Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox News

The Next Firefox UI 401

Posted by Soulskill
from the let-the-arguing-commence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has been constructing a new user interface for Firefox, and the layout seems to be revealed in new mockups that show the integrated Home Tab app and the streamlining of tabs and browsing buttons."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Next Firefox UI

Comments Filter:
  • by allo (1728082) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:55PM (#36951576)

    when it's not broken, do not fix it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      My philosophy has always been: "If it's not broken, fix it 'till it is." I'm glad to see I'm not alone in this.
    • by Xest (935314) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:46PM (#36952284)

      Yes, personally I end up disabling these new UIs and putting it back to normal anyway.

      The day they don't let me disable it and set it how it always was is the day I stop using it most likely, with each and every new design ever other version I'm concerned one day they'll see classic as too legacy!

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01, 2011 @04:55PM (#36953198)

        The last few releases of Firefox have had the UI driven by graphics designers, rather than programmers, and these have been by far the shittiest Firefox UIs ever. Each one strips away more and more useful features, and hence becomes much more difficult to use.

        Can we please have the programmers come up with the UI design? At least with the earlier Firefox releases, they put together something that was usable, even if it wasn't as "pretty" as what the designers might come up with.

        Frankly, I don't use Chrome because it has a shitty, stripped-down UI that intentionally hides all of the useful functionality. That's why I used to use Firefox. But if Firefox is going to imitate Chrome, why the fuck would I use Firefox? Even Konqueror is more usable than recent Firefox releases, so I'll stick with it until Firefox's UI isn't a compile cesspool.

    • by A12m0v (1315511)

      Why not? I like the new UI, I just hope full-screen mode is based on Lion's and integrate properly into Mission Control and not done in some different way.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        then they should add the new ui as an "add on" or "modification". they shouldn't bump the version number for that. also, if it looks like that on my win7, I'll have to get an add on to make it look like old. I like border decors. they let me resize the window, it's called usability and these mockups seem to miss them. moving address bar to a place where you could configure it before is not "new" thing either, neither is adding different svg's between the tabs.

    • by Riceballsan (816702) on Monday August 01, 2011 @04:25PM (#36952866)
      Indeed, usually the best UI is one where everything is where you expect it to be, where do I expect things to be? The same damn place it was yesterday. Even if it is going from an oddball place to a better one, it still isn't helpful if it changes every other week. First we go crazy with version numbers, now we're going crazy with UI changes just for the heck of it. What on earth is the open source community smoking these days.
      • It isn't just the OSS community, take a look at Facebook for instance.

        Everyone wants to chat with their friends and know which friends are online. Therefore, we must change it to make it harder to chat with friends!

        All of technology seems to be breaking UIs just for the sake of change, look at Unity and GNOME-shell too, perfect examples of fixing what isn't broken.
    • When media players started fighting over UI design 10 years ago, this meant all functionality was there, from then on they fought for the user who needs new features every N days for no reason. It looks like the browser marked is no in the same state.

  • by zbobet2012 (1025836) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:56PM (#36951590)
    is Chrome.
    • by Elbart (1233584)
      The fork can't be too far away.
    • by roman_mir (125474)

      I've never seen Chrome, but this looked very much like Opera here.

      I like Opera as a browser, I don't like its UI though that much, I actually prefer the simplest possible UI of like Netscape 4 or something of that type, so to me this looks just counterintuitive as a computer program. That's why I am not fully on Opera, but I force myself to use it because it works better.

    • by INT_QRK (1043164)
      Yup. Looks like Chrome.
  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:56PM (#36951600)
    As long as I can still get my tabs and shit below the even-more-goddamn-awesomebar, and put a status bar addon in, I'm not going to complain. Default layouts are fine-- it's when you suddenly can't modify them any more that I start to get tetchy.
    • by Ghostworks (991012) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:07PM (#36951760)

      There's a reason my personal firefox config log is labeled "the hoops I jump through.txt". Every release they give me more of what I don't want, and break the add-ons that give me what I do want. It's getting pretty tedious stripping these things down just to build them back up again.

      I think the home tab is a good idea... for people who use a home page and also only have 1 of them and also actually revisit it multiple times in the life of a window. So long as the other 85% of us can hide it, that's fine. But there comes a time when "you can customize it" stops being a feature, and starts being an excuse to ignore user wants and do whatever the hell you want. Really, is the UI something that needs to be continually re-defined? Couldn't we spend the effort on something else? Something other than badly imitating Chrome?

    • Honest question: Beyond "that's not the way it always has been", what is the problem with tabs on top?

      I'll be the first to admit that I was very hesitant about putting tabs on the title bar, but after letting myself get used to it for a while I see a at least a couple distinct advantages. First the obvious, you gain some vertical screen space, which is always handy on modern widescreen monitors. Less obviously, you make it more clear that the UI elements at the top of the page are affecting the current t

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by EvanED (569694)

        I'll be the first to admit that I was very hesitant about putting tabs on the title bar, but after letting myself get used to it for a while I see a at least a couple distinct advantages. First the obvious, you gain some vertical screen space, which is always handy on modern widescreen monitors.

        Tabs above/below the address bar I couldn't care less about, but I do not like tabs in the title bar. That comes at the cost of losing some vertical grabbing range for the mouse and no longer having a place to put th

        • It's a question of what you get in exchange for the lost space. For the title bar, the number of times that I've needed to see the complete page title (and the title has been too long to fit in the tab header) is pretty small. As for mouse grabbing, I generally run maximized on smaller displays (my at home PC is a laptop) and at work I use Winsplit Revolution to manage my windows via keyboard so I suppose I've never noticed.

          Removing the status bar has a much larger impact IMO. Loading status is missing a

      • by Daetrin (576516)
        First, why does everyone say tabs on top gains you vertical screen space? The last time i tested it, moving the tab bar above the other bars didn't actually gain any space, in fact i think it even lost a pixel or two.

        I've also never had any trouble figuring out that the UI elements were going to affect the tab i was currently viewing, and having them below the tab just seems stupid. My mental image is that the tabs are at the top of a folder that contains the webpage, just like the metaphor where the tab
      • by rtkluttz (244325)

        Everyone is headed down the minimalist road because the of the netbook and tablet craze. Some people still choose high horsepower machines with dual (or more) screens. Look at Ubuntu's unity desktop. The whole damn OS has chosen that path. Buttons, menus, and options that aren't buried and are ready at hand are a GOOD thing when you have screen real estate to burn. Many people still do.

      • by azoblue (842509)

        Honest question: Beyond "that's not the way it always has been", what is the problem with tabs on top?.

        For those of us whose browse with many tabs open at once and frequently switch between them, tabs on top means a *lot* more mouse movement to accomplish this, which equals more time. Wasted time. It may not seem like much, but it is enough to be a noticeable delay, and adds up. Putting the tabs back where they belong solves this annoyance.

        This may not be a factor depending on your own personal browsing habits.

  • Tailfins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:57PM (#36951626) Homepage

    Browsers have now reached the maturity of 1950s American cars. They more or less work, still break too much, use too much fuel, and have lots of chrome and tailfins.

    • by Teckla (630646)

      Browsers have now reached the maturity of 1950s American cars. They more or less work, still break too much, use too much fuel, and have lots of chrome and tailfins.

      Unless you've been living under a rock, it should be obvious that browsers have been trending toward less chrome (i.e., a less distracting UI) by removing a lot of UI clutter. The comparison to 1950s American cars seems completely wrong, at least where the UI is concerned.

    • Re:Tailfins (Score:4, Insightful)

      by QuietLagoon (813062) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:38PM (#36952160)
      Yup. When the Mozilla developers say, as a reason for the new Home tab capability, that they want Firefox to be different, then tail-fins can't be far behind.

      .
      It is beginning to look like the Mozilla developers are now at a loss for new things to develop in order to feed the voracious appetite of the rapid release cycle that they pushed upon users.

      • by steelfood (895457)

        Meanwhile, there are plenty of things they could do to improve Firefox (e.g. back-end performance) that are neither noticeable nor able to be developed in the timeframe of one release cycle.

        The first thing I'd like to see them do is offer (but not impose) the ability to run every tab as a separate process. That should offer a workaround to a significant amount of the unaddressed memory leaks that everybody's experiencing.

    • And, American car companies lost their market when foreign competitors started focusing on *functionality*. So, when is the equivalent browser going to appear?

      Creating a browser that blocks popups would be a great first step. Something insanely trivial to implement that everyone on the planet wants.
      • by glwtta (532858)
        Creating a browser that blocks popups would be a great first step. Something insanely trivial to implement that everyone on the planet wants.

        You actually have a browser that doesn't block popups? I'm pretty sure they've all been doing that for about a decade now.
        • Popups generated from click events are generally unblocked since they are, obviously, user generated and presumably a link to something the user wants to see; however, this is not always the case. What I really want is a whitelist for popups. Not a whitelist that says "this site is allowed to create popups" but a whitelist that says "these sites are allowed to be popped up by other sites". I can't tell you how many times I've hit the facebook connect popup despite the fact that I have never once done it

  • Dear Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:58PM (#36951632)

    Please stop trying to make your browser fit on a 2" screen. I have 20"+ monitors. I can spare the pixels.

    Further, burying the menu bar makes it very hard for me to support people who get confused when I say "Go to Edit and Preferences".

    Innovation is not simply following Chrome's lead. Kthnx.

    • Re:Dear Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)

      by clampolo (1159617) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:11PM (#36951820)
      It's not just them. IE and Opera are also going the Chrome route. Personally I hate it too. The purpose of the frameworks an OS provides is to make the look and feel of all the apps look the same. And presumably since the user picked the particular OS, then they like the look and feel of that framework,
      • Re:Dear Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tarlus (1000874) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:55PM (#36952432)

        Yeah, the way that the traditional menu bar has been tossed aside is distressing. It was invented to create a consistent user interface between programs (as well as provide a consistent API) in order to eliminate the issue of everything being drastically different.

        But now we're seeing most of the major browsers playing follow-the-leader by clumping menu operations into a single button, putting things indifferent places, and then Microsoft's ribbon bullshit that thinks every operation should be presented to you in a big kludgey mess of buttons and symbols. At least the web browsers and Windows Explorer allow you to tap the alt key to get a temporary glimpse of the old menu, but who's to say how long before that is removed?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        And as a UNIX user and programmer for decades now I always had to put up with Apple and MS peopel get worked up about the inconsistency between widget sets in X11. Now that Windows finally has a UI that has the sophisticatin to allow the dev to break the mold everyone is wanderign off on their own basically custom widgets.

    • It's not how much inch the monitor is, but what the vertical resolution is.
      Those idiotic HD resolutions meant cutting down quite a lot on resolution which means cutting down on spare height for menus etc..
      I'm going to keep running my 1920x1200 laptop as long as possible, those screens just keep getting more expensive!
    • by revlayle (964221)

      In the world of Chrome: "Click the 'Wrench', then Options" - also, I have less crap on my UI :)

  • Yeah, great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0123456 (636235) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:58PM (#36951646)

    Another new UI that makes getting to the thing I use regularly (like, you know, bookmarks) slower and more annoying.

    WTF is up with FOSS developers these days?

  • by RazzleFrog (537054) on Monday August 01, 2011 @02:59PM (#36951652)

    Who exactly is looking for all these crazy changes to the way browsers work? I am starting to think that browser design has become "art for the sake of art". What happened to function over form?

    • by royallthefourth (1564389) <royallthefourth@gmail.com> on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:06PM (#36951748)

      What happened to function over form?

      Well, they've had the function working right for a while. Now they're paying lots of extra attention to the form, they just happen to be getting it wrong!

    • by Macrat (638047)

      Who exactly is looking for all these crazy changes to the way browsers work? I am starting to think that browser design has become "art for the sake of art". What happened to function over form?

      Because pretty pictures sell better than ideas when the Mozilla foundation is out doing fund raising.

    • What happened to function over form?

      Apple.

      Though to be fair, it was more their marketing campaign than their actual software. The effect of Apple on tech designers appears to be similar to the effect of LSD on the hippies--in both the positive and negative senses.

  • So long as plugins are not broken have fun, I will stick with vimperator.

  • you just stick to the damn tried and true Netscape UI and stop "revolutionizing" anything we're familiar with by instinct.
  • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:04PM (#36951720) Homepage

    Whatever happen to UI consistency? "Back in the day" UIs used to use the same toolkits, have their menus and toolbars all in the same spot and work consistently across applications. Today all those UI elements are kind of splattered around the application and there is really no consistency where you can find something anymore. There are also things in modern UIs that I really don't get, Firefox4 for example will present you different menus depending on if you click it with a mouse or if you activate it with the keyboard. What's the point in that? Didn't we figure out that changing menus where a really bad idea back when Windows tried it many years ago? Once up-on a time the menu was full of all the stuff the application could do, now its like playing hide and seek with the functions an application might have and hiding them from the user is really not helping.

    • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:21PM (#36951940) Homepage Journal

      Whatever happen to UI consistency?

      Beats me, but when Apple decided to throw their own interface guidelines out the window and pointlessly rearrange the window icons on iTunes for whatever reason, and then again made the window icons on their App Store app center on the toolbar instead of the top of the window like every other app, it's become clear that the watchword for today is "change for the sake of change."

      Incidentally, I notice that at some point after screwing with the iTunes window buttons for absolutely no reason, they've reverted them back to be like every other window that's not the App Store. So apparently Apple is slowly learning their own lessons about interface consistency.

      • by jeremyp (130771)

        Incidentally, I notice that at some point after screwing with the iTunes window buttons for absolutely no reason, they've reverted them back to be like every other window that's not the App Store. So apparently Apple is slowly learning their own lessons about interface consistency.

        Not quite: try pressing the green "make the window as big as it needs to be to display all the content" button.

        Apple is one of the worst offenders at breaking its own UI guidelines. iTunes is a fail, the App Store is a fail, Quick Time X is a huge fail. I haven't got it but I gather Aperture is also a fail.

        • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:56PM (#36952436) Homepage Journal

          Not quite: try pressing the green "make the window as big as it needs to be to display all the content" button.

          Oh, that's awesome. Not only does it not actually "zoom" the application, what it actually does is what the "collapse" button (the little bar on the right of certain windows) is supposed to do.

          Although the Zoom button has always effectively meant "do something random" so I've gotten in the habit of never touching it.

          I always find it hilarious when Apple shits all over their own guidelines, especially when there's a ton of research and design behind them. Microsoft can get away with crap like making the Office windows not behave like any other window in their OS, because they've never sold themselves as being "the user interface experts," but Apple?

          Come on, your HIG is enormous and generally explains why it suggests what it suggests. Why do you then ignore your own guidelines?

          Incidentally, it's worth reading the Microsoft HIG for using custom window frames [microsoft.com] for examples of Microsoft applications that ignore their own guidelines. It's nice to know that Microsoft's interface people are aware that the Gadgets window is broken, even if they can't convince anyone on the Windows team to fix it.

    • by Teckla (630646)

      Whatever happen to UI consistency? "Back in the day" UIs used to use the same toolkits, have their menus and toolbars all in the same spot and work consistently across applications. Today all those UI elements are kind of splattered around the application and there is really no consistency where you can find something anymore. There are also things in modern UIs that I really don't get, Firefox4 for example will present you different menus depending on if you click it with a mouse or if you activate it with the keyboard. What's the point in that? Didn't we figure out that changing menus where a really bad idea back when Windows tried it many years ago? Once up-on a time the menu was full of all the stuff the application could do, now its like playing hide and seek with the functions an application might have and hiding them from the user is really not helping.

      Web browsers are a special case, because they are increasingly being used to run web applications.

      If web browsers were to keep all the chrome of a regular application, you end up with a pretty cluttered display: a full blown application (the web app) within a full blown application (the web browser). Yuck.

      I, for one, am pleased that web browser UIs are increasingly getting out of the way so that I can concentrate on the web app they are hosting. However, web browser makers might be able to please everyone b

  • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:10PM (#36951812) Homepage Journal

    My first reaction on seeing the headline was "oh, this ought to be awful." But, you know, that's just a gut reaction. I should really give them the benefit of the doubt.

    (click)

    OK, first thing I notice is that there's now no forward button. It shows up again later, so I guess the idea is that it vanishes if you don't need it? ...uh, OK, but I kind of like having a UI that doesn't randomly change size based on what tab I'm looking at.

    These are Mac OS X screenshots, so the menu shouldn't be in the window anyway, but it appears they've moved everything to a small cog. No, wait, later there's a Windows 7 version, and the menu is still the orange Firefox thing, so I guess the cog is Mac OS X only?

    They're finally merging the search and URL bars, which I'm sure some Slashdotters will scream bloody murder over, but which I can't help but think it's about time. (Really, not too hard to tell a URL from a search term, and given that the "awesome" bar is already a search feature, they might as well give me more space so that I can see the entire URL.)

    Over all it doesn't look too horrible compared to their current interface. May even be an improvement.

    Now the only question left is how many extensions will be required to restore the toolbar so I can keep my NoScript and Firebug icons fucking available since I frequently need to use them. You took away my status bar, please don't take away my toolbar too.

    Also, I wonder what new bugs they'll introduce to Firefox under Windows Aero. Gotta love Aero Glass freaking out whenever you mouse over a link. (How did you even do that?!)

    • by JMJimmy (2036122)

      Examples of why a combined search is terrible:

      1) define:

      Firefox treats anything with a : as part of a protocol so that search functionality is only available by first going to google.

      2) I'm feeling lucky vs full search.

      Currently address bar does the former and search does the latter. This allows me to dictate behaviour, use multiple search engines, and such.

      3) Further to #2 tab behaviour can be dictated. Address bar with I'm feeling lucky = don't open new tab. Search with full search = open in new tab.

      Th

      • by Baloroth (2370816)
        Re:#1: They can solve that problem by copying Opera (more). In opera, I can set any search I want to a keyword of any length. So, for instance "g opera" does a Google search for "opera", while "w opera" does a Wikipedia search (not by default, but insanely easy to customize). "gs opera" does an SSL Google search, etc. You can even set up customized searches this way. For instance, you could make a Newegg search that orders by price. Inputting no keyword does default engine. Also addresses #2. Not sure why F
    • by BZ (40346)

      > so I guess the idea is that it vanishes if you don't
      > need it?

      No, you're just looking at a variety of screenshots of various brainstormed proposals. Stuff along the lines of "we should think about this and see whether it makes sense", as opposed to "the next Firefox UI" like the BS summary says.

  • by jackspenn (682188)
    How Google Chrome of them.
  • or is it April 1st?...
  • Just me here? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sqrt(2) (786011)

    I'm probably alone, but I rather like the new UI. Reminds me of Chrome. I switched to Chrome recently because FF5 on OS X was just crashing too much and had gotten too slow, might switch back if this works similarly faster and is stable again.

    If UI designers listened to the tech community we'd still be using something that looked like an early Netscape. There was plenty of room for improvement there, and a lot of things just don't make sense anymore and never really did anyway. Permanent status bars are a g

    • "...I rather like the new UI. Reminds me of Chrome."

      That is the problem. Most people that want Chrome are using Chrome. Most people that are using Firefox like it better than Chrome.

    • I'm probably alone, but I rather like the new UI. Reminds me of Chrome.

      And I hate it for the same reason (that is, I hate Chrome-style UI). I have a big monitor, so there is no point in hiding the menu or the status bar to make it fit. FF3 with all toolbars (menu bar, navigation bar, bookmarks bar, tab bar, status bar) enabled still has enough screen space that I do not need to maximize it (my desktop resolution is 1600x1200 btw).

      Permanent status bars are a good thing to be rid of, for instance.

      Why?
      Status bar is useful for me:
      1.It displays the URL of the link that I am about t

  • Dear Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alostpacket (1972110) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:14PM (#36951864) Homepage

    I understand you are designing for the lowest common denominator. It makes sense, and I can see where you are going with this design direction.

    However, please be sure to allow configurability at the very least, and even better resist the urge to remove UI elements and hide them behind menus.

    I dont want more buttons hidden behind more menus that require more clicks. On my desktop I have a large amount of room and like all my important options in front of me. That's why it's a great computing device for work. On my mobile phone, a sparse UI is much appreciated. But I dont really need it, nor want it, on a desktop. It doesnt make any sense in keeping with the idea of easy "discoverability" in user experience design. It also could easily confuse users even more than you think.
     
    Most users can learn to recognize that a little "house" icon is the home screen. However, many users will not understand that setting the home page is under [alt] > Tools > options > General tab. Non-tech savvy people dont understand all of this multi layered categorization. They may not think the same way the developers and designers do, and may not put the option under the same category if they were doing the organization. They also may understand what they need, but not what the categories mean. Simple UI controls work better for most people. As an example: almost everyone understand lists and scrolling, even if they are very long lists.

    It would also be nice if the bugs regarding new versions of FF corrupting profiles be looked into. And I don't know of any users that really feel the new "rapid release" stuff is worth a dime. The people who know what it means think it's silly, and the people who don't wouldn't care anyways.

    Don't get me wrong, you guys have done fantastic work over the years. And the world owes you *much* gratitude. But I feel the need to speak up at some of the recent changes in direction Mozilla has been making with FF and TB. A need I have never felt before regarding either product. As a fan I wish you all the best though and hope to keep using FF and TB as I have never been that interested in Chrome or Gmail.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      However, many users will not understand that setting the home page is under [alt] > Tools > options > General tab. Non-tech savvy people dont understand all of this multi layered categorization

      If you want a flat list of configuration options instead of a nested hierarchy, everything is available under about:config. It's even searchable.

      Next you will complain that "non-tech savvy people can't handle being bombarded by a list of hundreds of configuration options".

      • While certainly no one wants to be bombarded with 100,000 config options, I think you can agree there has been a movement to hide and simplfy UIs over the past few years especially, and that this particular UI looks more sparse than the last which looked more sparse than the previous and so on. I highly doubt we're just going to go to all text lists like in the past (and I wouldn't want that), but it was an example of a consistent UI element people have long learned to understand almost intuitively. There

  • If its still as modifiable as the previous versions of FF, I won't complain.

    I like the extra space for my tiny screen, but I can afford the additional pixels on my large one. Looks familiar though...

  • by Hatta (162192)

    Looks exactly like Safari.

  • Just...just fuck you Mozilla. This is the last straw for me.
    As much as I've made fun of Opera users throughout the years, looks like I'm joining them now...
  • How about trying to make the browser faster and more concurrent instead of spending time on unnecessary GUI changes?
    I often experience a huge slowdown in Firefox when I have five or so Firefox windows -- of which all but one are minimized.
    I often experience that the entire browser locks up to wait for a request ... in another window than the one that I am reading in.
    I also get the feeling that the so called "awesome" bar becomes slower and slower with time.

    How about fixing these issues instead?
    I am seriousl

  • I keep clicking the "Click on a planet to start" button but nothing happens

  • it looks like a mashup of Opera's Speed Dial and the embedding/customization of Apple's circa-1996 Cyberdog [wikipedia.org].
  • Much ado... (Score:5, Informative)

    by iceaxe (18903) on Monday August 01, 2011 @03:41PM (#36952196) Journal

    Please read the comment appearing at the top of the web page [mozilla.com], and then un-wad your knickers, folks.

    We appreciate your interest in our design experiments!
    The UI mock-ups shown on these pages were part of a meeting, and were for discussion purposes, and to explore different design directions. Some of them are already out of date.
    Mozilla works in the open, and the way to get the latest in UI improvements to Firefox is to download the UX channel build for your OS, which will auto-update every night with various design experiments we're looking at.

    • Re:Much ado... (Score:4, Informative)

      by quixote9 (999874) on Monday August 01, 2011 @06:09PM (#36953874) Homepage
      Unbunch your own knickers. Mozilla puts the stuff out there for comment. People comment. Many don't like it. That's the whole point of putting it out for comment early enough in the design process to be able to change things.

      (Now all Mozilla needs to do is actually listen to the comments, and stop trying to imitate Chrome, Mac, or cellphone UIs. But, as another commenter said, so long as I can change the default, I'm not hopelessly hot and bothered.)
    • Much ado...? No (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Chicken_Kickers (1062164) on Monday August 01, 2011 @07:23PM (#36954514)

      No, we are right to be concerned. These days, whenever a large company, open source or not put up something publically or semi-publically on their website, it means that they are going to implement it. It is a cheap way of product testing or to prepare users for the coming apocalypse, I mean, change. I am now starting to look around for other browsers to use. Mozilla has become what it was fighting when it started. I also blame female users for this (no, I'm serious). Look at the UI design of consumer products now days and you realise the over-simplified, over-cutesy, over-dumbed down design is catering for women and girly men who favours looks over function.

  • For some reason my "disable advertising" button has got turned off, but that means I get to see the huge banner ad and the even huger ad on the right hand side, which both say in huge letters:

    Download Google Chrome Now

  • 1) What happened to the forward button? I understand it's not used much, but it doesn't take up that much space, does it? As long as you can do the same functionality by holding down the back button like usual, then I should be fine. Not sure how discoverable that feature is, though...

    2) I like the new tab style a lot, even if they don't really look like "tabs" as much as before, it's still an improvement to me. It really makes it look like the tab owns the browser chrome, good for usability purposes. This

  • "... a few different reasons why we are exploring the concept of a Home Tab, including: Creating an interface that is unique to Firefox"

    But why? If I were a group of program developers that is still trying to steal users away from another program, I would make switching as easy as possible. Learning curves brought on by unique interfaces work against that.

    Oh well... just make sure there's the option for a more traditional UI and I'll just switch to that when I upgrade- Why yes, my Windows 7 installation loo

  • Seriously, why move the star/bookmark icon out of the address bar where it's been all this time?

    Stop making Firefox to be Chrome. Firefox is not Chrome. It shouldn't be.

  • It is kind of sobering to see how the concentrated company backed effort of Chrome overtook the 10 years old Firefox in just a few months, with FF running behind ever since. Be it optimizing for speed, new web technologies, UI design or even version numbering, the Mozilla folks look at the tail lights and try to keep up.
    BTW: I'm still using FF because of the add-ons and free GUI configurability.

  • by steeviant (677315)

    The radius of the rounding on the tabs is hideous and looks nothing like any native control on any platform, I also hate this new fashion of placing the close, minimize and zoom buttons at some random pixel offset.

    This design would work just as well with native looking widgets and button placement and wouldn't invoke the "uncanny valley" effect of being almost correctly placed. Why not just put the buttons in the middle of the web page and make the tabs floating round circles that you navigate between by wa

  • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday August 01, 2011 @04:14PM (#36952718) Homepage

    The one great strength Firefox has is its plugin system. Can the browser people please stop fucking with the interface and concentrate on the damn HTML renderer ? If I were to get hit in the head with the douche stick and suddenly wanted my Firefox to look like Chrome, I'd install a Chrome skin. If they're so obsessed with minimalist interfaces, fire the interface guy and let him release the dumb thing as a 3rd party plugin.

  • by formfeed (703859) on Monday August 01, 2011 @04:24PM (#36952838)

    On upgrade you could choose between:

    • Traditional - and you can have all the bars you had so far.
    • Smart bars - and you get something optimized for vertically deficient users.
    • Fashion Idiot - and you automatically get a new UI whenever the cool kids get a new one.
  • by AttillaTheNun (618721) on Monday August 01, 2011 @06:11PM (#36953900)
    FPS level designers or something? Finding common functions requires the equivalent of an epic campaign with every release. I can't blame my parents for being completely lost these days. I have a hard time helping them out myself and wonder what the hell happened to common sense and usability.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...