IE UI Designer On His Switch To FireFox 728
wellington writes "Scott Berkun (who worked on UI design for Internet Explorer 1.0 thru 5.0) talked about why he switched to Firefox. In addition to five reasons why he switched, Scott also detailed five UI flaws in Firefox."
Mirrordot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
Also... the reply from Asa (from Mozilla). (Score:5, Informative)
Read it here [mozillazine.org].
It's very interesting.
Article (Score:5, Informative)
It's a sad day and a good day. For years I've held onto my IE install out of love. I worked on IE 1.0 thru 5.0, and was one of the people that designed much of its UI. But my love for the past has faded. Last week I switched to Firefox: and I've been happy.
Why I switched:
1. IE is a ghetto. There are specs I wrote for UI features in 1998 that are unchanged today, 7 years later, in a world where browser usage has changed dramatically. I've watched bugs that I fought to have fixed in 5.0 become regressions, appearing in 5.01 and surviving in 6.0. Even though it's the product I was proudest of, using it now makes me sad - it's been left behind. I do read the IE blog now and again - smart folks are working - but there's nothing for me to install.
2. Bookmarks work. The Favorites UI model in IE is the same one we built in 1997, when we knew most of our users had 20-40 favorites. It was made to be super simple and consumer friendly as most of the population was still new to the net. This UI is effectively broken today, designed for people that don't exist. The Favorites menu and Favorites bar show links in different orders, the organize favorites dialog is just weird, multiselect doesn't work: favorites is a sad forgotten place. This was by far my greatest frustration with IE, even though I'm responsible for much of the original design.
3. Firefox has quality & polish. IE 5.0, for its time (1999), was a high quality release. Really, it was. Joe Peterson, Hadi Partovi and Chris Jones fought hard to give the team time to do lots of fit and finish work. We did fewer features and focused hard on quality and refinement. Firefox feels to me like what IE 6.0 should have been (or what i expected it to be after I left the team in '99). It picked a few spots to build new features (tabs), focused on quality and refinement, and paid attention to making the things used most, work best. The core UI design is very similiar to IE5: History/Favorites bars, progress UI, toolbars, but its all smooth, reliable and clean.
4. They made a mainstream product. One of the big challenges in designing software is balancing the requests of earlier adopters in the community, with the needs of the majority of more mainstream users. After playing with mozilla on and off I was afraid firefox would be a built for programmers by programmers type experience. It's not. I don't know who in the firefox org was the gatekeeper on features and UI, but I'd like to meet him/her/them (seriously). They did a great job of keeping the user experience focused on the core tasks. If you're reading please say hi.
5. Security isn't annoying. . The press makes security into such a huge deal, but I'll be honest. I don't want to think about security at all. I'll do what I need to, but mostly I want the system to take care of it and stay out my face. Nothing in FF makes me feel safer explicitly, I just don't deal with as many warnings, settings and other details. I know from the PR that security in FF is better (even if only because it's less targeted by spyware, etc.) but I'm pleased that the product doesn't remind me of how safe I am all the time.
Problems with Firefox:
I'm a UI design guy, so many of these are UI related. (Added note: I'd used FF on and off, but since I'm now 100% some of these are complaints might fade in a month of usage. Stay tuned).
1. Find UI. Why does the find dialog appear at the bottom of the screen? I agree that a dialog box (semi-modal) can be a mistake if you're doing multiple searches, but flipping a coin for placement (top vs. bottom), the top is a better choice for any UI, especially if it's going to look and act like a toolbar. I can't move it so it earns a spot on this list. However, the overall implementation isn't circa 1992 like the IE one. It highlights, it searches on type, & it warns on unfound items - nice..Firefox find
Re:UI suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
Ctrl+Mouse wheel scroll (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My favorite reason (Score:3, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
The best extension I've used on mozilla/firefox/opera, and the main reason I switched
http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures [mozdev.org]
Re:UI suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopi
Re:Firefox search box (Score:1, Informative)
You could argue that when you hit "Edit->Find on this page" should open a dialog box. But I feel the operation for the "/" shortcut is perfect...and it would certainly add confusion if you had search dialogs appear differently depending on how they are invoked.
Firefox flaws fixable (Score:5, Informative)
first flaw: Retro Find [extensionsmirror.nl]
second flaw: Download Statusbar [extensionsmirror.nl]
third flaw: Clone Window [extensionsmirror.nl]
fifth flaw: Menu Editor [extensionsmirror.nl]
Re:UI suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Borked (Score:5, Informative)
Stop sounding like an idiot. The site worked fine last nite, he disabled CSS becasue of the increase in the amount of traffic he is now getting.
One better: the Zoom feature in Opera (Score:2, Informative)
That's ctrl + mousewheel
Re:Firefox search box (Score:5, Informative)
The issue of bottom versus top is a little more nitpicky for me. In my mind, if the search dialog were to spontaneously appear at the top of the window, then one of two things would happen: (1) the HTML text/image/whatever at the top of the window would suddenly become hidden, which I would find distracting, or (2) all the HTML text/images/whatever would suddenly bump down a few lines to accommodate the appearance of the search bar, which would also distract me.
Since I (and presumably most other users) typically read a web page from top to bottom, scrolling down as necessary, the search bar appearing at the bottom of the window only covers up things I haven't yet read, so it's not cumbersome.
I work on dual 18" screens, and I almost never maximize a browser window to fullscreen - I prefer to work in a window roughly 1024x768, so glancing down doesn't pose a problem for me.
But like I said, to each his own (:
Re:That is one damn good post (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Borked (Score:2, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:4, Informative)
"Warn when closing multiple tabs"
Re:Why can't download manager take me to the folde (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Maybe you'll like Retrofind? (Score:5, Informative)
If you prefer to use about:config then change accessibility.typeaheadfind to false.
2 other minor Firefox issues. (Score:4, Informative)
Also in a scrolling text box within a page (such as this new comment form) the vertical line of pixels to the left of the 'thumb' of the scrollbar appears to be semi-random colors, it looks like it's getting a blit from the wrong place in memory. FF does this on both Windows and Linux... dosn't crash, so I don't think its accessing random/null memory, but it's something in the 'not good' category.
Re:Sweet error message in FF 1.5 beta (Score:4, Informative)
in about:config, set browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to True.
-cheers
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]|http://fark.com/ [fark.com]|http://cnn.
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
CTRL+K Should take you there. CTRL+L will take you to the Address bar. CTRL+F will take you to the "Find in this Page" bar.
-dZ.
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
URL1|URL2|URL3|...|URLN
Re:UI suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:UI suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:/.'ed before event a post (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My favorite reason (Score:4, Informative)
The xdpyinfo will tell you what X knows (or thinks it knows) about your display.
For example
The font problem has normally been solved between about 8 to 5 years ago in most systems w/ X11. It seems that yours is either very old or misconfigured.
Or that you're trolling
Agree, but not blank... (Score:3, Informative)
In a response to someone who posted the same thought as you (only want a blnak page on new), the author replied with:
The logic was: if we bring the history along, people who didnt want it can just do whatever they were going to do anyway - low impact (the perf profile was good). But for people that need it, its there. We felt its a bad idea generally speaking to leave people in most read/only software with blank screens. It should at least put you on the start page as it does when you launch FF.
Nw I agree it's good to have something there (more in a sec) but I think he is totally wrong when he says it has "low impact". I'm not sure which IE he was talking about but in ALL of the versions I've ever used (mostly 5-6) just about any page I'm on happens to have a degree of latency before the page is fully displayed and useful that is very annoying.
Here I think Safari has it exactly right - new pages display your bookmarks, so you can travel from there. Safari does not do this for new tabs (which I think it should) but it does for new windows (unless you specify a homepage).
Basically I think that a new window can have absolutley no delay before you are able to use it, and copying the existing content in the real world always introduces notable delay.
Re:Zero comments, slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
I use firefox [getfirefox.com] and greasemonkey [mozdev.org] with this script [userscripts.org] installed.
Problem solved.
Peace
Re:UI suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My favorite reason (Score:3, Informative)
I have a large monitor set to 1280x1024 resolution and I sit nearly 2' away from it, so I depend on ctrl+ to make a lot of pages legible.
Re:My favorite reason (Score:4, Informative)
I don't agree with that I'm afraid:
"pt", "cm", etc are _all_ absolute sizes which should render those _physical_ dimensions.
"px" is a bit of a funny one because depending on the display hardware it can be a bit arbitrary (think about printing - the size of a "px" is _not_ the size of your 1200dpi printer's individual dot - someone has picked an reasonably arbitrary value to use as the physical size of 1px).
Except in certain circumstances, text should really be specified in "em" since that is relative to a parent element. That way the browser just has to fiddle the physical dimensions in the top level style sheet and the changes cascade down through the document. (The top level element defaults to fint size "medium" although AFAICT the W3 don't recommend a default physical size for "medium" which seems a bit silly).
"px" should only really be used when you need the text to fit around/inside a fixed size bitmap. In which case resizing the text without the graphic would be very bad anyway. This is where SVG would be handy since then you just specify the images in "em" as well and let them resize automagically.
Of course the problem with all this is that a lot of web developers are stupid and just design a site which works in IE on it's default settings, which may indeed mean a random mixture of relative and absolute units which just become a complete mess when the relatively sized elements are rendered with anything other than the default initial size. I guess the more correct way to do it is to have separate "increase/decrease (relative) font size" and "magnify" (where magnify resizes absolutely everything including images), which I think is what Opera does - the problem here is that people get confused with having two separate options which do similar things.
The world will probably be a better place when we can buy 600dpi monitors, rendering the whole "px" unit rather meaningless.
I disagree (Score:2, Informative)
I strongly disagree with this statement. The user should always have the final say. A stylesheet (or FONT tag, $deity forbid) is just a suggestion as to how the page is to be rendered. Accessibility is more important than aesthetics.
From the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines [w3.org]:
Re:UI suggestion (Score:2, Informative)
3) creating a new tab doesn't copy the history like it does in IE. In IE, when you spawn a new window you get the history of the old window. This is really, really handy.
Try the Duplicate Tab [mozilla.org] extension.
This really should be default behaviour.
Re:UI suggestion - Solution (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What I want from Firefox (Score:3, Informative)