Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox GUI Mozilla Upgrades News

Mozilla Reveals Firefox 4 Plans 570

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the just-make-it-faster dept.
Barence writes "Mozilla has given a breakdown of its plans for Firefox 4. Perhaps the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface, which takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome. 'Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem,' said director of Firefox Mike Beltzner during the presentation. Also mooted was the ability to give applications such as Gmail and Twitter their own permanent tabs for easy access, and the introduction of a 'switch to tab' button, allowing power users running hundreds of tabs to quickly find the one they want. Beltzner said Mozilla was also looking at replicating Chrome's tactic of silently updating the browser in the background, removing the annoying wait when Firefox first loads up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Reveals Firefox 4 Plans

Comments Filter:
  • by Abstrackt (609015) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:06AM (#32167968)

    Anyone remember that episode of the Simpsons? "These are speed holes. They make the car go faster."

    Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

    • Got that right. (Score:3, Interesting)

      On my cheap laptop, there is a noticeable performance difference between FF and Chrome - Chrome is snappier and much less of a resource hog.

      With the popularity of Netbooks, I see FF losing market share to Google because of the performance differences.

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

      First, the article says "seem", not "look".

      Second, are you sitting there with a stopwatch, shrieking "Ah hah! Caught you! I was happier because you seemed faster, but the evidence conclusively proves that I should instead be miserable. Miserable and angry."

      If so, then you have enough time on your hands that browser speed isn't your top concern.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You're missing his point. He'd prefer that Mozilla focus on making the browser actually faster, instead of focusing on making it seem faster. See the difference? One is reality, the other is an illusion, the equivalent of delaying startup of services on login to the user has a command prompt sooner, but then has to sit and wait for the cursor to stop spinning before he/she can do anything.

        My personal opinion is that the new version looks like ass -- where's the menubar? Ribbon interfaces don't seem fas
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The menubar is probably hiding under the Alt key. That's something that's possible to do even now (in 3.6 Windows you can hide the menu bar if you want -- it will show when you press Alt; Linux build requires a plugin but does the same thing) and is helpful when you've limited vertical space. IE does something similar as well.

          Speaking of Linux, I wonder if they're finally going to change the menu item locations to be the same across platforms... ("Preferences..." I'm looking at you!)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cp.tar (871488)

            Speaking of Linux, I wonder if they're finally going to change the menu item locations to be the same across platforms... ("Preferences..." I'm looking at you!)

            There's nothing wrong here. Under Linux, you find Preferences under Edit. Under Windows, you find them under Tools. On a Mac, you find them under Firefox (or Cmd+,). The program needs to be consistent with the platform.

    • Most progress bars on the world are there to make the wait more fun. Drawing the progress bar takes CPU, and probably some activities sould be done in a incremental way, to be progressbar friendly, where a bach apropach would be faster.
      Most progress bars are not really needed, but make programs feel faster by making programs a bit slower but more fun.
      Anything that make a program 0.1% slower but feel 20% more faster is better for everyone. Yea, any human.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        In that vein, it should probably be mentioned that many progress bars are purely for psychological effect.

        The ones that just have a moving gradient, or a bar that zooms back and forth don't actually indicate progress at all, they just reassure the waiting human that the machine is working, rather than frozen, which apparently makes the wait seem shorter.

        Also, outside of some fairly specific niche applications(and video encoding/transcoding, which may not count as 'niche' these days), most progress ba
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          I hate those "progress" bars. To me, it's just frustrating, and makes it seem like things are actually going slower. Also up there in the annoyance category are "progress bars" which fill up many times, with no indication of how many times they will go back to 0.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sockatume (732728)

      A qualitatively "faster-feeling" browser and a quantitatively "faster-running" browser are not mutually exclusive. They are more likely to be utterly orthogonal.

    • by wjousts (1529427) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:46AM (#32168470)

      Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.

      Personally, I'd rather have a stable browser with useful features that I use than a browser that can render a page 0.1 second faster. I really don't understand this obsession over the speed of the browser.

    • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd o t .org> on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @10:03AM (#32169462)

      Well, to me it looks exactly like Microsoftitis. The disease where don’t come up with other ideas, but imitate others, always runing behind them, but by definition never catching up. And if you can’t imitate or only imitate it badly, you at least make it look like it does, and make it all shiny.

      I hate to say it, but: It’s the point where a project has jumped the shark.
      Because projects rarely get out of that endless catching up race again. And they forget about actually innovating and leading the way.
      I hope the Firefox team can quickly recover. But I don’t put any money on it anymore.

      Maybe someone comes up with some KHTML or Opera thing that can beat Firefox’s range of extensions. (And make no mistake: People don’t switch their browser, until ALL features that they use are available PLUS some more. Same thing happened with the Internet Explorer. The same thing is true with Linux. (But with Linux, I don’t want it, since then it wouldn’t be Linux anymore, but would have become what it hates.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pizzach (1011925)

        I hate to say it, but: It's the point where a project has jumped the shark.
        Because projects rarely get out of that endless catching up race again. And they forget about actually innovating and leading the way.
        I hope the Firefox team can quickly recover. But I don't put any money on it anymore.

        Slow down there a bit friend. Everyone is currently in the Javascript speed race. Everyone is also currently in the simplify the interface faze. Everyone is also entering the hardware acceleration race. Everyone is in the add extensions support race. In short, everyone everybody is playing catch up with each other.

        It was IE and now chrome that started this strange Windows interface shift. While the classic interface of Firefox has generally been popular, Firefox is now in danger of being the odd one i

  • H.264 support? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:09AM (#32167994)
    First of all, am I the only one who hates Chrome's interface? But that's just window dressing, the real question is will it support H264/HTML5?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Do you want to foot the bill for H264 royalties?
      • Re:H.264 support? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Yvan256 (722131) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:23AM (#32168162) Homepage Journal

        From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox. Ask the users to pay the bill: "Do you want to still be able to view YouTube? Please donate 25 cents today!" It would fund Mozilla AND pay the H.264 royalties where it's needed.

        Others have suggested that the Mozilla Foundation should just use the OS to playback video and stop complaining for nothing. H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?

        And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?

        • Re:H.264 support? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by camcorder (759720) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:31AM (#32168276)
          It would cost 3 cents now.
        • And some people live in countries where software patents are not even legal. Why should they pay anything?

          Are you willing to foot the bill for the emigration of the entire Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation to one of these countries?

        • Re:H.264 support? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by delinear (991444) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:38AM (#32168368)

          H.264 has already won, it's already used everywhere. The more they fight, the longer Flash video will survive. Does Adobe pay Mozilla or what?

          Why is everyone so eager to suddenly replace one proprietary format for another? I'm not saying that h.264 is the wrong choice, it certainly seems better than the competition right now, but just because the licensing group are playing nice at the moment, don't assume they will always play nice. Maybe the right choice is to stick with Flash a little longer to further development on an open source alternative and Mozilla have got it right. I guess time will tell as h.264 looks pretty inevitable now, I just hope we're not having similar discussions in a few years about how we're shackled with it as a format and the people behind it are screwing everyone.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Winckle (870180)

            My reasons for wanting to do so are:

            1. Flash is a performance hog on platforms that aren't win32.
            2. With H264 it will be easier to download youtube content for safekeeping.
            3. H264 has hardware acceleration in a lot of portable devices.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Goaway (82658)

            Because there is no other choice at the moment which stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used. You can support Theora as much as you want, but that just means content producers will keep using Flash, because that is what gives them the video quality they want.

            Your choices are: Flash and h.264, or just h.264. The latter gives you the choice to sneak in Theora on the side for those who still want it. What sane person would pick the former choice?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kjella (173770)

          From the numbers a lot of people have posted, it would only cost about 3 cents per copy of Firefox.

          Neither Firefox nor x264 could be used that way, the GPL requires an essentially limitless sub-licensing rights (technically it could be limited to GPL only software) and that's not part of the license. The closest you could have is a non-free plugin not based on x264, since flash is ok I guess that is too. The best solution would be to simply let the system codecs handle it, and if not fall back to flash. Win7, OS X has it native and most Linux users will install x264 anyway...

      • Re:H.264 support? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Abcd1234 (188840) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:30AM (#32168252) Homepage

        Supporting H.264 doesn't mean FF has to actually ship the codec. Go learn about GStreamer and DirectShow, then rethink your silly argument.

    • Re:H.264 support? (Score:5, Informative)

      by delinear (991444) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:17AM (#32168090)
      h.264 and HTML5 aren't synonymous - HTML5 just provides a video container, the browser vendor decides what codecs to allow, so it's entirely possible to fully support HTML5 yet still have no h.264 support.
      • Re:H.264 support? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Scrameustache (459504) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:40AM (#32168406) Homepage Journal

        h.264 and HTML5 aren't synonymous - HTML5 just provides a video container, the browser vendor decides what codecs to allow, so it's entirely possible to fully support HTML5 yet still have no h.264 support.

        It was also possible to sell fully functional VCRs that weren't VHS. But it wasn't easy finding content for them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Draek (916851)

          Well, here it's much easier [wikipedia.org].

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by the_womble (580291)

          It is not exactly easy to find H264 content either.

          It is quite possible that everyone will stick to FLV, because it will continue to be the most widely supported format. Its also possible, if less likely, that Google will be able to persuade everyone to install VP8 plugins by using Youtube to spread it. Its also possible (if still less likely) that Theora will gain enough steam to be a contender (everything except IE and Safari will support it out of the box, if those two groups can be persuaded to install

    • by GweeDo (127172)

      No. Well that was simple.

    • First of all, am I the only one who hates Chrome's interface?

      No. Most people hate it. However most graphics and UI designers, tech reporters and iThing owners love it because it is the latest and most shiniest flashing glitter ball that they must play with. These are the people who make and demand interface changes. These are the people who actually think that menu bars are a "waste of screen space". These are the people who think that putting tabs outside of the program window frame is either a useful or desired change. These are the people think that "minimalism"--giving the user less and less controls or options--constitutes a step forward at all costs.

      Firefox's UI is fine. But because of these people, resources at Mozilla are being wasted on needless keeping up with the Jones at Google. Meanwhile actually needed features like speed, process separation and support for self signed certs are being sidelined while the team focuses on making the browser shiny.

      Google is a steamroller, and is aiming to squash the other browsers flat. Firefox included. Lack of realistic leadership, as manifested in these proposals, will only ensure that Google succeeds where Microsoft has failed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by elrous0 (869638) *
        I had a friend using Chrome and one day he was at his networked printer and asked me to print out a webpage for him. I couldn't even figure out how to get Chrome to print. When I asked him, he admitted that he had memorized the hotkey combo for printing because he couldn't figure it out either. A default config where you can't even print without either reconfiguring the interface or hitting the right hotkey combo is a pretty piss-poor design, no matter how pretty it looks.
  • Silent update (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ant P. (974313) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:09AM (#32167996) Homepage

    It won't be "silent" if it keeps that obnoxious behaviour it does now, where it interrupts you with a new version splash page. It's no less rude than a popup ad.

  • Fire Fox Four, sounds like a cheesy name for a new Charlies-Angels-kinda-group... But seriously, the new browser looks good with some nice new technologies for web developers and hopefully some better speed for the users... For other waiting: we can expect the beta in June, and the RC in October with a release within a month, so FFF should land this fall.
  • by ifrag (984323) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:12AM (#32168024)

    Seems faster? In my experience it has been more than "seems", Chrome actually is faster. The thing keeping me on Firefox is the various add-ons which I cannot get in Chrome. If Chrome were to get vertical tabs, that would go a long way towards making a switch.

    It would be nice if Firefox did improve performance though. Would be a lot more significant than a trimmed down interface while the program runs just as slow.

  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:12AM (#32168026) Homepage

    Thank you! That is the most annoying part of Firefox. I hate when I open Firefox and it makes me wait while it updates, and then when it finally does open, it does so on a pointless tab that offers me absolutely no useful information and once again delays what I'm trying to do.

    I don't like the secret/stealth update either. Here's a very simple idea:

    First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it. Second, don't give me a tab telling me what I already know. I know it was updated, I just fricken saw it updated. I'm not an idiot.

    • Why not ask, with four options? Do it now, do it at next startup, do it at next shutdown, don't do it.

      It pisses me off that randomly my Firefox install will suddenly and without warning install an update when starting up. I have been caught out several times by that until I turned off automatic updates. In my view, automatic updates should be off by default, with a dialog during install asking if you want to turn them on.
    • by porcupine8 (816071) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:21AM (#32168128) Journal
      First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it.

      Unless the whole reason you're shutting it down, as is often the case for me, is that FF has been running so long that it's become an enormous memory hog and you need to shut it down then restart it so your system will speed back up. Or you're shutting it down in order to shut down or reboot your entire computer. I agree with the previous commenter, just give us the choice.
    • First, install the update when I shut down the browser. You're not wasting my time then because I'm done using it.

      When you shut down the browser, you could be shutting down your computer.* Firefox doesn't want a SIGKILL from sudo shutdown -h now to make the updater leave the system in an inconsistent state. So if startup is unacceptable and shutdown is unacceptable, the only remaining solution is to do so in the background while the browser is in use.

      * Not everybody is as lucky as you are to have proper driver support for hibernation. And some people apply security patches to their operating system kernels every mon

  • Menu Bar..? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhunachchicken (834243) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:13AM (#32168032) Homepage

    So that's gone MIA, then? What's the current obsession with removing menu bars, creating "ribbon" interfaces and taking away stuff that has served us well for over 20 years..?

    Not sure I like the look of that new interface. Aint broke, don't fix it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      More screen real estate. With the small screened netbooks being all the rage, that menu bar does make a difference.
      • Re:Menu Bar..? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BenFenner (981342) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @11:06AM (#32170408)
        Firefox's best part trick is the UI's ability to be customized. All they need to do is keep it that way. I don't have a netbook but I too am very conscious of vertical real estate. I also love my menu bar. I use it all the time. Bookmarks are there, the print option is there, etc.

        You can fit the menu bar, navigation buttons, address bar and search bar or even Google toolbar (don't ask) on one horizontal section saving tons of vertical space. See image:

        http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/benfenner/Firefoxmenubar.png?t=1273593698 [photobucket.com]

        As long as I can still control how things look I should be happy. Give me a ribbon I can't turn off or re-configure (MS) or tabs I can't move down (Chrome?) and I'm not a happy camper. Make it configurable.
    • by delinear (991444)
      Hopefully, if they do remove the menu bar, they'll at least take a leaf from IE's book (yes, I never thought I'd be saying that again) and have a single Alt press pop the menu back up so I don't waste time hunting down little used options.
    • Re:Menu Bar..? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:34AM (#32168310)

      Is the menu bar really that useful? Apart from using it as a way to get to Preferences, I can't think of a single option that I use the Firefox menu bar for. Also, it takes up some screen area; on small screen devices it may be more optimal to drop the bar make the functions accessible from elsewhere.

      Aint broke, don't fix it.

      Maybe. On the other hand, Chrome has grabbed 20% market share in one year which is no small feat. There are reasons that people are switching to Chrome - allegedly quicker browsing and the user interface. It's worth experimenting with a similar approach in Firefox. Maybe it will work out, and maybe it won't, but if they don't try we will never know.

      • Re:Menu Bar..? (Score:4, Informative)

        by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:42AM (#32168422)
        On any random day, I use the the print button under the file menu, the "save page as", preferences, zoom, history, bookmarks, in the tools menu I use the preferences for add-ons I've got. Occasional use include the "open file" in the file menu, view page source in the edit menu, and the about tab in the help menu. So maybe you don't use the menu bar but I do, just about every day. Removing it would really, really, really piss me off.
      • Re:Menu Bar..? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Iyonesco (1482555) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @10:30AM (#32169868)

        I use Bookmarks menu to access and organise my bookmarks. I use the history menu to open tabs I've recently closed or go back to websites I've recently visited. I use the tools menu to access options, addons and clear history. I use the file menu for print, work offline and occasionally import.

        In answer to your question then, yes the menu bar is very useful. It provides rapid and structured access to a lot of functionality. When I use an application with a menu bar I can always find the functionality I'm looking for easily but in applications without a menu bar (Office 2007, Chrome etc) I can never find what I'm looking for.

        Menu bars provide a consistent interface across all applications so even if you haven't used an application before you know where to find options and featurs. Removing it gives every application a custom interface, making it very hard to use unfamiliar applications. Put a Office 2003 user in front of Office 2007 or an IE6 user in front of IE7/8 and and they'll struggle to use the application. However if you get an Office 2003 user to use Open Office or an IE6 user to use Firefox they'll be able to adapt very quickly thanks to the consistent interface menu bars offer.

        When Microsoft started the trend of removing menu bars with Vista and Office 2007 I believe their aim was not to improve the user experience but to lock users into their applications. An Office 2003 user can adapt rapidly to any other Office suite thanks to the similar interfaces, however if someone is only familiar with Office 2007 it will be very hard for them to adapt to other suits because Office 2007 has a completely custom interface that is inconsistent with all other applications. This way they're locked into MS Office and Microsoft wins again.

        The removal of the menu bar is a travesty of interface design but it's a massive win for Microsoft and, bizarrely, organisations such as Mozilla seem happy to help them along.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jay L (74152) *

          When Microsoft started the trend of removing menu bars with Vista and Office 2007 I believe their aim was not to improve the user experience but to lock users into their applications

          No, their aim was to solve the problem that menu bar discoverability doesn't scale, to the point where the top 10 feature requests for Office were features that were already in Office.

          See:

          http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/tags/Why+the+New+UI_3F00_/default.aspx [msdn.com]

  • by SolitaryMan (538416)

    ... takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome.

    Nooooooo!!!

    Seriously, what is the point of having Firefox then? The fact that I need to open new tab in Chrome in order to access some bookmark pisses me off and pretty much makes bookmarks pointless.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Seriously, what is the point of having Firefox then? The fact that I need to open new tab in Chrome in order to access some bookmark pisses me off and pretty much makes bookmarks pointless.

      RTFGSR [google.com] (google search results, for "chrome bookmark menu" and quit your whining.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Turn the bookmark toolbar on.
    • This behaviour greatly puzzled me on Chrome / Win32, because on OS X it still has a dedicated Bookmarks menu. Obviously this is because there is somewhere to actually put it on OS X (with the split between the window itself and the top bar) but it's still a strange inconsistency between platforms. I would have expected them to either all have a bookmarks menu, or all of them to lack a bookmark menu - not a mishmash.

      Meh.

  • As long as they manage to isolate Java and Adobe from crushing the whole damn thing it's good enough for me.
  • UI (Score:4, Funny)

    by visualight (468005) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:14AM (#32168056) Homepage

    Perhaps the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface...

    There's a shocker.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:15AM (#32168060) Homepage Journal

    Something UI designers have known for a long time is that the simpler an interface looks, the faster it will seem.

    Just because an interface looks simple doesn't mean it looks faster. Who thinks like that? The "Speed holes" reference" above is quite right. Those UI designers either have been misquoted or are just complete fools.

    What a simple interface means is that common tasks should be more obvious to do.

    Don't give the users 100 options at once, especially things that only power-users use only once in a while. I'm not a fan of putting options in tabs and sub-menus, but sometimes it's the right thing to do.

    Put the basic features at the beginning, the most obscure ones at the bottom. Put them in named groups such as "Basic", "Advanced" and "Expert" if necessary, so that non-technical users aren't afraid to mess with the basic ones, and advanced users don't waste time looking for what they need in the basic and advanced options.

  • His slides (on "slide share") don't work for me, using Firefox and Gnash.

    C'mon guys. Attention to detail with your open web!

  • Thanks for nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne (414635) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:21AM (#32168126)

    the most striking change to Firefox 4 is the user interface, which takes a great deal of inspiration from Google Chrome.

    Great. That means I will be staying with the current version of Firefox for a long time. I just tried Chrome a few days ago and the user interface totally sucks. What is is with these people who have to fuck up a good design just so they can make it different and justify a new version number.

  • Video presentation. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:21AM (#32168134)

    For those who don't want to rtfa, there's a video presentation on the director of firefox, Mike Beltzners blog: http://videos.mozilla.org/serv/air_mozilla/firefox4.ogg [mozilla.org]

  • I used chrome for several days but went back to firefox because I hated having the tabs at the top.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:31AM (#32168278)

    its hard enough to convince users that the internet isnt the blue E on their desktop and use Firefox instead.
    keep changing the UI and sure as dammit they will be back using the blue E,
    it may take us geeks a couple of minutes/hours to get used to a new UI but the average user it takes forever and they want familiarity they dont want to hunt for that buried option or find the new print button, hell some people dont even know what a home button is! and they absolutely hate having to throw away the knowledge gained on learning an applications UI just for it to change again

    Tweak the default UI slowly, very slowly.

    and for the record Chrome's UI sucks like Fisher Price (an example in gone too far in dumbing down)
    eg. removing https:/// [https] from the location bar after we (the security/it industry) have spent 25 years teaching people to look for it when signing into their bank/mail etc.
    lets trash all that training and start again ? after all that business training is free right ?
    and and people wonder why IE is standard in corporations ?

    perhaps Mozilla should start working on aiding administrators (group policy options (have you seen IEs massive list?) /locking down functions/ automatic updates that are truly automatic and dont need user interaction etc)
    instead of playing with fluff.

    A.Dmin

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      Step 1 - replace Firefox or Chrome icon with the blue E.

      step 2 - set the new browser to default and remove all ability of the user to fire up IE for web browsing.

      Step 3 - there is no step 3. if they ask, It's a new version of the "internet" and they need to get used to it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by don.g (6394)

      eg. removing https:/// [https] [https] from the location bar after we (the security/it industry) have spent 25 years teaching people to look for it

      Er, 25 years ago HTTP didn't exist. Let alone SSL.

  • Hundrerds of tabs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andy1307 (656570) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:31AM (#32168280)
    Seriously...if you have 100s of tabs open, you have ADD or you need to learn to let go of your tabs. Relax. Close them. They'll still be there when you wake up.
  • by rAiNsT0rm (877553) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:45AM (#32168468) Homepage

    I'd love to switch our companies users to FF but having no way to centrally manage/monitor and update is a complete killer. There's no way we can have users with 10 different versions and different issues, etc. It's a nightmare. Give me a cool central control panel and have each browser be able to be hooked into it and it would be amazing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ant P. (974313)

      Give me a cool central control panel and have each browser be able to be hooked into it and it would be amazing.

      It's called Landscape [canonical.com].

    • by elucido (870205) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @11:27AM (#32170806)

      An example, you highlight "Give me" and it asks (Search for Give Me). This feature should be expanded via plugins, regular expression, and AI so that if I have Google open in another tab it can search for it within the Google search tab already open. This would save browser resources and make it a lot easier to manage tabs. I always leave a tab open to Google, Wikipedia, Slashdot and YouTube. Why not let me highlight text and select which site I want the text to search from? Why not use keyboard shortcuts so that I can highlight the text and hit "g" and it searches Google, "y" and it searches Youtube, "w" and it searches Wikipedia, or "d" for the dictionary if I don't know the word. And the plugin interface should allow regular expressions and individual programmers to code new features.

      This plugin/extension interface would revolutionize the browsing experience because it would increase the amount of information the user can work with and take in at any given time. This should be the goal of Firefox. To help increase the amount of information users can handle rather than trying to merely simplify he interface without any known practical enhancements.

      The application tab idea is good. That has a good function. But I want that application tab to be connected to the text highlight function of the browser. And then something like the pipes function in linux should be used to allow the highlighted text to be manipulated any which way and or used as input for the software applications. I should be able to highlight text on your post and have it to into my word processor application or email application as a direct quote with source citation included. This way I don't have to worry about managing the sources.

      And there are a million other improvements we could probably think of that they aren't or don't seem to be considering. I hope the Firefox4 team reads this post and considers adding these features.

  • by DeanLearner (1639959) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @08:57AM (#32168598)
    1) Have your monitor shake and blow air in your face while opening a browser.
    2) Add some motion blur when scrolling a page.
    3) Lower your desk. Generally, the closer to the floor you are the faster it seems. I am using go karts as an example.
    4) Make ALL youtube videos play at 2x speed except for videos about rival browsers, which shall be played at 0.5x.
  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd o t .org> on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @09:39AM (#32169134)

    allowing power users running hundreds of tabs to quickly find the one they want.

    Sorry, that”s not “power using” but “being a messie who clutters things up”.
    The same type of person whoses desk is full of paper sheets and his display borders are full of post-it notes.
    In other words: No a very healty person, and not someone you would want to hire.

    A power user would use TabMix Plus storable sessions and bookmark folders, plus TagSifter tagging.
    Or even one writing his own extensions.

    But I guess the guy who wrote it considers using any kind or CLI something only experts use...

  • Firefox openness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by linebackn (131821) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @09:41AM (#32169172)

    While I like Firefox and also SeaMonkey just fine, I have always been a bit bothered by applications (and there are many of them) that take their time updating the screen or make the UI unresponsive. Look back at the original Mac running on a 8mhz 68k or Windows 1.0 running on an 8088. Menus, dialogs and such display almost instantly after a mouse click. Now we have multi-gigahertz CPUs with multiple cores and video cards that have such powerful GPUs you almost need a built in nuclear reactor to power them! What is the excuse for not being able to display a menu the very next video frame/refresh? If data is slowly tickling in over a network, why not display what you have the instant it comes in?

    I remember running the first public Mozilla Suite builds on a Pentium 200 and how incredibly slow they were. I know there have really have been many speed improvements, but sometimes it feels like Mozilla just let the hardware get faster rather than addressing some of the core speed issues that Chrome is now putting them to shame on.

    It looks like their solution to slow menus is to remove the menus? The standard way people have been interfacing with GUI applications since 1984? You people do know Chome is just trying to look like IE 7, which was trying to look like Safari, which actually does have menus just not attached to each browser window?

    On the topic of video, I wish more people would provide direct downloadable links to video files so even if my browser doesn't know how to play a video, I can view it in an external player like VLC. And it seems like the only realistic answer for bundled in-browser video here is if Mozilla can negotiate some kind of special licensing agreement with the h.264 folks. Although I seriously think video should be implemented as some kind of plug-in that can be updated separately as the video-codec-of-the-day changes.

    All that aside, it is interesting how open Mozilla appears to be in discussing their plains. Apple keeps their plans top secret with not a word uttered, Microsoft's plans are openly "leaked" so people feel naughty when a preview/beta , Oracle's plans are covered with legalese and subject to contract terms, Linux plans are written in some cryptic programming language or something. Well, it is just nice seeing somebody try to be open like this (even if they still wind up doing their own thing)

  • by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @09:53AM (#32169332) Journal

    Dialogue boxes - including those requesting geolocation or other data - will appear as bubbles specific to individual tabs, meaning you can continue to navigate around the browser without being locked down until you've answered.

    FINALLY.

    Never again will I be alert-bombed.

    (I looked for an add-on to change script alerts, confirms, and prompts into something non-modal. I couldn’t find anything.)

  • Why copy Chrome? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @10:04AM (#32169490) Homepage Journal

    I ask the Mozilla folks: why copy Chrome? If I wanted to run Chrome, I would run that instead. I run Firefox because it's firefox and has a GUI which provides a lot more functionality, and I install extensions to add to that functionality (firebug, web developer toolbar, adblock, tinyurl, colorzilla, cooliris, google toolbar, etc). I LIKE menu bars, and being able to turn features on and off, but having a basic toolbar, status bar, and menu bar enabled by default. I hate the current trend of dumbing down UIs and making them look like they were designed using Play-Doh (make that play-d'oh).

    Want to know what you should work on instead? Sandboxing each tab, sandboxing plugins, decreasing memory utilization (with the realization that you can't do much about flash, quicktime, mplayer, etc. plugin memory utilization), fully multithreading the UI so one tab waiting for a message queue doesn't freeze the entire browser, and work on the javascript engine so it is on par with Chrome, etc.

    Seriously. If all you do is reinvent Chrome, why bother? By offering a Chrome clone, any reason to run Firefox disappears.

  • by uxbn_kuribo (1146975) on Tuesday May 11, 2010 @11:29AM (#32170864)
    The only thing--- and I mean ONLY thing--- I prefer about Chrome is its task manager. If a website's terrible code / flash movie / javascript is dragging my system to its knees, Chrome lets me shut down just that single swf. This is a terrific idea. However, on the balance, Firefox has far more user support, compatibility, and security.

That does not compute.

Working...