Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 29 Beta Arrives With UI Overhaul And CSS3 Variables

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).

256 comments

  1. New UI? by MrYingster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So... It looks like chrome now?

    Don't get me wrong... I like the look, but it seems somehow.... unfirefoxy...

    1. Re:New UI? by SimonTheSoundMan · · 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.

    2. Re:New UI? by MrYingster · · Score: 2

      Wow. That's actually quite interesting! Thanks for enlightening me. 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.

    3. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems firefox has been heading towards more minimalistic and less customizable layout since v4...

      But yeah, looks too much like chrome now.

    4. Re:New UI? by TangoMargarine · · 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...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for the Download Panel: mockups have been made by Mozilla, followed by their usual nut scratching, meanwhile Apple adopted the idea into Safari.
      http://limi.net/articles/safari-downloads/

    6. Re:New UI? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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,

      And there's the catch-22: Anybody with two fucking brains to rub together disables "features" like telemetry, just on general principle. UX people have no way to track what power users do, nor even to estimate their prevalence in the population, and so we wind up with UXes designed for morons.

      The last good UI for Fx was 3.6. When UI becomes UX, products become suck.

    8. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like an app. Terrible.

    9. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, it is an app.

    10. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I can understand being upset about change. Even change this innocuous in the grand scheme of things. But what exactly have you done for Mozilla that warrants you talking like they owe you something? What makes you think that Seamonkey will live on if Firefox goes away? 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?

    11. Re:New UI? by gigaherz · · Score: 0

      I was using Nightly, until Australis was added. I used Aurora, until Australis was included. I used Beta, until today. Now I'm at the Release 28, and I guess I have 6 weeks left to decide what to do when I uninstall Firefox from my pc.

    12. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are half right. To have taken part in those studies, you would have had to go out of your way to download the test pilot add-on and then agreed to do the UI/UX test. So on the one hand, they have people like me who actively didn't install test pilot because I don't want to be bothered and people like my parents who don't even know the add-exists.

    13. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Google Chrome came out at the end of 2008, around the same time firefox 3 came out. Firefox 4 came out over 2 years later and mozilla was still only toying with the idea of tabs on top, much less a UI that looked like chrome.

    14. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly just switched to Chrome outright once the new UI hit the nightly builds (what I was using). If I'm going to use Chrome, I may as well use actual chrome. At least there my thousand tabs generally manage to stay all onscreen at once, as opposed to the new "almost Chrome" that FF now has. I tried using Palemoon before... but just blecth, awful.

    15. Re:New UI? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Install SeaMonkey and use my theme and addon to get it looking and Feeling like Firefox 3.

    16. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the time it took you to write your rant, you could've customized the Firefox UI exactly how you like it.

    17. Re:New UI? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:New UI? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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 with Google either.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    19. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you didn't read the parent comment did you?

    20. Re:New UI? by ASimPerson · · Score: 2

      This is interesting... link?

      --
      In 3010, the potatoes triumphed
    21. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It technically doesn't even matter if Mozilla are making more money now. Most of the people blustering about leaving will be switching to Sea Monkey or some other knock-off that retains the older UI appearance. They won't even stop to consider the irony of how they're still relying on and paying for Mozilla's hard work, so money's got nothing to do with it.

      And that's if I'm being kind and assuming that all the users agree with your premise that this is "worse" (and not just a few people who don't like having to be the ones to customize Firefox with addons/skins for a change). But I don't count myself as their most important user, and neither should you. If Mozilla doesn't keep up with the times, then we'll lose Firefox completely. It's fine to bark when you're just pitching in a miniscule amount, but that doesn't exactly put you on the board of directors.

      Mozilla has already spent years on modernizing the code for the UI, and if they try to please everyone it never will get done. And that would be even more of a shame, because it makes it easier to customize a lot of things, and it's also helping pave the way for them to fix a lot of UI bugs and support modern OS toolkits a little more properly. I've learned to adapt to it, because I realize that life's too damn short to care about the placement of a button or two, so I long ago learned to use my keyboard instead.

    22. Re:New UI? by akgunkel · · 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...

    23. Re:New UI? by Kalriath · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    24. Re:New UI? by dosius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's why I use Seamonkey, they don't change the UI willy-nilly, but it's Firefox under the hood.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    25. Re:New UI? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      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 last one), that's not the same thing as having all handy plus the possibility of arbitrary extension.

    26. Re:New UI? by sootman · · Score: 1

      > *cough* Slashdot...

      I invented new curse words for Beta. DM me for a list...
       
      ... when Slashdot implements DMs. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    27. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I still use Netscape 3.01. Fuck all these new UI's!

    28. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what exactly have you done for Mozilla that warrants you talking like they owe you something?

      Gone out of my way for years and years to convince everybody I know to use it instead of IE. Made enough noise at various places of work that large offices are now primarily using FF instead of IE. Much of the reason why Firefox is as widely used as it is, is because of those of us who have Championed for it loudly.

    29. Re:New UI? by Microlith · · Score: 4, 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.

    30. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEN. Tabbed Browsing? Bitch please.

    31. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. The sooner we don't have to hear you whining about Australis anymore, the better. But don't you dare chicken out and just install Pale Moon or Sea Monkey or another third-party build of Firefox. At least stick your landing and stop using Mozilla software on principle.

    32. Re:New UI? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 2

      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. Most of the people I know have, as a direct result, been users of Firefox.

      Now, Mozilla seems like it doesn't even want Firefox to be Firefox anymore; they want it to be Chrome. So why should a user who has been there praising the browser from the beginning, who used it in large part *for* those design choices that made Firefox what it was, have to shut up and take it up the ass while Mozilla competes with Google on their race to get the first Chrome version 100 out the door?

      In recent years, I have been more hesitant to recommend Firefox. Hell, Mozilla wouldn't even be where they are today if it wasn't for people like me. And now, I'm considering abandoning it. I think I have the right to show my dissatisfaction with Mozilla, which started happening little by little with the 3 series, and then went into overdrive starting with 4.0.

    33. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't even stop to consider the irony of how they're still relying on and paying for Mozilla's hard work

      I think the people here are well aware of the concept of forking software.

      And in case you are not, no, that was not a euphemism.

    34. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look. If you really were around back then, and supported Mozilla enough to know what was going on, you'd realize that Mozilla has been planning this change before Chrome even came out. So why did this blindside you, and why does it make them want to be "more like Chrome"? Because they've tweaked it a little bit since then, and a couple of things look more like Chrome (and practically every other desktop browser these days)? That's enough to set you off? One rounded tab, one dumb "hamburger" menu button, and a few dropped options over 2 years, and you cry and stamp your feet?

      I really do think this culture of entitlement around Firefox arose because people who merely use Firefox think that's enough to justify them telling Mozilla how to run it. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't. Does Apple listen to your opinions? What about Google? Not as much as you apparently seem to think they do. Mozilla is a company too, even if they're supposed to be a non-profit. They're not a democracy, they're a business. They are not beholden to you because you've used their product for a long time. They've already given you a great product, and found out how to not charge you for it. They've already been looking out for the interests of users far more carefully than the other guys have over the same period of time.

      Now, you may have fallen out of love when it turned out that Firefox wasn't what you wanted in the longer run. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you've contributed as much as you seem to think you have. There are MILLIONS of people who have "just used" Firefox, and lots of them want (or don't mind) Australis. What entitles some of us to be the only ones to get what they want? Why can't you be the ones to install some skins or addons for a change?

      So in short, go ahead and express your dissatisfaction and leave. That's perfectly fine. There might legitimately be another browser that better suits you. Just make sure you don't continue using Mozilla's products if you're going to take such a principled stand like this. Because if you do puss out and end up using Sea Monkey or Pale Moon or something, then it's not Mozilla you're disappointed with, but your own lofty expectations of constancy being thwarted by the relentless march of time. Hiding behind some contrived sense of entitlement won't change that.

    35. Re:New UI? by gigaherz · · Score: 1

      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 between back/forward and the addressbar, so that they don't merge. In contrast, I did like the stop/refresh being combined, and I was ok with them being put into the addressbar. I use F5 to refresh anyhow.

      But above all, I value customization. That's why I use Firefox, and why I choose to use it instead of Chrome or IE11. I like to see things the way I want them, and they don't usually match the designer's choice. As I said, up until now, the changes were either positive, or they did not affect me enough to reject them. Australis is something else.

      With Australis, they are removing customization, in favor of a more unified UI across all devices. This has two issues, in my eyes, which are both based on one simple fact: I have a very large monitor, at 2560x1440px. And it could still be bigger. I have enough space in my screen to hold a webpage, multiple addressbars, and in those, keep all the buttons I would ever use.

      I don't want an UI optimized to reduce space. I don't want an UI that looks the same in my desktop and my tablet -- they are very different devices with very different purposes. I want to put things where I like them. And they are taking that away from me.

      By my principle, I want to use the closest thing I can get to the Firefox I Used To Love. So yes, PaleMoon is my top alternative so far. And don't you dare talk about chickening while posting as AC.

    36. Re:New UI? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      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%...

      Do you have any links to these pre-Chrome Firefox mockups?

    37. Re:New UI? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      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 performance and stability.

      But I installed the nightly for Australis a while ago and was blown away. Firefox is FINALLY ahead of Chrome again, and it is *wonderful*! I can't wait to go home and update Firefox on all my systems.

      I'm glad Firefox wants to be Chrome. Chrome is better. Now that Firefox is finally reaching that same level, maybe they can try to be *better*.

    38. Re:New UI? by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

      Classic Theme Restorer?

    39. Re:New UI? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      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

    40. Re:New UI? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Try www.msnbc.com?

      Wow

    41. Re:New UI? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      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.

    42. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if making the browser more like Chrome gets them more money because they get more users who want something like Chrome? In terms of business decision and maximizing revenue, there are a lot of times upsetting or screwing over a large part of the user base still comes out to be a good strategy if running it like a business is the priority.

    43. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it, I've given up trying to fight the current. The fact people keep changing interfaces and challenging paradigms means that the only way to use any new software anymore is to find a way to learn how to go with the flow. This seems to be the way software is heading - experimental UIs, and despite the outcry, no-one in the software-development community seems to want to go back to the traditional (but boring to some) UI toolkit. If that's the way they want to go, so be it. I can try resisting but the world will move around me as I do, and I'll find myself completely out of touch if I do move as well, even if I don't enjoy doing so.

    44. Re:New UI? by torsmo · · Score: 1

      It's why I use Seamonkey, they don't change the UI willy-nilly, but it's Firefox under the hood.

      Don't you mean it's XUL under the hood? I usually build firefox and thunderbird over xulrunner. Also, I use the ESR source, as it has all the security updates, yet is much more stable than regular releases.

    45. Re:New UI? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "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.

    46. Re:New UI? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, 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.

    47. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I'm sure someone will bang out a theme that undoes most of the new GUI changes. They did it for 2.x -> 3.x and 3.x -> 4.x through 27.x

    48. Re:New UI? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well the great thing about today is you don't HAVE to take Moz's shit, you DO have plenty of choices.

      I use Comodo Dragon and Pale Moon, but if you don't like those there is Comodo IceDragon, Waterfox, SWIron, hell if you don't want to use anything Chromium or Gecko based there is QTWeb which is webkit and QT. Cross platform and works pretty nice IMHO, works great from a flash too. And if your machine is needing an ultra light browser or which will run on really old Windows versions there is always Kmeleon which by following their docs and adding a couple of files can run on Win98 if you need it to and which flies on anything newer.

      So as you can see you DO have more choices, hell I left off plenty of others like Safari and Opera and Chrome but I figured it would be better to list some you may not have tried. Give 'em a go, I bet you'll find one you like. Oh and FYI but nearly all the above? MUCH more conservative when it comes to UI changes. I've been on Dragon since V4 (currently on V31) and the only UI change of note was moving the option button from the right edge to the left. Oh and the reason I use Pale Moon over ICeDragon? I like its UI better and the way its built with the browser targeted at newer CPU features. Nice thing about choice, I can go for the browser with the little things I like..

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    49. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! Call yourself a mad scientist!? I managed to procure my second brain before I was weaned!

    50. Re:New UI? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      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 into the default UI.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    51. Re:New UI? by gigaherz · · Score: 1

      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 them, there's no customization at all.

    52. Re:New UI? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    53. Re:New UI? by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Just shows the inefficiency of the whole organisation.
      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.

    54. Re:New UI? by twokay · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the only comment worth reading.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
    55. Re:New UI? by twokay · · Score: 1

      I hope you are posting this from a Xerox Star, because clearly UI is something that needs no change or innovation.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
    56. Re:New UI? by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Try the esr version. It still keeps some measure of sanity.

    57. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "get rid of the bookmarks toolbar"

      Get rid of it yourself - untick it in the menu (if you still have a menu)

        I have 50 links and a dozen folders with more links for 1-click access to my favorite sites and I like it that way.

      Firefox

      What is a waste of space is the title: bar not being part of a customisable area.

    58. Re:New UI? by Carlo+Castillo · · Score: 1

      You're sick of Mozilla's bullshit so you're switching to SeaMonkey?

    59. Re: New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Join SoylentNews.org if you hate beta so much

    60. Re:New UI? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    61. Re:New UI? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      Change "Mozilla" to Opera and you got the same exact opinion as I do.

    62. Re:New UI? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at Pale Moon? Firefox without the cruft, and a sensible UI. Based upon Firefox ESR, actively maintained.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    63. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not "talking like Mozilla owes him something," he's criticizing their product because he doesn't like it. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do even if Mozilla's revenue stream wasn't largely dependent on the number of users using its software. People like you are why companies like EA get to shaft the consumer freely, because anytime someone criticizes them, all the retards like yourself come out of the woodwork and bitch that someone dared insult their corporate overlords. Fuck you, and fuck people like you.

    64. Re:New UI? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      > *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 sucks.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    65. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used Firefox since 0.8, and I tried Chrome when it was released. I went immediately back to Firefox. The only thing I use Chrome for is to test something that I've developed against it.

      Why? Plugins. It's very simple. Google doesn't like plugins for the same reason Apple doesn't like plugins. It removes their total control over your eyeballs. Apple does it because they're egotistical douchebags. Google does it because they sell ads, and losing control allows you to avoid those ads and cut into their revenue. I can't tell you the number of people who are shocked (shocked, I tell you) that I've never seen an ad on YouTube or that my browser is more than twice the speed of theirs or that I've not yet gotten some drive-by malware infection or that I have dev tools that blow away the ones built in to their browser and I can get more if I need them. Firefox has that advantage, and Chrome will never catch up to it because having that feature is a danger to Chrome's maker.

      Honestly, I'm fed up with Google's bullshit. Chrome can go DIAF. And Firefox needs to not become Chrome because Chrome can go DIAF.

    66. Re:New UI? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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 the purpose for the computer. The days of "Look how awesome Windows 95 is!" are long gone.

      A company might add more things to the UI, they might put in more secure operation, faster and more efficient running, but the basic experience? They didn't design it the way they did because we were all stupid back then. I spend about a minute per day directly in the OS GUI. The rest of the time, I'm in programs. Probably most people are like that. OS GUI's like W8 just make them spend more time in the OS UI, which does tend to piss one off.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    67. Re:New UI? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've used in on Windows from time to time and I was pretty satisfied. It's a rather first-world-problems complaint, but the interface chrome looks rather 90s-ish, though. I still haven't tracked down an installation candidate for Linux.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    68. Re: New UI? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If you logged in, you'd see that my signature reflects that very fact :)

      If they roll out the beta to everybody, I'm gone.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    69. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabs on top is stupid.

    70. Re:New UI? by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      To each his (or her, in your case) own. Tabs "on top" drive me nuts. But I thought those were made the default some number of iterations ago? I seem to recall spending some time in about:config finding the right tab related variable to put them back pointing down. Personally, I just hope that this remains an option in FF29 and don't 100% force all the UI changes on all of us. I'm not switching to the beta stream to find out.

      BTW, I totally agree w.r.t. flat icons, but they seem to be all the rage at the moment.

    71. Re:New UI? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      What I was talking about isn't a matter of opinion or personal preference, it is a matter of neurophysiology, which has been well-understood for decades. Putting them upside-down, and detached from the page, means it probably takes 20 or 30 milliseconds longer for your eye and brain to tell which tab is current.

      Over the last 10 years or so, I have noticed people who design UIs for software simply throwing away decades of research into how human-computer interfaces work, and what works well. The result has been "flat" UIs and icons that make no sense... all of which are much harder on the brain.

      You may prefer these designs. But that doesn't mean they're good interfaces.

    72. Re:New UI? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      "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."

      That answer would be "nearly all of them."

    73. Re:New UI? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      Which versions of Firefox had upside tabs? I must have skipped more versions of Firefox than I thought, because I remember when they were under the address bar, but never upside down.

    74. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabs on bottom is stupid and anyone who prefers them is even more stupid.

    75. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumplist is Win+X. You don't need them because typing is faster, but go ahead and use Windows wrong if being an idiot makes you feel good.

    76. Re:New UI? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Maybe. My experience has been that the kind of people who don't install plug-ins in Firefox have mostly moved to Chrome or were always on IE anyway, while the people still using Firefox tend to have a bunch of plug-ins installed and something to improve the default tabs is often one of them. Obviously that experience might not be representative, but it's a very clear pattern among people I know, hence my comment.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    77. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? I thought themes just change the background and I never bother with them. So are you saying that we will still be able to reconfigure it to look exactly like it does now?

    78. Re:New UI? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Which versions of Firefox had upside tabs? I must have skipped more versions of Firefox than I thought, because I remember when they were under the address bar, but never upside down."

      The current one, and past versions for a long time now.

    79. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I don't care about "being like Chrome"

      I would think you would want FF to be like Chrome in one sense or another. I myself really wish Mozilla would get it in gear with regards to multi-threading, they had a project to go multi-threading then later on cancelled the project, then they dedicate resources to the "metro" interface, then they decide to re-open the project to go multi-threading then later on decide not to use the "metro" changes. The lack of multi-threading has me on the verge of switching browsers. I'm a heavy web user and I can visibly see the delay this single thread program has when loading multiple tabs or having one site hang on loading some content which causes everything else to hang. (before anyone says it, yes I know the plugins run in their own process now, but that's doesn't help with the previous listed issues)

    80. Re:New UI? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      The SeaMonkey site has an "extract to subdirectory &run" Linux release on the front page. I'm finding that quite a bit can be done to "update" the UIusing just themes & extensions over at "SeaMonkey Addons" like MonkeyFix and Sea Fox, but Iget the sense that a lot more can be done via about:config.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    81. Re:New UI? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      "Complete" Themes change the icons as well, not just the backgrounds. It used to be that themes in general changed the icons & background, and the newer background-only customizations were called Personas -- but then Mozilla inexplicably decided to name both types "themes" and make "Personas"refer to some kind of account service.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    82. Re:New UI? by drJeckyll · · Score: 1

      29 beta here and lost 1/2 hour to try rearrange things ... no much luck. But found this: https://addons.mozilla.org/bg/... which make me happy again.

    83. Re:New UI? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      Mine doesn't look anything like that.

    84. Re:New UI? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      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.

      Only the "look".

      It is possible to make Firefox NNN to look like Fx 1/2/3, but in many places the *behavior* is hardcoded and impossible to change. E.g. activities vs. separate downloads/bookmarks/etc. Status bar add-on is also rather buggy, compared to its native counterpart of earlier Firefoxes. Ditto newer versions of the location bar.

      Look - yes. Behavior - no.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    85. Re:New UI? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Running behind a proxy can help. Try the Squid VM to start with:

      https://communities.vmware.com...

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    86. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Even with extensive use of plugins (which shouldn't be necessary for some of the changes), you can't get it quite right.

      Back/forward/refresh buttons are now PART of the address bar... (which can no longer be hidden, either).

      I still want to slap around whoever though "tabs on top" was a good design decision. At least THAT I can easily add-in back properly to tabs on bottom.

    87. Re:New UI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much goes through my browser, can I trust them?

  2. UI Overhaul Every Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe instead of complaining that menus behave unpredictably outside of tabs you could fix the problem instead of giving every tab a menu?

    1. Re:UI Overhaul Every Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incompetent web designers in charge of application development, since ~2005.

  3. CSS variables? by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    Been doing that in SASS since 2007, browser support not required.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be pretty nice to not need the preprocessor, though.

    2. Re:CSS variables? by dingen · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    3. Re:CSS variables? by ArcadeMan · · 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.

    4. Re:CSS variables? by roca · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the format to use for these CSS variables?

    6. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious and sad to see the decades long crusade against global variables come full circle. You see, these new framework coder kids still need to learn a few things from us old linear programming salts...

      I agree wholeheartedly that the mere existence of SASS and LESS are an abomination. If you can't explain it to a 6 year old, its too complicated.

    7. Re:CSS variables? by dingen · · Score: 1

      Mozilla has a page on how to use CSS variables here: https://developer.mozilla.org/...

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    8. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. Plus, this css variable addition seems exceptionally clunky.

    10. Re:CSS variables? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      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 injecting code into a style language? Wouldn't it be better to keep things relatively simple and leave the complex things to external tools, reducing the amount of cruft that browsers "have" to support?

      --
      Love sees no species.
    11. Re:CSS variables? by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      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, I use etags. The browser will always cache this document at least 10 minutes. After that, it will check for a newer version, but the server will usually reply with 304 (unchanged).
      $last_modified_time = filemtime(__FILE__);
      $etag = md5_file(__FILE__);
      header("Last-Modified: ".gmdate("D, d M Y H:i:s", $last_modified_time)." GMT");
      header("Etag: $etag");
      if (@strtotime($_SERVER['HTTP_IF_MODIFIED_SINCE']) == $last_modified_time ||
              trim($_SERVER['HTTP_IF_NONE_MATCH']) == $etag) {
              header("HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified");
              exit;
      }
      header("Cache-Control: max-age=600");
      header("Content-type: text/css");

    12. Re:CSS variables? by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

      Some more brilliant standards by w3c:

      Unlike other CSS properties, custom property names are case-sensitive.

      Fantastic! Let's make some things case sensitive and some things not! Genius! If you're going to introduce something new (like, you know, VARIABLES), you might as well make it break all of your existing conventions.

      Now even better, here's how you define a variable:

      var-my-color: #06c;

      And here's how you reference it:

      color: var(my-color);

      Oh that makes sense. You declare it as var-name but then when referencing it you refer to it as var(name)! Wow just like that other language... ooh um... oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

      Honestly this is the reason why web development is utter hell. Confusing and stupid standards that no-one bothers to stick to.

      And why the hell can't I do width: 50% - 10px? What century are we living in again?

    13. Re:CSS variables? by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

      I'd rather say their creation proved that CSS needed to be fixed

      Fixed that for you.

    14. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My eyes! Ze goggles do nothink!

    15. Re:CSS variables? by hattig · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why they didn't just add a "variables" CSS key.

      e.g.:

      div {
              variables: {
                      color: #000000;
              };
              padding: 0px;
      }

      div.header {
              color: var(color);
      }

      TBH I don't even think they need to be "variables", just "cascading named constants". And ultimately, because CSS hasn't supported such a feature before, even though back in the 90s people were saying how nice it would be to have such a feature, we have various pre-processors/template driven CSS/in-house solutions.

    16. Re:CSS variables? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      They had to go and make a whole new standard though right? They couldn't just implement LESS in the browser...

    17. Re:CSS variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big is your style sheet? Doesn't those echos and "\n" start to chafe after a while? It has been ages since I have done any php, but can't you #include a separate file with your css in it, and use your variables in it?

    18. Re:CSS variables? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      And why the hell can't I do width: 50% - 10px? What century are we living in again?

      You mean width: calc(50% - 10px), using the standard CSS3 syntax which has been supported by Chrome and Safari since 2012, and Firefox and IE(!) since 2011?

  4. been using accounts in aurora for a month already by g4sy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    personally i'm signing up for firefox accounts. yah, i trust them more than google. no, not because they run around yelling "we're not evil", but because i admire their mission statement and purpose and they have stayed true to it. unixy in a way. firefox is a jewel in the free software crown and for that i will trust them with my bookmarks.

    --
    somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
    if(color==blue){speed--;}
  5. Re:CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no... you need to learn how to use CSS

  6. New? by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

    Looks like GEM to me :(

  7. Re:CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A jewel paid for mostly by google.

  9. use this extension when you cannot stand australis by Anonymous Coward · · 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)

  10. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Nicely said but there is no need for trust.

    Firefox Sync is end-to-end encrypted so Mozilla does not see your bookmarks.

  11. Oh no, not another one... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. Good, and iceweasel by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the opensource Firefox equivalent iceweasel will be similarly augmented?

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:Good, and iceweasel by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I wonder if iceweasel will ever learn to play nice and run when a firefox process is already running.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Good, and iceweasel by Seferino · · Score: 1

      Just a quick highlight: Firefox is open-source. Last time I checked, the only licensing difference between Firefox and Iceweasel concerned the logo.

  13. Re:CSS sucks by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0, Troll

    So you hack elements into a table? How is that not using a table for 3 column layout? Why not just actually use a table? You can hack the elements away from being a table to get a mobile version.

  14. Nickname for the new UI? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    Why am I thinking of Terror Australis all of a sudden?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  15. New UI by idontusenumbers · · Score: 2

    This isn't progress. This is a designer taking over for UX. Bad bad bad.

  16. Re:CSS sucks by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  17. Re:CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You don't need tables... As long as you use tables. Thanks, that's really helpful.

  18. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or you just try Australis Slimmr, if you kind of like it but think it has too much padding. One genuinely nice thing about Australis is that it's easier to tweak the UI with CSS using a user stylesheet or something like the Sylish addon. It should become a fair bit easier to create and maintain skins and addons now.

  19. Re:CSS sucks by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0, Troll

    IE6 is a 10,000 times more valid target browser than lynx.

  20. Close button on OS X by gsa700 · · Score: 1

    I've been running Firefox since it was called Navigator 3.0 but for the life of me I can't understand why they cannot put the tab close button on the left like every other Mac application in the world. Seriously.

    --
    "You do not support the root but the root supports you." - Romans 11:18
    1. Re:Close button on OS X by narcc · · Score: 0

      Probably because they don't have the resources to cater to a tiny niche using an obscure OS?

    2. Re:Close button on OS X by gsa700 · · Score: 1

      I would see your point if it in any way accurate.

      --
      "You do not support the root but the root supports you." - Romans 11:18
    3. Re:Close button on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just glad at all the effort they HAVE put into their OSX version over the last couple of years. It actually works quite well now, and much more like an OSX app "should". In fact Australis makes it easier to customize the placement of the tab button. If I cared I'd install Stylish and figure out the necessary CSS tweak, but I don't. I use cmd-w to close my tabs, like anyone with fingers who doesn't have the time to hunt for those stupid buttons to begin with.

    4. Re:Close button on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet they make a Linux version.

    5. Re:Close button on OS X by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Close button on OS X by stewsters · · Score: 1

      Tabs are on the right in the Linux version too. The rest of my system buttons are on the left. Also it doesn't work well in the command line. I guess I will just have to go back to lynx.

    7. Re:Close button on OS X by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Most Linux distros have buttons on the right -- it's just Ubuntu (which isn't even the most popular anymore, and is slowly losing popularity) and a few close derivatives that don't follow suit.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  21. Re:As an added bonus : by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    And your link is still broken.

    Is "Fuckle Chrap" supposed to be "Google Chrome"? Stretching it a bit too far there.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  22. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks, CTR is a life saver. It is sad how FF thinks they need to emulate others and remove existing features. Why does one need to spend an hour after each update trying to find extensions and tutorials, how to restore at least most of the previous functionality one had? Is FF trying to get rid of their existing customers?

  23. Re:CSS sucks by ArcadeMan · · 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.

  24. Not enabled by default until Firefox 31 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Firefox 31 only just fixed a bug where CSS variables of data: images in generated content are not visible until the real (non-var) string is used
    Also, they have just changed the format spec for CSS variables in the last day or two from var-foo: stringOfProperties to --foo: stringOfProperties and as a property from var(foo) to var(--foo), so the the testcase on that bug won't work once Firefox updates to the new format.

  25. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  26. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The ability to hide the Navigation bar is gone along with the ability to drag the URL bar to another toolbar, the star for bookmarking a site from inside the urlbar is gone, and the desire to stick with small icons of extensions isn't satisfied (they change size depending where you drag them).
    Luckily CTR also restores all this functionality too.

  27. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by VVelox · · 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.

  28. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by VVelox · · 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.

  29. shebang boom by epine · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. No respect for the HIG by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days, interface designers think a HIG 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!

    1. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new generation of coders and designers think anything pre-2000 is old school and should be discarded as completely invalid. This is the problem.

    3. Re:No respect for the HIG by Shados · · Score: 1

      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. And for the web stuff, they want mouse overs everywhere!!! (even though 40% of our viewers are on ipads and can't even see mouse overs).

      And god forbid we use the built in input components. Native drop down menu (which looks different per environment to suit it better....ie: tablet vs desktop)? FORGET IT. Lets write our own that looks like crap everywhere!

    4. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, the thing is if Mozilla (and everyone else) used native controls they wouldn't have to create their own UI controls and thus wouldn't have a thousand paper cuts to fix, let along update everything when a new OS comes out.

      Which do you think takes more time: Having slightly different code bases for different platforms or creating an entire UI toolkit from scratch and still needing to have variations for different platforms?

      Sure, they might need to directly draw on something for the web page, but the rest of the browser could be native if they cared. Instead everyone has to make their owns things so they can point and say 'see how good I am?'

    5. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to suggest that Mozilla is converging on an interface or set of interfaces which feel native to their respective OS environments, and not just tearing up the UI every few years for the hell of it. That's not what the past few years of release shows us. Mostly, they tear up the interface, fix half the problems, then tear it up again.

      Personally, I'm fine if the browser feels non-native. When I was jumping between stations every few days, I was irritated that the Ubuntu FIrefox felt Ubuntu-y (Edit > Preferences?) and not like the Firefox I used on Windows (Tools > Options). I just want something that feels like a browser. And with every new iteration, Firefox gets a little farther away.

    6. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +100 amen.

    7. Re:No respect for the HIG by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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 need to look like some kind of low-grade sci-fi movie computer system because who doesn't want their own personal cyber-command blocking a few cookies for them?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't disagree more. With that philosophy, Flipboard app would be a ui table view on iOS, Google books on iOS would resemble apple mail app, etc.
      Some people are too cool for rules.
      But yes, if you don't have a philosophy behind your design, and are adding tweaks to it just to look different, i agree with Stormwatch, stick to OS.

    9. Re:No respect for the HIG by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      You don't like the new tab bar? Then install a skin like the rest of us.

      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.

    10. Re:No respect for the HIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has for years been using custom toolkits for Office and Visual Studio that don't quite match the standard Windows GUI.

      That's because Office and Visual Studio are used by Microsoft as real-world testbeds to try out new UI stuff.

      Way back in the day, you had to roll your own UI controls if you needed anything beyond a standard menu/menubar, textbox, or dropdown/combobox. Toolbars were made of magic, and you had to make your own if you wanted them in your app. But now, everything is included in a standard library of available controls for you to drag/drop/instantiate at your whim.

      Ribbons are the current "made of magic" item that the masses of non-Microsoft programmers can't use yet. Soon, they will arrive as standard UI components because they've been pretty well received and are probably fairly easy to make now. The other one we've been waiting forever for (and will probably continue to wait for) are the Visual Studio dockable/tabbed panels. The docking mechanism looks to be fairly complex, and the horrors of bad UI that will be unleashed by their misuse will be heinous.

    11. Re:No respect for the HIG by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > When I was jumping between stations every few days, I was irritated that the Ubuntu FIrefox felt Ubuntu-y (Edit > Preferences?) and not like the Firefox I used on Windows (Tools > Options).

      --That is a huge pet peeve for me, too. I wish they would make the Linux/etc versions just use Tools\Options, because it makes more sense. Edit menu is for copypasta text, and Find.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  31. Massive release? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    If it's just a massive release, why did they only increment the minor version number? Why not something equally massive like going from 28 to say, 11000?

    1. Re:Massive release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because 11000 is only 24 you moron!

  32. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck finding your bookmarks with the new interface.

  33. Countdown to Extinction by rudy_wayne · · 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" 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.

    1. Re:Countdown to Extinction by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      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 people, I don't know where they get their time. :-)

    2. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · 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 impossible to replace the "lost" customizations, someone who cares just has to actually get off their loud-mouthed ass and fucking do it, instead of whining about it and using a third-party browser that relies on Firefox anyway. If you're not going to help out, then stop humming and hawing like an entitled little shit. "Wah! Firefox isn't 100% the way I want it anymore! Wah! I have to install more addons now because I hate all change I dislike like I'm a little baby!"

      Christ, I still remember Firefox 3 and this version is more customizable than it was. Just because you have to install an addon to get a toolbar back or swap the placement of a couple of buttons is not the end of the world. Us Chrome users can't change jack shit about the UI. It's like the Twilight Zone listening to you pricks lament all this "loss" instead of pooling your efforts to do what you're supposed to do and make a fucking addon or skin. Australis even makes that easier for you, but all you can do is point fingers at Mozilla while still using a knock off of their hard work.

    3. Re:Countdown to Extinction by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Well, no matter what change happens to Firefox, somebody will be unhappy.

      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 little like most other GTK apps.

      And wrt. to customization, I think that customization is easier with australis. So hopefully more people (not just super power users), will start customizing their browser, just a little bit.

    4. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no matter what change happens to Firefox, somebody will be unhappy.

      If you change things that affect every user you have in order to satisfy theoretical needs for a future user that you don't have, then you're going to make A LOT of people unhappy. 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. Except Mozilla seems pretty immune/oblivious to that last point.

    5. Re:Countdown to Extinction by jopsen · · Score: 1

      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 :)
      On ./ we're notorious for bashing MS. Though I feel we've become less aggressive about it in recent years.
      - 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...

      I think there is pros and cons, to landing a big UI change at once, as oppose to introducing the changes one by one over time. Either way, I don't think Firefox will maintain or grow it's market share without changing and taking chances... Like I said, I'm no fan of fancy UIs, but IMO the UI overhaul could have been much worse. Just, look at office 2007 or gnome-shell...

      If you change things that affect every user you have in order to satisfy theoretical needs for a future user that you don't have

      I don't think all power users are affected by the changes, but some arguably will be. I do think that the wast majority of users (non-power-users) will be affected positively. I suspect that a lot of the current non-powerusers don't customize firefox because it's hard.

    6. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no matter what change happens to Firefox, somebody will be unhappy.

      Yep but when a large number of people are unhappy you might want to take notice. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but then there's pleasing no one but yourself - i.e. self gratification.

    7. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Pale Moon for Windows or Pale Moon for Linux.

    8. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Kind of funny to hear a complaint like this. For YEARS people were complaining non-stop about Firefox adding more and more features, and how Mozilla should simply focus on making a decent basic browser. The common sentiment on /. was that all other functionality could be added through extensions.

    9. Re:Countdown to Extinction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think that customization is easier with australis"

      You mustn't've tried or customized in the past, because it's certainly not. Well, maybe "easier", but you certainly cannot customize nearly as much as you used to. Various UI elments in fixed places that can't be moved/changed (whether at all, or releative to one another), buttons you simply cannot bring back, and so on.

  34. Re:CSS sucks by themightythor · · Score: 1

    . If you'd write your data inside an Excel sheet, use a table. Otherwise, don't.

    Checked and raised

  35. Dark System/Desktop Themes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see stays true to the old UI, in the sense that despite having 'use system colours' off, it uses a bunch of them anyway!
    I can't see shit in the new 'customisation' area! It's full of greys on marginally different greys!

  36. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using this for a while, I want the forward/back as well as the stop/refresh buttons on the far left as they've always been, and Australis merged them into the URL bar. (WHY!?)

    I don't mind the curves, but they use a lot more vertical space than the classic rectangles, doubly so as I use tree-style-tab as an essential extension.

  37. Re:New UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Someobody has to employ that new kid right out of Art School. And it seems that somebody ended up being Mozilla. I don't like the idiotified look of Windows 8 and I certainly don't want my applications to fall into this same (horrid) design hole one by one!

  38. Re:New UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Named Australis = turning everything upside down. "Back in the day" we had a 14" CRT monitor in a 4:3 format and programs had actual buttons to click on and you could tell what everything would do just by looking at it. Now I have a monitor with 4x the screen area and 10x the resolution and every damn menu item is hidden 3 clicks away behind some obscure symbol.

  39. How about a more responsive GUI?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather then a new GUI look, I would rather them put more resources into a more responsive Multiprocess Firefox. A good talk about this is at: http://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/multiprocess-firefox/

  40. At least the new UI got one thing right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They kept a dedicated search bar.

    1. Re:At least the new UI got one thing right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But on the next version there is no address bar either, as the user is not said to be interested about those pesky technical details such as knowing if she is on a malicious google.com.exploit.net or on a google.com. It might be also so, that one can only input data to browser via touchscreen gestures and virtual keyboard, as they are said to be the next big thing, even on a desktop/laptop computers.

  41. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Z-Ramm · · 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...

  42. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ctrl-B - Oh hey, there's my bookmarks.

    Ctrl-Shift-B - Oh hey, there's my bookmarks.

    Click the "Show your Bookmarks" button in the toolbar (or menu panel) - Oh hey, there's my bookmarks.

    Show the menu bar, open the Bookmarks menu - Oh hey, there's my bookmarks.

  43. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We gotta learn EMACS to run firefox?

  44. Self-host firefox accounts by g4sy · · Score: 2

    Please mod parent up. Self-hosting is a very important point, it was the second part of my thinking in adopting the new firefox account last month, but I forgot to mention it in my earlier post. The other cool thing about self-hosting it is that organizations can perhaps have internal social bookmarking (which could be awesome for dev teams and ops teams). You'd just have to extend the firefox accounts server with the social features which would enhance colaboration

    Self hosting FTW :D I currently have all my bookmarks stored in the owncloud bookmark toolbar but until the improvs i've ordered actually get shipped I don't have a good embedded device to run my owncloud on and the raspberry pi that's currently hosting owncloud is a little slow. Firefox accounts just makes it easier, and I will be able to self host it on my improv or whatever. To the GP, can you tell me what hardware you're using to self host? I've found the raspberry pi unacceptably slow (but I need to give seafile another shot) so I'm considering buying a beagleboard if the improv never ships :( Anyone using a parallela to self-host?

    --
    somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
    if(color==blue){speed--;}
    1. Re:Self-host firefox accounts by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      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.

  45. Re:CSS sucks by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  46. Re:CSS sucks by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    That's what "float" is for.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  47. Re:CSS sucks by pspahn · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  48. Re: As an added bonus : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefux is kinda creative though

  49. All glory to The Focus Groups! by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

    (WHY!?)

    Because the focus groups.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  50. Re:New UI by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  51. Firefox 30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you were reading the summary, Mozilla rolled out Firefox 30!

    Edit: Now, Firefox 31!

  52. Re:CSS sucks by pspahn · · Score: 1

    Are you the guy that keeps polluting my markup with all the empty divs that simply have a `clear` class assigned?

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  53. *sigh* by sootman · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the various OSes that Firefox must support now that weren't around when Firefox first came out. Tell that to the various methods of user-interaction like touchscreens that came out. Tell that to the younger crowd who don't want to live with our out-dated "traditions".

      It's easy to be upset and shake our walking sticks. It's not easy to embrace change. At least Mozilla are trying. If you find Australis THAT destructive to your workflow, then you're the one who's using a flimsy workflow that's broken by such minor changes. Yes, a slightly different appearance and not being able to move a couple of buttons around is NOT major.

      Even the cumulative changes made over the last 2 years are not major enough to warrant this opinion. If you think so then YOU are the one who picked a fragile workflow that was easily broken. Firefox can't be expected to just sit around and be the same forever just because you can't be bothered to keep up with change. They rested on their laurels for years and lost a lot users than they'd ever lose to Australis.

      And I say this as someone who doesn't like Australis either. I just don't pretend that invoking Lincoln out of context will improve my argument, and that shit isn't so "broken" by Australis that it warrants such a silly and entitled little rant.

    2. Re:*sigh* by Blaskowicz · · Score: 0

      Other features that weren't in Netscape 2 or old Firefox :
      - restoring tabs/windows after a crash
      - ability to open closed tabs again
      - tabs that spawn on the right of current tab. it used to piss me off but I find it better now and FF has it elegantly done
      - you can select a link represented in raw text form, right-click and open it

    3. Re:*sigh* by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      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 bookmarks" which allowed you to create a "bookmark" with a keyword and whose target contains a token that gets replaced with a url-encoded version of any text after keyword in the url bar.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      If we left things where the fuck they were, products would be more usable, people would develop muscle memory and be more productive, coders could work on fixing bugs and memory leaks instead of rejigging the UI, but most importantly, all us UX professionals would be out of a job.

      Unfortunately for users, that last one's a dealbreaker for UX "professionals."

    5. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, you can have "some idiom that switches the context" or you can just have two separate boxes. I know which makes sense to me, and here's a hint without an autocomplete, it's not your idea.

    6. Re:*sigh* by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to use quick bookmarks before the search box became part of the UI, but I stopped using them because I found the search box simpler. And it isn't that hard dealing with an extra shortcut, you can either tab from the URL bar or hit Ctrl-k for the search box, and you may notice that the shortcut for the URL bar is Ctrl-l, so it is only a minor change needed if you want to search instead of type in a URL.

    8. Re:*sigh* by neminem · · Score: 1

      They really freaking wouldn't be. There will *never* be a shortage of products that really freaking actually need proper UX experts, to fix actual UI issues, sometimes really freaking glaring ones. They do not have to resort to fixing not-broken things until they're broken to have job security. The world is *full* of crap UIs. The problem isn't job security, it's people who don't realize that their job as a UX expert is to actually make things more useable, not just "prettier".

  54. but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it stop this "not responding" nonsense when I open a new tab?

  55. Re:CSS sucks by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  56. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    Self hosting FTW for geeks, maybe. For non-geeks, not so much.

  57. Unfortunately, it appears to be more broken now th by nashv · · Score: 1

    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 the extension keeps trying to make the thing fit.

    You know the best UI out there is this theme for FIrefox called FXChrome. That theme + a couple of user styles basically makes Firefox look exactly like Chrome. The fact that it works SO well, is only indication of the fact how bad Australis really is. Mozilla could never put together a decent UX ever. Look at Thunderbird, then look at Postbox. Look at Firefox, then look at Chrome. And I am still waiting for e10n.

    But beta is beta...so let's see.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  58. Re:CSS sucks by master_kaos · · Score: 1

    I love people like this, DONT USE TABLES FOR LAYOUTS!!!! Then guess what, they use a bunch of divs as rows and cols and style it as a table, and say SEE THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER. Ok yet you used so much more css and 20 fucking nested divs to do the same thing

  59. STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEEDED by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, 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?

  60. Security on Firefox Sync Going Down the Shitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those few who care, FF29 is going to be the first release with the new version of "Firefox Sync" which is used to keep two different installs of firefox synced up for things like plugins, bookmarks, history, etc.

    Under the current system, your profile is encrypted on your computers, mozilla only ever sees an encrypted blob.

    Under the new system, Mozilla (and anyone else who gets to their servers like someone with a subpoena or hacked access or even just blackmailed/bribed the right person at mozilla) has full access to your data in the clear.

    If you create a sync profile now, before FF29, then you will be able to keep using the safely encrypted version. But once FF29 is out there, the plan is to stop allowing any new encrypted sync profiles, requiring everyone to use the new, unsafe, system.

    FYI, they are doing it because they want to let apps and other services get access to your sync profile data like the way google does with chrome's sync equivalent. They talk a good game about privacy, but no matter what they say, the new system is inherently insecure. In a post snowden (and Target) world, it is too bad they haven't seen fit to offer the option to do client-side encryption for the new sync system, for those of us who do not want apps and other services to get access to our profiles.

  61. variables.. by bored · · Score: 0

    A day late and a dollar short...
    Everyone who needs and has a good use for CSS variables, and other more advanced functionality has already moved to SASS or something similar (libsass is my personal favorite).. Frankly, at this point someone should probably just add a SASS flag to dump a more compressed style sheet using css variables, but beyond that I don't see a reason to even really consider raw CSS at this point.

    1. Re:variables.. by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      Everyone who needs and has a good use for CSS variables, and other more advanced functionality has already moved to SASS or something similar

      Maybe, but you're missing two things: 1) CSS variables are not semantically equivalent to SASS or LESS variables; 2) CSS variables are available for runtime JavaScript manipulation. Sure, you can run LESS (and maybe SASS) in the browser too, but it's a bit overkill.

      In fact, CSS variables complement SASS/LESS nicely.

  62. Re:CSS sucks by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Is that also true for "previewing" for accessibility?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  63. Re:CSS sucks by idontusenumbers · · Score: 1

    Is what also true? it being a table or a div wont change how a screen reader reads the text.

  64. Can we opt out of this garbage? by JDG1980 · · Score: 0

    I've spent hours getting things the way I want on Firefox: organizing buttons, customizing userChrome, killing all possible vestiges of tabs (since they stopped letting you turn that feature off through the menu)... I don't want Australis to break this and shove a Chrome-style UI down my throat. I need traditional menus (the all-in-one on Chrome sucks) and prefer a standard Netscape-style UI. Will there be an opt-out option for this new crap or is someone going to have to fork the codebase? (No, using add-ons for basic functionality is not acceptable.)

  65. Outlook not so good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably not, the whole premise behind ice weasel is that they were being babies that wouldn't adhere to the rules for using the Fx trademark, as in not including unapproved patches.

  66. Re:Switched to Chrome and IE years ago by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    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 things get stale. Yes FF is supporting more standards, but underneath its rendering engine is straight out of 2007 with no multiple cpu support, no multiprocessing, no low rights mode, no freaking sandboxing. It is ANCIENT.

    I want to see it come back. I do admit its memory leaks make it somewhat usable but like IE 5 before it we had to use because it was the best we had compared to alternatives. FF saved us form IE 6 but as we move into 2014 it no longers serves peoples needs.

    Switch to Chrome.

  67. Reminds me of slashdot beta... by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Yet another case of somebody trying to dumb things down for newbs when the majority are just fine.

  68. Fx was successful for a reason. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 radically change it regularly with no particular rhyme or reason. Fx is something I used to use because it was the best, now I use it because it's the least bad option out there. If I wanted to use Chrome, I'd use Chrome.

    Has it perhaps occurred to you that Google tends to suck as well? If it isn't cool then they stop working on it, it took them years of development of their calendar program and as far as I know it's still missing the ability to have recurring tasks. Something which pretty much every other option provides. No particular justification or reason, but because it wasn't cool or sexy nobody could be arsed to do it.

    Firefox has a similar problem. They used to have a good product, but they're so fixated on Chrome's success that they're more interested in replicating the broken Chrome experience then improving what they were doing well.

  69. Tired of the pace of upgrades? by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Tired of the pace of upgrades that Mozilla (and Ubuntu) forces on you?

    Well then, install the Firefox ESR on Linux, and stay for a year without changes ...

  70. Firefox accounts? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Firefox accounts? by BZ · · Score: 3, 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.

  71. I use firefox nightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, i use firefox 31 alpha. it is quite stable. the gui of firefox 31 looks like firefox 29's interface

  72. Re:STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen brother.

    By the way - have you seen what they did to Opera - try it - it doesn't even have fucking bookmarks now..

  73. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by hazem · · Score: 1

    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...

    You set up your own Firefox Sync server on whatever machine you want.

  74. Re:CSS sucks by DerPflanz · · Score: 2

    It's all about "the semantic web". If a table is used as a design, its semantics are incorrect.

    --
    -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
  75. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Elbart · · Score: 1

    Must be a nice feeling for companies knowing that you can rely on self-imposed unpaid slaves working in their free time to fix their very own screw-ups.

  76. Re:STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEE by labnet · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    46137
  77. Re: CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it when rank amateurs who clearly don't know anything about web design make strong statements about stuff they clearly know nothing about.

    Laying out a page as a table is fine if that results in a readable design, so long as the underlying content is semantically structured to allow alternate renderings to be carried out.

    I'm sorry, are those words too long for you? Perhaps you're more suited to something less taxing, like secretarial work.

  78. Nice UI preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I click the link to preview the new UI with my IE9...

    Maybe Mozilla could make a preview that IE-users can see, and try to convonc me to switch?

  79. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a matter of fact, Mozilla has very well documented their sync API, allowing for any third-party to implement their sync server. And sync servers there are, for example ownCloud comes with one and I'm using it right now to synchronise Firefox on my desktop machine with the one on my laptop. The ownCloud suite runs on my own server machine too.

  80. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    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.

  81. Re:CSS sucks by stdarg · · Score: 1

    Screen readers have contextual commands and may behave differently in real tables. For instance http://www.freedomscientific.c...

    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.

  82. Re:STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEE by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    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 that with Marketing people who want it to look cool for their brochures. They are the form-over-function people, not the designers.

    My employer hired a user experience expert and it is great. Our new products have the same look-and-feel. The icons are no longer coder art. They are applying best practices like moving tabs to the bottom on touch screens so your arm isn't in the way of the screen and you don't get monkey arm. Stuff like that. Having a real UX expert is a good thing.

    Don't blame the profession or the terminology for fools masquerading as experts.

  83. Re:been using accounts in aurora for a month alrea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  84. Re:CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really using Excel as Excel but using the vector graphics section of Excel. Very cool. But not using the tabular part of Excel.

  85. Re:STOP FUCKING CHANGING THINGS WHERE IT'S NOT NEE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, a UI designer would do that. A UX designer is a marketing asshat. It's not blaming the terminology as much as it is calling it out for its bullshit.

  86. Voice your take on the changes by kmg90 · · Score: 1

    If you really dislike the way Firefox is going with changes in the newly released beta that includes the controversial UX overall they do have a survey set up to express your opinions on the changes https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3...

  87. Market Demographics by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It is not just marketing departments deciding things. You and I are a small minority demographic which has had influence in this field and for a short while, reasonably well designed software FOR US. But now the golden age is over. Everybody is a user today and design experts are designing software for the MAJORITY which does not include US. Just as desktops will become expensive niche products because consumers will use consumer devices and real computers will be for a minority group with nowhere near the demand of yesteryear-- also about a few years ago when desktops and laptops were beginning to decline in sales.

    YES for some software the majority of users are going to be intermediate or advanced but the "UX" designers are most likely being churned out only thinking about consumers and not other demographics they may be designing for (even if they do, just out of habit they will be for popular conventions the consumers like.)

    Some of this is "get off my lawn" but the majority of it is legitimate complaints, IMHO.

  88. Good, keep fucking with the UI. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cause there are nu bugs to work on or code to optimize. Why has open source software development turned to shit?

  89. Re: CSS sucks by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    so long as the underlying content is semantically structured to allow alternate renderings to be carried out

    And how often is that the case? If you want a table layout, you have to structure the underlying HTML as a table (even if you prefer to use divs instead of a table element) because CSS can't affect the presence or order of the tags. Given that you have to write the HTML with the layout in mind anyway, why not simply have a <gridlayout> tag (and <hbox> and <vbox> while we're at it) to distinguish table layouts from semantic <table>s, rather than relying on generic <div>s organized as tables—as opposed a way which would make sense semantically—but still ultimately dependent on a mass of boilerplate CSS to actually be presented as intended?

    Of course, if they were actually serious about separating presentation and sematics, the top level of the page would probably look more like XUL or QML, with the main content (either embedded or pulled from separate files) written in a subset of HTML with no support for scripting, styling, or layout, just pure semantics.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  90. jwrenn29 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome, thanks for the link!!

  91. Best firefox ever. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Too bad chrome tried to steel it.

  92. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

    I don't like their logic regarding functionality. "If only a small subset of our population uses that feature, then it belongs in a add-on". It makes sense to reduce as much as you can the many points of failure. Sure. But, it's kind of like the same complaint people point towards arma: they rely too much on add-ons and things like that, and the base experience turns out to be rather mediocre to a subset of people. On the bright side, since they rely so much on the community, add-ons do get made, forks exists and there is about something for everyone.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  93. If you don't like Chrome, you're going to hate 29. by StoicJim · · Score: 0

    I had to re-install 28. Too many of the new "features" broke the interface for me.

  94. Re:If you don't like Chrome, you're going to hate by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    You know, 28 *is* the current stable release...29 is barely beta 1.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  95. Example not working for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The example shown here doesn't work for me when testing in Firefor 29:
    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Using_CSS_variables
    The brown background colour is not appearing... Anyone knows about another example to test?

  96. Re:New UI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember those days too. Modern users have the knowledge in their genes that by moving mouse pointer to a corner, they get a menu. And a click and horizontal mouse movement changes the window. And yellow button at left of the window toolbar does something predictable. Oh, and they also know that by pressing window-r and writing appwiz.cpl, they can uninstall the dozens of gigabytes of crapware which came with their machine.

  97. Re:New UI by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

    Such discoverability.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  98. I cant stand this interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pages become choppy or completely black out in live feeds on forums or they don't load at all in disquss. I do not like this new update at all. It is quicker and that is about it.

  99. May bad anonymous coward really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Later to this site

  100. Re:CSS sucks by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    No, you apply the clear to the next element that has to occur on a new line. Such as the first column of the next row.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  101. Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CTR's not viable. I've tried out and, sadly, it introduces other problems, including totally decimating compatibility with certain add-ins. Mozilla is breaking Firefox so badly that they're necessitating "dependency hell" with add-ins to bring the UI back to where it should be.

  102. MEH, PLZ TRY AGAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just not feeling those tabs.. Infact the whole design looks like an amateur chrome version.. Mozilla needs to get some better designers.. I'm really not digging this look.