Slashdot Mirror
Aqua Mozilla OK with Apple
MikeMo writes: "Turns out Apple thinks an Aqua Mozilla is OK, after all. Eric Yang had a chat with them and they made up." This is an update to this story.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
They want to see Mozilla running on OS X. That's why they don't care about an Aqua theme for Mozilla.
Mozilla runs well on OS X. It's called Fizzilla and you can get nightly and Milestone testing binaries with the rest of the Mozilla builds at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/
--Asa
from the site, good news up top:
/., and found myself on the front page of /.. There were mix feelings about my Aqua projects. I only wanted a browser that works well under Mac OS X, and looks like Aqua. Too bad, I am unable to share that joy anymore. I did not expect to get paid for fixing cocoa, but I felt bad that I helped Apple to write a interface library. Then I was denied to use this interface unless I used their library. In essence, why should I bother to help them with the interface when I am denied to use the interface. I just begin to enjoy working with Apple software, but Apple isn't making it easy for their developers. Anyways, I only hope that Apple would write cocoa UI for Mozilla, then I will not need this project. (OmniWeb is not good enough, yet)
01/09/28/12:41
This morning, I finally talked to Apple on the phone. I admit that I over reacted to the whole situation. There was a forwarded email from my employer from Apple, which I misinterpreted. What Apple objected to was not Aquafying Mozilla, but rather the way I was doing it via emulation, thus not giving Mozilla users a pure Aqua experience. Apple is willing to provide information for creating real Aqua experience for Mozilla. Right now, my efforts are focused on an Aqua interface for Tenon's iTools, so work on Mozilla for the moment is in abeyance. I apologize to anyone that I have offended.
regards,
Eric
01/09/27/22:11
This evening, I went to visit
01/09/27/11:34
You might notice that Aqua Mozilla was not updated recently, and the main reason was that Apple contacted my employer in attempt to shut down this project. After a few talk, I am forced to take down this project. Now I think of it, I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic? For you Mac OS X fans out there, if you want to use a good Mac OS X browser. You can only use IE or OmniWeb now. It sucks for us, but life goes on.
This was the worst design decision(?spelling?) with Mozilla. Big, bloated GUI, slowing down the good, fast rendering engine.
I also think this was a terrible decision, but not for the same reason. There is a reason that damn near every program on any given GUI (with the notable exception of X11) looks about the same, and it's not because programmers are unimaginative.
It's because users are happier when the interface adheres to consistent guidelines. Each platform has its own set of guidelines. A few examples:
How many times have you been annoyed when you hit the wheel mouse and it didn't work right? That's almost always because of some moronic programmer who decided it would be better to write his/her own widgets. Wheel mice are one of the places this becomes most obvious, because they didn't exist when a lot of these programs were designed. The GUI vendor added support to the native widgets, but the stupid replacement ones in a lot of cases don't have support. Or when they do, it doesn't work quite the same. (I.e., seperate preferences for the number of lines to scroll.)
Mozilla is one of the worst offenders here, completely scrapping the idea of an interface consistent with anything else.
(Java is a bit of an exception. It doesn't have a system of its own, so arguably it also violates the other interface guidelines. However, it makes sense to have a single interface for Java, since applications are intended to be very cross-platform. Plus, Java has actually taken on the challenge of designing a good GUI of their own...observe the fact that there is a book out on the Java look and feel. I'm not aware of a similar one for Mozilla.)
The decision to make the interface custom was a result of the incredible mess that became of the previous cross-platform version. It is also necessary to provide custom controls to comply with CSS, which allows web pages to define button and scrollbar colors, for example.
IE defines its own controls for this reason (no kidding!), they just look like the Windows ones by default. Microsoft Word (and possibly the rest of Office) have all custom controls that look like the Windows ones. Sometimes the look is slightly off and if you look at the window hierarchy in Spy++ you'll notice that the buttons are not actually Windows, which is what you'd get with native widgets. So people shouldn't single out Mozilla for their criticism of its custom controls.
I used Mozilla on a Mac a while ago and I swear (much to my surprise) that it was using native widgets. Of course, it uses native menus, but the buttons and scrollbars seemed to be native as well, I played with the system configuration and the changes (like for scroll bar button configuration) seemed to be reflected in Mozilla. If this is the case, it should be easy to use native Aqua controls. Can somebody with a Mac confirm this?
I think what he means is a cocoa native web browser using Gecko. Right now Mozilla for OS X is basically the OS 9 app with Aqua Support tacked on
If you want your shiny blue widgets... you can have XP.
.NET, Hailstorm, Windows Media Player, DirectX, and the XBox, all under the same roof...
I'm a little more scared of Microsoft,
What evils lurk in the Microsoft Future?
Aqua is *the* OS X experience. It's more than just widgets; more than just a semitranslucent title bar, or glassy buttons, and drop shadows.
It's about an uncluttered 'Start bar' (called the Dock). Each App gets a single entry in the Dock, with access to the multiple open windows available through a single 'Window' menu; or if you right click on the app in the Dock, you get a list of the available windows.
It's about a the Apple Menu and a single menu, instead of a menu per Window. This has carried over from the previous OS 9; the foreground App, with User focus, controls the single available menu bar. There doesn't exist a menu for each window (which not only takes up screen real estate, it provides for too many available targets when all you use is a single target) but only a single global menu bar.
It's about minimizing screen clutter and noise. Instead of borders around each window you get a drop shadow; you delineate forground from background apps because the foreground App casts a shadow behind it. The background apps also have transparent title bars. You don't get every open Window listed in the Dock-the OS X Start bar. You don't get a menu bar attached to every window. You don't get a empty grey parent window containing all the child windows of Word or Photoshop.
It's not perfect, certainly, and it is, after all, the vision of a single person, a single company, quite unlike Linux and the Open Source/Free Software community.
There are little things, but mostly it's coherent. Most of the OS widgets are grayed out and monochromatic except when they are in focus or require attention; good visual cues. If you mistype your password when logging in, the login window shakes itself to both clear itself and to let you know you've failed to log in.
It's really, really, nice. Too bad most people are too cheap, or cannot otherwise afford, to play with Macs.
GPL Deconstructed
You know.. some things just don't work that well in an anarchy. Witness the failure of the unix desktop. Now.. I'm not slamming it, or trolling, I use it every day, and have for years... but unix still lacks a coherent desktop, even one as poor as Windows has. Why? Because nobody dictates what anyone else has to use. Now.. I'm not a fan of dictatorship.. however...
Apple has a point. They have *always* insisted on using proper API's for the Mac. Why? Because it ensure things WORK, and ensures they can bring out future versions of their OS without breaking stuff. IT's a GOOD thing.
Unlike MS, they don't use their proprietary widgets to corner the application market; the information on how to use them is free to all, no royalties.... no licenses (afiak).. nothing.
All they insist upon is that you use them. AND YOU SHOULD.
Apple wants developers to use interface builder. By doing this you help cut down on various GUI inconsistencies.
The Aqua mozilla project was attempting to build an Aqua GUI buy using GIFs and animated GIFs and whatnot. as most of us know, this was not working very well. The scrollbar didn't quite fit right, defualt buttons were not capable of throbbing without sync problems (since they are made up of multiple parts), yada yada yada, Aqua mozilla kind of looked like an OS X app, but the GUI didn't quite function like one. I imagine that was Apple's #1 problem.
Currently there is a project at Source Forge that is trying to slap a native Aqua UI on top of Mozilla builds. It is possible. http://sourceforge.net/projects/qbati2
Mozilla is actually quite dynamic, and system specific stuff like this is not really a big deal. It's being done all the time with platforms like the MacOS.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
ruined. it's a damned shame how some people just can't handle even the smallest of freedoms. Apple has always been protective of their designs. Can you blame them? Ever since the justice department decided that it's ok to rip them off, anything they design is fair game for poachers.
there's more than one way to do me.
Apple's point translates further than just using widgets. Anyone who has used their "Interface Builder" knows that it attempts to force certain things on the developer. There are 'strict' guidelines about how things should line up and how far they should be from the edge of the screen etc etc. The interface builder does more than suggest, it actual has 'snap to' rulers and has very specific rules about window resizing.
Basically they figured that if they are going to have a design spec for an application they might as well make it easy for the developer to follow.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
Apple seem to be saying "Don't use a skin to emulate Aqua, as the appearance, and behaviour, of Aqua is subject to change [may just be small tweaks, but changes none-the-less]. If you're going to have an app that looks like Aqua, damn well use the proper way (ie APIs) rather than making bitmaps that just happen to look like the current implementation of Aqua."
Apple have a very long history of trying to make sure apps on the mac all behave the same way (wherever possible). This leads to a smooth user experience. Apple also don't charge you the earth to get their guidelines. Go see This Page for an example of the excellent work Apple have put into the field.
I don't have a problem with someone insisting that something is done the correct way. It's less likely to break further down the track and is going to be easier to adapt to any changes Apple make to their [First Generation] Aqua GUI.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
The Q.Bati seemed to be trying to put a Mac OS X interface in front of gecko. Unfortunately it seems to be vaporware :(
And that was borrowed from NeXTStep's File Viewer's Shelf, which dates back a lot farther than IE5/Mac. Who's zooming who?
anja has it mostly.
You can 'ctrl click'
You can 'click' and hold it for half a second
You can use a two button mouse and right click
GPL Deconstructed
neither of 'em got it *quite* right :)
:) )
i'm typing this from internet explorer beta on mac os x 10.0.4 on my new dual 800mhz g4 system (pretty zippy)...
mac os is pretty usable with 1 mouse button, but i appreciate it infinitely more with 2. (note that i'm talking about os x - i'm not really interested in os9 - another unix geek here, but one that's not so cheap that they didn't just get a new ibook and g4 tower)... the way it works is like this:
with a 1 button mouse, ctrl+click is the equivalent of the windows right-click. it brings up contextual menus.
in some applications (i.e., internet explorer), if you hold the mouse button for about a second, the contextual menu pops up. they did this as a convenience - it is not standard across the gui (although it should be).
if you have a 2 button mouse, right clicking will do the equivalent of the ctrl-click, which is bring up the contextual menu. this *is* standard across the gui, which is really really cool.
now, in os x, some other things you *can* click-hold for the menu (like app icons in the dock), but right clicking makes this faster. so it's all really a matter of preference. if you prefer the apple pro mouse (and it is quite nice - i plan to keep it in my laptop bag for use on my ibook), you can certainly very easily get around the operating system. but if you'd like a little more power, pick up a two button mouse (i'm using an intellimouse explorer for the time being, until i get another boomslang) - that will do the trick for you.
i might as well also note this: scroll wheels now work in mac os x *kinda*. in mac os 9, if the drivers for the mouse have been released (and most companies have), the scroll wheel and right mouse button will work anywhere. in mac os x, while the right mouse button is default, because of different widgets in the different types of apps, and the lack of drivers for os x (though some day, i imagine), the scroll wheel doesn't always work. here's how it goes:
in carbon apps, which are written to run both under os 9 and natively under os x, the scroll wheel will *not* work. in cocoa apps, which are written for mac os x natively and will only run under mac os x apps, the scroll wheel *will* work. so, for instance, my scroll wheel works in Mail, Internet Explorer... but doesn't work in Finder (?), iTunes, etc.
that's the scoop on mousing under os x (i hope
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.