570167 - Need new logo for FlightDeck

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Mozilla Labs Graveyard :: FlightDeck, defect)

Description

[Daniel Buchner [:dbuc]]

We need a new logo for FlightDeck that incorporates the Mozilla logo img and the words: "Mozilla Add-ons Builder"

Comment 1

[Sean Martell]

Are we using the Mozilla logo or the Add-ons logo?

Comment 2

[Daniel Buchner [:dbuc]]

I think it will be the Add-ons logo after all. The text can just read Add-ons Builder as well. Myk may chime in with more info.

Comment 3

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

We should use the logo that is most suggestive of the purpose of the site, which is to enable addon developers to build addons.

Based on a brief survey of the logos in use on various Mozilla properties, it looks like the one in the center of the AMO developer hub <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers>, i.e. the fox character with lots of gadgets strapped to his body, is the most appropriate logo for the header of the site.

In addition to the header, we are also incorporating a new footer into the site for the non-editor pages of the site.  The footer will be based on the footer at the bottom of the AMO developer hub.  So we'll need an image for the right-hand side of that footer.

The developer hub has a futuristic "flying saucer landing hub" image that looks fantastic, but it isn't appropriate for this site.  We could simply use a larger version of the same image we use for the header of the site, or we could use some other image, if there is another image available.

Also note that the name of the site is just "Add-ons Builder".  There should be no "Mozilla" prefixed to that.

Comment 4

[Daniel Buchner [:dbuc]]

Do we have an update on this design item? If we can get this by the FlightDeck freeze this evening that would be ++ :)

Comment 5

[Sean Martell]

What specific dimensions are needed for this header graphic?

Comment 6

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

I'm not sure where the actual logo is (the source obscures this, although probably unintentionally), but you can see it in action here:

  http://flightdeck.zalewa.info/

Note: it would be ideal if this logo could incorporate a "preview" badge or the like to make it clear that the current version of the site is a preview, not a final release (and next month we will want to update that badge to read "beta").

Comment 7

[Sean Martell]

Attachment: logo preview

The logo is pretty small in the current dimensions.  I'll try and add "preview" but we're not dealing with a huge amount of space.

Comment 8

[Sean Martell]

Attachment: footer logo

A footer logo for Builder in the proper dimensions.

Comment 9

[Sean Martell]

Attachment: Header logo

Logo for the header, without "preview", in the current dimensions.

Comment 10

[Sean Martell]

Attachment: Header logo - PREVIEW

with PREVIEW text

Comment 11

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Sean: it looks like attachment 450415 [details] (Header logo - PREVIEW) is the same image as attachment 450413 [details] (Header logo) and does not contain the preview badge.

Also, note that we could put "preview" after the words "Add-ons Builder" if that helps spacewise, i.e.:

  [LOGO] Add-ons Builder (preview)

(where "preview" is in smaller text and less obtrusive)

That's probably even better than a badge on the icon itself.

Comment 12

[Sean Martell]

It does have preview in it.  It is watermarked under the wordmark in white.  Just can't see it viewed in the browser.

Comment 13

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

(In reply to comment #12)
> It does have preview in it.  It is watermarked under the wordmark in white. 
> Just can't see it viewed in the browser.

D'oh!  Indeed.  It looks great.  Thanks Sean!

Piotr: attachment 450415 [details] is the logo/header image to use in the top-left corner of the website.  attachment 450412 [details] is the image to use in the bottom-right corner of the website.

Comment 14

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

It's now live on http://flightdeck.zalewa.info/
The header one is a little smallish ... would be best to have some face close up or a gadget, but I wouldn't reopen the bug on that basis

Comment 15

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

I am reopening this bug, however not as a blocker for finishing (1.0a2) iteration.

I think fox's icon in the logo has too small resolution. It shouldn't be scalled  down that much IMO. Maybe it would be better to show only part of it (head/tools?) as now it's so small it's not recognizable.

We need also smaller version of the logo for view/editing.
The header takes now 115px together with the mozilla header. It's too much as it is quite a few lines in the editor.

Comment 16

[Sean Martell]

I don't want to crop the logo, so if we need the logo to be bigger, I would recommend altering the page template to allow for a bigger header section.  It is pretty tight right now.

Not entirely sure what is meant by the 115px dimension. I wasn't aware of specific restrictions for the branding. Could you show a screenshot of your concern?

Comment 17

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

Attachment: full screen on 13" Mac

This is the page displayed full screen on Mac Book Pro 13.3" 1280 x 800 pixels  with opened Firebug (which will be common). 

Header as it is takes 115px - leaving about 530px for the content. 

It would be better if there would be a special version of the logo available  which would take less space on the edit/view page.

Comment 18

[Sean Martell]

My recommendation would be to move the Mozilla tab to the right of the page and vertical align the right menu items with the bottom portion of the header section, same as the Addons Builder logo.  That way there won't be a vertical stack of two branding elements.  That eats up the vertical space in the header.

Comment 19

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

(In reply to comment #18)
> My recommendation would be to move the Mozilla tab to the right of the page and
> vertical align the right menu items with the bottom portion of the header
> section, same as the Addons Builder logo.  That way there won't be a vertical
> stack of two branding elements.  That eats up the vertical space in the header.

That seems like the right solution to me as well.

Comment 20

[Sean Martell]

I'm assuming this is good to be resolved now?