
...the new logo is confusing Safari. Chrome and Firefox interpret it as a search term.
They would interpret the "moz" prefix as an unknown protocol and inform the user of exactly that, if they were civilized.
Mozilla, sorry Moz://a's new logo is causing problems because it doesn't work when typed into browsers' address bars. As depicted at the top of this story, or here for m.reg readers), the new logo is confusing Safari. Chrome and Firefox interpret it as a search term. Developers are sufficiently concerned about those outcomes …
Typing moz://a
Actually if the really stupid "search or load wrong website if you mistype URL" feature is disabled in Firefox you get:
The address wasn't understoodFirefox doesn't know how to open this address, because one of the following protocols (moz) isn't associated with any program or is not allowed in this context.
You might need to install other software to open this address.
Any other behaviour would be really stupid.
... and you create a new internet-themed type-able logo, you'd make an effort to make sure the internet could take your logo and direct people to your site.
I just highlighted "moz://a" in the article, right-clicked and chose "Search Google for moz://a" - The-Company-Formerly-Known-As-Mozilla comes a long-way down the search list.
(But a company called "Moz" is probably wondering why hits on their site have increased dramatically in the last day or two. Ironically, their business seems to be based on the concept of "being found" in internet searches!)
I just highlighted "moz://a" in your comment (as well as the first part of this sentence), and chose "Search DuckDuckGo for moz://a" (more edited copy/paste, since we're signaling our amazing skills).
The Bugzilla thread about Firefox came in third. First two are a company called Moz, who are in for a windfall, looks like.
Like Apple, Mozilla is focused on the wrong things these days.
(But you will be able to disable them in about:config)
For the time being. As it has been removed from the UI, that option will disappear in a future release as it references unsupported code and we don't want to clutter about:config with legacy cruft. If you have a specific use-case for it, you will need to write an add-on to support it.
It's a fucking LOGO for gawd/ess's sake!
Did these same lackwits expect the old Sun Microsystems logo to work as an address?
No. But also back then, browser address bars were just for the URL and didn't double as general purpose search fields as well. These days people expect to be able to type anything into the address bar and get meaningful results whether it's a URL, a search term, an emoji-laced tweet, or a random string of characters.
So in today's world, typing a logo (especially a "typeable logo") into the address bar would be expected by most users to produce useful results. So I can definitely see the point here, despite your snarky response.
The one mitigating factor is that the name Mozilla (or Moz://a) is not really used by many people; most end users of the browser will know it as Firefox and may not have registered the Mozilla name at all. Those who do know the Mozilla name will generally be those who are tech-savvy enough to understand the implications of typing the new name into the URL bar.
What's wrong for searching for this when it is in the address bar?
Address bar searching has been around for a long time now in most browsers:
if validaddress(text):
loadcontent(text)
else:
search(text)
This is a bit of a non-story really.
"SAFARI DOESN'T SEARCH ON TERMS IN ADDRESS BAR
Shock as one browser does things slightly differently - as it always has"
Yeah it's like trying to grab something in the dark from a cupboard that you know is full of unprotected used syringes.
Perhaps there are some similarities here.
The cupboard is full of pricks. What does that say about the Moxilla marketing team ?
Surely they must have considered things like this before they came up with the name/logo/whatever its supposed to be.
Presumably this is only an issue for people that use Mozilla, which from recent reports seems to be a fairly small number.
“I'd imagine with the new logo, a lot of people will try typing moz://a in the URL bar,”
Who the hell tries to type a logo into an address bar? Who the hell ever types out a logo at all? And finally, why the hell do these companies keep spending so much money to come up with such shitty logos in the first place? A logo is a supposed to be a simple, easily recognised graphic to represent your brand, not "We started typing the company name but got bored halfway through and just mashed out hands on the keyboard", or as in previous examples "We started typing the company name but then had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to determine the exact angle of the exclamation mark".
My hope is that Trump will sign a bill allowing us to track down and humanely, or otherwise, exterminate trolls for the pestilence that they are, despite myself being somewhere on the lower levels of the troll scale. Suicide sheds will be erected in public parks for them. The King in Yellow is come to us. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn
I think I said something to this effect before on the original announcement: "Moz-people, have you lost your fricken minds!" This is a pure example of the triumph of technically ignorant marketing nerds over the boring reality of how things work. Yes, it does "speak to the essence of what Mozilla does", much in the same way that parking your bicycle in the middle of the freeway speaks to its "essential spirit of transportation", with (one hopes) perhaps not quite equally bad results.
Please, Mozilla, please. Undo this very bad idea. It has as much style and attractiveness as lipstick on a pig, and (as we see) completely confuses the parsing systems on applications and services spread out all over the Internet. If you like square wheels on a Porsche, you'll love this new trademark. And, since the Moz-people involved seem to be the mechanically-uninclined type for which this warning is relevant, please also stop using pliers on your wheel nuts and trying to unscrew Phillips screws with a straight screwdriver.
Its a Logo, not the new name of the company. Most logos are graphical and you do not type them into browsers, because they are graphical. This one just happens to be typeable but why would anyone bother? The name of the company is still Mozilla so if you wanted to see info about the company why would you type its logo into the browser? The complaint this article reports on is silly.
Having said that, the new logo seems rather pointless and to be an effect of someone looking for something to do, lacking anything productive to be on with; i.e. Marketing.