Firefox 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 2, 2009 @02:53AM from the new-and-shiny dept.

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."

22 of 556 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Tabs on top, do it NOW! by Commander+South · 2009-09-02 02:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

DO IT, I use chrome for the UI, and love FF for the plugins, if they go with the tabs on top and no titlebar, if only as an option, I am back on board with them...
1. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by zevans · 2009-09-02 03:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Tabs should be down the side. A monitor (even 4:3) is too wide to read comfortably all the way across, ergo, tabs and toolbars should be on the side where they are not using screen estate that can otherwise be used effectively for browsing.
  Yes, I know Firefox does it with plugins, but I don't understand how this basic mistake can have stayed with us for what, 10 years+ of tabbed browsing...
  
  --
  "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
2. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by EvanED · 2009-09-02 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ugh, I hate UI elements that appear and disappear like that. I had the taskbar on auto-hide on my laptop (which only has a 1024x768 screen) and decided it wasn't even worth it there, even though that would have been present in every application.
  Browsers have the added problem of me using ctrl-tab/ctrl-shift-tab to change between tabs a lot, but doing that non-blindly requires seeing where the tab is that you want. A hidden tab list would slow that down.
3. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-02 03:38 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Everything is just the right ratio with my monitor turned vertically.
  I tried this about 3 years ago, seeing how it felt and I haven't gone back.
  It turns out that for me vertical real estate is more valuable than horizontal real estate.
  Of course this is different if most of the use of your monitor is for running video, but I would venture that this isn't the case currently.
4. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by DMUTPeregrine · 2009-09-02 04:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I have Tree-Style Tab set up to be a static size. It does truncate the text, but mousing-over it shows the full text of a tab. And because it keeps track of parent/child tab relationships browsing is much easier. Collapsing/expanding tab groups is simple. No need for different-coloured groups, just make the group members children of a parent tab.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
5. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by clone53421 · 2009-09-02 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, they should use as much horizontal space as they're given, but it's been proven that it's easier to read a narrow column of text than a wide one (google). That's why newspapers use small columns.
  If scrolling messes up your reading then perhaps you need to enable smooth scrolling or use the middle button to scroll slowly while you read.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
6. Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! by Fael · 2009-09-02 04:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If diagonalization will solve Firefox's halting problems, I'm all for it.
of all the things to copy from Chrome by spyrochaete · 2009-09-02 03:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

If there's one thing I hate about Chrome it's the way the tabs replace the normal title bar functionality. It makes the window harder to drag, harder to maximize, and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window. I expect something like this from Apple but not from Firefox (or Google for that matter).
A nonstandard UI is the epitome of developer arrogance. The tabs-on-bottom mockup is excellent, but the tabs-on-top concept needs to die on the drawing board.
On the flip side, if Firefox 4.0 supports some of the new Windows 7 standards like Aero Peek controls I will be very pleased!
1. Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome by VGPowerlord · 2009-09-02 03:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Tabs on top makes a sense, they just shouldn't be part of the title bar.
  I say they make sense because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are all part of the current tab, rather than the browser as a whole.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome by jollyreaper · 2009-09-02 03:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If there's one thing I hate about Chrome it's the way the tabs replace the normal title bar functionality. It makes the window harder to drag, harder to maximize, and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window. I expect something like this from Apple but not from Firefox (or Google for that matter).
  A nonstandard UI is the epitome of developer arrogance. The tabs-on-bottom mockup is excellent, but the tabs-on-top concept needs to die on the drawing board.
  On the flip side, if Firefox 4.0 supports some of the new Windows 7 standards like Aero Peek controls I will be very pleased!
  With UI there's a trade-off between "flawed but we're used to it" and "innovative but so different nobody will catch the hang of it." QEWRTY sucks. Scientists can prove with lots of charts and numbers that there are better ways to layout a keyboard. Unfortunately, this is a change that won't likely happen. Everybody is used to QWERTY even if it sucks. Metric beats customary every time but I can't think in metric.
  The problem with most of these changes is there really doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, no compelling reason to switch. Different does not mean better. Going from command line to GUI was a revelation. Even when you were lost in the first week you knew you were going to love it once you got yourself sorted out. You had your fuddy duddies who memorized scads of commands who said GUI wasn't as good but hell, the dos box was left in specifically for you guys. Have at it. Going from Office 2003 to Office 2007 was "where the hell did all my shit go?!"
  I'm a big fan of unified interfaces. While dropdown menus might not be the best possible way of displaying tools and options, it's the best we've come up with so far. I think the biggest innovation I've seen on this end is with OSX where you have a search box built into the menu box. Start typing what you want and it will highlight the icons that apply to the feature. The drawback here is you need to know what the feature is called in order to type the name.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
3. Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome by man_of_mr_e · 2009-09-02 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, IE7 was originally designed with the combo stop/refresh/go button, but they recieved a ot of feedback from users that stop and start/refresh are distinct functions and should not be combined. Eventually, Microsoft relented and made stop seperate.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
4. Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome by spyrochaete · 2009-09-02 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Chrome is better optimised for small screens and maximising window real estate
  That's a fantastic point. I've got a 22" monitor at home and use a fairly high resolution laptop at work so I'm sure I'm out of touch with those with small monitors and netbooks. I still argue that disposing windows UI/UX standards is not the best way to accomplish this task, though.
5. Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome by 0xABADC0DA · 2009-09-02 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Tabs on top makes a sense ... because the address bar, back button, forward button, refresh/stop buttons, and home button are all part of the current tab, rather than the browser as a whole.
  A cardinal rule of good user interface design is that controls are always in the same place. When the buttons are part of a tab, they may move around, for instance if the tab bar is set to hide if it contains one tab, or if the tab bar can expand to multiple lines, or if it can be placed horizontally or vertically.
  In a GUI, "part of" means what visual grouping it belongs to and not the conceptual grouping it belongs to. If all the tabs contain the same controls, in the same positions, then these controls are not "part of" the tabs, they are part of something outside the tabs (they are factored out). To put it in geek terms, consider these expressions:
  chrome: (xa + xb + xc)
  firefox: x(a + b + c)
  Do you argue that "x" must be inside the grouping because it is 'part of' each term, even though it is the same for all terms? It's more clear and more usable to factor out everything that is shared in common.
Why transparency? by JPLemme · 2009-09-02 03:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Am I the only person who thinks transparency sucks? If it's too transparent, the content can be hard to pick out from the background. And if it's only a little transparent (OS X), the menu can look like it got smudged with dirt. Are we expected to use only low-contrast, muted backgrounds?

If I wanted to see a partially obscured, blurry version of what's behind my browser, I can just smear my glasses with Vaseline and minimize Firefox.
1. Re:Why transparency? by sloth+jr · 2009-09-02 03:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I don't have mod points, otherwise you'd get them. There's zero functionality derived from transparency for UI elements.
  It doesn't look cool. It's the UI equivalent of spinners and under-chassis neon lighting.
2. Re:Why transparency? by ProfessionalCookie · 2009-09-02 03:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yup you're right! . . . Apple >> System Preferences >> Desktop & Screensaver >> Translucent Menu Bar
  My favorite thing to uncheck.
Re:Function before form by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-02 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

I do have to say, what I really want out of a browser is function, not a flashier interface.
Make it not crash, and I don't care what it looks like.
"Form Follows Function". It's an eternal debate.
I'm of the team that says we can have both. Especially if they factor in software ergonomics into their design decisions. Most people don't realize it, but they like intuitive designs. Clearly, minimalism (an element of both form and function) is what is "in" for web-browser designs right now. We don't apparently need 8 menus with 20 submenus with 14 more sub-submenus, combined with 9 sections in the options menu, each with 15 subsections. We don't need 40 icons between the top of our web page and the bottom of our address bar.
So, you can have your function (a web browser with less junk crammed into it, and therefore a lower probability of things going wrong) and I can have my form (a nice looking, easy to use minimalist web browser). Everyone wins.
FIXME: by thenextstevejobs · 2009-09-02 03:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why'd all the browser developers decide that this same model we have for browsing web pages is adequate? Considering how much time we, as a human race, are currently using the web browser, I would hope that we could make one that is a little better than this Netscape 26.0 shit we're stuck with. Apple, are you there? Can you please do for the browser what you've done for the phone? Google, we know you have like $n! dollars, can't you throw some more money at this problem? Chrome (which I am browsing from ATM) is pretty half-baked.
Shouldn't this thing read to me by now, standard? Shouldn't I have a better way to look at multiple pages than separate tabs and windows? Why does it all crash so much? Why must it be such an unelegant, awful thing to display information to from programming languages?

--
Long live the BSD license
Re:Nice but.. by IceFox · 2009-09-02 04:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am not so sure that users actually care that much about standards and fitting into each desktop at the end of the day. If you have a feature they want users will use your application no matter what it looks like. A nice Example is Google Chrome. By default they paint their own window handles/boarders on X11 pretty much guaranteeing that it wont fit into any desktop. This is a case where they are going directly against having a native standard control, actually putting in effort to break it in the name of consistent branding* and users put up with it because they want to use Chrome. * From Ben Goodger: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/b89ab99a0c848b89?pli=1

--
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
Re:They are abusing moderation for a long time now by MaraDNS · 2009-09-02 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is that Slashdot is handing out moderation points like candy these days. They're becoming more Digg-like; maybe because their overloads have told them that the more traffic Slashdot gets, the better. Since Digg.com is a good deal more popular than Slashdot, maybe they're trying to emulate Digg more.
Personally, I prefer the older Slashdot where we didn't confuse "troll" with "legitimate criticism of Linux" or "Legitimate rebuttal of conservative idea". The reason Slashdot had moderation in the old days was to stop the brats who would post Goatse links and what not; it was not to stifle legitimate discussion.

--
MaraDNS is an open-source DNS server.
Re:Nice but.. by dbcad7 · 2009-09-02 07:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

But a pain in the ass for tech support people over the phone who need to check browser settings... "File ?.. I don't have anything that says file..".. And then there are the off flavors of Xp, which has different locations for network settings.. bastards.

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:Nice but.. by BikeHelmet · 2009-09-02 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like having my Back, Forward, Reload, and Stop buttons left of the address bar. I can't believe they're considering adopting an IE-esque interface.
Their Chrome-like tab examples really fail, since they don't touch the top of the screen. That means not only are they not where you expected them to be, but you also can't click them by ramming your cursor to the top of the screen.
(This is a big one for me - I hate those X buttons that are in the top right, but are several pixels out, so that you actually have to look and see where your cursor is)
In short, I agree that non-native = bad. Windows has always had easy to click buttons, scrollbars, etc. on the edges - I hope they don't screw that up. ;)