The future Firefox UI(people.mozilla.com)
people.mozilla.com
The future Firefox UI
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/ux-presentation/ux-presentation.html
47 comments
> What I don't like about these Chrome UI's is that they don't respect my OS settings
Hear, hear. On our new serious workstation, we mostly run a variety of developer tools and browsers, some basic office software, various graphics/DTP/modelling stuff from companies like Adobe and Autodesk, and a bunch of tools to automate things and join the dots.
On a quick look, exactly none of the major products there uses the standard Windows 7 UI conventions.
I, for one, am sick of:
- not knowing which keyboard shortcuts perform frequent tasks like undo/redo, or more generally, not being able to navigate a UI using systematic and intuitive keystrokes;
- every application's windows having different conventions for dealing with multiple documents, docking panels, and so on (and making the labels ever-smaller wherever they are, so your documents all look like "C:\users\Fred\..." and your web pages are all "Favourite Site | The S...");
- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious methods of giving you "important" notifications;
- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious auto-update policies that break stuff;
- every application having different ways to download and maintain plug-ins;
- more and more applications trying to squeeze every last square inch of screen space by hiding commands behind a small number of tabs or, worse, meaningless menu-icon-things (we bought large, hi-res monitors for a reason, and having access to browser bookmarks within two clicks is worth far more to us than reading a web site at 2560x1400 instead of 2560x1370);
- every application shoving its executables and config files in its own place (not helped by Windows 7's holier-than-thou "you can't put that in that directory" and "are you sure you want to do that" messages);
- and many other things that just make day-to-day work horribly inefficient.
I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.
And then I wish other software, including everything I mentioned above and most definitely including Firefox and Chrome, would just follow the conventions or make some effort to collaborate and standardise in connection with Microsoft (or whoever else writes the platform(s) they run on).
Hear, hear. On our new serious workstation, we mostly run a variety of developer tools and browsers, some basic office software, various graphics/DTP/modelling stuff from companies like Adobe and Autodesk, and a bunch of tools to automate things and join the dots.
On a quick look, exactly none of the major products there uses the standard Windows 7 UI conventions.
I, for one, am sick of:
- not knowing which keyboard shortcuts perform frequent tasks like undo/redo, or more generally, not being able to navigate a UI using systematic and intuitive keystrokes;
- every application's windows having different conventions for dealing with multiple documents, docking panels, and so on (and making the labels ever-smaller wherever they are, so your documents all look like "C:\users\Fred\..." and your web pages are all "Favourite Site | The S...");
- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious methods of giving you "important" notifications;
- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious auto-update policies that break stuff;
- every application having different ways to download and maintain plug-ins;
- more and more applications trying to squeeze every last square inch of screen space by hiding commands behind a small number of tabs or, worse, meaningless menu-icon-things (we bought large, hi-res monitors for a reason, and having access to browser bookmarks within two clicks is worth far more to us than reading a web site at 2560x1400 instead of 2560x1370);
- every application shoving its executables and config files in its own place (not helped by Windows 7's holier-than-thou "you can't put that in that directory" and "are you sure you want to do that" messages);
- and many other things that just make day-to-day work horribly inefficient.
I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.
And then I wish other software, including everything I mentioned above and most definitely including Firefox and Chrome, would just follow the conventions or make some effort to collaborate and standardise in connection with Microsoft (or whoever else writes the platform(s) they run on).
> I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.
This, to me, is one the biggest pluses for Macs at this point. Microsoft keeps trying to reinvent the GUI, but they don't get rid of the old stuff, even in their own systems.
I also wish Microsoft would adopt actual application bundles. 99% of applications should not actually need installers and uninstallers. Despite what Raymond Chen says, a simple folder is not the same thing.
This, to me, is one the biggest pluses for Macs at this point. Microsoft keeps trying to reinvent the GUI, but they don't get rid of the old stuff, even in their own systems.
I also wish Microsoft would adopt actual application bundles. 99% of applications should not actually need installers and uninstallers. Despite what Raymond Chen says, a simple folder is not the same thing.
Unfortunately the Delicious Generation (including some of its adherents inside Apple) threw out the HIG. And now we have the weird iOS-OS X hybrid that is Lion.
I haven't used Lion yet, but from what I've seen, it's still far more consistent than Windows.
This is undoubtedly true (with the flagrant exception of iCal and Address Book), but some of us old-timey Mac users remember a glorious past full of matte gray and a spatial Finder…
Possibly the UI of iCal and Address Book might have the inconsistant UI, but they still have the exact same UX as every other OS X app, thanks to all (with the exception of iTunes?) being built in Cocoa so they all use the same text controls and menu items etc.
You can create a Cocoa app in XCode and just add a text field, and you will automatically get spell check, dictionary look-up and font controls. All your shortcuts will work exactly how you would expect them to (ctrl+a, I'm looking at you). You get a help menu with built in search of the menu bar (http://cl.ly/8yKI). All with no effort from the dev at all.
The only exception to this would be Adobe apps, but at least they have their own UI/UX that they seems to follow most of the time (but they actually hate Apple/OS X, so they probably just do it out of spite)
You can create a Cocoa app in XCode and just add a text field, and you will automatically get spell check, dictionary look-up and font controls. All your shortcuts will work exactly how you would expect them to (ctrl+a, I'm looking at you). You get a help menu with built in search of the menu bar (http://cl.ly/8yKI). All with no effort from the dev at all.
The only exception to this would be Adobe apps, but at least they have their own UI/UX that they seems to follow most of the time (but they actually hate Apple/OS X, so they probably just do it out of spite)
That's true about iCal and Address Book. I don't use either of those, so I'd forgotten what they'd done to them.
I'm not an "old-timey" Mac user by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help wondering when Macs were "full of matte gray". Are you referring to pre-OSX days, because it seems that OSX is more gray now than ever before?
I'm not an "old-timey" Mac user by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help wondering when Macs were "full of matte gray". Are you referring to pre-OSX days, because it seems that OSX is more gray now than ever before?
I am in fact. If I remember correctly (I may very well not!) Mac OS 8 or so (maybe 8.5) was the height of the let's-never-ever-deviate-from-the-HIG days.
This also included a glorious commitment to the desktop metaphor, when that phrase meant anything: you really could map your mental representation of virtual objects onto their real-life analogs and expect things to work remarkably like you expected.
Now, I don't know that a desktop metaphor is the right way to interact with a computer (I certainly avoid it like the plague), but it seems preferable, in my experience, to the hodge-podge of mixed metaphors that the modern desktop UI has become, in both Mac and Windows.
I'm reminded of the scene in The Big Lebowski when the protagonists encounter a group of nihilists: say what you will about the desktop metaphor, but at least it's an ethos.
This also included a glorious commitment to the desktop metaphor, when that phrase meant anything: you really could map your mental representation of virtual objects onto their real-life analogs and expect things to work remarkably like you expected.
Now, I don't know that a desktop metaphor is the right way to interact with a computer (I certainly avoid it like the plague), but it seems preferable, in my experience, to the hodge-podge of mixed metaphors that the modern desktop UI has become, in both Mac and Windows.
I'm reminded of the scene in The Big Lebowski when the protagonists encounter a group of nihilists: say what you will about the desktop metaphor, but at least it's an ethos.
You remember correctly; in the 8/8.5 days, Apple's HIG was considered a must-read for any application programmer, and deviating from it was guaranteed to get you lots of criticism. IIRC, about the only 'non-standard' common widget in applications was the floating windoid, which started out as a hackish WDEF.
As an (at the time) longtime Mac programmer and enthusiast, my disappointment in the OS X UI was one of the reasons that I walked away from Mac programming and never went back. In fact, OS X drove me to more seriously try out Linux and learn to appreciate Windows. Now, I tolerate OS X, but still find myself pining for good ol' 8.5.
As an (at the time) longtime Mac programmer and enthusiast, my disappointment in the OS X UI was one of the reasons that I walked away from Mac programming and never went back. In fact, OS X drove me to more seriously try out Linux and learn to appreciate Windows. Now, I tolerate OS X, but still find myself pining for good ol' 8.5.
iCal and Address Book are perfectly consistent. They use standard control which are clearly identifiable as such.
I think they are ugly but they are certainly not inconsistent.
I think they are ugly but they are certainly not inconsistent.
The HIG is alive and well. Weird textures are annoying but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
[deleted]
They DO have UX guidelines, but hardly anyone reads and respects them. I have hard time arguing with my managers at work, who want to make our software's UI "prettier" by putting on the skin which 1) out of place on supported Windows versions, 2) ugly.
> every application having different and increasingly obnoxious methods of giving you "important" notifications;
This is one area in which the browsers seem to be getting better. Consider the humble Javascript alert, which used to grab and hold focus so that you could not interact with any other browser window or dialog until you had addressed the alert. Nearly all of the browsers have now switched to less intrusive alerts that display but do not dominate.
This is one area in which the browsers seem to be getting better. Consider the humble Javascript alert, which used to grab and hold focus so that you could not interact with any other browser window or dialog until you had addressed the alert. Nearly all of the browsers have now switched to less intrusive alerts that display but do not dominate.
Most of the native Mac OS X applications are made using XCode which comes with the same basic default menu each time you start a new project. That is a guarantee that most apps are going to adhere as much as possible with the OS's conventions. There are exceptions, of course.
How many different IDEs/toolkits are available and used to develop Windows or "Linux" applications?
How many different IDEs/toolkits are available and used to develop Windows or "Linux" applications?
> users won't clearly know the difference between interaction with the browser, and interaction with a smart malicious website.
If you remove the word malicious I think this very fact is the future of browsers. The browser should be designed to prevent a developer from doing anything malicious, but they should fade into the background and allow the web developer to make many (all?) the UI decisions.
If you remove the word malicious I think this very fact is the future of browsers. The browser should be designed to prevent a developer from doing anything malicious, but they should fade into the background and allow the web developer to make many (all?) the UI decisions.
And it's not like Microsoft haven't done the same - the ribbon and that bulbous Office button for saving and opening confuse me every time.
That's because you mistakenly think Chrome is a Windows app, a Mac app, and a Linux app. It's not. It's an operating system that runs on top of those. They aren't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time trying to mimic UI decisions for various OSes. They aren't trying to be like Seesmic or Evernote (meaning, they aren't trying to be an "app").
More people use multiple apps on one platform than use the same app on multiple platforms. That said,a browser is considered an app platform itself these days.
Also: you disagree with the poster. That doesn't mean he has been proven wrong. Your post comes off as unnecessarily rude.
Also: you disagree with the poster. That doesn't mean he has been proven wrong. Your post comes off as unnecessarily rude.
I assumed your parent post did not mean Chrome the app, he meant chrome the UI concept. Of Firefox. But I think I was wrong and he does mean Chrome the app. So, wtf? Off topic, and confusingly so, since Firefox suffers the same problems, and worse.
I'll admit I am not a good pick when it comes to computer semantics, so I might be mistaken.
Trying to be an "app" or not: For me, it is about the courtesy of respecting my main OS settings. It is about introducing accessibility concerns by overriding system settings such as demonstrated in this active bug report from 2008: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=92
> They aren't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time
It looks like they are going to, and really should fix this bug report. Improving the usability, interoperability and accessibility of your "app" or "operating system" is not a waste of time. You'd have a hard time backing that up.
Trying to be an "app" or not: For me, it is about the courtesy of respecting my main OS settings. It is about introducing accessibility concerns by overriding system settings such as demonstrated in this active bug report from 2008: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=92
> They aren't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time
It looks like they are going to, and really should fix this bug report. Improving the usability, interoperability and accessibility of your "app" or "operating system" is not a waste of time. You'd have a hard time backing that up.
My point wasn't that they shouldn't fix bugs; it's that they shouldn't prioritize fixing OS-specific bugs that impact 0.2% of their users. It sounds like you are a Windows power user and I suggest you use IE9 instead.
I'm pretty sure more than .2% of Chrome users use Windows.
Folk are focusing on the two changes that make this more like chrome (tabs in title bar, and apparent removal of search bar.) There's more going on here.[1]
* Simplified, customizable graphical menus. No idea how well this will work, but it's only a mock-up at this point.
* Removal of the forward button, merging the back button with the URL bar.
* Refinement of per tab UI. In chrome you still get the browser chrome on pages like preferences or history.
* A change in browser chrome when entering fullscreen mode. (Chrome just over-lays the standard UI when you mouse to the top.)
[1] If anyone knows the context for these images, would be nice to link it!
* Simplified, customizable graphical menus. No idea how well this will work, but it's only a mock-up at this point.
* Removal of the forward button, merging the back button with the URL bar.
* Refinement of per tab UI. In chrome you still get the browser chrome on pages like preferences or history.
* A change in browser chrome when entering fullscreen mode. (Chrome just over-lays the standard UI when you mouse to the top.)
[1] If anyone knows the context for these images, would be nice to link it!
Folk are focusing on the two changes that make this more like chrome (tabs in title bar, and apparent removal of search bar.)
This has been in FF since version 4. These mockups are for FF 8.
This has been in FF since version 4. These mockups are for FF 8.
Err, no it hasn't? Certainly not on the mac -- mine has looked exactly like this(http://mozcom-cdn.mozilla.net/img/covehead/firefox/gettingst...) for a while now.
Also, I don't even think these will land for FF8, since I've been running the nightly for a while now and they haven't appeared.
Also, I don't even think these will land for FF8, since I've been running the nightly for a while now and they haven't appeared.
Ah well. No idea about Mac. Might be different there for all I know, but the Windows-version has been like that since FF 4, at least when the window is maximized.
When not maximized it sort-of looks like in the linked screenshot. Running the latest "UX-builds", I can see that it now has the maximized-behvaiour for all Window-states, so you are right in there being some changes.
When not maximized it sort-of looks like in the linked screenshot. Running the latest "UX-builds", I can see that it now has the maximized-behvaiour for all Window-states, so you are right in there being some changes.
I hope there's an option to put the forward button back in. I use it a lot.
If you think about it, the forward button is disabled about 80% of the time -- so it doesn't really need to always be there. The forward button isn't being removed completely; it'll just be hidden when it's not clickable. It will slide out when there's a "forward" URL available.
Ugh. I hate shapeshifting UIs. Muscle memory depends on stuff being fixed in space relative to other elements.
The only element that would shift is the awesome bar, and that's a pretty big target to miss.
The fwd button shows up if you can actually go forward, it's not totally removed, but hidden if no useful.
Firefox's UI has always been the most customizable of any of the major browsers. You will be able to add it back in if it is taken out by default in the future. (Disclosure: I work for Mozilla but not on the UX team.)
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/moz_shortcuts.h... if you're in to that sort of thing... (some people prefer buttons, no judgement here.)
Do you actually use the button itself rather than a mouse/keyboard shortcut?
The preferences menu is also very similar to Chrome's.
>Folk are focusing on the two changes that make this more like chrome (tabs in title bar, and apparent removal of search bar.)
Just FWIW, my FF (over KDE) is pretty much like this: http://i.imgur.com/RH2Ld.jpg.
I do actually keep the search box but I use it almost exclusively as a scratch pad for short notes (!) and do nearly all searching via keywords in the URL bar ("Awesome Bar").
Image also shows how not to use the <title> element in HTML.
Just FWIW, my FF (over KDE) is pretty much like this: http://i.imgur.com/RH2Ld.jpg.
I do actually keep the search box but I use it almost exclusively as a scratch pad for short notes (!) and do nearly all searching via keywords in the URL bar ("Awesome Bar").
Image also shows how not to use the <title> element in HTML.
The dev tools' UI[1] looks amazing.
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/devTools/devTools.html
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/devTools/devTools.html
Thanks for the link, where did you find this? I just tried out FF8 and it didn't have most of this in it, but it did have the "inspect" tool. It looked beautiful, it was flashy but not in-your-face, and it was fast. In short, this ain't your mama's Firefox.
Are they going to fully integrate firebug into firefox rather than having it as an extension?
As I understand it (it's still somewhat in the planning stages, and things are evolving), Firefox will ship with a set of developer tools which will cover the major use cases (inspector, console, etc). Firebug will be an extension, and will add more advanced functionality. It's being rewritten in JavaScript, and could potentially work on any browser (Firebug and Firebug Lite are going to merge).
This is how I understood it when I talked to the Firebug team a few months ago. Mozilla has since hired a ton of people for their Dev Tools team and John J Barton has left Firebug due to lack of funding from IBM -- so I have no clue if things have since changed.
This is how I understood it when I talked to the Firebug team a few months ago. Mozilla has since hired a ton of people for their Dev Tools team and John J Barton has left Firebug due to lack of funding from IBM -- so I have no clue if things have since changed.
http://blog.mozilla.com/devtools/2011/05/25/the-relationship...
tldr; no. Firebug is an independent (but with Mozilla's support and blessing) project and we're also building some great tools that will ship with the browser.
tldr; no. Firebug is an independent (but with Mozilla's support and blessing) project and we're also building some great tools that will ship with the browser.
The vast majority of users don't need it. If they want to make it native, simply bundle it with a dev version. As useful as firebug is, more FF users would probably benefit from a button that converts a page from English to Spanish (I'm aware Chrome already does this). I think they should just put out the most focussed product possible, and allow their healthy dev community to add any functionality missing.
That said, "packages" might be a good idea. The "paranoid package" could bundle adblock, noscript, trackmenot, and foxyproxy. The "developer package" could bundle firebug and anything else that might be useful. Offering binaries with these packages pre-installed from a visible link on the main download page might not be a bad idea.
That said, "packages" might be a good idea. The "paranoid package" could bundle adblock, noscript, trackmenot, and foxyproxy. The "developer package" could bundle firebug and anything else that might be useful. Offering binaries with these packages pre-installed from a visible link on the main download page might not be a bad idea.
Strongly reminiscent of Chrome, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Chrome's UI was one of the primary reasons I switched from Firefox.
And for me the Chrome UI is the primary reason I can't stand Chrome and stay with FF.
Whatever they do to the default layout in FF doesn't bother me, just keep giving me the option to put it back the way I like it. So far, so good... other than needing a plug-in now to get a bottom status bar.
Whatever they do to the default layout in FF doesn't bother me, just keep giving me the option to put it back the way I like it. So far, so good... other than needing a plug-in now to get a bottom status bar.
What do you use the bottom statusbar for?
I use it for the standard things like hovering over URL's and watching page load progress. And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably well for this too... however...
FF went and added an 'Add-Ons Bar' to replace the bottom real-estate that plugins wanted to sit in lost by the status bar removal. So now, if I use the Add-on bar, AND allow the Chrome style status pop-up, I loose even more space since the URL is now outside the bottom bar, and I'm left with a ton of unused space on the Add-on bar. FF should have just made the Status label a movable element and allowed it to go back in the bottom bar if desired. Since the bar is going to be there anyhow for some people with plugins then their effort to save UI space just cost me 2x the UI space. It frustrates me that what could have been a simple and flexible change (optional, draggable status label) has turned into a hodge podge of work-arounds.
FF went and added an 'Add-Ons Bar' to replace the bottom real-estate that plugins wanted to sit in lost by the status bar removal. So now, if I use the Add-on bar, AND allow the Chrome style status pop-up, I loose even more space since the URL is now outside the bottom bar, and I'm left with a ton of unused space on the Add-on bar. FF should have just made the Status label a movable element and allowed it to go back in the bottom bar if desired. Since the bar is going to be there anyhow for some people with plugins then their effort to save UI space just cost me 2x the UI space. It frustrates me that what could have been a simple and flexible change (optional, draggable status label) has turned into a hodge podge of work-arounds.
We are going through a redesign for my company's web app and now we're going to have to insert a tiny bit of blank space at the bottom because Chrome's pop-up statusbar is covering a vital part of the UI! Doh!
And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably well for this too... however...
However the Chrome pop-up has a tendency to obscure useful page content, especially on (oh, irony) Google docs.
I much prefer a devoted status bar. OTOH, I have a WUXGA screen (1920x1200) so I have less need to obsess over vertical screen space.
The rise of so-called "HD" screens is one of the tragedies of modern computing that ranks up there with Comic Sans.
However the Chrome pop-up has a tendency to obscure useful page content, especially on (oh, irony) Google docs.
I much prefer a devoted status bar. OTOH, I have a WUXGA screen (1920x1200) so I have less need to obsess over vertical screen space.
The rise of so-called "HD" screens is one of the tragedies of modern computing that ranks up there with Comic Sans.
Personally I just hover to see where a link goes at times, but chrome's method of showing the link at the bottom after N milliseconds is more than sufficient. It doesn't need to permanently take up pixels otherwise.
Except that chrome's version obscures the navigation links in a lot of websites, which means you have to be quick to point and click in order to be able to navigate before the popup info tooltip blocks your click.
That doesn't happen (anymore?), because the popup will move out of the way of your cursor if you get close.
It happens to me all the time when I use Review Board on a big commit (which spans multiple pages). Just had it happen now on the latest Chrome.
I have to move the mouse around and play dodge-the-tooltip and hope I get lucky.
I have to move the mouse around and play dodge-the-tooltip and hope I get lucky.
Firefox does the same, now. It's almost like Chrome's but it doesn't expand to show the "middle" of a really long link after a second.
To me, it looks almost exactly the same. I do enjoy the small bar on the top of the window in Chrome, and now soon to be Firefox
I'm hoping they will do away with the "you need to restart Firefox after installing an add-on". Chrome has been able to install/uninstall/disable/tinker with add-ons without the need to restart for years.
That and a new logo (tired of that fox) and I may give it another try.
I promise you the fox isn't going anywhere, but add-ons made with the new APIs don't require restart.
The reason for the restart requirement is that Firefox extensions interact with the browser at a deeper level than Chrome extensions. Firefox does have a newer extension API called Jetpack that allows restartless extensions, but most extensions are written with the older (and more powerful) API.
I like the fox more than the pokeball.
I can't believe nobody's complaining about the missing dedicated search box. I thought that was everyone's big beef with Chrome. Then again, I haven't used Firefox in quite some time so maybe they've already dropped it.
Having a dedicated search box is my big beef with every other browser.
If Firefox adds a single bar for search and URLs, I'd consider switching back, especially if they do a better job of history search than Chrome. (Chrome's history search sucks pretty bad in my experience.)
You can use the current URL bar for search. Either by settings or by using search keywords.
For example to search on Google "g search keywords", on Wikipedia "w epr paradox", Dictionary "d prometheus". Opera and Chrome have this too IIRC.
To search history "^ page keywords", bookmarks "* page keywords", tags "# tag words" (there are others, I blogged about them http://alicious.com/fast-bookmark-and-history-search-in-fire... or see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Location_Bar_search).
For example to search on Google "g search keywords", on Wikipedia "w epr paradox", Dictionary "d prometheus". Opera and Chrome have this too IIRC.
To search history "^ page keywords", bookmarks "* page keywords", tags "# tag words" (there are others, I blogged about them http://alicious.com/fast-bookmark-and-history-search-in-fire... or see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Location_Bar_search).
firefox has an addon called omnibar that does exactly this.
Good to know. I should give it a try.
Dramatic decisions are often criticized until people accept it and adapt.
I remember reading about how consumers wouldn't be able to adapt to a touch screen phone that didn't have a keyboard option.
I remember reading about how consumers wouldn't be able to adapt to a touch screen phone that didn't have a keyboard option.
I'm sure you'll still find people who can't get used to the touch screen keyboards.
Often it's the vocal minority that we hear loudest.
Often it's the vocal minority that we hear loudest.
Sometimes what actually happens is that people get used to the change and get tired of fighting against. But they still don't like it at all. It's hard to see the difference from outside.
Exactly. Someone might have their leg amputated and complain for a while, then eventually accept it and adapt. This does not mean that having a leg amputated is a good thing.
That's not a fair analogy.
The alternative to not having your leg amputated in given example is likely eventual spreading of a disease and death.
With consumer goods and services often no one forces you to have to accept their changes.
No one forces you to use touch screen phones: there are plenty of alternatives which do include a keyboard.
Even if you don't like one input box does all approach, you can use previous browsers or browsers which retain the standard model.
If you don't like Netflix's price hikes, you can just use another service or don't subscribe at all. Your life won't decline because of it.
The alternative to not having your leg amputated in given example is likely eventual spreading of a disease and death.
With consumer goods and services often no one forces you to have to accept their changes.
No one forces you to use touch screen phones: there are plenty of alternatives which do include a keyboard.
Even if you don't like one input box does all approach, you can use previous browsers or browsers which retain the standard model.
If you don't like Netflix's price hikes, you can just use another service or don't subscribe at all. Your life won't decline because of it.
Not in every case. I want to use firefox because of some plugins. There is pretty much no alternative for them. Given that is was the best choice so far, I get to choose again between something that doesn't do stuff I need, or something that doesn't look the way I'm used to. Staying with previous versions is never an answer due to lack of bugfixes, security updates, etc.
Same mistake ubuntu does sometimes. It's the best in general, but has more and more really annoying changes in my opinion.
You cannot "just switch" in many cases. In some other you'll have to choose between two things you don't like the least. That's not a good outcome.
Same mistake ubuntu does sometimes. It's the best in general, but has more and more really annoying changes in my opinion.
You cannot "just switch" in many cases. In some other you'll have to choose between two things you don't like the least. That's not a good outcome.
They haven't dropped it yet.
Personally, I don't like this at all, because you never know what information is getting leaked to the search engine...
Personally, I don't like this at all, because you never know what information is getting leaked to the search engine...
Actually, you do: In Chrome, you can turn off search autocompletion for the top bar. It will search history and bookmarks, but not contact Google.
Which all of 0.0003% of people will actually turn on. It's not so much about me not knowing what is being sent, it's about anything users across the web type into the url box is sent to servers somewhere. It's not information companies need to know, anonymous or not.
I prefer to use Firefox's Keyword Search bookmarks over wasting pixels for the dedicated search box. I couldn't live without my personalized search keywords for sites like Wikipedia, Amazon, Yelp, YouTube, Dictionary.com, Netflix, and more.
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Smart%20keywords
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Smart%20keywords
Absolute worst case scenario, just put it back.
What's your beef with the chrome search box?
I don't have a beef. I greatly prefer it.
No, the search box is still there, and I'm pretty sure the solution to that won't be what Chrome does. I remember hearing something about the address bar becoming a little modal.
I don't understand why no browser manufacturer integrates tree tabs. It's such a great interface innovation, and everybody is just ignoring it.
Because to a user that barely understands tabs as it is, it's simply not going to fly. And yes, many nontechnical users do struggle with the idea of tabs.
Chrome on Windows has a flag that you can set to get vertical tabs, but it's a flat list (no tree style).
Tree style tabs are the #1 reason I use Firefox (though many of Chrome's other advancements are mighty tempting).
Tree style tabs are the #1 reason I use Firefox (though many of Chrome's other advancements are mighty tempting).
It's not going to happen because that would involve cutting a good chunk away from the side of the content area, standing in the way of pages' Manifest Destiny of extending from the left side of the screen to the right.
Having pages like that is a shitty way to browse; people who do it are doing themselves a disservice by reading lines at that width, and screens are wider than ever, but people love full screen windows.
Having pages like that is a shitty way to browse; people who do it are doing themselves a disservice by reading lines at that width, and screens are wider than ever, but people love full screen windows.
Yeah, that's the only reason why I'm still using FF. I'd switch to Chrome months ago, but I can't stand horizontal tabs anymore.
I'm not sure what people like about Personas (or the equivalent in other browsers). It always stands out, distracts, and for me even messes up the great website I may be viewing at the time.
I'd be much more interested in a CSS extension that lets websites 'bleed' their background into the browser chrome.
I'd be much more interested in a CSS extension that lets websites 'bleed' their background into the browser chrome.
[shakes his head in disgust]
If I wanted to use Google Chrome, I'd install Google Chrome.
If I wanted to use Google Chrome, I'd install Google Chrome.
Very nice, if they actually manage to pull this look off it would probably make it the best looking browser. My only concern is that they wont and that it will still look like crap in linux.
Personally, I think all these weird modern UIs look like crap, and the relatively standard Firefox UI on Linux is quite nice.
I don't know, that floating button in the top left bugs me in linux. It makes sense in windows because it just blends in with the tabs next to it, but in linux it's on its own line with the tabs showing up below it. The wasted space annoys me to the point that this is one of the main reasons why I do not use Firefox anymore.
I used to have the same problem, but it turns out that you can tell compiz to hide the title bar. Takes a tiny bit of getting used to (Alt is your friend), but it's pretty nice otherwise.
http://jaket.is-a-geek.com/blog/linux/remove-titlebar-on-max...
http://jaket.is-a-geek.com/blog/linux/remove-titlebar-on-max...
I'm not sure what you're referring to. On my computer, it looks either like [this](http://i.imgur.com/jZiFO.png) or [this](http://i.imgur.com/yHMKH.png). No "floating button in the top left" either way.
That can't be it, he said, "it's on its own line with the tabs showing up below it".
nxn messed up his or her pronouns. The "it" in "its own line with the tabs showing up below it" refers to the the title bar. It's that on Windows, the tabs and button take the place of the traditional title bar. On Linux, drawing in the title bar proved too difficult for a generalized approach that worked across window managers, so the title bar remains intact, and everything is offset by it.
oh. well, in that case, i like my titlebars too. i guess if someone doesn't, they can use a WM without titlebars?
also, chrome gives you the option of disabling the titlebar, so it must be possible.
also, chrome gives you the option of disabling the titlebar, so it must be possible.
I could be an edge case, but I really dislike branded chrome skins that become a part of the window (like the Harry Potter example). Just feels tacky to me.
I wonder whether this latest proposed redesign will finally have Firefox behaving like, y'know, a native OS X app, or whether it'll be just as shallow as all previous efforts.
Curious, since I only recently started using a mac. How does firefox not act like a native app?
The whole app feels like an imitation of a Mac app. Most obviously on 10.7, the window chrome is wrong. Other small things like incorrect and wrongly sized fonts inside controls, or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use an extension in its own window. When you add everything together, it just feels wrong, like wearing clothes that don't fit.
The way they've been updating the UI so far has seen some improvements, for sure, but it's as if they've been patching it bit by bit. I just wondered whether this signalled a change of approach.
The way they've been updating the UI so far has seen some improvements, for sure, but it's as if they've been patching it bit by bit. I just wondered whether this signalled a change of approach.
> or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use an extension in its own window
Could someone explain to me the correct way for a developer to handle this?
I've been aware of this problem for a while, and I've newly come to own a Mac, so I've looked into it more and looked at what other apps are doing. There doesn't seem to be a correct solution.
I looked at how Safari handles the Web Inspector, and it just adds a new, dedicated Debug menu to the menu bar. This is a no-go in my case.
Suppose you're developer faced with a problem similar to the Firefox–extension problem. You have something like an app-within-an-app, or maybe A and B are actually even more closely tied together than that, but independent enough that on any other platform it would be a no-brainer: each one gets its own menu. What do you do for OS X?
You can't re-use A's menu items in B, because A's items—in, say, the Edit menu—don't serve B. You can't just augment A's menu set to include B's menus and items, because B's menus and items are so numerous and specific to B and vice versa, that there's just so much clutter from the other's menus and items.
Could someone explain to me the correct way for a developer to handle this?
I've been aware of this problem for a while, and I've newly come to own a Mac, so I've looked into it more and looked at what other apps are doing. There doesn't seem to be a correct solution.
I looked at how Safari handles the Web Inspector, and it just adds a new, dedicated Debug menu to the menu bar. This is a no-go in my case.
Suppose you're developer faced with a problem similar to the Firefox–extension problem. You have something like an app-within-an-app, or maybe A and B are actually even more closely tied together than that, but independent enough that on any other platform it would be a no-brainer: each one gets its own menu. What do you do for OS X?
You can't re-use A's menu items in B, because A's items—in, say, the Edit menu—don't serve B. You can't just augment A's menu set to include B's menus and items, because B's menus and items are so numerous and specific to B and vice versa, that there's just so much clutter from the other's menus and items.
I think the solution that Apple would suggest is to just not put an "app-within-an-app". If the feature set is far enough apart that it feels like a separate app that needs a separate menu bar, it should be a separate app.
(I actually agree: when is that ever better than a dedicated app?)
(I actually agree: when is that ever better than a dedicated app?)
Emacs keys binding not working in some place (e.g. Ctrl+N, Ctrl+P not working on Awesome Bar). Missing contextual services menu when you right click on some text. Missing text services (e.g. Cmd+Shift+D popup dictionary), etc. etc.
All of the Cocoa UI controls are reimplemented in XUL. They look and behave close to, but not 100% the same as the native Cocoa ones.
I have to use a Mac at work and frankly none of the programs I use feel like Mac apps. Everything in the Adobe suite is the same as on Windows except slower (down to the 8 corner resizing), Firefox is as you say, and I have to agree with the statement I saw earlier today that Eclipse is a cross-platform Windows application.
Interestingly I have the exact same issue with Firefox on Android. The address bar isn't a native text box, it's fake! I have two non-standard things happening on text boxes, Samsung's cursor indicator and the Swype keyboard, and nothing behaves quite as it should.
Are developers giving up on using native widgets?
Interestingly I have the exact same issue with Firefox on Android. The address bar isn't a native text box, it's fake! I have two non-standard things happening on text boxes, Samsung's cursor indicator and the Swype keyboard, and nothing behaves quite as it should.
Are developers giving up on using native widgets?
Wow. I really hope this isn't just speculation and something that's being put into production. Yeah, it looks like a Chrome clone, but it's been done well and with a slight twist. As a dedicated Chrome user, though, it's going to take more than just a coat of paint to get me to switch back. Can't wait to see where this ends up.
What would you want to see in another browser that would make it worth switching away from chrome?
Be faster than Chrom(ium) with regards to start up speed and JS execution.
I abandoned FF after having used it since it was "Phoenix 0.1", because it had become slow and bloated, like NN had been before. Would love to switch back, but not if I can open 5 Chromium instances in the same time it takes to open one FF window.
I abandoned FF after having used it since it was "Phoenix 0.1", because it had become slow and bloated, like NN had been before. Would love to switch back, but not if I can open 5 Chromium instances in the same time it takes to open one FF window.
Have you tried a new profile? A long-time user will end up with a really crufty Firefox profile. Sync will move all your data to a new profile quickly and you can see what a new profile in Firefox is like.
Sync will not move all your data. I switched to a new profile after installing an add-on that introduced problems and uninstalling didn't correct those problems. I fell back to Sync for the new profile so I could salvage my history and bookmarks from my 2-ish year old profile, but it left out something like 9 months of history, all but two of my tags, and a good chunk of my bookmarks and search keywords (including the ones I'd set up for MXR).
I'm not sure if it was buggy, or if Sync was intentionally not tracking the stuff that didn't get copied over. (cf mconnor's blog post a month or so ago about implementing Sync quota caps).
I'm not sure if it was buggy, or if Sync was intentionally not tracking the stuff that didn't get copied over. (cf mconnor's blog post a month or so ago about implementing Sync quota caps).
I don't use Firefox at all, but I just did some testing and the first time I started Firefox it took about 3 seconds to show its window. Subsequent starts got faster but always took at least a second and half. Chrome starts before I can say "one".
The shortlist would be: speed, standards compliance, UI, and developer support (I love that Chrome has built-in dev tools -- I know firebug exists, but compared to CDTs, again, it seems clunky).
Oddly enough, Gecko is usually more standards-compliant than WebKit. For example, it passes much more of the CSS 2.1 test suite....
People seem to not realize this, for some reason.
People seem to not realize this, for some reason.
While this does look very pretty I'm kinda concerned that they're throwing a lot of good stuff away. I'm running Firefox 5 and it really feels polished, there's so many things I'm still discovering and thinking "hey, that's cool". It's a feeling you most often get when a design has been iterated, and tweaked, and worked on for a long time... I get the same feeling frequently on the Mac I have to use at work.
This is prettier, yes. It's also a lot curvier and wastes a lot of space compared to Firefox 5. In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at the top is larger.
And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?
This is prettier, yes. It's also a lot curvier and wastes a lot of space compared to Firefox 5. In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at the top is larger.
And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?
> In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at the top is larger.
Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the titlebar area. The tab area itself is larger, but the total change is a reduction in the amount of vertical space used.
> And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?
The curve is only on the active tab, so I don't see how it's reducing the amount of tabs you can have.
Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the titlebar area. The tab area itself is larger, but the total change is a reduction in the amount of vertical space used.
> And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?
The curve is only on the active tab, so I don't see how it's reducing the amount of tabs you can have.
> Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the titlebar area.
I compared FF5 and these screenshots on my screen together, FF5 uses slightly less real estate. It's only a minor regression though, and hey, this is Firefox - I can customise it! It's just that prior to the current look, I had to modify Firefox quite a lot to optimise vertical real-estate, and it's quite nice that it's now good out of the box, so I selfishly want it to stay that way!
I compared FF5 and these screenshots on my screen together, FF5 uses slightly less real estate. It's only a minor regression though, and hey, this is Firefox - I can customise it! It's just that prior to the current look, I had to modify Firefox quite a lot to optimise vertical real-estate, and it's quite nice that it's now good out of the box, so I selfishly want it to stay that way!
What OS are you on? Comparing my FF5 install on OSX to the mockups, the mockups use less space due to the tab / titlebar merging. I don't recall if FF5 is already doing that merging on Windows or not. Looking at screenshots online, it also looks like the mockup is smaller than stock FF5 on Windows, but I haven't confirmed myself.
I agree that these mocks seem to waste space. I much prefer a more compact design.
In these mocks, only the active tab actually looks like a tab. The other tabs visually communicate that they are another interface element all together. I would suggest that all tabs have a full tab outline. Currently, the S-shaped curve on the tabs feels too wide and takes up too much horizontal space. The curve on the corner of the tabs should be sharper to match the rounded corner of the window. The difference in shape of the s-curve near the traffic lights and the s-curve of the tabs is bothersome.
I am quite happy with the way Firefox 5 looks with a custom skin ("Default Mod") and some minor customizations. It would be nice to be able to move the tabs into the title bar to free up a little space.
In these mocks, only the active tab actually looks like a tab. The other tabs visually communicate that they are another interface element all together. I would suggest that all tabs have a full tab outline. Currently, the S-shaped curve on the tabs feels too wide and takes up too much horizontal space. The curve on the corner of the tabs should be sharper to match the rounded corner of the window. The difference in shape of the s-curve near the traffic lights and the s-curve of the tabs is bothersome.
I am quite happy with the way Firefox 5 looks with a custom skin ("Default Mod") and some minor customizations. It would be nice to be able to move the tabs into the title bar to free up a little space.
Why has Firefox been so slow to slim down its UI? The back button is still way too big and the button colors not subtle enough. A browser should disappear into the background to some extent. It's just a window into the interwebs after all.
The back button is intentionally bigger as it is one of the most used buttons in a browser. In accordance with Fitt's law, the size allows a user to get to it quicker than a smaller button.
I understand the logic of the bigger back button, but I think it is a poor choice. It's rather awkward-looking, but more importantly it causes the entire toolbar to be several pixels taller. It's an amazing waste of space.
For people who care about such things, you can customize the toolbar and enable "Small Icons".
Thanks. I don't use Firefox much anymore (I keep it setup to use the corporate proxy for the few things that need that), so I'd forgotten about that option.
Status bar 4 eva. I don't want "improved" UX, I want to keep it as is, and anyone who wants a new UX should opt in for that. Don't force me to look at your latest designer's attempt to be noticed.
They sure love showing off screenshots on Mac OS X. But when are they going to follow the basic Mac OS X convention of putting the close button on the left, and centering the tab titles?
So... chrome?
Seems much cleaner. They should do a comparison of how much screen space is used by the chrome vs. other browsers. Can't wait for this to high the nightly / dev builds.
I've been running the nightly, and there was a brief period where the tabs were moved into the title bar. Not sure why they backed it out, but I didn't really like it anyway. (I kind of like knowing the title of the page I'm on -- for instance, with this particular link it conveyed semantic information that was missing from the page itself.)
I hope they allow people to keep the old current look if they'd like. I'm more tired of changing constantly then anything, and I love the UI in firefox now. Not that new ideas shouldn't be tried, just that what's not broken shouldn't be "fixed". And I personally don't like chrome because it seems to simple, so trying to turn into Chrome isn't going to win my vote. (but hey, it's about what the mass wants right?)
Firefox will always be the most customizable of any of the major browsers. If you don't like the default theme there are thousands of others to choose from, as there are today.
I did some digging around -- it should start appearing in Firefox 9, 10, and 11 (i.e. it will probably be complete in the Nightly channel before the end of the year, and in Beta/Stable builds next year some time):
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91652-mozilla-unveils-n...
The final design was awesome, just get rid of the home button and it will be even better. I can't remember the last time I used that button.
That's easily removable even now -- right click the toolbar and choose Customize.
It's not the home button but the home tab: http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2011/06/10/home-tab-and-new-...
I love that design, makes me really excited about the future of Firefox. They're finally started to catch up with Chrome in regards to speed of innovation.
Does anyone know if they are planning on bringing back Ubiquity. Of the different lab projects, this one I miss a lot.
You can actually download[1] an updated version of Ubiquity that works with even the nightly versions.
The commands I personally wrote seem to be broken now, but I think the main pre-installed ones work.
[1] Get tip.xpi at https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity/downloads
The commands I personally wrote seem to be broken now, but I think the main pre-installed ones work.
[1] Get tip.xpi at https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity/downloads
Thank you so much for posting this. I have missed Ubiquity.
thanks a lot
I really hope this new tab layout doesn't mean Tree Style Tabs is out of the picture.
Very good mockup. Hopefully it will get into the main releases without many changes
If you want to try the new look out right now, SoapyHamHocks has put together a theme http://soapyhamhocks.deviantart.com/#/d425ffz
I'm glad they finally got rid of that extra search bar, it was ugly and clunky and useless. Any word on when this changes happens for real? I would love a better looking firebug delivery device.
i hope they roll this out gradually. one of the biggest things that makes people stick with old browser versions is a reluctance to move to a new UI. if they introduce a big change, we're going to see a whole bunch of people sticking with an old browser version for much longer than they should.
this is something that chrome is awesome for. they have changed the UI around a bit since v1, but each change has been so minimal that nobody has really noticed too much.
this is something that chrome is awesome for. they have changed the UI around a bit since v1, but each change has been so minimal that nobody has really noticed too much.
Is the background blue check thing a Lion desktop picture or just something blueprinty that moz are using for this? How do I get it (with nothing drawn on top of it)?
I would most likely use the full screen view as I never need the menu options anyway (it's also how I use Photoshop).
I would likely switch back to Firefox if they executed this.
I would likely switch back to Firefox if they executed this.
I like that wallpaper. Does anybody have a link to that?
He posted it on his blog, http://blog.stephenhorlander.com/2011/08/desktop-backgrounds...
I don't, but here is a content-aware filled version (using PS CS5): http://i.imgur.com/t72Z8.jpg
It looks fantastic! Only thing I fear about firefox is the speed. (Speed at Starting, loading setting windows, obviously loading pages, caching, etc.)
What does it look like with a bunch of tabs open?
[deleted]
Love the ones with the short URL bar. That is one thing from IE9 that needs to be copied.
This UI may be good for small screens - but for desktops? I'm not so certain.
I hope they don't get rid of the ability to have extra toolbars since I use the web developer toolbar quite a bit, and adding an extra step to get to it would be very annoying.
this new UI is just awesome
Where's the mockup for Windows? There are way more people running Firefox on Windows than OS X.
It's towards the bottom. Just scroll down.
Oh, I see. They have 1 mockup for Windows and the rest are for OS X. Brilliant.
These aren't design blueprints. I don't really know why the OP linked to a set of images without any commentary, but it's obvious from the URL that these were part of a presentation. Showing exactly the same changes on every OS wouldn't have been very useful in that context.
[deleted]
I don't care as long as I can still use the Add-Ons (extensions, themes, etc.) to make it work like I want, which is pretty much like an improved Firefox 3.6 or so. That's the big thing Chrome doesn't have: The ability to customize the experience in very deep ways.
I see wasted pixels...
Chrome, is that you?
While in this case it is simple user preference, in other cases it could mean an accessibility concern, or even give room to malicious attacks: With all these custom browser skins, pop-ups over the HTML body (link destination on hover) and no clear divide between window and application, users won't clearly know the difference between interaction with the browser, and interaction with a smart malicious website.
With smart design one could make the bottom browser toolbar appear to be higher, and control the top half with your website. Fake plug-in install modal windows etc.