Firefox 29 Beta Arrives With UI Overhaul And CSS3 Variables 256
An anonymous reader writes "Following the release of Firefox 28 just two days ago, Mozilla today updated its Firefox Beta channel to version 29 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. This is a massive release: Firefox Sync has been revamped and is now powered by Firefox Accounts, there's a new customization mode, and the major user interface overhaul Australis has finally arrived. Release notes are here: Desktop and Android."
Of interest to developers: Firefox 29 will feature the first implementation of CSS3 variables. Yes, variables for CSS (15 years later).
New UI? (Score:4, Insightful)
So... It looks like chrome now?
Don't get me wrong... I like the look, but it seems somehow.... unfirefoxy...
Re:New UI? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chrome looks like Firefox - Mozilla did the research for a new UI and UX, collected tons of data through Test Pilot project, released the data to the public, before Firefox 4 was released with the new UI, Google came out with Chrome that looked very similar to what Mozilla drew up in mock UI's. This just completes the overhaul of the UI. A little late as it was a low priority. Sad story, but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like it when application refine things to make better use of space.
For users on small screens, that might be an advantage, though I'm slightly wondering how many people use the default versions of things like tabs rather than a plug-in anyway.
I hope they aren't doing it at the expense of stability in the UI, though. I use Firefox on big screens, so saving a few pixels here and there has little benefit to me, but moving everything around just because I "upgraded" is infuriating.
Re: (Score:3)
"Well, as superficial as it is, I'm glad the new UI is here. I like it when application refine things to make better use of space. Reply to This Share"
It isn't "superficial" to me. I am very happy that they put the tabs right side up again. Putting them upside-down on top breaks the whole eye-brain-connection thing. (And I don't mean that subjectively, I mean from a human-computer interface standpoint.)
Having said all that, I still think "flat" icons are dumb. Again from a human-computer interface standpoint, they give the eye and brain fewer cues about what means what.
Re:New UI? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I use Firefox is because it DOESN'T have the horrible Chrome interface. I've run out of curse words to describe my anger at all the interface overhauls over the last few years. MS Office...Unity...Firefox...Windows 8...*cough* Slashdot...
Re:New UI? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's why I use Seamonkey, they don't change the UI willy-nilly, but it's Firefox under the hood.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah with security holes and no updates I wont trust it.
No I do nto mean this as flamebait seriously. But without a team and researchers I am weary of non supported browsers. Yes if you run Windows Russian hackers have all sorts of nasties.
I had my cam get turned on a week ago after imaging my computer and running updates and just freaking opening an up to date Ie for the first time to download software. ... sigh I had to re-image afterwards.
Re:New UI? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah with security holes and no updates I wont trust it.
What are you talking about?
The last SeaMonkey release, SeaMonkey 2.25, came out two days ago.
Its Gecko is identical to the one in Firefox 28.
Re: (Score:2)
> *cough* Slashdot...
I invented new curse words for Beta. DM me for a list...
:-)
... when Slashdot implements DMs.
Re: (Score:2)
> *cough* Slashdot...
I invented new curse words for Beta. DM me for a list... ... when Slashdot implements DMs. :-)
You enter a room. There is a large, blue contraption that looks like a large rectangle with legs, but the top is rounded across one plane. ...wait, not that kind of DM?
Also, my description of a US Post Box [watchdognation.com] sucks.
Re:New UI? (Score:5, Interesting)
The nice thing about Firefox is that even Nightly, after Australis has arrived, can be configured to look none-too-different than it did in Firefox 3.5.
Chrome? Unity? Office? Windows 8? No real choice in the matter?
Firefox? As you like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Try www.msnbc.com?
Wow
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you are posting this from a Xerox Star, because clearly UI is something that needs no change or innovation.
Yeah, the country has gone downhill since they quit innovating buggy whips and sealing wax. And don't get me started on the wheel for God's sake! When was the last time anyone made a wheel that wasn't equidisdant surfaces around a central axis. Hello! the 15th century B.C.E called and said we're stagnating. Its odd that while accusing people that say, don't like Windows 8 of being backward minded, the exact opposite is true.
User interface is pretty well settled, and exists to run the computer, not to be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The Firefox 4 mockup page on their wiki contains some discussion on the Chrome UI, so it seems unlikely that Mozilla had developed something along the lines of the Chrome UI before Google did. Otherwise they could've just referred to their own designs rather than Google's.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk%... [mozilla.org]
Do you have any links to these pre-Chrome Firefox mockups?
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft also collected its data. We ended up with Metro.
The issue is interpretation. With Windows 8 the fact that we used jumplists means we do not need colors anymore or skeumorphisms mean color and contasts so lets make office 2013 all blinding WHITE and have jumplists mean no jumplists with tiles that take up the whole screen etc.
Yeah be careful reading it
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing with the downloadpanel mentioned below.
First mockups in 2010, Safari released in in 2011, and it got added in Firefox sometime in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the catch-22: Anybody with two fucking brains to rub together disables "features" like telemetry, just on general principle.
Is it common to have more than one brain? You make it sound like two brains is a low number. Why do I only have one? Does that mean I'm retarded? How many brains do you have anyway? I have so many questions about your post...
Re: (Score:2)
And why do people rub brains together ? What kind of improvement do you get from doing that ? Does it work if you only have one brain to rub ?
yes, many, many questions.
Unfortunately, it appears to be more broken now th (Score:2)
Funny non-sense with the back and forward buttons . The forward button appears or hides dynanimcally making the whole URL bar increase or decrease in length everytime you change between tabs that have forward history or not. Are these guys idiots?
There is an extension which brings back the older theme, but it does something funky to the minimum tab width which makes the whole tab bar go jitter crazy the moment you have more tabs than can fit on the screen. Seems like Firefox tries to make a scroller, and th
Re:New UI? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I wanted to use Chrome, I would be using Chrome right now. But I'm not--I use Firefox, and have been putting up with Mozilla's shit for years now, screwing up and dumbing down the interface. Now, they're making it a direct Chrome clone. I think I'll be switching to SeaMonkey soon. I'm sick of Mozilla's bullshit. The creation of the Mozilla Corporation, as I see it, was the start of Mozilla's downfall.
Re: (Score:2)
Change "Mozilla" to Opera and you got the same exact opinion as I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla makes a lot of money, and it does it because users use Firefox. The fact that they currently make most of the money indirectly rather than from the users themselves does not change this, and upsetting lots of users by taking a product they like and making it worse is a terrible business strategy. Of course Mozilla doesn't owe Joe Randomuser exactly the browser they want, but it cuts both ways, and Joe Randomuser doesn't owe Mozilla a +1 in the number of users column next time they're renegotiating w
Re: (Score:2)
And what if making the browser more like Chrome gets them more money because they get more users who want something like Chrome?
If they're confident that's the case, good luck to them, but they shouldn't be surprised when other users start installing plug-ins to put things back how they were or, if that's no longer possible, when someone forks the Firefox codebase and spins off a direct competitor. Firefox is an Open Source product, after all, and as far as I'm aware Mozilla Corporation have no special claim to any of it other than the branding.
Re:New UI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, he uses Firefox. That entitles him to talk like Mozilla owes him some consideration. The funding Mozilla gets from Google is premised on Mozilla having market share after all - if everyone stopped using Firefox, Mozilla would have no money.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly makes you think that Firefox should always work the way YOU want it to, and that Seamonkey (or any other browser) won't eventually change so much that you hate them too? Can't you be a little less of a child about this?
...
Um, he uses Firefox.
Exactly. For, like, ever, in fact. I have actually been a Firefox user since before it was even *called* Firefox, and I heavily recommended it to everyone I knew for years starting sometime around its official 1.0 release. Anyone remember Phoenix? Any time there was a virus conversation, one of the key things I always said (aside from basic common sense) was DO NOT USE IE... use, you guessed it, Firefox. Those people listened to what I said, and in turn told people *they* knew to do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
See...I was always a huge Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix supporter as well. I still remember the big online release party they had for 1.0. I raved about it so much in highschool my dad bought me a Firefox T-shirt (which was not the kind of thing he generally did...chips or candy from the store, sure, but he didn't just order crap for us)...which was my favorite T-shirt for several years.
But I haven't used it much since Chrome came out. I switch back and forth every few months, but I tend to favor chrome for perf
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't care about "being like Chrome", as if Chrome owns the idea of minimalism. In the early days of Firefox and before that the early Netscape/Mozilla browsers, I was always looking for more room and speed. I like the UI changes. Change the URL bar on the bottom into a popup that appears only when the user hovers over a link, make the menu autohide, get rid of the bookmarks toolbar, shrink the icons, and others were all things I was using buggy popups to do before the Firefox team integrated them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is I was going to write. I don't know if the new UI changes that stuff, but the Firefox is very powerful. I appreciate that I can add or remove buttons and put them anywhere (lately, zooming buttons have got even more useful). I even get to have a menu bar, which gives instant access to stuff.
Google doesnt care about making bookmarks, history etc. easily accessible, they'd rather have you spend your time using Google products. i.e. they let me click a yellow star, or open the last closed tab (only the
Re: (Score:2)
Install SeaMonkey and use my theme and addon to get it looking and Feeling like Firefox 3.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people take my comment so badly. I dislike Australis, not Firefox.
I have been using nightly builds of Firefox for years, with some short breaks when an unwanted change was being introduced. Sometimes the change was discarded, other times I decided to embrace it. I got used to the new downloads panel, for example.
Up until now, I have been able to revert all the changes they made, where I didn't want them. A big example of this is they keyhole back/forward button. I keep the Home button in be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be an option. I will have to test it before I give up on Firefox completely, although I fear an add-on that changes so much may break things in the long run.
I did test it some months ago, when I first discovered Australis. Back then it lacked many details that made me prefer to downgrade to a more stable channel, but I will try it before I completely dismiss Firefox. If it even really happens, because as much as I dislike getting things shoved down my throat, the alternatives feel even worse. In th
CSS variables? (Score:2)
Re:CSS variables? (Score:5, Insightful)
The very existence of SASS and LESS prove CSS needs to be fixed. Introducing variables in CSS is one step in the right direction of making SASS/LESS obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
But since we need ALL browsers to support CSS variables, in the same manner, it means we won't be able to use that before around 2024 because of Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
The very existence of SASS and LESS prove CSS needs to be fixed.
I'd rather say their creation proved that CSS needed to be fixed. They came along and fixed it reasonably well, at least in those respects where they were also evidence of a problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I found that dynamically generating my CSS from PHP is the solution. It's easy to understand, easy to write, cross platform, and (using the etag trick), has good performance and bandwidth use.
So I have a bunch of rules like this:
echo "body{ height:100%; background: $colour_body_bg; font-family: $fontface_body; color: $colour_body_text}\n";
Even better, I can support slightly different versions of the stylesheet by linking to "style.php?style=theme_name".
Then, to handle performance and bandwidth,
Re: (Score:2)
They had to go and make a whole new standard though right? They couldn't just implement LESS in the browser...
Re:CSS variables? (Score:4, Informative)
CSS Variables are actually better described as CSS Custom Properties. They aren't just SASS-style global macros, they're far more powerful. Different elements can have different values for the same custom property, and custom property values set on an element are inherited by its descendants, respecting dynamic DOM changes etc. Custom property values can be set dynamically by scripts and those changes are of course automatically inherited.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla has a page on how to use CSS variables here: https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Clunky indeed. Prepending var- in front of everything? It sure looks like a hack bolted on in desperation to provide this kind of functionality. I'm afraid I might need to DIM something next. Or perhaps even PIC.
Sure, it provides some nice functionality, but the great thing about the preprocessors like SASS and LESS is that they're very flexible, generally easy to read, and very extensible.
Thing is, with the tools available, I'm not convinced that CSS variables are even necessary. Do we really want to be in
been using accounts in aurora for a month already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck 'em both. There really needs to be a method for syncing to a server of one's choice instead of relying on third parties.
Self hosting FTW.
Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like you CAN host your own Firefox Sync server.
"As with the previous version of Firefox sync, users still have the option to take their data with them and host their own sync service using the open source server-side software."
https://github.com/mozilla/fxa... [github.com]
Self-host firefox accounts (Score:2)
Self hosting FTW
Re: (Score:2)
Parallela looks great if you're a computer science student who wants to study supercomputers and many-core (Xeon Phi -like ) architectures, else I don'see the point to it. If you want a fast and small computer with limited connectivity and storage options why not look at an Intel NUC with Atom. ARM stuff will be better when it catches up to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saying this!! I just posted this in the OneNote discussion and nobody seemed to get it.
If you want to synch data, use an existing protocol like FTP, SFTP, SCP, rsynch, etc. The application should prompt the user for URL + user name + password. Then it can synch to anything. One should not have to run special host software like a Firefox Sync server or Sharepoint in order to synch files.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. One should not have to rely on a specific company on that, but it should be a well layed out mechanism that allows one to sync to a server of choice, allowing one to host it themselves instead of relying on third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
it should be a well layed out mechanism that allows one to sync to a server of choice, allowing one to host it themselves instead of relying on third parties.
It's not completely trivial to set up, but not horribly difficult either:
http://docs.services.mozilla.c... [mozilla.com]
You set up your own Firefox Sync server on whatever machine you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in shit do you need a sync server? Why not any of the many protocols which Firefox already speaks? I should be able to use any FTP server to do sync.
use this extension when you cannot stand australis (Score:5, Informative)
Classic Theme Restorer will restore your sanity
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/
If we wanted an ugly version of Chrome, we'd use Chrome!
Also recommended - Status-4-Evar extension (you need the dev version for FF 29)
Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care what it looks like, I'm just worried about what "rarely used" features I depend on they're going to take away this time.
Re: (Score:2)
All glory to The Focus Groups! (Score:2)
(WHY!?)
Because the focus groups.
Oh no, not another one... (Score:2)
In imperative programming languages, like Java, C++ or even JavaScript, the state can be tracked through the notion of variables. Variables are symbolic names associated with a given value, that can vary with the time. In a declarative language like CSS, time-changing values are not common and the concept of variables is pretty uncommon.
Seems like people who confuse the notions of variables, mutable bindings and mutable values still haven't died out. OK, I'll wait another ten years...
Nickname for the new UI? (Score:3)
Why am I thinking of Terror Australis all of a sudden?
New UI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you could tell what everything would do just by looking at it.
Or at least you could tell which UI elements were clickable and which were just informational or decorative. Those were the days.
shebang boom (Score:2)
The Australis link crashed my plugin-stuffed Mint 16 Firefox 28 shebang twice in a row. I got a good laugh. No problems recently, until this link.
No respect for the HIG (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, interface designers think a HIG [wikipedia.org] should be printed on toilet paper. Browsers now always look "alien" to whatever environment where they're run. Here's a tip, you dolts: cut this "too cool for rules" bullshit. Each system gives you standard windows, standard buttons, standard decorations, standard everything -- use them, always! Regard the HIG as a holy bible! Make the program belong with the system!
Re:No respect for the HIG (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to Mozilla, who have been working ceaselessly to get Firefox to behave more like OSX users expect it should behave for years now, not to mention porting it to GTK3 and QT, and slowly trying to use what time they have to improve the Android and Windows 7 releases. They even made a Metro interface that was pretty excellent compared to Chrome just taking over and turning it into ChromeOS.
Some things just don't happen as easily as you'd like. Browsers aren't simple programs, they have their own UI that doesn't fit cleanly into every OS's HIG guidelines. Yes, there are a thousand papercuts left to fix, but don't try to tell me that Mozilla isn't working hard to fix them because I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. What? You don't like the new tab bar? Then install a skin like the rest of us. Or will you also complain about having to customize Firefox to work exactly the way you want it to?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a revolutionary idea: do the Mozilla developers want a revamped UI? Then they are free to install the skin that does that!
And make it default only when significant part of users does the same. Until then don't force it down our throat.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a big problem in general. I work for a large company with a massive usability and creative department.
Yet, the usability people, who spend weeks after weeks doing studies after studies with focus groups, still end up with justifications such as "Well, I personally think this is easier" and "I think this is ugly, lets do it another way".
Then the creative people just ignore every rules, guidelines, and standards, and we end up with applications where every screen looks different, just so it can be pretty.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just browsers, lots of apps have been doing it for years. iTunes on Windows has to look exactly like the Mac version, right down to including a port of the MacOS font rendering engine because the Windows one is slightly different. Even on MacOS it had a very non-standard UI at first, although I think newer versions are more normal looking.
Microsoft has for years been using custom toolkits for Office and Visual Studio that don't quite match the standard Windows GUI. Most anti-virus programs feel the
Countdown to Extinction (Score:3, Interesting)
For the past couple of years the Mozilla developers have been hard at work removing features from Firefox and making it less and less useful. We've been able to (mostly) work around these stupid, pointless changes with the use of additional extensions. Having to add extensions to bring back features that have been removed is stupid, but it works.
Now, with the new "Australis" design they take things to a whole new level. Australis completely destroys almost everything that made Firefox popular in the first place. An enormous amount of flexibility and customizability has been removed. But not just removed. Completely ripped out in such a way that getting it back through extensions (which are just bits of Javascript and CSS) will be difficult, if not impossible. Extensions such as "Classic Theme Restorer" [mozilla.org] attempt to undo some of the damage, but are only able to do so in a very limited way.
Firefox, as we know it, will soon be gone. What a bunch of assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I dunno who developed that Classic Theme Restorer, but good luck to 'em. They'll need it. I gave up on FF and switched to SeaMonkey's browser ages ago because that addon is basically having to overhaul the entire UI to restore what was there before - the UX people don't give a shit about what long-term users want, or customizability. If the developer of that addon wants to plow their life into maintaining it through all the constant changes that Firefox gets, against the will of the Firefox UX peo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy. I might actually change back to Firefox just to spite you selfish idiots on principle. It's easy to call Mozilla assholes and ignore how much of an asshole you're being yourself. I've been monitoring this "discussion" about Australis for months now, and have learned a lot about it just by osmosis. Now I just tried it out, and I have to say: stop being such a prissy little drama queen.
Australis isn't "changing everything". Firefox was never popular because of it's ancient-looking UI. It won't be imposs
Fx was successful for a reason. (Score:2, Informative)
I've been a Fx user since it was Phoenix and it's astonishing to me how incompetent the changes have been. They take out features that are actually quite useful, like the ability to have smart bookmarks and AFAIK, that is only available via an extension. They changed the versioning system so that most plugins wouldn't work when they made a minor update to the browser software because Google does it.
The browser used to be good, but rather than improving what was working, they've decided they need to radicall
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong though, I loved the classic UI, the fact that buttons, etc. looks like other buttons on my OS.
But these days, no matter where I go, gnome-shell, unity, windows 8, office 2007, the UI is messed up. Everybody thinks they need to reinvent their own theme and UI concept, as if an application was a website.
Having used FF nightly for a while though, I must say that Australis isn't that revolutionary. It does look a li
Re: (Score:2)
If this were Microsoft we wouldn't be remotely apologetic about it. We'd bitch, not use the new interface, and wait for the drop in funds to beat sense back into them.
ha ha, you're probably right :) ./ we're notorious for bashing MS. Though I feel we've become less aggressive about it in recent years. :)
On
- What shame, I loved to hate Microsoft; life was easier when evil was well-defined
Except Mozilla seems pretty immune/oblivious to that last point.
If you think Mozilla doesn't care about the community, the feedback and user adoption (market share), I suggest that you listen in on some of the Mozilla project meetings, videos here: https://air.mozilla.org/?tag=m... [mozilla.org]
I think there is pros and cons, to landing a big UI change at onc
Re:Switched to Chrome and IE years ago (Score:2)
Firefox 3.6 was irritating but I still used it. IE 8 loaded quicker surprisingly but of course I would not use it as my main setc.
FF 4.0 did really support HTML 5 but it was sooo horrible. It was a shitty browser. IE 9 came out at the same time in 2011 and won tomshardware.com reward. It was a better browser. Chrome soon followed.
I switched to Chrome by summer 2011 after going back and forth with IE 9 and FF 5.0.
It is time to move on. IE once was the best browser too. Remember those days? Times change and t
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a list of all the new UI features I've enjoyed that have come along in browsers since I first used Netscape 2, 18 years ago:
- tabs
- URL autocomplete/history search
- built-in search box (NEXT TO the location box, thankyouverymuch)
- being able to resize a <textarea>
- download manager
... and I think that's about it.
Dear UX/UI "experts" everywhere: the next best thing to an "intuitive" UI is a FAMILIAR one. If you're working on an established product, whenever possible, simply LEAVE THINGS WHERE THE FUCK THEY ARE.
Ask yourself this: if a study was done and it found that 51% of the time that people use sinks, it was right-handed people wanting to turn on the hot water spigot, would that mean that we should start making sinks with the hot water tap on the right? NO! Because 1) we've spent a LONG ASS TIME with this convention, and 2) there would be a LONG ASS TRANSITION PERIOD where people would have to deal with BOTH systems, which would SUCK INFINITELY.
You know the old Abe Lincoln adage, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt?" Well, it's better to leave good things alone and have people thing you're not much of a designer, than to fix it until it breaks and remove all doubt. The best designers (and this goes for many other fields, including I.T. and stage crews) are the ones you don't know are there. Shit should JUST WORK. And then CONTINUE to work.
Re: (Score:2)
An extra box for searching just makes it harder to jump to that box (now you need to remember two hotkeys), and takes up space that could be showing the full url (or a lot more of the url, anyway).
I bet your real complaint is browser that don't separate the concept of searching vs. typing a url, so that if they occupy the same box there's a chance you'll get the one you didn't want. This can be solved by having some idiom that switches the context. For instance, a long time ago Firefox added "quick bookma
Re: (Score:2)
and here's a hint without an autocomplete, it's not your idea.
Yep. Firefox had that idea. Probably Opera, too, but I only remember Firefox's implementation of it, so that's what I used as an example.
STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEEDED (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, EVERYTHING is going to shit so that "UX designers" (if ever there was a more bullshit term, I haven't heard of it) can get their rocks off and jizz their fucking pants.
Meanwhile, everything is becoming unusable. You know why it's supposed to be the user INTERFACE? Because the USER is supposed to INTERFACE with it, IT IS NOT A FUCKING "EXPERIENCE".
I'm so fucking tired of this form-over-function bullshit being fucking everywhere. Soon, we're going to have to just randomly fucking guess and flail around aimlessly just to use a computer.
Do you know why Firefox's UI peaked at around version 3? Because it did exactly what it needed to. Menu bar, toolbar, address/search, tabs, page, done. Now everything is everywhere and nothing is consistent. All of these little bullshit buttons machine gunned all over the fucking place. I'm using a mouse to click these, not a fucking sniper rifle with telescopic targeting scope. Now it's following this god awful flat, squared-off, non-isolated, who-the-fuck-knows-what-does-what, pastel UX bullshit.
We are going to design ourselves out of productivity and end up fucking around with needless bullshit all day long.
When did we stop thinking of the users and put them below some designer's precious snowflake ego?
Reminds me of slashdot beta... (Score:2)
Yet another case of somebody trying to dumb things down for newbs when the majority are just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this. Even GMAIL sucks more every year.
Best ms office. 2003.
Best gmail. 2 years ago.
Best windows. 7
Best firefox. Around 10.
Note all the underlying systems are get betting, its just the ui's sucking more.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, EVERYTHING is going to shit so that "UX designers" ... I'm so fucking tired of this form-over-function bullshit
Blame marketing, not UX designers. Some companies have UI design done by marketing, and others have it done by technical staff. Both are wrong.
A UX designer would not favor form over function. A UX designer is responsible for implementing best practices, assigning a consistent look-and-feel, and gathering data to ensure that the "user experience" is a good one. That means measuring productivity. They should be drawing from knowledge in graphic design, psychology, statistics, and engineering. Contrast
Tired of the pace of upgrades? (Score:2)
Tired of the pace of upgrades that Mozilla (and Ubuntu) forces on you?
Well then, install the Firefox ESR on Linux [baheyeldin.com], and stay for a year without changes ...
Firefox accounts? (Score:2)
So I have to have an account with Mozilla to use the 'free' Firefox browser now?
No thankyou.
I don't want a new UI either.
FTR I don't have a Google account either, I get my Android apps from Amazon
Re:Firefox accounts? (Score:4, Informative)
You need an account if you want to use Mozilla's sync service.
If you don't want to use sync, or if you want to run your own sync server instead of using Mozilla's, then you don't need an account.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you don't. Setup your divs, then learn how to use CSS
#container { display: table; }
#row { display: table-row; }
#left, #right, #middle { display: table-cell; }
No tables are required for the infamous three-column layout. This isn't new. You've been able to do this everywhere for more than a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
What about this?
http://www.w3schools.com/css/c... [w3schools.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it isn't a table. It can be rendered in a single column if a browser (lynx for instance) can't do three column.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that also true for "previewing" for accessibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Screen readers have contextual commands and may behave differently in real tables. For instance http://www.freedomscientific.c... [freedomscientific.com]
If the user is just having it read all the text on the screen it will probably be about the same, but if he's navigating within the page it will be different.
Re: (Score:3)
It's all about "the semantic web". If a table is used as a design, its semantics are incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also argue that you shouldn't use font-weight:bold in CSS, because <b> is non-semantic?
Because that's the idiotic equivalence you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess the top parent never learned anything about content vs presentation.
Hint: tables are to be used for tabular data. If you'd write your data inside an Excel sheet, use a table. Otherwise, don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Using a non-table element with table display properties is not the same as using a generic table element.
The HTML holds the semantic value, not the CSS. You use a table element when you want the HTML to be semantically labeled as a table (for, you know, tabular data). You use `display: table-cell;` for when you want the element to behave as a table cell, but you don't want the HTML to be labeled as a table (because it's not tabular data).
Re: (Score:2)
That's what "float" is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you the guy that keeps polluting my markup with all the empty divs that simply have a `clear` class assigned?
Re: (Score:2)
And your link is still broken.
Is "Fuckle Chrap" supposed to be "Google Chrome"? Stretching it a bit too far there.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if iceweasel will ever learn to play nice and run when a firefox process is already running.
Re: (Score:2)
firefox was called navigator? when?
now bring me back phoenix. the whole point of why it was great was that the committee asshats weren't messsing with it, and as a result it was light and fast.