Avocet branding - What do you think?
gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Mar 30 08:32:26 UTC 2015
On 28/03/15 23:44, R Kent James wrote:
> 1) Those numbers are meaningless to anyone who is not a gecko geek.
I'm not sure that's important. For people who don't understand various
version numbering schemes, they just hold on to "higher is
newer/better", which is true of the current scheme. For those who do,
they expect major.minor.patchlevel, which we also do.
Certainly, eliminating numbers entirely would be very bad. Doing an OS
X-like thing would be less bad. But really, the OS X codenames are also
meaningless to anyone who's not a Mac geek. Was Tiger before or after
Panther? Who knows?
> Even Firefox is
> trying to change this now (though we need not follow Firefox here).
> 2) I want to counter the market sense that "Thunderbird is dead" with a
> new message that we are alive and have an active community moving
> forward. The last blog post
> was a first step, and generated a lot of discussion on the internet. A
> named release helps with that message, "38" does not.
I guess I wouldn't put much weight on this particular advantage.
> how to use this, I asked Elio Qoshi to come up with a concept of a
> modified logo that we could use when we are referring specifically to
> our next release. This would not replace our current logo, only be used
> where the release is being mentioned, such as blog posts, the about
> dialog, and start page.
It seems to me that having a per-release logo would be confusing. The
only other software I know of which does this is Gimp, which releases
about once every 3 years, and it's a graphics program, so you expect
them to mess around with art :-)
I don't want to pour cold water on anyone's enthusiasm to demonstrate
that Thunderbird is alive and well, but rearranging logos and names may
not be the best outlet for that enthusiasm.
More information about the tb-planning