Feature shock: Altered About Firebird logo

[Colin Ramsay]

I'm sorry, but this is pretty poor. Compare this logo with a serious professional project and laugh at Firebird's effort. It's ok.... but ok is nowhere near good enough.

Looks great to me. Much better than IE.

Enjoy! It won't be changing

Um... I know you're not kidding but I seriously wish you were. Ah well. Image means nothing in the Mozilla world I suppose.

This about dialog is beautiful. I guess you haven't seen Internet Explorer 6's. I also find it funny that you attribute so much importance to an about dialog.

I was only half-kidding in my post. I just find it funny that you have the audacity to post things like "Um, yep, that sucks" and then proceed to tell what /should/ be done without actually helping to /get/ it done. Your posts are useless. I'm sure everyone wants the most professional, slickest images we can find.

Forgive me Blake, in future I'll strive to make sure my posts fawn at the feet of Mozilla as much as possible. I am learning XUL, I have evangelised Firebird since I first started using in months and months ago, I've recently been creating some images for Firebird... but since the icon's not going to change then I won't waste my time. I do <i>as much as I can.</i> It may not be much, but it's what I have time for.

If everyone needs to be a fully fledged C++ programmer with CVS access before they can say some bad words on these forums then that's a bit... silly

The About dialogue images are similar to the icons. That's why this is relevant.

"I'm sure everyone wants the most professional, slickest images we can find." - absolutely true. <a href="http://skypilot.projectit.com/images/birdsofcolor_preview.png">What</a> <a href="http://me.sj26.bur.st/firebird-icons/firebird-xp-48.png">about</a> <a href="http://www.topfunwebsites.com/firebirdemboss.gif">these?</a>

Criticism is not useless. If one negative comment from a user turns up, that is not useless, no matter how immediately unhelpful it is. If you think so then there will be some problems in the future.

[Hooded One]

Howmany people call the current Mozilla "seamonkey"?

I do, but that's because sea monkies are funny.

The duck look doesn't really do it for me, but it's not bad, either.

[nilson]

I started calling it SeaMonkey when I started using TBFKAP (the browser formerly known as phoenix).

[xfranky]

I started calling it SeaMonkey when I started using TBFKAP (the browser formerly known as phoenix).

Me, too...

[daihard]

Yeah and I like it. I mean it´s an about dialog and it´s ok.

I honestly thought it was pretty good. Nothing nearly as poor as some poster claims it is, IMO.

[nosebleed]

I don't understand how it doesn't look professional. It seems very appealing to the enduser, and I think they'd look at it ang go "COOOOL!!!!" Do you think Microsoft's "e" for IE is professional? Or the one color and the "W" for MS Word is? I don't.

Nb

[shadytrees]

MS Word's "W" I actually like. Plain, simple, and easy to remember.

[quanta]

The logo is <i>okay</i>, but I prefer the alternatives that Colin Ramsey posted. I like cheeoun's yellow bird head myself. (I do love how the logo "bleeds" from the bottom, the round "oily rags" shape breaks up the monotony of the rest of the rectangular logo.)

It's about marketing. A logo must be sharp looking, be instantly recognizable even at 16x16px and easy to remember. It also has to look good over several mediums (on white, on black, on letterhead, on a website, on t-shirt, etc.)

IMHO, I find this logo too busy. The smaller logo, the "oily rags on fire", isn't much better.

Think of the most powerful logos in the world: Coke and Marlboro. Distinctive typefaces with minimal colours (red and white, with black outlines). Think of the accursed IE icon - a lower-case blue E in Arial Black, with a small hint of an orbit around it. ICQ? A green flower in a single shade. It's instantly recognizable. Ditto for the Office icons. No, they're not particularily fancy or artistic, but they are ultimately memorable.

[daihard]

MS Word's "W" I actually like. Plain, simple, and easy to remember.

I'd actually have preferred the Word logo they used for version 1.2, back in 1992. It was more "squary" and looked more spartan.

[banjobacon!]

Think of the most powerful logos in the world: Coke and Marlboro. Distinctive typefaces with minimal colours (red and white, with black outlines). Think of the accursed IE icon - a lower-case blue E in Arial Black, with a small hint of an orbit around it. ICQ? A green flower in a single shade. It's instantly recognizable. Ditto for the Office icons. No, they're not particularily fancy or artistic, but they are ultimately memorable.

EXACTLY!

I find it strange that all the people asking for the Firebird branding to stop are being ignore, or at least that's what it seems like to me. They all seem to make good points. Why waste time trying to rightfullly brand a prodct that will change it's name very soon. This will only lead to more people being confused ("Why'd it change it's name?") and takes time away from developing FB into MB.

I'm just saying.

[xfranky]

Just downloaded aebrahim's today's optimized build and found this:

Fantastic!!! I didn't like very much yesterday's mod... today's about screen is superb!
I found it was checked in just sometime before aebrahim built his build...

[wheerdam]

OMG! That's cool. I like the curve. But it's still one happy swan...

[xfranky]

...it's still one happy swan...

Sure... but that curve is kinda sexy... makes me forget the swan

[iamnotniles]

I love that thing - I hope it's ported accross to today's nightly (I can't wait to get rid of the 29th one - it's dire).

[bthater]

"I'm sure everyone wants the most professional, slickest images we can find." - absolutely true. <a href="http://skypilot.projectit.com/images/birdsofcolor_preview.png">What</a> <a href="http://me.sj26.bur.st/firebird-icons/firebird-xp-48.png">about</a> <a href="http://www.topfunwebsites.com/firebirdemboss.gif">these?</a>

i liek what, i also like really. but then that's me.