1. 5

Mozilla’s round 2 for a new logo/branding.

  1.  

  2. 3

    I don’t want to be a spoilsport but… what’s wrong with the current ‘branding’, such as it is?

    1. 1

      I guess if you arent meeting profit goals you will try anything.

      1. 2

        Mozilla has no profit goals?

    2. 1

      Is it really an “open process” if they’re not open to criticism of the process itself?

      1. 3

        An entity has to put a limit somewhere on how much control an external group can exert on them.

        1. 0

          criticism != control

          1. 1

            Nobody can stop you from criticizing the process. But presumably you want your criticism to turn into some kind of change, which is a degree of control.

            1. 1

              I’m just saying that if Mozilla really wants to honor its userbase with this design change, it should listen to those of them who are saying that none of the choices are in the spirit of Mozilla’s legacy. I’m under the impression that they only want their users involved insofar as it will help them decide which “design language” will appeal to the masses.

              I also really don’t think that’s appropriate usage of a downvote. “incorrect” means factually incorrect, not disagreeable. I’d rather we not disincentivize contrary viewpoints here on Lobsters.

        2. 1

          Yes, it is.

          Next attempt might be different.