User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 Firefox/0.8 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 Firefox/0.8 The Mozilla Update site's look and feel is very different from the rest of the Mozilla site. This is an extension of the disparate branding that Steve Garrity identified in his "Branding Mozilla: Toward Mozilla 2.0" (http://actsofvolition.com/steven/mozillabranding/), and should be corrected for many of the same reasons. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: NA Actual Results: NA Expected Results: At the least, the same typography and color scheme as the rest of the site.
Assignee: bugs → psychoticwolf
Component: Web Site → Update
Product: Firefox → mozilla.org
QA Contact: mozilla.update
Version: unspecified → other
That's what you get for letting someone completely independently design a website and get it up and running mostly on their own. Are you going to complain that Bugzilla does not look like mozilla.org?
Bugzilla is generally not a consumer-facing web site, whereas the Update site is, so I'll withhold any complaints on the Bugzilla site :-)
So basically, your request is that Update use the same stylesheets, etc as mozilla.org?
It goes a little deeper than just stylesheets. The images used on the tabs at the top of the page, for example--those should probably be changed to resemble the "downloads products support..." navbar at the top of the mozilla.org site, which doesn't use images at all.
(In reply to comment #4) > It goes a little deeper than just stylesheets. The images used on the tabs at > the top of the page, for example--those should probably be changed to resemble > the "downloads products support..." navbar at the top of the mozilla.org site, > which doesn't use images at all. I'll add my vote to this as well.. mozilla.org has a very nice stylesheet and general layout. Seems quite userfriendly, etc. Since update.mozilla.org is an "extension" of the mozilla.org website, and the part of the website that customers will potentially interact with the most, i think it should share the similar look and feel. vote++
One thing to note.. Update != www.mozilla.org... Yes, they're both end-user facing sites.. and the current design of update is by no means finished, in some areas it just plain sucks, but simply put, I don't believe matching the style of mozilla.org is going to work here. Most of the problems with update's design have already been filed as other bugs... Though the site's design does suffer from a lack of integration points with its sisters. I neither want to clutter the design with external links that aren't relevant, or duplicate content that would have to be maintained in two places. Re: Comment #4: If the tabs were removed and matched the products, support, etc links on mozilla.org, users would most likely *think* that's what they were. which is not a good thing. Since the links are very different. Comment #0 references a branding article, which discusses the use of imagery. particularly the Mozilla, Thunderbird, and Firefox logos.. Update does maintain consistant branding. Not sharing a site's style doesn't make it any less "mozilla" I realize this comment might be read to mean I'm looking at this bug as a wontifx, not at all. There's valid points here.. but if the expected resolution is that update will suddenly adopt the mozilla.org styles and return to being a tan/brown with similarly placed items.. that's not likely to happen. Constructive comments about stuff that can be changed to improve the feel of it are welcome. Me too comments such as #5 probably aren't. --> Confirming Bug as a valid RFE.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Priority: -- → P3
http://bugzilla.org has recently updated there website styles. They have done a very nice job of complementing mozilla.org. I believe update.mozilla.org would benifit from a similar approach.
> I neither want to clutter the design with external links that aren't relevant, or duplicate content that would have to be maintained in two places. < Agreed, but I'm talking about design and layout, not content (including links). I think the site can borrow enough look and feel to "fit in" without hampering its very different purpose. My interpretation of branding appears to be a little different--mozilla.org sets a particular visual style that is associated with the mozilla.org brand of web site. Not sharing in that visual style decreases the associaion with mozilla.org. I see a parallel to the discussion in the article on sharing common elements across the icons and images for Thunderbird and Firefox. Substitute "Mozilla applications" with "mozilla.org web sites", "icons" with "layouts", and "application" with "web site": "The new Mozilla applications each stand alone, yet they are related and are often used side-by-side. A common style element and style can be applied to icons and logos that are appropriate for each application." We may have to find some middle ground here--I think the update site would benefit by incorporating many of the elements created by a talented designer (Dave Shea) for the mozilla.org web site. Furthermore, I think it could do this while at the same time being able to stand alone. The Bugzilla web site mentioned is a good example--a lot of the elements from mozilla.org were incorporated, but enough customization occurred to fit the purpose of the site. This may be a case where a picture is worth a thousand words; I'm going to try and take a quick whack at a redesign of the front page based on what I'm advocating above. I'll post the URL if/when I finish it.
Created attachment 153062 [details] Example of what we are possibly looking for Like Comment #8 said a picture is worth a thousand words. I grabbed the stylesheet from bugzilla.org and the welcome page from update.mozilla.org and here is an example of what could be done.
(In reply to comment #9) Is that a photoshop'd screenshot, or did you actually tweak the HTML and CSS for the various sources to create that image? If the latter, could you attach your HTML and CSS? I'm working on pretty much the same thing, so I'd hate to duplicate effort if you've beat me to the punch :-)
Regarding attachment 153062 [details] that is great. I currently LOVE the current design for Update.m.o but I do agree that a consistent look between mozilla.org projects is a must. And this screenshot is great. I vot for it. Also I think it's important that it render well in Opera and IE so they can see what they are missing.
Created attachment 153197 [details] files used to create example Here is the css, images, and html I used to create the example. I've also added an example of the extensions front page. The pages are just static html. I basically just copied the stylesheet and layout from bugzilla and the content from update.mozilla.org.
I REALLY like this look. The only thing that i like about the current look and feel that i dont like about this one is that you cannot switch between applications as easily, because the application names are not as clearly visible. Maybe just a personal opinion, but other than that, I have to say i like this design a lot more than the current one.. Looks VERY professional and consistent (very clean looking). Also, bugzilla.mozilla.org is also moving to a more consistent look and feel with mozilla.org, so the major components of mozilla.org's web presence have been transferred over to use the same style. update.mozilla.org will fit right in if it uses the styles described above. If not, i believe it will feel like a third-party site (like texturizer.net). New Bugzilla look and feel being tested here (WIP). http://mecha.mozilla.org/bztest/ The official bugzilla site has also adapted a similar lookandfeel http://www.bugzilla.org Anyway, just trying to bring up some points to the discussion. In the end, it will be up to Wolf, and the mozilla.org guys..
Please make sure you keep the font size relative (as in the proposed layouts) as the current static font size solution on the site gives very ugly results. Nice (X?)HTML Strict / CSS would allow to squash bug 246851 and bug 247572. (Please do not forget bug 245948 while designing)
This bug has my support. :-) Though its very likely it'll center around the new website-beta announced today. and not the bugzilla.org look (though I personally like the bugzilla look much more than the current mozilla.org which I intentionally avoided when designing Update.) I added after-aviary1.0PR to the status whiteboard, which means this is on target to get visited between 1.0PR and 1.0.. (probably closer to 1.0PR.) So, if any of you were worried that Update would reach 1.0 with the current look, put those fears to rest, it most certainly will not.
Wow, that's hot... I say use it.. and screw website-beta.mozilla.org :D
Bulk Moving Web Site bugs to new component. (Filter: massumowebsitespam)
Component: Update → Web Site
Product: mozilla.org → Update
Version: other → unspecified
Can we mark this as fixed now?
I'll mark it as fixed when I feel it is. Thanks.
I would certainly not consider it fixed, since the update site is still out of sync with the rest of mozilla.org in terms of visual consistency.
(In reply to comment #21) Comment #19 was in reference to http://update-beta.mozilla.org. Not update.mozilla.org.
Product: addons.mozilla.org → addons.mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.