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).

155 of 256 comments (clear)

  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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

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

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Re:New UI? by ASimPerson · · Score: 2

      This is interesting... link?

      --
      In 3010, the potatoes triumphed
    12. 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...

    13. 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".
    14. 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
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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?

    21. 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*.

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

      Classic Theme Restorer?

    23. 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

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

      Try www.msnbc.com?

      Wow

    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.
    30. 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"
    31. 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.

    32. 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
    33. 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.

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

      Thanks for the only comment worth reading.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
    35. 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.
    36. Re:New UI? by Alumoi · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    38. 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.
    39. Re:New UI? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

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

    40. 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/
    41. 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
    42. 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.
    43. 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
    44. 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
    45. 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.

    46. 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.

    47. 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."

    48. 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.

    49. 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.
    50. 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.

    51. 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!)
    52. 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!)
    53. 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.

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

      Mine doesn't look anything like that.

    55. 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.
    56. 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??
  2. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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");

    8. 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?

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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...

    12. 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?

  3. 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--;}
  4. Re:CSS sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  5. New? by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

    Looks like GEM to me :(

  6. 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.

  7. 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)

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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?
  12. New UI by idontusenumbers · · Score: 2

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

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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!)
  16. 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
  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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 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!

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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??
  26. 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!

  27. 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 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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!

  30. 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...

  31. 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.

  32. Re:CSS sucks by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  33. 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".
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. *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 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?!
    2. 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?!
    3. 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".

  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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

  42. 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?

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

    Is that also true for "previewing" for accessibility?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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 ...

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.
  52. 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.

  53. 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
  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.'"
  58. 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...

  59. 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.

  60. 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
  61. Best firefox ever. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Too bad chrome tried to steel it.

  62. 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.
  63. 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.

  64. 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
  65. Re:New UI by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

    Such discoverability.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  66. 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".