rtcvb32: I agree, they are all bad in different ways. From a purely abstract and artsy view (
which I have no artistic talent) some of them look interesting. But none of them... feel right.
The
Moz://a is perhaps the tamest of them, while the twisting
MC Escher M looks the most brain bending.
The cards and squiggles that spell out Mozilla in a very.... unconvincing way, the eye and others just feel more like art for art's sake.
Darvond: I'd like to see the portfolio of the company they paid, and then I'd like to look up a list of the customers (public companies and organizations) to see how many of them actually kept works from this place. Anecdotally, a collage got a logo makeover from the group, only to have recently given themselves a nice new, and more importantly, sensible logo.
(yeah, I know they probably prefer it to be stylized with only lowercase letters, though as far as I know, that's not correct in writing). Mentioned plain and clear in the OP.
Here's a sample of what they've done earlier. Most of it is a fuckload better than their Mozilla ideas.
Tyrrhia: Eww. Horrible, indeed. The Moz:
lla logo kind of looks fine and is probably the best of the bunch, but it's too much reminiscent of a drive letter.
Yeah, a drive letter designation, protocol and path (which is the intention, as in http://, ftp://, gopher://, etc.), or, the first thought I had *
shudders*, slashdot.
