 at 02:59 AM
Chris Thomas’s comment is:
If I hadn't of read this post then I would never of known the logo had changed. Looking at the images above is a little like a spot-the-difference contest. I feel this was a re-branding exercise for the sake of it as the end result hasn't really changed anything. Firefox's logo is a major asset for the brand and I can understand that there is a fine line between creating an improvement and messing it up. The changes here are so small I don't think they've really gone far enough with it.
On Jul.02.2009 at 05:33 PM
Icon’s comment is:
I like the new Icon...
On Jul.04.2009 at 06:25 AM
Peter’s comment is:
I have to say that when i first saw it, all i saw was a bit more glossyness and slightly different shades of brown but it's only now that I noticed the tail swapping around the globe which is a lovely touch to the logo and makes it much stronger as a result. Good work!
On Jul.06.2009 at 07:23 AM
Roy Hodges’s comment is:
These logos have always been a pleasure to look at on my dock. The new one is just as pleasing... though it clashes with the Mail.app icon.
On Jul.06.2009 at 08:20 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I like how the new fox's tail curls around the world and and the fox looks more firey and less furry. The darker fox against the shinier world looks good.
On Jul.07.2009 at 02:36 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
