Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
That Firefox logo was simplified, but not oversimplified. Even with a very small icon size you can still tell it’s a fox that is (on?) fire. The Firefox Family logo is oversimplified, just being a swoosh, basically.
I beg to differ. Until now I never noticed the fox in the logo. And even now that I know it’s there I have a hard time finding it. And I’m looking at a version of almost 1cm on my screen.
Well, I suppose it makes sense that it doesn’t apply to everyone, but my guess is that the majority can still see the fox.
Either way, the simplification of modern logos is a necessity, because they are used in small UI elements, often even appearing monochrome. At which point they still need to be recognizable. Whether they are simplified in a good or bad way, is subjective though.
That Firefox logo was simplified, but not oversimplified. Even with a very small icon size you can still tell it’s a fox that is (on?) fire. The Firefox Family logo is oversimplified, just being a swoosh, basically.
well the family logo is supposed to be as simple as possible
I beg to differ. Until now I never noticed the fox in the logo. And even now that I know it’s there I have a hard time finding it. And I’m looking at a version of almost 1cm on my screen.
Well, I suppose it makes sense that it doesn’t apply to everyone, but my guess is that the majority can still see the fox.
Either way, the simplification of modern logos is a necessity, because they are used in small UI elements, often even appearing monochrome. At which point they still need to be recognizable. Whether they are simplified in a good or bad way, is subjective though.