Firefox 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010 556
sv_libertarian writes "Mozilla recently updated its product roadmap through 2010. According to the first draft, the current browser will see a minor update in Q4 2009 and another in Q2 2010. Version 4.0 is headed for an October or November 2010 release and will bring a new user interface and browser sync integration. 'There is not much information on [what] this new user interface will look like, but the first mockups that have been posted on Mozilla's website suggest that the Mozilla team favors a Google Chrome-like design that integrates Windows 7 graphics features. Overall, window elements seem to be floating over the background.' The mockup page emphatically notes that the design is not final."
Function before form (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it not crash, and I don't care what it looks like.
Sort of old... (Score:4, Insightful)
These screen-shots have been available for months. This is old news.
Frankly, I think worrying about minor details like whether the tabs are above or below the taskbar sort of shows how far browsers have come. On the list of things I was worried about 5 or 10 years ago, it's near the bottom.
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as a counterpoint, I decidedly don't like the tabs-on-top design, don't use Chrome in part because of that UI, and would probably switch to Opera if Firefox didn't make tabs-on-bottom an option. ;-)
Separate search box option? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Function before form (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Function before form (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this a troll?
I agree. I personally don't care how pretty the browser is, and don't really like the Windows 7/Vista graphics interface.
What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.
I don't like the overly simplified interface, I think it makes it seem like they think their users are idiots. I don't use google chrome for much the same reason.
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with tabs down the side is you either get (1) vertical text or (2) tabs that are as wide as they are above the window in which case the tab list takes up a HUGE proportion of the screen real estate, virtually all wasted unless you actually have a couple dozen tabs in one window to start eating up the available rows.
Neither of these options are very good IMO; I'd rather spend a few pixels of vertical height then have to read sideways text.
(Incidentally, this is why I never liked the taskbar on the side of the screen either. Maybe I should give it another shot with Windows 7 now that the taskbar is a little more icon-based and less word-based.)
Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Function before form (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Tabs on top is horrible...one of the key reasons I dislike Google Chrome.
Options. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please make it look like Firefox 2. I want it to look like an ordinary Windows XP application. Nothing flashy.
And if you do add something flashy, please make sure to ADD IN THE OPTION TO DISABLE IT. Options are GOOD. KEEP ADDING OPTIONS. Make the options VISIBLE.
Re:Nice but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why keep it the same across platforms? No, seriously, do you use Firefox on multiple platforms AND are you bothered by the differences in UI between the various Firefox'en? You'll live.
The interface should be native to the platform, adhering to the platform's UI standards. The binaries location and configuration location should adhere to the platform's application development standards. Adhere to standards, they are good for you. (Note; Experts only: deviate from standards when necessary)
Programs that use non-native, non-standard UI (Quicktime on Windows) are quickly (haha) reviled. And for good reason.
Combo Button is hateful. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hate the combo button. Safari introduced this and I started running into the following problems:
1. A page is loading slowly (slow site, busy computer, DNS lookup failure, ...) and I go to click "stop", but the load finishes just before I click, the stop icon changed to a reload, and now I have to wait through it loading again.
2. A page is refreshing on a schedule. I decide I want to reload it sooner, so I go to click the reload button... just as it starts reloading, so now the automatic reload gets stopped.
Moving it to the end of the address box in the latest Safari is just an extra layer of manure on the sandwich.
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed... I'm all for configurability, so making something like the tabs-on-top or your tabs-on-left options being a choice would be fine and dandy. But making either the only choice is a good way to get me to stop using Firefox. ;-)
Re:Combo stop/refresh/go button FTW (Score:1, Insightful)
One reason the triple button might not be such a good idea is that when you want to stop a page load, you might accidentally cause a refresh instead (if the page finishes loading between the time you wanted to stop and the time you clicked).
They are abusing moderation for a long time now (Score:5, Insightful)
That is exactly why we must meta moderate like crazy these days. Troll has a very strict explanation and believe or not, it means exactly same on slashdot.
These idiots really confuse Slashdot moderation with digg down&up while Slashdot does make a favor to them, overrated and underrated are exactly for that purpose.
There are unhappy people with every kind of browser&application out there and yes, in this age, a browser should be really fast, simple to use and stable having very good standards support. It is valid for every browser out there. It is not just Firefox who doesn't get people's concerns, I have heard first time that system's default browser can't download files. It is Safari for Snow Leopard. Way to go Apple... All of this for run a freaking in 64bit mode, hurry of release to show finger to MS. See Firefox loving moderator? Every browser these days are a bit disconnected from users actual needs and demands.
Re:Function before form (Score:2, Insightful)
Standard keyboard shortcuts are well and good, but they don't make up for having a standard GUI interface.
Re:Function before form (Score:1, Insightful)
I have Firefox crash very often. And Safari, come to that. The cause is always the same - Flash. Both the Mac and Linux versions of Flash are terribly crash-prone. The Windows one is a bit better, but not by much.
Oh, and on Windows, I've not had Firefox crash since... erm...
I can't remember, actually. At least since Firefox 3 came out.
Re:of all the things to copy from Chrome (Score:3, Insightful)
Tabs on top make me move my mouse further to get to them (although I usually Ctrl+Tab anyway). Tab on bottom, now that's worth a look.
Re:Function before form (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, I'm getting sick of this Firefox doesn't crash shit. Someone needs to start modding these fanbois troll. Not that I don't like FF, but it doesn't shit golden bricks either.
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Notebook.
Follow The Leader (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google or Apple but their tabs in a rotating circular drum surrounding the window, you can be certain that Open Source developers would follow swiftly behind. It's disappointing to see it confirmed that Open source will never, ever have the confidence to put forth its own designs, paradigms or new innovations directly in front of users unless a glitz and glamour company has broken the mould first. The worst part is how eagerly FOSS developers ape the latest trend. A little dignity would be a lot more digestible.
By contrast, Microsoft would simply wait to see what Apple did in their next revision before implementing what was kept.
To the topic at hand, Tabs on top are an atrocious development, unfit for human consumption. They are the product of people who spend too much of their time using flashy, UI paradigm-less monstrosities like Winamp skins, Flash site and those awful OSX floating widget things, not to mention that ridiculous top bar. Inclusing that was the worst decision GNOME has ever made. Most normal people on the other hand expect applications and button that stay within their window box, that don't warp or distort when your mouse draws near, and that don't look like they just had a full body wax job done. There was very little wrong with the 1997-era user interface.
I curse the Cult of Mac and what it has wrought on my UI's over the last 10 years. I'm hoping the Order of Google will not cast its baleful eye towards what little sanity remains in modern day GUIs.
Re:Combo Button is hateful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Press CTRL/CMD-backspace or CTRL/CMD-W before hitting submit next time. The fact that it's possible to avoid using a bad user-interface doesn't mean it's not a bad user-interface.
If you want to run some minimalist browser under Ratpoison, you're welcome to it.
Re:Tabs on top, do it NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm shocked by the stupidity in this thread!
There is no either or! That's the very point of Firefox!
You can have it as you like it! I can *right now* put the tabs on top, on the very bottom, on the right or left side, hide them and replace them by a dozen different ways of navigation, etc, etc, etc.
If you are a serious UI designer, and you first priority is not *C*H*O*I*C*E*, then you are a failure at your job and have so stop working *right now*.
(Second priority is good *defaults*. But never hard-code stuff!)
Yes, I know *exactly* what I'm talking about!
Sorry for getting angry. But I just can't stand this limited thinking. It's hurting us all!
Re:Nice but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the deal today with trying to get rid of the simple menu bar??
It is so easy and straightforward for finding things you use all the time....
Re:Nice but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They seem to want to save vertical screen space, which is a valid argument with current machines (like netbooks) coming out with only 600 pixels of vertical space.
Then again, why not just use full screen mode on those?
it look slike ie 8 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Function before form (Score:1, Insightful)
So, in my opinion, he's whining about a problem that doesn't exist, and yeah, I'd call his post a troll.
This is exactly why you and people who think the same way in regards to what 'troll' means, should not be moderating.
http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml [slashdot.org]
Search in page for: What do the choices in the moderation drop-down boxes mean?
# Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
# Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
The moderation guidelines clearly spell out what is meant by the 'troll' mod, and it does not once mention what you personally would call or consider it.
In fact, by openly admitting you would classify a non-troll post as troll, you are implying 'moderator guidelines to hell!' To me, that puts any and all moderation you have ever done in doubt.
Way to play slashdot.
PS, this post is not a troll, it is a flame (For some of the more 'intelligent' mods, that means the "flamebait" moderation.)
Just you watch. This post (purposely) follows the moderation guidelines for a flame. I have $100 that less than 10% of the moderation will be correct, even more proof I am correct despite correct while flaming.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why transparency? (Score:1, Insightful)
An application can define what regions to make transparent, and in these mockups Firefox has made a large chunk of the application transparent, not just the default title bar and border. So yes, it does have a lot to do with Firefox.