Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010
sv_libertarian writes "Mozilla recently updated its product roadmap through 2010. According to the first draft, the current browser will see a minor update in Q4 2009 and another in Q2 2010. Version 4.0 is headed for an October or November 2010 release and will bring a new user interface and browser sync integration. 'There is not much information on [what] this new user interface will look like, but the first mockups that have been posted on Mozilla's website suggest that the Mozilla team favors a Google Chrome-like design that integrates Windows 7 graphics features. Overall, window elements seem to be floating over the background.' The mockup page emphatically notes that the design is not final."
Make it not crash, and I don't care what it looks like.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
These screen-shots have been available for months. This is old news.
Frankly, I think worrying about minor details like whether the tabs are above or below the taskbar sort of shows how far browsers have come. On the list of things I was worried about 5 or 10 years ago, it's near the bottom.
It's been a long time.
Just as a counterpoint, I decidedly don't like the tabs-on-top design, don't use Chrome in part because of that UI, and would probably switch to Opera if Firefox didn't make tabs-on-bottom an option. ;-)
I hope they make integrating the search box in the URL box optional. One of the things I really like about FF is the ability to use keyboard shortcuts to select specific search engines or sites. Of course with Ubiquity http://labs.mozilla.com/ubiquity/ progressing nicely I may be in the minority.
The problem with tabs down the side is you either get (1) vertical text or (2) tabs that are as wide as they are above the window in which case the tab list takes up a HUGE proportion of the screen real estate, virtually all wasted unless you actually have a couple dozen tabs in one window to start eating up the available rows.
Neither of these options are very good IMO; I'd rather spend a few pixels of vertical height then have to read sideways text.
(Incidentally, this is why I never liked the taskbar on the side of the screen either. Maybe I should give it another shot with Windows 7 now that the taskbar is a little more icon-based and less word-based.)
Thank you, nonstandard UIs annoy the hell out of me. Personally I think rule #1 for HCI should be "for better or for worse be consistent."
Tabs on top is horrible...one of the key reasons I dislike Google Chrome.
Please make it look like Firefox 2. I want it to look like an ordinary Windows XP application. Nothing flashy.
And if you do add something flashy, please make sure to ADD IN THE OPTION TO DISABLE IT. Options are GOOD. KEEP ADDING OPTIONS. Make the options VISIBLE.
Why keep it the same across platforms? No, seriously, do you use Firefox on multiple platforms AND are you bothered by the differences in UI between the various Firefox'en? You'll live.
The interface should be native to the platform, adhering to the platform's UI standards. The binaries location and configuration location should adhere to the platform's application development standards. Adhere to standards, they are good for you. (Note; Experts only: deviate from standards when necessary)
Programs that use non-native, non-standard UI (Quicktime on Windows) are quickly (haha) reviled. And for good reason.
I really hate the combo button. Safari introduced this and I started running into the following problems:
1. A page is loading slowly (slow site, busy computer, DNS lookup failure, ...) and I go to click "stop", but the load finishes just before I click, the stop icon changed to a reload, and now I have to wait through it loading again.
2. A page is refreshing on a schedule. I decide I want to reload it sooner, so I go to click the reload button... just as it starts reloading, so now the automatic reload gets stopped.
Moving it to the end of the address box in the latest Safari is just an extra layer of manure on the sandwich.
Agreed... I'm all for configurability, so making something like the tabs-on-top or your tabs-on-left options being a choice would be fine and dandy. But making either the only choice is a good way to get me to stop using Firefox. ;-)
One reason the triple button might not be such a good idea is that when you want to stop a page load, you might accidentally cause a refresh instead (if the page finishes loading between the time you wanted to stop and the time you clicked).
That is exactly why we must meta moderate like crazy these days. Troll has a very strict explanation and believe or not, it means exactly same on slashdot.
These idiots really confuse Slashdot moderation with digg down&up while Slashdot does make a favor to them, overrated and underrated are exactly for that purpose.
There are unhappy people with every kind of browser&application out there and yes, in this age, a browser should be really fast, simple to use and stable having very good standards support. It is valid for every browser out there. It is not just Firefox who doesn't get people's concerns, I have heard first time that system's default browser can't download files. It is Safari for Snow Leopard. Way to go Apple... All of this for run a freaking in 64bit mode, hurry of release to show finger to MS. See Firefox loving moderator? Every browser these days are a bit disconnected from users actual needs and demands.
Tabs on top make me move my mouse further to get to them (although I usually Ctrl+Tab anyway). Tab on bottom, now that's worth a look.
The government can't save you.
Notebook.
If Google or Apple but their tabs in a rotating circular drum surrounding the window, you can be certain that Open Source developers would follow swiftly behind. It's disappointing to see it confirmed that Open source will never, ever have the confidence to put forth its own designs, paradigms or new innovations directly in front of users unless a glitz and glamour company has broken the mould first. The worst part is how eagerly FOSS developers ape the latest trend. A little dignity would be a lot more digestible.
By contrast, Microsoft would simply wait to see what Apple did in their next revision before implementing what was kept.
To the topic at hand, Tabs on top are an atrocious development, unfit for human consumption. They are the product of people who spend too much of their time using flashy, UI paradigm-less monstrosities like Winamp skins, Flash site and those awful OSX floating widget things, not to mention that ridiculous top bar. Inclusing that was the worst decision GNOME has ever made. Most normal people on the other hand expect applications and button that stay within their window box, that don't warp or distort when your mouse draws near, and that don't look like they just had a full body wax job done. There was very little wrong with the 1997-era user interface.
I curse the Cult of Mac and what it has wrought on my UI's over the last 10 years. I'm hoping the Order of Google will not cast its baleful eye towards what little sanity remains in modern day GUIs.
May the Maths Be with you!
I'm shocked by the stupidity in this thread!
There is no either or! That's the very point of Firefox!
You can have it as you like it! I can *right now* put the tabs on top, on the very bottom, on the right or left side, hide them and replace them by a dozen different ways of navigation, etc, etc, etc.
If you are a serious UI designer, and you first priority is not *C*H*O*I*C*E*, then you are a failure at your job and have so stop working *right now*.
(Second priority is good *defaults*. But never hard-code stuff!)
Yes, I know *exactly* what I'm talking about!
Sorry for getting angry. But I just can't stand this limited thinking. It's hurting us all!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What is the deal today with trying to get rid of the simple menu bar??
It is so easy and straightforward for finding things you use all the time....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
They seem to want to save vertical screen space, which is a valid argument with current machines (like netbooks) coming out with only 600 pixels of vertical space.
Then again, why not just use full screen mode on those?
so i hate it. where the fuck is the file menu ppl. this isnt a fucking mac.
And to me the fact that you and he can have this little disagreement is one of the reasons I choose the Firefox over Chrome and Safari. Thanks to the easy additions of plugins and themes you can have it your way, he can have it his way, and I can have it my way. I just can't go back to the "one size fits all " UI of IE, Chrome, and Safari, as the one size fits all never fits me.
I just hope in FF4 it is as skinnable as FF3, so I don't get trapped in that bling bling nightmare or I may have to go back to one of the other Gecko based like Seamonkey or Kmeleon. It is bad enough that they screwed up dialup access in the 3.5.x branch, so now I have to keep the 3.0x and Seamonkey on my flash for my dialup customers, but if FF4 makes it too hard to change the look (and they stick with that "Chrome wannabe" look) I'll just have to go elsewhere, because frankly I hate the Chrome UI. With as much time as gets spent in a browser I want it MY way, not what some designers deems is best for me. Is that too much to ask, or is the future doomed to be dominated by browsers and OSes that have more bling than a 14 year old's cell phone?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I disagree. Firefox on Ubuntu should look like it belongs on Linux. These mockups would be horribly out of place on any Linux desktop that isn't set up to look exactly like Vista/Win7.
I dont like the missing File, Edit, View, History, Bookmarks, Tools menu items...It just means I have to hunt through for those again under some other master menu button.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
An application can define what regions to make transparent, and in these mockups Firefox has made a large chunk of the application transparent, not just the default title bar and border. So yes, it does have a lot to do with Firefox.