Firebird Icon

mkcillip · Post by **mkcillip** » July 19th, 2003, 5:40 pm

Stronger brand name? I suppose you can't disagree there, but at what cost? And at what benefit?

Mozilla is a stronger brand name, but only because people have heard about it in passing or in reference to Netscape. They really don't *know* anything about it. That it's the name of the little monster/dino is probably known only by the technophiles who read the forum. What benefit comes with the name recognition of Mozilla? Foremost to ask would be "how much recognition does 'Mozilla' the name have?" Unfortunately, not much.

What benefit would there be with the Firebird name? Identification. Nobody has ever seen a firebird or a thunderbird (or a sunbird) before, but the name instantly conjures up an image of how one might look. Here, the UI--specifically with the icons--can be important with letting users see something recognizable and (eventually) familiar on their desktops. What does an 'explorer' look like? Apparently it's a dizzy lowercase 'e'.

My suggestions for icons (totally verbal and non-visual) follow. I'd like to see three similar icons with similarly shaped images of birds superimposed upon circular badges behind each.

1. Firebird: Circle is a globe w/ Bird having flames on wings.

2. Thunderbird: Circle is a square (#-o) postage stamp, w/ Bird having lightning coming off wings.

3. Sunbird: Circle is a clock-face, with rays of light coming off bird.

Comments? Anyone brave enough to offer screenshots?

Radiowriter · Post by **Radiowriter** » July 19th, 2003, 5:56 pm

COUME wrote:When they are part of the Mozilla package, I reckon "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" are logical, but I do not see much the problem of having inside the package a specific icon for each software for example...

I have no problem with Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail, as I used the Mozilla Suite before switching to Firebird. But as you say, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" icons (whatever they may be) could represent those products.

scratch · Post by **scratch** » July 19th, 2003, 11:36 pm

Radiowriter wrote:
COUME wrote:When they are part of the Mozilla package, I reckon "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" are logical, but I do not see much the problem of having inside the package a specific icon for each software for example...
I have no problem with Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail, as I used the Mozilla Suite before switching to Firebird. But as you say, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" icons (whatever they may be) could represent those products.

the problem with that is that those names aren't going to be visible anywhere in the final product. they're just codenames. i doubt you'll be seeing the longhorn picture anywhere in the finished version of windows 2005 (or whatever they call it).

Radiowriter · Post by **Radiowriter** » July 20th, 2003, 4:55 am

You'll notice i said "could" represent those products. Personally, I'm all for bringing back the gecko (lizard, whatever). However, if a Firebird were to represent the Mozilla Browser who's going to know or care why? I too doubt that Longhorn will be featured anywhere in the new MS OS. But I have heard that the paperclip help character will be replaced by a new one that vaguely resembles Hoss Cartwright.

MoNkaholic · Post by **MoNkaholic** » July 20th, 2003, 5:07 am

Well... if it is going to be Mozilla, why not move on over to <a href="http://jimmac.musichall.cz/i.php3?ikony=48">these</a>? I'm fairly certain that the application logo here is used on the MacOSX port at the very minimum... or at least was. Don't see why they can't just switch over to them instead...

Saad · Post by **Saad** » July 20th, 2003, 6:26 pm

The icons look great but they don't look very nice under Windows 2000. The firedoc icon looks fine but the firebird icon itself looks jaggy and very horrible to look at.

Cheers,

Saad.

COUME · Post by **COUME** » July 20th, 2003, 11:54 pm

scratch wrote:i doubt you'll be seeing the longhorn picture anywhere in the finished version of windows 2005 (or whatever they call it).

eheh, I don't know what is a longhorn (it must be an animal?) but it is sure that I will not see the win2005, I'd rather keep Tux

eheh

Ludo

MXN · Post by **MXN** » July 29th, 2003, 12:42 pm

daihard wrote:
grayrest wrote:So sad, nobody likes my icons anymore. Though truthfully, I never did like the mozilla head one myself... I always used the navigator wheel icon that fits in better with the rest of the icon family.

Oh c'mon, I'm sure there are a LOT of people who can't live without your icon set.

That'd include me. I've been using the <code>main-window.ico</code> icon from Grayrest's set exclusively since back when it was called mozilla/browser. The icon's square shape always looked good in my Quick Launch, next to the icon for Allaire Homesite 4.

COUME wrote:eheh, I don't know what is a longhorn (it must be an animal?)

I think <code>scratch</code> is referring to the logo in <a href="http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh_alpha_081.gif" rel="bookmark" type="image/gif">this picture</a>.

And about using codenames in icons: Apple gave its MacOS X logo <a href="http://a1600.g.akamai.net/7/1600/51/63d2ba975a17f6/www.apple.com/macosx/images/jagbox06232003.jpg" rel="bookmark" title="The spotted X logo." type="image/jpeg">a facelift for Jaguar</a>.

infoxicated · Post by **infoxicated** » July 29th, 2003, 3:01 pm

I'm not so sure the Mozilla "brand name" is as strong as the geeks would like to believe.

I'm the only web developer in the building I work in, and I've had quite a few people ask me about this "cool new browser called Firebird". When I explain that it's a branch of the Mozilla project, I usually get the reaction "oh... that. Wasn't that something to do with Netscape?!"

Okay, so they're not seeing the whole picture, but the Thunderbird and Firebird names certainly conjure up something a lot more exciting than the image of a lizard, IMHO. The problem with the latter is that it's associated with a bunch of people who appeared elitist and went off to build a framework while the browser wars were in full swing. Why not keep it as a logo for the Mozilla foundation, yet brand the individual products Mozilla Firebird / Thunderbird? You know - (like a real company - e.g. Microsoft Windows / Office)

The browser wars are over, Microsoft won by a mile and occupies territory it no longer has an motive/interest/ability to maintain. This is an opportunity to swing the power, in a browsing sense, back into some kind of balance.

Here we are... at the forefront of the Browser Revolutions... and rather than come out fighting with some cool new names to capture the imagination of cybercitizens around the globe... whap!... ladies and gentlemen - it's a lizard. *yawn*

Truth of the matter is that the name and image counts for much more than the heritage of a project. Especially in an industry and online culture which is moving at break-neck speed in the name of progress.

That logo by grayrest - that could sell product even if it cost something. But hey - obviously somebody knows best...

...nudge me when IE XP is wiping the floor with said lizard and Opera is nibbling at the scraps.

jedbro · Post by **jedbro** » July 29th, 2003, 3:22 pm

I like the icons the first poster made.

While I really do like the Flames idea that are now the current TB and FB icons.

I think TB went the right way in adding an evelope over the flame, this definitally show's what the icon is, I wish FB would do something similar (like the globe someone mentioned) or a 'www' or something.

Colin Ramsay · Post by **Colin Ramsay** » July 29th, 2003, 3:33 pm

Respect to Greyrest, and no offence... but his logo is not that of a professional product. In fact very little associated with Mozilla at the moment has anything to do with professionalism. Ben Goodger's little advert is nice, but it's a fan done thing really.

People have got to get a grip and compare <i>everything</i> this project does to the competition (by that I mean IE), and you can start with the logo.

We need something sleek, not something clumsy. <a href="http://www.dmoran.plus.com/images/AFN.png">This</a> is terrible. <a href="http://www.silentblue.net/workshop/badge-firebird.jpg">This</a> and <a href="http://www.topfunwebsites.com/firebirdemboss.gif">this</a> are getting there. But really, someone needs to sit down and take a look at the graphics work for a commercial product and see the vast difference in quality here.

Blake · Post by **Blake** » July 29th, 2003, 5:08 pm

Colin Ramsay wrote:Respect to Greyrest, and no offence... but his logo is not that of a professional product. In fact very little associated with Mozilla at the moment has anything to do with professionalism. Ben Goodger's little advert is nice, but it's a fan done thing really.

People have got to get a grip and compare <i>everything</i> this project does to the competition (by that I mean IE), and you can start with the logo.

We need something sleek, not something clumsy. <a href="http://www.dmoran.plus.com/images/AFN.png">This</a> is terrible. <a href="http://www.silentblue.net/workshop/badge-firebird.jpg">This</a> and <a href="http://www.topfunwebsites.com/firebirdemboss.gif">this</a> are getting there. But really, someone needs to sit down and take a look at the graphics work for a commercial product and see the vast difference in quality here.

Are you offering to make some sleek images? Otherwise, what are you doing? Given the choice between "an image that looks good" and "image that looks better,' everyone would obviously choose the latter. So what's the point of your posts? Your opinion is worth nothing if you aren't offering to help.

By the way, the new about dialog is gorgeous. Much nicer than IE6's. And we all know how important the about dialog is to most users.

DamianMoran · Post by **DamianMoran** » July 29th, 2003, 5:42 pm

Hmm.

I can see why some users do not like the bird image, I suppose it could be viewed as a bit strange looking for some people. But on the other hand when did you last look at IE's about dialog? It looks like some sort of simpleton GIF at 128 colours. I think you might be talking more about the logo (sse my avatar ;D) than the about: image here, I agree that the IE one (not in the about dialog though) looks nice and 32 bit'ish. Personally I think adding the drop shadow and BG colour has really improved FB's about dialog, does it look professional? I would probably opt for yes.

priior · Post by **priior** » July 29th, 2003, 9:48 pm

the neat thing about the "about" page birdie is that it follows the same spirit as the mozilla logo. (the early industrialist look) [now that mozilla.org became mozillafoundation, will the original logo be changed?..]

MoNkaholic · Post by **MoNkaholic** » July 30th, 2003, 11:48 am

Blake wrote:So what's the point of your posts? Your opinion is worth nothing if you aren't offering to help.

Well, his opinion is in a way a form of help. I have to admit that I agree with his premise as well (at least in reference to the new icon), the current Mozilla Firebird icon simply doesn't work. It doesn't create an obvious link to the mythical creature, a web browser, or even the word firebird. The most obvious interpretation I can think of is that of a flame.

When dealing with such a complicated name, I have to assume that using the initial in combination with graphical elements would serve the user more, especially when you consider that such an icon has to appear at 16px by 16px on Windows (the current icon loses all meaning at that size). Either that, or ditch the name and create an icon that tells the user what the application does.

In the end, I suppose I just wish that the Windows icons would be able to match their MacOSX counterparts.

Camino

Mozilla Current

Mozilla Old

Firebird Icon

Branding

What's in a name?

Nice