Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:27 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Mozilla has already done a lot to clean up the user interface of its successful web browser, but it would seem they're not yet done. As someone who finds the current interface a little... Chaotic and distracting, I'm quite happy with the changes they're currently proposing. They basically pointed at Chrome and said "pretty much that".
Order by: Score:
...
by Flatland_Spider on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

forcing you to use extensions that bring Firefox' user interface back to how it used to be (I'm assuming those exist).


Most of the time you can open about:config and change a key to get the old look back. I only really use extensions to enable functionality that didn't exist before in FF before (FTP uploads) or is incomplete in it's implementation (session management).

Which features have been cut that need extensions to add them back?

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...
by shmerl on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:21 UTC in reply to "..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Feeds indicator in the address bar for example. It was very annoying removal. Another annoying change was disabling of toggling the search bar with Ctrl+F. It opens with Ctrl+F now, but doesn't close back with the same keys combination. So to fill these gaps, there are extensions.

Edited 2011-08-02 00:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by Aankhen on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Aankhen Member since:
2010-01-13

Feeds indicator in the address bar for example. It was very annoying removal.

FWIW, I solved this problem by adding the new independent feeds button to the toolbar next to the address bar. (I know, it’s not quite the same, but it works alright.)
Another annoying change was disabling of toggling the search bar with Ctrl+F. It opens with Ctrl+F now, but doesn't close back with the same keys combination. So to fill these gaps, there are extensions.

I always just press Escape. Seems more convenient.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by shmerl on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Feeds button in toolbar is very different from the feeds *indicator* in the address bar. I.e. it doesn't indicate anything, unless you try to click on it to test if feeds are present. Absence or presence of feeds indicator on the other hand prompts the user that feeds actually exist for some page. That's why extension was needed to compensate that.

Using Esc to close the search toolbar is not comfortable, if search toolbar looses the focus. It'll require you to click on search toolbar first, and then hit Esc. Too many extra mouse + keyboard manipulations IMO, in comparison with just doing Ctrl+F.

That's why I use these:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/rss-icon-in-awesombar...
http://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/find-toolbar-tweaks/

Edited 2011-08-02 15:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Aankhen on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Aankhen Member since:
2010-01-13

Feeds button in toolbar is very different from the feeds *indicator* in the address bar. I.e. it doesn't indicate anything, unless you try to click on it to test if feeds are present. Absence or presence of feeds indicator on the other hand prompts the user that feeds actually exist for some page. That's why extension was needed to compensate that.

It’s greyed out on pages with no feeds; it’s dark on pages with feeds. Isn’t that the same principle as the earlier behaviour?

The new design could certainly stand to be clearer, as there isn’t enough contrast between the two states.
Using Esc to close the search toolbar is not comfortable, if search toolbar looses the focus. It'll require you to click on search toolbar first, and then hit Esc. Too many extra mouse + keyboard manipulations IMO, in comparison with just doing Ctrl+F.

I use Ctrl+F to refocus the search field and then Esc to close it.

Thanks for the links. I’m pretty used to the current behaviour at this point, so I probably won’t install them myself. I’ll keep them in mind if it ever becomes too annoying, or if I come across someone who’d prefer the older behaviour.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by shmerl on Thu 4th Aug 2011 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

May be it's theme specific, but in the theme I use feeds button in toolbar doesn't change appearance at all.

Ctrl+F Esc is still longer than just Ctrl+F ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by Aankhen on Fri 5th Aug 2011 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Aankhen Member since:
2010-01-13

Maybe the button’s appearance is theme-specific, yeah.

And I agree, two keystrokes is one too many. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Icaria on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:33 UTC in reply to "..."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

The old static statusbar, the old (compact) location bar drop-down. You also need to add obscure crap to your userChrome.css file to get back stuff like the full menubar (4.x and > make it so that some menu items, like the back/forward/stop/reload navigation items, are only visible when opening the menubar via keyboard shortcuts - this can be fixed with "#navigator-toolbox menuitem[class="show-only-for-keyboard"] { display:-moz-box !important; }"), or a persistent Go button.

Reply Score: 1

Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:45 UTC
mfaudzinr
Member since:
2008-02-13

Firefox 5.0.1 looked so uncannily like Opera of the current iteration. And of course Opera does get its design cue from Chrome. But I'm sticking with Opera. I've used it from 1996 or so. So far I do like that all browsers are moving towards a more simplified interface. I like clean uncluttered interface.

Edited 2011-08-01 21:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very similar to Opera
by _xmv on Mon 1st Aug 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "Very similar to Opera"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Firefox 5.0.1 looked so uncannily like Opera of the current iteration. And of course Opera does get its design cue from Chrome. But I'm sticking with Opera. I've used it from 1996 or so. So far I do like that all browsers are moving towards a more simplified interface. I like clean uncluttered interface.

That's funny because actually Opera got it's design from Firefox.
Firefox has been VERY slow in development between 2x and 4x and they have a quasi fully open development model.

This means the Firefox UI sketches where up and look just like FF 5 and Opera, 2 or 3 years ago (!)

Opera copied it and released first. Sure it's fair competition - but let's not confuse who did what. Mozilla pioneered that UI and that's why they use it.

In fact, Mozilla has become the "lets insult that company" because they grew bigger and don't sound as cool as Google. But they kept to their roots so far.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

Most of the browsers out there took many design cues from Opera. Most notable is multi-modal interface. Tabs if you will. Nowadays everybody seem to want to emulate Chrome. Oh well to each his own. I'm an Opera guy...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Very similar to Opera
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very similar to Opera"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Most of the browsers out there took many design cues from Opera. Most notable is multi-modal interface. Tabs if you will. Nowadays everybody seem to want to emulate Chrome. Oh well to each his own. I'm an Opera guy...

I tried that mdi interface and really didn't like it. When Phoenix introduced tabs I loved it and never looked back.
If you 'invent' a feature that doesn't get used by a lot of people can you still demand credit for it? If you take an existing feature and improve it to the point where it becomes extremely popular should you share your credit with the previous 'inventor'?

Edited 2011-08-03 05:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

I actually don't understand your point but that's ok. Truthfully speaking I don't care who does what first or credits where credits' due. I've been using Opera for a very long time and I'm happy with the progress that they've made so far. Chrome is the new shiny toy but I love my trusty old toy more and Firefox seem to be lumbering nowadays, while IE starting to look sexy again. I don't care much about Safari.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very similar to Opera
by Fergy on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:26 UTC in reply to "Very similar to Opera"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Firefox 5.0.1 looked so uncannily like Opera of the current iteration. And of course Opera does get its design cue from Chrome. But I'm sticking with Opera. I've used it from 1996 or so. So far I do like that all browsers are moving towards a more simplified interface. I like clean uncluttered interface.

I feel like Opera's current iteration looks like an alpha version of Firefox 5. You have tabs on top but you can't throw your mouse to the top and click. You have a single button instead of menubar but they have just thrown all menus in it instead of redesigning it for the button.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very similar to Opera
by Dave_K on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Very similar to Opera"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I feel like Opera's current iteration looks like an alpha version of Firefox 5. You have tabs on top but you can't throw your mouse to the top and click.


They've intentionally left a gap so that the titlebar can be dragged in Windows 7 (a mistake in my opinion). but you can tweak it to remove the gap and make tabs more fitts' law friendly, in fact some skins do that for you.

You have a single button instead of menubar but they have just thrown all menus in it instead of redesigning it for the button.


That's not true. Turn the full menubar back on and you'll see that the menus in the button have a significantly different layout.

It was actually possible to reduce the standard menu bar to a button a good few years before the new menu button was made a default.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

Yeah what's with the gap I wonder. I find it disconcerting if it has no real purpose. How'd you tweak it? I like clean simplicity and abhor skins...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Very similar to Opera
by Dave_K on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very similar to Opera"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Yeah what's with the gap I wonder. I find it disconcerting if it has no real purpose. How'd you tweak it?


You need to go into Opera:Config and set "Chrome Integration Drag Area Maximized" to 0. Then either install a borderless skin or tweak the existing skin to remove the top padding.

You can find skin tweaking guides on the Opera forums. It's not something I've bothered with as I don't use tabs at the top.

With modern widescreens and a lot of tabs open, I prefer to have a vertical tab bar down the side of the window, especially as the version in Opera's panel has additional features like allowing you to select groups of tabs and filter them by name. The lack of a feature like that is the main reason why I don't use Chrome.

I like clean simplicity and abhor skins...


Some of the available skins are designed to be clean and simple. I generally hate skins too, but it's not like Opera's default skin fits the standard Windows look and feel anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

Thanks

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very similar to Opera
by Morgan on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:40 UTC in reply to "Very similar to Opera"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

But I'm sticking with Opera. I've used it from 1996 or so.



Really? Since 1996 you say? I'm sorry but it sounds an awful lot like you peeked at the Wikipedia article, saw the year, and ran with it to look impressive.

For one thing, Opera may have been released in the last three weeks of 1996, but from what I remember (and I first heard of it in late 1998) it was about as popular then as the Midori browser is today, i.e. far less than 1% usage. In those days it was Netscape vs Internet Explorer all the way. I can't imagine you having used it since 1996 unless you were on the dev team or a beta tester. If you were I apologize for my rude assumptions, but cynic that I am, I highly doubt it.

For another thing, Opera's interface has changed so much in the past decade and a half that it really is an entirely different browser from its early days. That tends to be the case with pretty much all of the current browsers save Chrome, which in its short life has had more "under the hood" changes than anything. If you really have stuck with Opera since day one, I certainly applaud you. I found it to be a curiosity when I first discovered it, mildly useful when I revisited it in 2000-2001, and more or less abhorrent in the years since. I will say that its mobile versions are very nicely done though.

So, please forgive my inherent skepticism, but I think you are making that up to sound smart, and it's not working dude.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Very similar to Opera
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Very similar to Opera"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, please forgive my inherent skepticism, but I think you are making that up to sound smart, and it's not working dude.


Or - and this is just a wild guess out of the goodness of my heart - he doesn't know exactly when he started using it, and guessed 1996.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Very similar to Opera
by Morgan on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very similar to Opera"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

What?? Goodness of your heart??? This isn't the Thom Holwerda I'm used to... (just kidding) ;)

That thought crossed my mind, hence the "I apologize if I'm the stupid one" part. But one of my fatal flaws is a hefty amount of cynicism and a bullshitometer that stays cranked to 11. And I tend to be extra cranky when I'm at work at 3:30am, and that's nobody's fault but my own.

Edited 2011-08-02 07:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't know he looks Scandinavian in his profile pic. Opera started in Norway and was a hit in the Nordic countries due to the different language versions.

Heck, I'm a US citizen and I was using Opera in mid 1997. The lab computers were stuck with Netscape 2 ( Netscape 4 was already out), and I didn't have admin privileges to install anything. I could install opera ( opera 2.x? don't remember) to a 1.44 mb floppy and take it from computer to computer. It was lightening fast compared to Netscape (2,3, or eventually 4) on those computers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Very similar to Opera
by Morgan on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very similar to Opera"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, I realize looking back how much of an ass I made of myself there. I think I'm going to stop posting from work, where I'm always bitter and tired. Not an excuse by the way.

I had forgotten that Opera used to fit on a floppy! That was one of those things that piqued my interest when I first started using it.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Eh, it happens to the best of us. Thanks for being honourable enough to own up to a grumpy mood. Even the best of us aren't saints 24/7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

I used it when it still fit in a 3.5" Floppy. So when was that. Even remembered using it in it's beta stages back then which crashed a lot. Nah Don't need to sound impressive. I just love the software even back then. Even more so now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Very similar to Opera
by Morgan on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very similar to Opera"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah I was being a jerk, and I'm sorry about that. One of the reasons I don't have as many "friends" on here as some is that I tend to speak first and think later. Add that to my cynical nature, and I end up making a fool of myself.

Either way, you were using it before I was, as I found out about it near the end of the "fit on a floppy" days. I remember actually having to hunt down an older version so I could use it like that.

I wish I could say I still love Opera, but it just doesn't have that magic it had back in the '90s. As I've said before though, the mobile version kicks major butt! I put it on our new (well, new to us) Windows Mobile-based barcode scanners at the part time job, and it runs crazy-fast. We use them for quick product lookups, and hopefully soon for full inventory management. That's my new pet project there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Very similar to Opera
by mfaudzinr on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very similar to Opera"
mfaudzinr Member since:
2008-02-13

:-) :-) :-) 3 smileys for you. You're alright. Anyways on desktops, Opera is my poison and yes the mobile version kicks ass.

Reply Score: 1

Misleading title
by Sodki on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:51 UTC
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

Mozilla has already announced that these were just internal design mockups and are in no way the official vision of the future Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Misleading title
by _xmv on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:05 UTC in reply to "Misleading title"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Mozilla has already announced that these were just internal design mockups and are in no way the official vision of the future Firefox.

The news has been picked up only because its sensationalistic. The accuracy does not matter, even on OSNews. Though readers knew that by now. Sensational = hits = ads = money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Misleading title
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Misleading title"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Mozilla has already announced that these were just internal design mockups and are in no way the official vision of the future Firefox.

The news has been picked up only because its sensationalistic. The accuracy does not matter, even on OSNews. Though readers knew that by now. Sensational = hits = ads = money.
"

Did the possibility that I was simply unaware of that cross your mind at all? I'm currently in the final stages of finishing up my masters' thesis while at the same time running my translation company, so my apologies if I don't have the full time to devote to every news item on OSNews.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Misleading title
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Misleading title"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10


Did the possibility that I was simply unaware of that cross your mind at all? I'm currently in the final stages of finishing up my masters' thesis while at the same time running my translation company, so my apologies if I don't have the full time to devote to every news item on OSNews.

Still your huge bias towards Chrome should have made you think twice before jumping on the opportunity of downplaying Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

Amazing
by joehms22 on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:59 UTC
joehms22
Member since:
2011-08-01

The mockups are stunning whether or not they become reality. Practically why go through the trouble of doing new UX testing when Google has already done theirs (as long as they don't copy the ever shrinking tabs of chrome ;)

After looking at about:config and doing some rough math, my Firefox has ~2000 settings; this interface hides that complexity nicely.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Amazing
by Elv13 on Mon 1st Aug 2011 22:03 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

about:config show only half of them. The rest have defaults and are enabled only when the value is not the default.

Reply Score: 2

Nice Firefox...
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 1st Aug 2011 22:13 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

They basically pointed at Chrome and said "pretty much that".

I've been pointing another finger up at Chrome (and Firefox since it's been shitting on every reason Firefox users choose Firefox in the first place), and it's sure as hell not the pointer finger.

I'll be off of Iceweasel for good pretty soon. Firefox SUCKS these days. Sorry, had to say it. Their pointlessly fast releases and ripping of Chrome is just the beginning. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would f***ing use Chrome, god damn it.

Mozilla (and especially the Mozilla Corporation) and Asa Dotzler can go FOAD for all I care. Seriously, they've been doing nothing but running themselves into the ground since the Corporation was formed, and Asa's one of the lead nuts it seems these days.

Edited 2011-08-01 22:19 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Nice Firefox...
by Barnabyh on Mon 1st Aug 2011 22:30 UTC in reply to "Nice Firefox..."
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Exactly, well said. As a traditionalist, I chose FF because amongst things like extensions it gave me an interface similar to IE and Netscape back in the (early) days, and that's what I want my browser to look like.

Like already said, if I wanted Chrome...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nice Firefox...
by Pro-Competition on Mon 1st Aug 2011 22:39 UTC in reply to "Nice Firefox..."
Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

Don't hold back - tell us what you really think. ;^)

Reply Score: 6

RE: Nice Firefox...
by Fergy on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:37 UTC in reply to "Nice Firefox..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I've been pointing another finger up at Chrome (and Firefox since it's been shitting on every reason Firefox users choose Firefox in the first place), and it's sure as hell not the pointer finger.

You didn't mention the reason why people choose Firefox.(I would like to think it is because they like it)
I'll be off of Iceweasel for good pretty soon. Firefox SUCKS these days. Sorry, had to say it. Their pointlessly fast releases and ripping of Chrome is just the beginning. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would f***ing use Chrome, god damn it.

Why are fast releases pointless?(They give you new features now instead of in 12 months and it is less work for the developers)
Mozilla (and especially the Mozilla Corporation) and Asa Dotzler can go FOAD for all I care. Seriously, they've been doing nothing but running themselves into the ground since the Corporation was formed, and Asa's one of the lead nuts it seems these days.

Mozilla has been growing in influence and money since the corporation was formed.


All this ranting and you have said nothing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice Firefox...
by Morgan on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 08:09 UTC in reply to "Nice Firefox..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm genuinely curious: What browser are you moving to? You mentioned leaving Iceweasel so I'm assuming you are using Debian or a derivative.

I'd love to know what might be better than Firefox. I still use it for the easy sync, good extensions and cross-platform support. Those things exist in Chrome, though to a lesser degree on all fronts. Syncing in Chrome, for example, is easier to set up but has some pretty silly defaults. I prefer my most used shortcuts as "buttons" on the bookmark toolbar using only the favicon for identification. Firefox handles syncing those just fine, whereas Chrome puts them in a different random order on every subsequent install. For someone like me who is very nearly OCD, that is quite frustrating.

Still, I'm growing tired of seeing my memory usage in the high hundreds of megabytes with two tabs open in Firefox on Windows. It's not as bad on Arch Linux, but it's still the most resource hungry program I run in either OS by far. Chrome is not really an option for me, as I feel it's pretty much "Firefox Light", i.e. not enough to compel me to migrate fully to it despite the smaller footprint.

I do like what I've seen of Midori, though I feel it has a long way to go yet. I even find myself using Dillo and Links when I'm in Arch Linux, though mostly for text-heavy pages as neither handles modern formatting well.

So please, enlighten us! I'm sure I'm not the only one wanting to know what lies in greener pastures in the great browser war of 2011.

Reply Score: 2

Wallpaper
by John Blink on Mon 1st Aug 2011 23:56 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Where can i get that blue purple wallpaper in the mockups?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wallpaper
by RichterKuato on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 03:34 UTC in reply to "Wallpaper"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14
RE: Wallpaper
by ggeldenhuys on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 10:14 UTC in reply to "Wallpaper"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

hehe... I was thinking the same thing. I don't like the Chrome-like mockup, but I do fancy the wallpaper. ;)

Reply Score: 2

On-topic: Past Features
by John Blink on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:00 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

I think some of the old functionality has been compiled out of Firefox current.

I have been trying to upgrade my brother from 3.x but he won't budge until they return the old status bar.

His monitor is massive, and he keeps the window maximised, so he would like the status bar always visible.

How do you bring it back?

Reply Score: 3

RE: On-topic: Past Features
by _xmv on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:04 UTC in reply to "On-topic: Past Features"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

status4ever extension brings it back.

but who needs it really? I mean, if you hover a link you get the information anyway. If you don't its empty, pretty useless if you ask me.

The progression bar is and has never been accurate. A rolling circle is just as accurate as the progress bar. So, that can't really be missed either.

Then again if you still want it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/
and it works with every firefox even nightlies

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: On-topic: Past Features
by John Blink on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE: On-topic: Past Features"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Thank you. I'll check it out.

Reply Score: 2

Fennec
by _xmv on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:01 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

I find it more interesting to look at Fennec - their mobile version.
Sure it's not as news sensationalistic, but on the mobile, tiny screen platform UI matters A LOT MORE.

And Firefox is very different from the others, on mobile. They also asked feedback several times there and didnt get much, because, once again, it wasn't sensationalistic. Hard to bash Firefox mobile on UI design (easy to bash it on performances)

Reply Score: 3

I get why they're doing this ...
by MacTO on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:16 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

I get why they're doing this and I'm not stuck on the old user interface, but I find switching between programs these days quite jarring because everyone is using a different interface paradigms. Some programs use old fashioned menu bars, others ribbons, and sometimes reams of menu options are tucked into a single toolbar icon. And that is just a small sampling from the big vendors ...

Changing to a better UI is good, but please give people time to decide if they like it and for other vendors to catch up. Because, quite frankly, I'm spending a lot of time figuring out where things are on the computer and I'm the type of person that others usually depend upon to show them!

Reply Score: 7

Meh
by smitty on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 00:21 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

FF4 already switched to the basic Chrome UI. These mockups just look like a further extension of that, it's not really another major update.

Reply Score: 5

Harry Potter....
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 01:10 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I'm not sure I trust any Adult that likes Harry Potter enough to make it their theme to design UI's.

Reply Score: 5

looks cool.
by graig on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 01:37 UTC
graig
Member since:
2010-09-18

those look so cool. i like every one of those except the one with the round button with the sideways triangle. not sure what that icon does, but it's ugly. but overall it looks very very cool.

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 02:03 UTC
RE: Comment by Luminair
by Sabz on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 03:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Sabz Member since:
2005-07-07

its no longer Mozilla, its Chrozilla. but yeah Mozilla has been dead for awhile. FF5 really has nothing new unlike FF6

anyone seen a Picture of a mockup of a linux UX build?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Fergy on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

its no longer Mozilla, its Chrozilla. but yeah Mozilla has been dead for awhile. FF5 really has nothing new unlike FF6

anyone seen a Picture of a mockup of a linux UX build?

If Chrome didn't exist would Mozilla be copying IE9 or Opera? If my sarcasm isn't clear; a good idea can originate anywhere and using it is only smart.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Sabz on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
Sabz Member since:
2005-07-07

"its no longer Mozilla, its Chrozilla. but yeah Mozilla has been dead for awhile. FF5 really has nothing new unlike FF6

anyone seen a Picture of a mockup of a linux UX build?

If Chrome didn't exist would Mozilla be copying IE9 or Opera? If my sarcasm isn't clear; a good idea can originate anywhere and using it is only smart.
"
Mozilla arent copying anyone. look at the UX branch Tabs, much different from Chrome and opera or IE . the only think i can think of that Mozilla are doing some similar to Chrome and thats there JavaScript. Mozilla have been slow to act on DOM compared to what Chrome does, Chrome uses Multi Processes on all where FF only uses 2 out of 3 Multi Processes , in the UX branch i think should have all 3 using all 3 Multi processes, ( i'd have to dig up the article about that ) and im to lazy, plus its near dinner time where i live anyway http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2094853/mozilla-looks-mult...

Edited 2011-08-03 08:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Firefox: Be original!
by Obsidian_ShadowHawk on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 02:24 UTC
Obsidian_ShadowHawk
Member since:
2011-08-02

As most of us know, IE has been ripping ideas from Firefox for years. Firefox was fresh, full of new ideas. Now the tables have turned. When I updated to Firefox 3, I was shocked and nauseous. Now Firefox has sunken to the level of ripping off of Chrome! Just like you said in your review of iOS on the iPad, there is more than one way of building a good interface. I use Firefox because Chrome's interface was anti-productive for me. Now I have to find a bunch of extensions and hacks to get Firefox the way it was in 2.x. Firefox needs to be original again. Mozilla needs to go back to the 2.x UI, and start from there again. Figure out a different way of doing it better. With all the copy-catting that has been going on between IE, Firefox, and Chrome, I am surprised that software patent lawsuits are not flying about between the three browsers! (YET!)

Reply Score: 3

vertical
by gfx1 on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 02:46 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

I would like a few more vertical pixels available to view the web. The current firefox on osx has a menubar (standard apple) a window bar (three round buttons and a title) the tab bar and an adressbar with some buttons.
On windows they managed to compress some of this in less pixels.
On OSX they could trim some stuff down.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 03:20 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

The Chrome looking ones are a nice step but I'm more interested in seeing them adopt some of the idea's from their Ubiquitous Firefox concept. Namely, Inline Tab History:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:David_Regev/Ubiquitous_Firefox#Step_3a...

Reply Score: 3

v It's time
by neticspace on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 05:27 UTC
RE: It's time
by shmerl on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 05:45 UTC in reply to "It's time"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

What for? Gecko is innovative in its own right. And Mozilla's JavaScript VM is a state of art, and it continues to improve. It's time for someone to realize that not only WebKit is supposed to be supported (hinting on mobile browsers). Fortunately good developers like for example those of jQuery Mobile realize it pretty well.

Reply Score: 5

RE: It's time
by Erunno on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 19:52 UTC in reply to "It's time"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

It's time for Firefox to ditch Gecko and welcome WebKit for its layout engine.


Since significant parts of Mozilla's technology stack are dependent on Gecko (such as XUL) trying rewrite it to accommodate WebKit would certainly put Mozilla out of the browser business as it would tie large parts of their resources for several years. I'm glad that Mozilla never truly considered such poisonous advices from false friends.

Plus, according to a Mozilla developer even WebKit people are interested in having multiple engines implementing the standards.

Reply Score: 2

Chaotic and Distracting?
by Finchwizard on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:53 UTC
Finchwizard
Member since:
2006-02-01

"As someone who finds the current interface a little... Chaotic and distracting"

Maybe you should just sit in the corner with a coloring book.

The Internet is serious business.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Chaotic and Distracting?
by M.Onty on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 18:59 UTC in reply to "Chaotic and Distracting?"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

"As someone who finds the current interface a little... Chaotic and distracting"

Maybe you should just sit in the corner with a coloring book.

The Internet is serious business.


Rumour has it that he once saw Office 2010. And died.

Reply Score: 1

My thoughts
by Neolander on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:02 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

* Controls are too large for mouse use, it's a waste of space. Firefox 4/5 was an improvement in terms of screen estate use, why go back now ? Firefox's main destination platform won't be equipped with a touchscreen anytime soon.
* Home button positioning sounds incredibly annoying for an experienced user, but well, I got used to it for FF4 so I guess I could get used to it too. It also makes sense from a UX standpoint to put it close to the "App tabs". However, why not move the bookmarks button there, then ?
* The "gear" menu is an awful mess. Bi-dimensional grids don't work well and never had for anything other than file browsing, people should just get over it. Also, drag and drop is another relic from the past that should be run away from as fast as possible. ESPECIALLY if they target touch devices.
* Give me my search bar back ! I need it, and they don't explain how they plan to properly replace it yet.

As a whole, not attracted by this interface. As pointed out by others, if I wanted to use Chrome, I would use Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My thoughts
by Icaria on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:40 UTC in reply to "My thoughts"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

'bi-directional grids' (or matrices) aren't even good for file managers. Set your file manager to display files in a single column (ideally with text besides icons) and watch as your productivity improves.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My thoughts
by M.Onty on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 19:02 UTC in reply to "My thoughts"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Also, drag and drop is another relic from the past that should be run away from as fast as possible. ESPECIALLY if they target touch devices.


Aside from touch based devices, what's wrong with drag 'n' drop? I've personally never found a GUI thats more fluid to use than RISC OS which is very heavy on that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My thoughts
by Neolander on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE: My thoughts"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It's a pretty complex operation for what it's usually used for. You have to...
-Target the file (precise pointing)
-Grab it
-While holding the mouse button, target the destination area, which is generally small if present at all and does not benefit from the infinite screen borders, unless you switch windows by doing a complex round trip to the task switcher while still holding your file.

Compared to copy&paste or, in this case, clicking an "install extension" button, this looks exceedingly complicated.

Maybe RISC OS has some kind of large permanently visible screen area dedicated to drag and drop, though. This could reduce the latter targeting problem at the cost of precious screen area. I've heard of one OS that had such a "shelf", though I can't remember how it was called.

Unless this firefox UI automatically opens the gear menu automatically, it doesn't have this for it, but you're right that I was being a bit harsh. Maybe drag and drop can be done right and made pleasant as compared to alternatives. I've just never seen a UI to date that made it a practical option. Delphi's form builder was close, but is was still simpler to single-click the control and single-click the form, instead of dragging the mouse around with the left finger pressed.

Edited 2011-08-03 08:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

.
by Icaria on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:37 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

I really wish browser vendors would stop trying to out-design each other with a combination of novel widgets and the removal/hiding of any and all potentially non-critical functionality.

Reply Score: 1

The problem is inconsistency
by filosofem on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 09:43 UTC
filosofem
Member since:
2010-05-05

I would call the UI change introduced in Firefox 4 and later an "improvement" only very hesitantly. Sure, the menu paradigm is dated and has to be replaced with something more streamlined, but they did a mediocre job in cleaning up the UI.

As in Firefox 5.0, certain useful features that have been there since forever are still only accessible via the traditional menu. For example, you have to hit Alt + V or bring back the menu bar just to enable/disable Zoom Text Only and whatnot.

All in all, the current UI feels like a mish-mash of different paradigms, neither here or there... But I'll still be using Firefox for the near future because some extensions are just indispensable for me.

Reply Score: 2

Going extreme
by biffuz on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 10:01 UTC
biffuz
Member since:
2006-03-27

Except a few details, I don't see anything new here. I wonder if it's time to start rethinking the whole browser paradigm.

1) Back and forward buttons: are they still needed? A lot of sites have all dynamic content rendered inside some DIVs, so those buttons are far from doing what you expect. Sites are turning into applications.

2) Address bar: things like http://server123.somewhere.somewherelese.com/path/to/something.funn... doesn't help anyone. That's a mere technical detail nowadays.

3) Status bar (or the simple popup that replaced it): as more and more anchors now just run some Javascript, it's becoming useless. I installed status4ever only because I feel lost and lonely without a status bar.

4) Progress bar: the times of staring at a progress bar while our modem made some funny noises while our page was being loaded are long gone. As the pages themselves (see point 1). And spinning wheels aren't that much useful anyway, perhaps only for the first time a "page" is requested. Everything else should be handled inside the "page" itself: let's take a news with comments below, the link for the next page of comments actually loads the comments in the comments area (a DIV), not the whole "page"; so the spinning wheel only makes sense inside that area, or over the link.

5) Ability to select text, contextual menus on pictures, etc.: They're so damn useful, but I wonder how long they will survive. Read: I see new projects using Javascript to render content inside canvases, and the content is described with less insane languages than HTML and CSS (even binary, to laugh at those Firebug nerds). Where we used to have all-Flash sites, we're going to have all-canvas-and-JS sites. Block that, now... we have to hope that site designer will be so generous to leave some selectable stuff.

6) Last but not least, as every site is becoming an application, let's turn those into real applications at OS level! Chrome already does this only in part - I can't alt-tab/Exposé/whatever between sites, for example. I would really love that. Also put in drag&drop, bookmarks in Start menu/Launchpad/Dock/whatever, etc.

7) This is not really a browser's fault, but as that sites-are-applications thing implies, the language they're written in should evolve. Multithreading, anyone?
Even better, there shold be more languages for the folks - and I sign in for that - who doesn't like Javascript. A solution could be to have a universal bytecode, AOT compilers for each language (and a JIT compiler to speed things up), with the compiler supplied by the site itself if it isn't already available in the browser.

I believe the internet is moving this wsay, currently we are in a sort of half-backed situation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Going extreme
by shmerl on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 22:25 UTC in reply to "Going extreme"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Back and Forward are common use cases. Sites should behave correctly, and not the browser become broken because sites are:

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/08/making-history-with-the-august-dev...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by v_bobok
by v_bobok on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 11:52 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

Mockup looks decent in OSX/Aqua version. Terrible in Win7 Aero -- ewwww, gross.

Reply Score: 1

FF5
by Drunkula on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 13:23 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

I still use FF5 primarily. However, lately I've been growing just a bit disenchanted with the interface. I have to move my mouse too much for my normal use. I've been growing more fond of Chrome at about the same pace as I've been losing interest in FF.

Still the mockups look great!

Reply Score: 1

RE: FF5
by Neolander on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 14:31 UTC in reply to "FF5"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If you don't like moving the mouse, you could try keyboard-based UIs like the one provided by Vimperator ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: FF5
by biffuz on Wed 3rd Aug 2011 08:43 UTC in reply to "FF5"
biffuz Member since:
2006-03-27

Ever tried Lynx? ;-)

Reply Score: 2

.
by fran on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 16:08 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

hunt the function.

Hope they keep the option to show toolbars.

Reply Score: 2

My opinion FWIW
by marcus0263 on Thu 4th Aug 2011 04:35 UTC
marcus0263
Member since:
2007-06-02

I'm liken Chrome, nice, clean and fast. I still need FF for a few plugins/extensions that aren't available on Chrome like HTTPFox. Seeing out IE and FF are both moving their interface closer to Chrome shows how good it actually is.

Reply Score: 1