Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st May 2014 23:19 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces

This is a bit of a weird topic, but I think it might be interesting to figure out what, exactly, is going on here. Ever since its very first release Chrome has had a very small, barely noticeable visual bug in its user interface: its window widgets (or buttons) are not aligned properly. As you can see in the screenshot below, they are shifted slightly to the right compared to a window without the bug.

Now, this has never been too big of an annoyance to bother the developers with, so I never made a bug report out of it, and I still don't think it's important enough. Chrome has a custom titlebar compared to regular Windows windows (because of the tabs-on-top), so I figured that was the cause.

Since yesterday, I've been using Firefox 29, and I noticed that it has the exact same bug:

Now my interest is properly piqued. Upon closer inspection, you can see that Chrome and Firefox actually have different offsets. The below image also illustrates that in the normal situation, the right edge of the close widget lines up pixel-perfect with the content area (the red line); this is not the case for Chrome and Firefox, where the close widget and content are misaligned.

These are two different applications with two entirely different codebases, and yet, they have the same visual bug, albeit slightly different in presentation. For some reason, this fascinates me; is it a limitation in how Windows handles custom titlebars? Is it, perhaps, a feature, and is there a deeper reasoning behind it? Is it just sloppiness? Do we have any Windows developers here who could possibly shed a light on this?

Some will call this petty whining, and surely, it is. However, I'm not asking this because I'm bothered by it; I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious where this bug comes from.

Order by: Score:
Me too
by zizban on Thu 1st May 2014 23:42 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

I use Windows 8 at work and I noticed this too. I thought it was something to do with Chrome. I guess not.

Reply Score: 2

Bring on the bugs...
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 2nd May 2014 00:05 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

...if that's a "bug," then it's a desired bug. Who's genius idea was it to put the buttons so far from the right side anyway? Now, we just need another "bug" that gets rid of the repulsive, obscenely large window borders that the atrocity known as Windows 8 brought with it and Windows 8.1u1 still hasn't fixed. It requires a registry tweak just to correct, yet it still manages to fuck itself back up on occasion, requiring constant trips back to the wretched registry.

I don't think I'll get started on all the crashes 8.1 brought with it that still haven't been fixed, the complete inability to access PC Settings of 8.1u1, and the completely garbled Start screen that 8.1u1 also brought with it. Bleh.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bring on the bugs...
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd May 2014 00:16 UTC in reply to "Bring on the bugs..."
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

While it's not a proper fix, you could follow these instructions to craft a .reg file that applies your workaround so re-applying it is just a matter of double-clicking the file and choosing OK.

https://support.microsoft.com/kb/310516

Heck, if you write a batch file that opens it using regedit.exe /s, you could silently apply it on login and, unless Windows 8 dropped support for the task scheduler, you could also make it happen automatically every X amount of time so the double-click is only necessary if you can't wait.

Edited 2014-05-02 00:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bring on the bugs...
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 2nd May 2014 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Bring on the bugs..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Unfortunately, that still leaves me with much worse problems; specifically, constant crashes on boot (literally about ten tries just a little while ago--no exaggeration--before the damn thing finally booted and was usable without freezing), the inability to access PC settings and therefore do certain things I need to do regarding updates, and the inability to run other Metro "apps" as well, and like I said, the newly messed up Start screen.

The OS is a trainwreck. I just gave up trying to boot back into it earlier, it got so fucking annoying. Updates forcing reboots which--you guessed it--caused more freezing and required even more forced power-offs and reboot attempts. No thanks, I don't have time for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bring on the bugs...
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 2nd May 2014 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bring on the bugs..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Also, I forgot to mention: it is impossible to set a batch file or even use the task scheduler to automate the process. It requires you to log out and then log back in in order to make the changes take effect and to get rid of the borders. Trust me, it's nowhere near as seamless as you make it out to be. It's just yet another pain in the ass, plain and simple.

Edited 2014-05-02 01:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Bring on the bugs...
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd May 2014 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bring on the bugs..."
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Ahh.

Well, serves me right for making a suggestion when I deleted my Windows XP partition back around 2004 and the last remaining non-Linux user in the house has no plans to upgrade his gaming box away from Windows 7.

Edited 2014-05-02 01:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bring on the bugs...
by azaroth on Fri 2nd May 2014 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bring on the bugs..."
azaroth Member since:
2014-05-02

I can honestly say that Windows 8.1u1 has been rock solid for me, and this is on a laptop where the system drive (an SSD) was loaded with Windows 8 on my old laptop, later migrated to my new laptop (completely different hardware too, CPU, GPU, wireless and bluetooth chipset) without reloading the operating system and then upgraded to Windows 8.1 and then to Windows 8.1u1 as soon as the bits were available via MSDN.

On my computer specifically, I have zero problems. It boots in seconds, handles every game I throw at it and even runs a couple of applications that Windows 7 had some minor issues running, not sure why, maybe improvements to the compatibility layers.

We also have several convertible laptops in our office running Windows 8.1u1 and none of them exhibit any problems. We did have to update some driver packs going from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 to fix minor issues.

If you are having that many problems with your computer I think it's time for a fresh reload. The settings application and control panel both work just fine in Windows 8.1u1. That combined with the other issues you mention related to booting and crashing, it really sounds like either a hardware issue or something has corrupted portions of your Windows installation.

I do agree with the window borders, they could be slimmed up, I don't really see a need for that much "chrome" on the windows. This could be an accessibility "feature" where the UI designers feel slightly thicker borders make it easier to visually distinguish the boundaries of window content when multiple ones are open and overlapping on the same desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Bring on the bugs...
by sgtarky on Tue 6th May 2014 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bring on the bugs..."
sgtarky Member since:
2006-01-02

My wife's laptop was getting random freezes with win 8.1. It would just freeze up and you couldnt do anything with it except turn it off and back on. If you let it sit for 15 minutes or so it would clear up. I had tried countless fixes, reg keys, power setting changes ect. most of the people having similar issues was due to SSD, which I do not have.However with win 8.1.u1 the issue seems to have cleared up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bring on the bugs...
by No it isnt on Fri 2nd May 2014 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bring on the bugs..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Crashes are most likely hardware problems. Check your RAM, then maybe your PSU.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Bring on the bugs...
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 2nd May 2014 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bring on the bugs..."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I *suspect* video card driver(s), actually (nVidia/Intel HD). I am getting 16GB to max the system's memory out today, so I'll quickly find out that it's probably not that (if it was, then surely I would have ran into at least *some* problem in Linux by now).

Still though, this problem has existed since Windows 8.1 was released (you can find articles and forum posts dating back to like Nov./Dec.), and it STILL is not fixed. There comes a point where it is bullshit, and you can point the blame on hardware drivers all you want, but this is Windows being affected here and... after gladly taking your money... you'd think Microsoft would do *something* about this shit. Get on the culprit companies, or something. Put an end to it for once.

But NO. Can't do that. That would actually require doing something with that money they gladly took in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Bring on the bugs...
by WorknMan on Fri 2nd May 2014 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bring on the bugs..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yeah, probably video card drivers. Windows 8 ran flawlessly for me, but when I installed 8.1, PC started crashing like Paul Walker ;) Eventually updated drivers (Geforce GTX 460) fixed the problem, and now it's rock solid again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bring on the bugs...
by BluenoseJake on Sun 4th May 2014 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bring on the bugs..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Sounds like your computer is broken to me. I've installed dozens of Win 8 computers, and i only saw one that wouldn't run metro apps, and it came down to a borked video driver. Constant crashes? Unable to access settings? That is not typical behavior.

Reply Score: 2

It's sloppiness!
by rafaelluik on Fri 2nd May 2014 00:36 UTC
rafaelluik
Member since:
2010-10-06

Opera 20 window buttons are aligned just fine. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's sloppiness!
by KLU9 on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:01 UTC in reply to "It's sloppiness!"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

going off on a tangent... is Opera Next worth transitioning to?

I'm still on Opera 12. I've tried moving to Chrome, Firefox etc but everytime I give them a go, it feels like "amateur hour meets crippleware".

And Opera Next on Android (the only version I've sullied myself trying ;) doesn't even have bookmarks, ffs!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: It's sloppiness!
by VenomousGecko on Fri 2nd May 2014 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: It's sloppiness!"
VenomousGecko Member since:
2005-07-06

I am actually using Opera 20 on my Windows 7 and OS X system and it works great. Website compatibility is vastly improved with it use of WebKit and it is very fast and easy to use. When it first came out, it had an issue with the difficulty in using bookmarks in a toolbar model (how I used it on Firefox) but they have since fixed that issue. I would recommend it to anyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's sloppiness!
by azaroth on Fri 2nd May 2014 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE: It's sloppiness!"
azaroth Member since:
2014-05-02

I have tried the latest builds of Opera and it works just like a webkit browser should be expected to work. The site compatibility is improved thanks to using webkit but there are also a lot of UI changes with the new version. The core Opera application is solely focused on being a web browser. They have removed all of the mail and NNTP code from the browser and made it available as a separate application. The built-in customization options also seem to have been reduced, but on the positive side the plug-in framework seems more solid and more flexible than in older versions.

If you have issues with webkit's rendering engine and don't like Chrome or Safari for that reason then you'll probably find similar things to dislike about the new Opera browser. If it is more about UI preferences I'd say give it a try. You can have both the old and new versions installed on the same system so it wouldn't hurt to take a look.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's sloppiness!
by KLU9 on Fri 2nd May 2014 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's sloppiness!"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

I'm not so much concerned with the rendering, but rather the functionality of the browser. There are so many little things I can do in Opera "Classic" that seem more difficult or impossible in other browsers.

One example off the top of my head:

While browsing multiple pages, I realize that I want to re-open a page I closed recently (page "Y"). Then after re-opening that page, I realize it *is* useful, but so was the page that linked me to it (the referring page? not sure of the terminology)(page "X"), I want to see that previous one too.

In Opera:
* Click button at top-right, which displays drop-down list of all recently closed pages
* Click on page Y, which is restored.
* See the page, then click "Back" and see page X.

Dead simple and quick. Only one "decision point" and it's an easy one ("what was the title of page Y?"). 3 clicks. Over in seconds.

In Chrome:
* Should I press CTRL+SHIFT+T to open most recently closed page? What if it wasn't *exactly* the last closed page? Should I keep on pressing CTRL+SHIFT+T until I get to the correct one, and then manually reclose all the others? Or should I press CTRL+H, which opens a new browser page displaying the browsing history? (Obviously not a mission impossible, but it's a decision point that slows the user down)
* Press CTRL+H, opens new page with list of recently closed pages.
* Click on page Y, which is restored.
* See page Y, then click "Back" which takes me to... the History page. ffs!
* Start scanning all the URLs on the History page, trying to work out which one might be page X. "Was that it?" "no, no, not sure, maybe, maybe"
* Try opening a few, scanning the contents and wondering again "was that it?" "no, no, not sure, maybe, maybe". Close the pages I realize are not page X.
* Finally realize that one of the pages I've opened is page X.

Multiple decision points, of which most require significant time wondering and scanning ("all of these pages in my history, which damned one was page X???"). Multiple clicks (anywhere from 3 to 30+). Total process can take a few minutes. And sometimes I just give up on finding page X.

That's just one example of the many little things that all add up, and make me wonder every time I seriously try to convert to a browser other than Opera Classic "Jeez! Don't the people making this browser ever actually *browse* the web? Why do they have to make things so hard?"

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: It's sloppiness!
by amacdonald on Fri 2nd May 2014 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's sloppiness!"
amacdonald Member since:
2008-09-21

Hi KLU9

Just wanted to let you know Firefox supports this. If you go to history->recently closed tabs then it shows around 10 recent tabs any of which can be clicked and they are restored including their individual tab history so back works etc. I use it all the time.

I'm a bit like you. I've wanted to try chrome but every time I do there is some specific use case I use regularly in Firefox that I struggle to do in another browser. I'd rather have the functionality than a faster, prettier browser

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's sloppiness!
by deathshadow on Fri 2nd May 2014 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE: It's sloppiness!"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

IF you can get by using Chrome, ChrOpera is probably fine for you.

IF on the other hand you actually USE all the features of Opera, the steaming pile of pathetic crippleware known as Chrome with the Opera logo slapped on it any old way will leave you wanting; since all the things that made Opera worth using over other browsers are pretty much nowhere to be found in it. I mean hell, it took them a year to add rocker navigation back in -- and there's STILL no favicon launchers, custom buttons, portrait mode tabs, notes, mail client, cache browser, PROPER scripting error reporting, UI awareness of host OS font settings, search prefixing in the address bar...

Admittedly, to me from a UI standpoint Chrome and Safari are also a pathetic piece of crippleware that's like a trip in the wayback machine to IE3 mac. They're cute toys for grandma, but a massive step backwards in functionality for anyone who actually used Opera as... well... Opera.

Though on the whole the problem of "gutting out features" and "dumbing it down even further" seems to be bordering on being an epidemic; when my grandmother a decade and a half ago was able to figure out how to use Windows 98, YOU'RE ****ING DONE WITH THE UI, LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE!!!

Of course, visual bugs in Winblows 8? Say not so... Given what a useless pile of crap with almost every feature Win7's UI was praised for being NOWHERE to be found; combined with basically shoving a Tablet/Phone UI based on AOL Games circa 1996 down our throats, well...

Hardly a surprise a lot of people consider Windows 8 to be Microsoft telling notebook and desktop users to go plow themselves. Nothing like alienating the market you dominate just to try to break into one that to be frank, I doubt they'll ever be anything more than a "also ran" in.

Edited 2014-05-02 17:50 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: It's sloppiness!
by KLU9 on Fri 2nd May 2014 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's sloppiness!"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

I get the feeling that Opera has been living something of a parallel life to its Scandinavian cousin, Nokia.

After/around the time a protesting von Tetzchner left the company, Opera decided to "focus shift" away from their "burning platform" of Presto and tie their fate to that of some behemoth and its deadly embrace, in the process losing what made them special and thus hastening the very demise they were trying to avoid.

So disappointing.

(btw, when I went to the Opera page on Wikipedia to remind myself of how the hell to spell von Tetzchner's name, I discovered... it wasn't there. Nowhere on the page! I went to "History of the Opera browser" and.. not there! I eventually found it on the Opera Software ASA page. I guess von Tetzchner has been expunged from the other pages, because there would be a picture of him with an accusing look in his eye and the caption "I f#%king told you so!")

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: It's sloppiness!
by zima on Sat 3rd May 2014 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's sloppiness!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Finland is not in Scandinavia. ;) Nokia is a Nordic cousin of Opera.

And if you'll look at Opera financials, they're healthy / doing fine; no demise seen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: It's sloppiness!
by KLU9 on Sun 4th May 2014 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's sloppiness!"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

as I was writing that, I did think "wait, where in the Venn diagram of Nordic countries and Scandinavian countries are both Norway and Finland?" Thanks for the correction.

As for their financials, I suspect most of the *company's* income is coming from mobile, embedded etc.

As for the *product* that matters to me and which brought the company into existence, i.e. the *desktop* browser, while they never had the market share of a major player, the new "Opera" seems to have a tough time even competing with Opera Classic.

(By these stats, the latest and "greatest" Opera 20 has the exact same market share as Opera 12, over a year after O12 was deprecated and users were encouraged to "upgrade" to Opera Next: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_opera.asp )

No doubt Opera the company will continue to exist in some form or another, just as Nokia the company will continue to exist in some form or another.

But just as it seems that nobody will be buying *phones* made by Nokia (the real company Nokia, not a Microsoft sub-brand) in the future, I feel that soon nobody will be using a desktop browser made by Opera.

They have, seemingly intentionally, completely alienated their long-time users to attract a totally different target market who have absolutely no compelling reason to migrate away from whatever desktop browser they're already using just to get a crippled skin for Chromium.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: It's sloppiness!
by zima on Thu 8th May 2014 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It's sloppiness!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, at least Opera Mini is doing fine (mostly responsible for Opera usage share in Africa, now that StatCounter has an option to show it included with dekstop browsers: http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-ww-monthly-201404-201404-map ; it's also rather high in India http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-browser-IN-monthly-201305-201404 and I bet other similar places)

But w3schools stats, which you used, aren't exactly representative. StatCounter is better: http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser_version_partially_combin... (yeah, it doesn't even show Opera Next, so it's probably worse than w3schools stats suggest; either way, Opera Classic also has a minuscule share...)

Or Wikipedia: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm (which does seem to suggest that majority of Opera visitors are using Classic)

And there was recently a new Opera 12 release... (yeah, I still use it; didn't bother to switch yet)

Edited 2014-05-08 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Not petty
by Shane on Fri 2nd May 2014 01:05 UTC
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is absolutely not petty whining. These things matter. Enough tiny inconsistencies like that, and the whole system feels unpolished. Users might not be able to say why exactly, but they will certainly feel it.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not petty
by maccouch on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:47 UTC in reply to "Not petty"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

not sure if i would actually find a couple of pixels to the side 'instinctively' but enough of these papers cuts and the whole OS becomes a non-pleasant mess to use.

On windows (and linux) what i hate more is searching for the Preferences/accounts place. On some is on "edit". on some is "tools" on some is on "file". and a couple of rare ones have it on "help". Also, some program such as thunderbird for instance, separates preferences and accounts so now you got a third component to search while on Mac OS X for instance, it's always all on one place, and always on the same menu/shortcut.

these little things matter more than we value them.

Edited 2014-05-02 11:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not petty
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 2nd May 2014 14:37 UTC in reply to "Not petty"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

This is absolutely not petty whining. These things matter. Enough tiny inconsistencies like that, and the whole system feels unpolished. Users might not be able to say why exactly, but they will certainly feel it.


Or as a wise man once said: "You may not have noticed it... but your brain did."

Reply Score: 3

There are other Bugs
by panzi on Fri 2nd May 2014 01:56 UTC
panzi
Member since:
2006-01-22

There are other Bugs that would bother me much more. I don't use Windows but Linux and I don't use the ugly custom window decoration. Shame that Chrome's design is made so ti doesn't integrate nicely in the systems window decoration. But if I use Chrome's custom window deco I have a pixelated window border radius and no window shadow. Now THAT is ugly.

But the bugs that really bug me are things like render bugs of some web fonts, tabs that take up 100% CPU (good that I have several cores), freezing developer tools, sound cracks in HTML5 audio (the abundance of these change from release to release - currently they are relatively rare, but they where practically non-existent at some point and very abundant at another) etc.

Reply Score: 4

Good question!
by dpJudas on Fri 2nd May 2014 01:56 UTC
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Being curious myself (and suffering from some insomnia) I decided to download the Firefox source code and have a look for myself.

They have a 7523 lines long nsWindow.cpp file there managing their window frames. The code basically operates in two modes, one when the DWM is enabled and one when it isn't. Unfortunately the logic handling each case is mixed together in one giant mess. It doesn't exactly help that the MSDN docs on the subject are rather awful.

Since we are talking about the DWM case here, they don't seem to be doing anything particular unusual. To do custom frames with the DWM, you first tell Windows to how far you want to extend the window frame into areas drawn by the application. Then you tell which areas of the window the application can draw on.

My first theory was that maybe they extended the window frame negatively in the right side (i.e. assuming a 5px sizing width rather than the standard 8px), but when trying out this theory in a test application I was unable to replicate the behavior.

My other theory has been that maybe they custom draw the entire title bar including the buttons. Only problem is that I can find no evidence of them doing this - there seem to be no calls to the Windows theming engine (uxtheme) for this and while they could have drawn the buttons 100% themselves that's fairly unlikely. Especially since the old Firefox drop down in the upper left corner doesn't have the glow effect that the min/max/close buttons do.

So basically I only deepened the mystery! But whatever they are doing the same visual bug appears on Windows 7 too. Funny how I never noticed before Thom mentioned it. ;)

Reply Score: 13

RE: Good question!
by Hiev on Fri 2nd May 2014 02:09 UTC in reply to "Good question!"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

My other theory has been that maybe they custom draw the entire title bar including the buttons

Bingo!

It is actually pretty common in many applications in the Windows ecosystem, in Windows, you do client decorations the way Wayland is recommending it, sometimes, most of the applications use the recommended and default window decorations, but, some applications that want to have a fancy title bar draw it them selves, and they miss details like this, Chrome and Firefox are both this kind of applications.

Edited 2014-05-02 02:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good question!
by dpJudas on Fri 2nd May 2014 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Good question!"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

My other theory has been that maybe they custom draw the entire title bar including the buttons

Bingo!

It is actually pretty common in many applications in the Windows ecosystem, in Windows, you do client decorations the way Wayland is recommending it, sometimes, most of the applications use the recommended and default window decorations, but, some applications that want to have a fancy title bar draw it them selves, and they miss details like this, Chrome and Firefox are both this kind of applications.

Actually most Windows applications are doing a combination where the Desktop Window Manager (DWM) renders the window frame. Then applications draw on top of that. In particular the buttons in the upper right corner is handled by the DwmDefWindowProc function - see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb688195~*~... (Custom Window Frame Using DWM)

And as I said, I see no evidence in the code that Firefox is doing it any differently. Their window handler code seems to pass on hit testing to DwmDefWindowProc before doing their own processing. If they drew their own buttons they wouldn't be doing that.

Speaking of evidence, I just managed to get my test application to misbehave in the same way as Firefox is doing. If my test program adjusts the client rect as part of the WM_NCCALCSIZE(wParam=false) I get the same bug. Seems toying around with this value causes the DWM window frame to offset buttons incorrectly in a weird way.

I can now go to bed. ;)

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Good question!
by ssokolow on Fri 2nd May 2014 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good question!"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

In that case, probably a good idea to file bugs on Firefox and Chrome so your research into the cause is somewhere they can find it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good question!
by Morgul on Sat 3rd May 2014 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good question!"
Morgul Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey, can you post that on GitHub or BitBucket? I'd love to play with your test application some.

I think you hit the nail right on the head; something they're doing with the client rect is triggering a weird bug in DWM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good question!
by maccouch on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Good question!"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

this. it's just custom designed window components. The same thing happens on Mac:

http://uploads.maccouch.com/2014/windows_bar.png

Firefox gets the horizontal placement of the "traffic lights buttons" ok, but screws up the vertical one, the same with chrome that also gets the horizontal placement a couple of pixels to the side.

when apps try to redesign the app "standard" interface, these kind of inconsistencies happen.

so, UI designers, please, please avoid non-standard interfaces...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good question!
by dolske on Sun 4th May 2014 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good question!"
dolske Member since:
2014-05-04

The vertical positioning in both Firefox and Chrome is quite intentional . With tabs being drawn in the titlebar (ie, shifted up), there's not enough space below these widgets to draw tabs, and so it's always empty. The buttons get moved down from their usual spot to make then look visually balanced, vertically, in this space.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851652

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Good question!
by buff on Sun 4th May 2014 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good question!"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Yep, any bugs you filed against that will likely be tagged as "won't fix"

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good question!
by dolske on Sun 4th May 2014 16:17 UTC in reply to "Good question!"
dolske Member since:
2014-05-04

Downloading the source and jumping right into nsWindow.cpp? Bold! ;) If you're interested in poking at it further, we've got build instructions here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Simple_Firefox_build

I put my off-the-cuff suspicion of where this might be in comment 2 of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1005656, nsNativeThemeWin.cpp should be what's what's actually drawing this. A lot of the front-end for this is XUL/HTML/CSS with assistance from this code for native styling.

It all starts with titlebar-buttonbox here: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/base/content/...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good question!
by buff on Sun 4th May 2014 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Good question!"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

See my comment as to why this happens. The buttons and titlebar in Chrome and Firefox are not native window controls and are close approximations. There are minor differences in CSS style such as padding and margin that create minor spacing issues. The app developers could tighten up the theme to approximate native closer but it is not a priority for them since it is very minor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good question!
by buff on Sun 4th May 2014 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Good question!"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

If you want to adjust the CSS code to make the window controls fit better you can do this using the Stylish extension directly in Firefox without having to edit C code. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/ I have an example you can follow with an example of manipulating the tab CSS for Firefox here: http://userstyles.org/styles/98486/minimalist-white I can give you a little headstart here. Open your Inspector in Firefox and enter this URL. You can then inspect the actual Firefox UI! chrome://browser/content/browser.xul

Edited 2014-05-04 16:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Custom drawing
by moronikos on Fri 2nd May 2014 03:00 UTC
moronikos
Member since:
2005-07-06

Both FF and Chrome have non-standard title bars. Therefore, they are probably doing all the title bar drawing themselves includeing the min, max, close buttons in WM_NCPAINT and sometimes WM_NCHITTEST.

Reply Score: 3

Hmm...
by 1c3d0g on Fri 2nd May 2014 05:37 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

It might also be a problem with how Windows handles border padding and such. An easy way to make the borders thinner (which is what Windows 8.1 should have included by default, IMO) is this free tool called "Tiny Windows Borders":
http://winaero.com/comment.php?comment.news.96

Or, you could also edit the Windows Registry manually by following the instructions belowhttp://www.askvg.com/registry-tweak-to-decrease-window-border-size-...

Reply Score: 3

Not just Windows 8 either
by Morgan on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:08 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I got curious; it also happens on Windows 7 with Firefox 29. I don't run Chrome so I can't compare it, but this is Firefox compared to a standard Windows file explorer window:


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4074189/osnews/firefox_border.PN...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not just Windows 8 either
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:23 UTC in reply to "Not just Windows 8 either"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's been there since Chrome's first release, so possibly since Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Open source
by Invincible Cow on Fri 2nd May 2014 11:29 UTC
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

Is it just sloppiness?

Yes. This is one of my biggest grips about open source software. All these small things are unpolished.

Reporting a single problem doesn't help, because this is an attitude problem. "It's such a small thing, it doesn't matter."

When there are more such problems than not, then it matters.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open source
by r_a_trip on Fri 2nd May 2014 13:25 UTC in reply to "Open source"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Does it matter? I've been looking at a Chrome window at work under Windows 7 for about four years now and before this article never noticed the misalignment.

Then again I'm very function oriented. Does it have the controls I need to manipulate the windows? Yes. Are they in a fairly recognisable form? Okay, we're good to go.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Open source
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 2nd May 2014 15:43 UTC in reply to "Open source"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, its actually more of complaint about MS GUI APIs. There are a million of them even Microsoft goes out and does their own thing instead of relying on the existing ones.

But if you have an axe to grind, sure, blame it on open source programs...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Open source
by deathshadow on Fri 2nd May 2014 22:27 UTC in reply to "Open source"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

... and times like this I really hate the inability to vote someone up after posting in a thread.

OH NOES, HE DARED TO SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT OPEN SORES!!! HURRY, VOTE HIM DOWN BEFORE THE TRUTH GETS OUT!!!!!!

Open Source works when the people who encounter the problem have the skills to resolve the issue and the willingness to share those fixes; It falls apart miserably once the number of users without those skills outnumbers the developers by a certain amount.

This is particularly true of bugs that either don't effect functionality, or if it does impact functionality it doesn't do so for the people with the development skills. If it's not important enough to the developers to fix, not big enough an issue for someone to set a bounty on it, and it's not "big, flashy and trendy" enough to stroke the ego of one of the developers, in Open Sores you'll NEVER see the bug fixed -- no matter how many freetards claim that peer review results in bugs being found and fixed faster.

See decade and a half old issues like bugZilla 915. It's one of the many reasons HTML 5 pisses me off; browser makers wasting time implementing a "specification" (and I'm using that word VERY loosly) that so far as actually writing markup is concerned re-introduces redundancies and undoes much of the progress of the past fifteen years -- when most of these browsers still have massive gaps in their HTML 4 implementations!

There is overall on the vast majority of Open Source applications a lack of fit, finish and polish -- PARTICULARLY on anything GUI or even just plain UI related. Gets worse as in most cases while even if they LOOK good, the overall impression is of something incomplete, unfinished, and unprofessional.

See just about every *nix window manager -- that no matter how pretty they are they STILL don't feel as polished and complete as Windows 3.1 or MacOs 5.

Reply Score: 4

No disrespect intended
by p13. on Fri 2nd May 2014 18:12 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

But that's some serious OCD ...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Fri 2nd May 2014 20:21 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

I think you're right about this one, Thom. It's shoddy quality and broken standards.

Reply Score: 3

tech reason why this happens
by buff on Sun 4th May 2014 15:48 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

There is a reason why the window titlebar buttons are different in Chrome, Firefox, and IE11. Firefox and Chrome use a custom titlebar and so the buttons they use for minimize/maximize/close are actually images from a custom app theme. For a typical application the window titlebar buttons are native and come from the OS window manager and so blend in perfectly. Companies choose to create a custom titlebar so they can do cool things like collapse it or rearrange the UI. As you can see the problem with reinventing the wheel is minor differences in the way the app designers styled the buttons. It is a balance of pros and cons. If you want the special features you have no choice but to override the native window buttons. credentials: Firefox theme/extension developer.

Edited 2014-05-04 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nice catch!
by dolske on Sun 4th May 2014 16:10 UTC
dolske
Member since:
2014-05-04

I've not noticed this before, nor heard reports of it, so I went ahead and opened a bug in Bugzilla. Good eye!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1005656

Reply Score: 1

Comment by krreagan
by krreagan on Sun 4th May 2014 21:53 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

OMG people! Window widget alignment.... holly shit! Really!!?? REALLY!?
Go outside and get some sun people.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by krreagan
by 1c3d0g on Sun 4th May 2014 22:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by krreagan"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Then why the f*ck are you here?!? GTFO!

Better yet, don't come back and waste our time with your silly posts.

Edited 2014-05-04 22:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2