De-cluttering & improving Fx's interface
BryanS...@gmail.com
Firefox UI, and connected with various points, proposals, ideas, plans,
debates and more with regards to that. It outlines 10 different area's
of UI improvements largely from what has already been proposed,
discussed, debated, considered, touched upon.
A little backround on myself, I've been an avid fan, follower, and
contributor to Firefox related things since it release from promoting
it to loads of new users in various ways, helping users on forums,
submitting bugs, commenting on them, testing, providing feedback and
more. For the past 18 months I've contributed to SpreadFirefox in
particular, and the past year I've been on a team called SFx+ call to
action. This has 10 core members including the 3 current admins of SFx
such as Ian Hayward of Glaxstar, Asa Dotzler of Mozilla, and others.
The team have been communicating regularly on a site where all plans
have been drawn up in a book formate for a new better SpreadFirefox
aimed at really delivery grass roots community marketing and projects.
This has involved research into usability in parts, and in one
particular project a fair deal on my part researching browser habits,
needs, impressions of many novice users, there uses, browsing style,
expectations, interpretations, understanding, and also liasing with
addon developers on usability related issues.
Firefox is intended to be a simple, light weight, easy on the eyes,
straightforward, un cluttered, easy to grasp, understand, use browser.
Its intended to suite the majority of internet users with that in mind,
bearing in mind the majority of internet users are novice, and use few
un-essential features before them, even as far as the simple forwards
button, as research by Google I believe has shown.
However, Firefox now with a total of 5 toolbars inc; file/edit,
navigation, Tabs, bookmarks, Statusbar and more, has the most busy,
cluttered interface compared with other top browsers such as IE6, IE7,
Opera and others. This is not something many will accept easily, but
the fact is, Firefox has the most toolbars, most space wasted in the
UI, the most non essential items and information shown, and least
website shown despite claiming that to be the most important thing,
compared with other browsers. This is despite claiming those browsers
to be more advanced, hard to use, and Firefox the simpler, easier,
basic browser browser. It's not something that convinces new users
that Firefox really is a simpler browser for novice users, and its not
something I for one, want to see continue. Opera has long taken brave
decisions and been creative with the interface trying to minimise
clutter, and maximise website and essential buttons/information, and
the fact of the matter is, it does show less toolbars, buttons, and
more website. IE7 in particular has shown it is willing to be very
creative with the interface in terms of what the average user whom is
novice, really does use, really does need, and really does need to have
in there view of the browser and web. This creativity with simplifying
the browser interface sadly seems to be at a vastly slower, and
unwilling pace with Firefox, largely due to wider openness on debating
changes, and there far more likelyhood of at least a few disagreeing,
and emphasising cons, and that sadly being taken as enough to call it
off. This is despite the fact theres always going to be cons, its
about weighing them against the pro's for the majority of web users,
minimising them, and taking brave decisions to implement based on
maximising the benefits for the majority of users, making it worthwhile
and beneficial overall.
I've given some careful thought to some of the comment on a few of the
points. I've done even more research, read most previous debates on
the issues if I had already missed a couple. Its reformed my view a
little on a couple of points, but however, not to any huge degree.
This reason being is why, and I'm sorry for my brutal honesty, is that
I still feel very good proposals were put forwards for de-cluttering
the interface on the Mozilla wiki;
http://wiki.mozilla.org/FX2_Visual_Update/User_Interface_Design, and in
other places, and were too easily knocked back due to one or two cons
being exaggerated. There's cons in nearly everything thats done, what
its about is maximising the benefits, minimising the cons, and weighing
them up. For the most part, virtually all points in the original
proposals were pretty much spot on with minor changes, and the benefits
far outway the cons. This has been the point all along. Theres some
cons to the addition of a search engine manager though small, the fact
is, if every single thing that carried cons had the cons outlined and
exaggerated countless of times, and therefore didnt go ahead, we'd
never get anywhere, and thats what I see as happening with many of the
simplifying of the Firefox interface initiatives.
When talking about improving Firefox, and the browsing experience, I
talk about doing so for the majority of internet users whom are novice.
This is the same purpose Mozilla carries and many seem to all to
easily forget, with even some Mozilla suite debates almost returning to
lines of, keep this because it can do this, and have this because it
can do this, giving little consideraion to the majority of internet
users whom are novice, that do not now use many what some consider to
be basic things like the forward button, bookmarks, the status bar, and
many other things some find it hard to believe most users simply do not
use.
There as said, are cons to all kinds of things, whats important is
implementing based on benefits for the majority verses cons for the
minority. The initiatives initially proposed at the said mozilla wiki
page and elsewhere, are therefore in consdiering these points, very
positive, logical steps to improve and simplify the interface, the the
MAJORITY of internet users whom are NOVICE, and do not for the most
part/at all, use even simple functions like forwards, bookmarks,
statusbar and more. The PROS far far outway the CONS, and most if not
all of the cons raised in previous debates, really would not negatively
effect the majority of users in any case, so they are simple very small
cons in the grand wider picture of huge benefits in terms of
simplifying the browser for the majority. This when properly
considering in terms of suiting and benefiting the majority, is the
most important, largest benefit, by far, leaving many small cons effect
most little to not at all, and alltogether very negligible.
I'm going to go over most of the points for each area, and try to give
some reply, and points in reply to some comments (some very valid).
It's already been slightly painful continuously commenting and going
over things, especially where things are un-necessarily disputed, even
more so then from previous debates on these matters. I'd appreciate it
if some space could be given to the points being made (especially after
considering all comments) and for people to not just overthrow with
slightly statesmen like, no your wrong, I'm right, the topics dead.
Thats just not productive, I'm fighting for a simpler interface for the
majority of internet users here, dont shoot me down, especially when
considering many of the points I raise are based on the proposals made
here by a staff member on the Mozilla wiki;
http://wiki.mozilla.org/FX2_Visual_Update/User_Interface_Design
1. Statusbar hidden by default
Most users do not use the status bar. Again, if your dispute this,
please dont further comment, its really not helpful. Its widely
accepted that the average mum, grandma, or kid does not look at the
status bar, does not inspect link urls, check them, look at most other
things held here. I refer to Gervase Markhams comments on the matter
from a previous debate here;
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/browse_frm/thread/6947a05fed1e088c/73c66a86dd3cf11d?tvc=1&hl=en#73c66a86dd3cf11d
"The status bar display of URLs is not going to be a significant tool
in
protecting users from phishing. 99.9% of users don't look at it, and of
those that do, most probably don't carefully parse the URL (as would be
necessary for a look-alike phishing URL)."
This is directly linked with the need for the status bar being on by
default for all users, when only a minority actually use it, meaning
its un-necessary clutter for the majority. Firefox is intended to
suite the majority of web users, of whom are novice, and of whom do not
for the most part use the statusbar, benefit from it. So, its an
overwhelming valid point and case, as to not having the status bar on
by default based on these fundamental points. Suite the majority
maximising the best for the most, leaving the minority who wish for
another way to be able to change as they wish. If really deemed
necessary, then like Opera, upon hovering over a link fo a certain
amount of time (perhaps make it longer than with Opera) show a tooltip
with the link url so the user can see it in the same area and its more
logical, plus whether it will open in a new tab/window or current one.
As for page resizing, I see this as per phishing where I agree with
Gervase Markham, its somewhat seperate, and isnt as yet as implemented
as best as possible. It should again be treated seperately. Opera's
page button and toolbar at the top of the window. This should deal
with all page related matters such as zooming, dealing with images,
searching and any more necessary. A Page button linking to this
toolbar is needed in the dropdown in view, or in the UI similar to
where Opera places it (thus more obvious and intuitive to users). This
then sections this area quite nicely for the user to grasp and use
(know where to find things like this > in the relevent section not
several)and doesnt foce one or all of its features, which shouldnt be
the case as many choose not to use one, or all of the functions.
2. Go/Stop/Reload button
After careful consideration of many points in debates all over the
place, I see the most valid point being with the Opera implementation
of joining Stop/Reload, because allbeit very rare, and it really is, a
user could mean to stop but get reload. I still however think that
realistically as someone that uses the Stop/Reload button for Firefox,
that its such a rare scenario especially for the average user. These
buttons in any case are not used much by most users, and in any case,
users accidentally hit some buttons, menial things like this that are
rare, are also quickly resolveable by repeating the process in seconds,
which regardless, users often do no matter the implementation. With
stop and reload seperate, it requires more effort and mouse work, thus
many click the stop meaning to hit reload anyway due to this, infact in
my experience this infact happens more often compared with if they were
joined. I do think a joint Go/Stop/Reload button therefore would work
out best all round, and especially for the majority of users whom for
the most part dont use these loading functions, largely because theres
so many confusing buttons for such simple things. Again, its a case of
the benefits far out weighing the cons.
One very good simple intuitive way to implement the favoured Go/Reload
button like in IE7, which also solves the minor cons of a changing
name, would be to just have a universal loading button for both these
actions called "Load" This is far more straighforward, more people
understand Load better than reload or go in any case. With "Go" well
where does it go the user says, is it connected with the "Go" in the
file edit menu and my history? When a novice user does reload (not
often) its often d to a page not actually loading in the first place,
so the term "Reload" when it never really loaded in the first place, is
also slightly confusing. These are are more likely mis interpretations
and confusions caused as of now, and in the longterm. One universal
Load button for loading, intuitively caled "Load" is far more
understandable, logical, easy to grasp, use, and takes out a lot of
un-necessary clutter and complexity compared with present. As per
paragraph one above on this, I also still feel "Stop" should be
encorporated here, purely because it really is an all in one load
button then, the only load related button a user need worry about, (and
arguably should be the load button for the search bar when that fields
selected. Again for the same reaosns that the benefits of an all in
one button meanding no other buttons of clutter and complexity there,
and only one loading button needed to look at and use. Regardless the
Go/Reload or rather "Load" button should be where the Go button is at
present (as per IE7) with the Stop button encorporated too, or to the
right of "Load" again as per IE7.
3. Bookmarks Toolbar
>From the Mozilla community wiki entry for Places:
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Places#Background
"Studies from the late 1990s show that while revisitations of pages
previously seen counted for roughly 39% of all page navigations (see
Google Scholar), Bookmarks and History usage was low (1-3%), despite
the fact that roughly 20% of those revisitations were to pages seen >
10 URLs ago (and thus outside the usefulness range of the Back button
or menu)."
With the above considered and if anything it is likely due to trends
continuing, more emphasis on searching the improving search engines to
find sites users want, that even less than the proposed %'s use
bookmarks. However, it is safe to say that users using bookmarks are a
minority, and those not using bookmarks much or at all are in a
majority. Firefox is intended to suite the majority of internet users
of whom are novice with a simple, easy to use interface. Of the
minority whom to any great degree use Bookmarks, of this figure, how
many use the actual bookmarks toolbar, this minority figure then
shrinks further still.
The bookmarks toolbar is not shown by default in IE6, IE7, Opera and
others, Bookmarks are used by a minority, and that minority even then
benefit little from an entire space using toolbar meaning bookmarks are
very public in the UI, and merely just pressable with one less click.
This is a menial benefit for the majority whom use bookmarks, but
un-necessary clutter, less website, more buttons, complexity, and
things to worry about in the interface for the majority.
It is toally within reason then, and logical then if Firefox really
does intend to suite the majority with the simplest interface and
browser, that the Bookmarks toolbar should not be shown by default to
ALL users, of whom a majority dont use it or benefit from it, and a
minority benefit little. It is not an essential item, it is not used
by the majority, do not force it upon users un-necessarily causing a
more cluttered, space using, complicated interface, and provide choice
to the minority whom wish to change or continue using something the
majority do not.
This is a key point moving forwards with Firefox. This needs to be
accepted, the majority of users need to be put first especially as
thats what Firefox claims to do and wants to continue convincing, even
prooving to all it does. Once this is accepted, and it really does
need to be based on facts of usage of this non essential item
cluttering the UI for a majority, what needs to be looked at within
improving bookmarks, is other things that do not involve forcing them
un-necessarily upon a majority that does not use them. For one, theres
little benefit to a bookmarks toolbar in any case at all if not used by
the majority even if on by default, if its a vast minority that really
use and benefit from it, then its perfectly valid bookmarks should be
catered for in a different, better way. The toolbar if it did remain
should exist on the top level file edit toolbar out of the way of
clicking on essential items like tabs and navigation buttons, and using
interface space better, and minimizing clutter. However, the file/edit
toolbar is too used by a minority, and this as part of simplifying the
interface also needs looking at.
IE7 and Opera have both done this by not having the boomarks toolbar
shown by default. IE7 has 1 small subtle button for adding bookmarks,
1 for quickly viewing, managing, reviewing them (aswell as feeds and
history) which causes no clutter, toolbars, or is any waste of space in
the permanent browsing interface. This is a very good implementation
that Mozilla need to look at learning from, taking the good from, and
even implementing even simpler and better, in terms of quick access
with in the same UI to Bookmarks, History and Feeds in one neat place
that does not clutter the permanent UI. Opera shows home, bookmarks,
and a top 10 most visited when the address bar is active, which too is
a very good implementation, however IE7 seems to implement better in
this area, neatly grouping in an intuitive way without forcing
un-necessary clutter or other window on all users.
4. Tools > Add-ons
Should show and cater for all 4 types of add-ons, as per users see at
the add-ons site itself, the 2 remaining addons being;
Web Plugins, and Search Engines. Otherwise it contradicts and confuses
as to what are addons, users dont know where to manage some, where not
to for others, rather than being able to fully manage all addons as
expected in the Addons Manager.
5. Options > General > Feed Handler
Not something the majority of internet users currently or need to worry
about using, feed handling is still very new, feed handlers is
something the majority of users do not know about, and for the ones who
do, most at best only understand Firefox handling them. Using a
seperate application applies to a minority, thus is clutter and not
warranted to be in the very prominent General section in Options meant
for very basic, common, general options, but instead more suited to the
"Content" section & Places.
6. Tools Menu > Javascript console, Dom Inspector, and Page info
Not something the majority of internet users currently, or need to
worry about, thus is un-necessary clutter in this most commonly used
dropdown menu for users for necessary, regular, useful functions. Need
to look at ways to hide, or cater for elsewhere in the browser,
less prominently and putting off users with clutter and things they
dont know what they are, or need to.
7. Tabs
Tools > Options > Tabs "Open links that would open new windows in:" is
a confusing and misleading desciption for dealing with pages. This
description is not obvious, and will even become obsolete as virtually
all browser inc; IE use Tabs by default for pages, not windows. So
they are not as far as the user is concerned links that would open new
windows really. This should be more appropriately titled something
like "Open new web page links in". "Hide the tab bar when only one web
site is open" is largely most
beneficial if a "open new Tab" button is catered for on the tab bar
obviously to the user as the whole bar for tab related items, much like
in IE7. This new tab button on the tab bar, much in the same way as
IE7 right of the current tab, is infact an important, logical and
fundamental to an easy to understand/use tab browser. Additional basic
tab options like Opening order, and the tab close
button should be catered for here also, and there is plently of room
for these basic tab handling options.
For large amounts of tabs, Scrollable tabs are far better in terms of
interface, space usage, understanding logically the order of tabs for
users, and more. Tabs being default for browsing and rightly so,
improvements need to be made in this area. Users now expect tabs, and
not a confusing mixture of tabs and windows. Firefox has far too many
uses of windows for internal dialogue boxes, options and more, plus
still pages, links, pop ups, and more. Opera and IE7 are far ahead in
terms of logically using tabs as the overally way for dealing with
pages as a whole, extremely rarely confusing the user with a mixture of
both, and windows popping up. This needs to be true of Firefox,
configured as such in options relative to this, and tweaked as such,
for the same seamless, logical, space/memory savings to be true of
Firefox, as per with other browsers. Tab options found in "Advanced"
should appear in the Tab section. They are not overly advanced
options, and it confused the user, makes it more difficult to find
options, and get an overall idea of options for an area such as tabs,
by seperating in this way. Tabs section is very bare and has room for
these options. If needs be an "Advanced" button can be provided in the
Tabs section where they'd expect to find and change ALL options
relating to tabs. This can also be said for the other sections within
advanced, an "Advanced" button could be provided for many/all of the
sections, in there home section, such as General.
8. Back & Forwards joint history
Research shows the forward button is increasingly not used by the
majority of users, and most cant quite grasp when an item is in
forwards versus back causing confusion and a lack of use. IE7's joint
list of back/forward pages in a dropdown is a vast improvement, showing
recently viewed pages in a logical format of forward versus back, the
user can understand, and use easily all in one, without much or any
need for thought/effort. This like most of the points raised in the
post is being looked at. Currently it is available as an extension;
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=389946&highlight=
which is quite nicely implemented. Improvements to it exist not
bundling the back, forwards, and recent history dropdown list as on
item, enabling users to rid of any one of them, move them around etc,
as per consistent with the UI customisation. Users should also be able
to choose just the dropdown menu and be able to move it where they
like, meaning no requirement for an individual back or forwards. The
back and forward buttons should remain the same size as other buttons.
The recent history or rather joint back/forwards dropdown should not be
where the forward dropdown currently is, as users will think they have
lost the back dropdown list, and the forwards one just remains, as if
the forwards dropdown was there before, surely thats what is still
there. It should be in between the back and forwards button not
suggesting its a dropdown only for the forwards button but for both
forward & back.
9. Downloads
"Save to Disk" for opening/download a file could be better named for
user understanding. Many novice users do not actually know what "Disk"
really means, and some even presume a CD, which is in there world more
referred to as Disk, then the Hard Disk.
"Save to Desktop" is clearer to the user, just right of this there
should be a "Other" link/button so a user does have the choice to (even
if once in a blue moon) to save a file elsewhere on the computer. This
improves clearness, understanding, and functionality as many users whom
usually download to the desktop, still occasionally wish to save a file
elsewhere, but are not given this option without messing around with
the file afterwards, or going into options at least twice, both of
which un-necessary tasks. This small addition means this is greatly
improved, its clearer where files will be saved to, and users can
occasionally save elsewhere when need be.
As for the download folder option in Options, this can be alltogether
removed as something the user need not worry about, as they can always
choose where to save a file within the download dialogue box with
little to no con to this. With one click of a button within this
window, a user can open, save to desktop, or elsewhere on the computer.
10. Profile Manager
Long been said not to appear in the start menu folder for Firefox, but
long now been a cause for confusion, and more work by users to
understand, remedy, use, change options relating to profiles.
Thunderbird lists the Profile Manager, Firefox should too. Although
needed slightly less often, it still is a common thing novice users
need quick easy access to, regarding bookmarks, personal date,
troubleshooting and more. Forcing users to use the command line for
such a basic thing as they're browsing profile which can resolve many
issues, queries and more, is un-necessarily, and causes more harm and
confusion than good. Theres no reason larger then this to keep it out,
it only makes things more complex and scary to users whom want to start
new profiles for various reasons such as troubleshooting, something
going wrong with theyre Firefox, backing up theyre profile and more.
Its not an advanced thing to be hidden from users in this way, and only
having it accessed outside of any UI and only in the command line makes
it seem it is, and something very advanced, scary.
Summary
All these points, cases, proposals, outlines of factors have been in
consideration of much information on the web, mozilla wiki, newsgroups,
google groups debates on proposals on the UI, and more. I've taken
into account several points made in previous debates, and several
comments made on the previous topic on this area. I see the above 10
as the best, most simple, intuitive, clutter free, efficient, easy
interface for the majority of users, maximising website, minimising
browser, as per IE7, Opera and others are well ahead in sadly, despite
Firefox claiming to be a simple, straight forward, light weight easy to
use browser. That needs to come first, as part of having a simple,
straight forward browser, putting the majority of users first based on
facts, research, information, suggestions on the part of staff, those
in the community, common sense, comparing to other browsers, software,
and I see as a good common ground for de-cluttering and simplifying the
Firefox interface.
I sincerely hope therefore based on everything that it will not recieve
negative un constructive comments based on persons disagreeing and
exaggerating cons, because all has been considered, and its about
having the simplest, most effieicent easy browser for the majority, you
cant suite 100%. So if you disagree with some points, hey fine but
dont claim that to be not only your preference but the preference of
many. Some of the points may not even be to my preference as over the
years I've become a slightly more advanced browser user, but its about
suiting the majority, of which are novice, not individuals, theyre
individual preferences and stating that for all users. So lets please
work towards the simplest, most intuitive, un cluttered with the most
toolbars and buttons interface browser, and not showing information
only the minority use whilst not then suiting the majority, whom
Firefox is supposed to put first and make browsing easy for. Thats my
passion, thats what many other browsers sadly are succeeding in far
more than Firefox despite it supposed to be the most light weight, un
cluttered, easy to use browser, thats make that true again. Many
thanks.
Myk Melez
> This post is regarding improving, de-cluttering, and simplifying the
> Firefox UI,
Brian,
Improving the Firefox UI is a laudable goal, and we share it with you.
We too want to make Firefox better for the average user, even when we
disagree about what that means.
Although I understand that you're passionate about these issues, I think
your posts would be more productive if you presented them differently in
the following ways:
1. Start a separate thread on each issue. It's difficult to follow and
participate in a thread containing many distinct suggestions, even if
they all have a similar broad goal.
2. Be succinct. Folks here are busy, and the more we have to read, the
harder it is for us to read and respond to it.
3. For issues already raised, discussed, and decided upon, only raise
the issue again if there are significant new facts that would reasonably
require reconsideration of the decision. Revisiting decisions has
significant opportunity cost, and it's not always better than letting
them rest (at least until the next release and fresh insight/data).
-myk
BryanS...@gmail.com
different posts I saw as making it more complex, spread out and
seperate, allbe 10 points turning out to be quite a long post. However
its a large topic with a lot of past proposals, debates, and things to
consider, and its a very important issue for Firefox. It's done now,
with a lot of work and research, debates, proposals and more
considered, and it some ways it is better its under one roof, easier to
grasp, bring together and percieve because some are connected.
All I ask is that the points with the weighing up of pros and cons, and
some new ideas to improve further, are read and considered fully
because there important points fundamental to a simple to use
uncluttered browser for users, which as we know is crucial to any
browser, especially Firefox. With the most toolbars and information in
the interface compared with other browsers, improvements such as these
are seriously needed to make that true again, and ensure that the
default setup shows only what they use to any large degree, and need to
worry about in the interface. Thats suiting all users, its suiting the
majority and putting them first like Fx generally aims to do suiting
and simplifying for the majority. Thanks.
Greg Campbell
> 9. Downloads
> "Save to Disk" for opening/download a file could be better named for
> user understanding. Many novice users do not actually know what "Disk"
> really means, and some even presume a CD, which is in there world more
> referred to as Disk, then the Hard Disk.
This REALLY is a bug. Even my fairly-tech-savvy wife doesn't get this:
"But I don't want to save it on a disk."
To most users, "disk" means something than can be easily inserted and
removed from the computer. Most likely, a floppy disk (a CD is a CD).
This string really should be combined with the chosen folder in the
download options. For most, it would say "Save to Desktop." For those
who have chosen a custom folder it might say "Save to My Downloaded
Files." For those who chose "Ask me where to save every file" it should
say "Save to..." since it will bring up more options.
Greg
BryanS...@gmail.com
This is what I've witnessed many confused by, even by reasonably tech
savvy people like you say. Your right it is a bug really. Like I
said, the term "disk" is immediately connected with a portable disk
such as a CD by most people, and the majority of people need to be
clear as to what such a simple dialogue box means.
Changing it to "Save to Desktop" as I proposed as do you, would be
clearest and remain default. This makes it clear to users the file
will not be saved not to a CD or something equally as confusing, but to
theyre standard, straight forward, easy to understand commonplace
desktop by default.
Users should also not be forced to go into options to be able to save a
file elsewhere, even if only once in a blue moon, it should always be
possible within the download dialogue box as per other browsers, not
forcing the user to go into options (many wont) or manually move the
file (much more of a task).
A subtle button/blue link "Browse" should appear just right of desktop
to enable the selecting of another destination. There's other ways to
enable this also but this seems the simplest, most harmless, beneficial
way and should be implemented to not force users into doing things in a
more complex way, even if a user only saves elsewhere once in a while
and desktop being default is still suitable.
Gervase Markham
...and you still haven't got the hang of "be succinct" :-)
Gerv
Splibbilla
news:1151448180.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
?? opera creates separate textboxes for each search engine. customizing toolbars is less
than clear, and some items cannot be "moved" while others can. opera is least efficient as
far as i can see. (opera9 is better imo)
ie6 is rather good because you can tag toolbars to the tail of other toolbars, including the
main menu bar. and in the toolbar toolbar (what to call it?) you can rearrange the left-right
order of buttons.
i haven't tried ie7 because of the uninstall rigaramole. and, i've read it can mess ie6. and
ms loves to mix browser with os, so if ie7 beta gets in trouble, will it take out the os too???
ideally all bars and items locations would be fully flexible.
eg, i could move my bookmarklets folder to another bar (as you can move command
buttons to the bookmarks toolbar)
perhaps a separately run (as spellcheck seems to be?) userchrome "editor" can assign
any browser command to an icon, text, or both.
>IE7 in particular has shown it is willing to be very
> creative with the interface in terms of what the average user whom is
> novice, really does use, really does need, and really does need to
> have in there view of the browser and web. This creativity with
> simplifying the browser interface sadly seems to be at a vastly
> slower, and unwilling pace with Firefox, largely due to wider openness
> on debating changes, and there far more likelyhood of at least a few
> disagreeing, and emphasising cons, and that sadly being taken as
> enough to call it off. This is despite the fact theres always going
> to be cons, its about weighing them against the pro's for the majority
> of web users, minimising them, and taking brave decisions to implement
> based on maximising the benefits for the majority of users, making it
> worthwhile and beneficial overall.
>
> I've given some careful thought to some of the comment on a few of the
> points. I've done even more research, read most previous debates on
> the issues if I had already missed a couple. Its reformed my view a
> little on a couple of points, but however, not to any huge degree.
> This reason being is why, and I'm sorry for my brutal honesty, is that
> I still feel very good proposals were put forwards for de-cluttering
> the interface on the Mozilla wiki;
> http://wiki.mozilla.org/FX2_Visual_Update/User_Interface_Design,
mockups
yipes! ascii "mockup?"
maybe create a mockup using an html page editor? color the toolbars. use some folder
icons (img src). use a few generic icons for new icons that can't be borrowed from firefox
files. but can also put their label in img's title.
icon of lightning bolt and title="This button electrocutes the user", for example. (but title
requires mouse hover to read - a disadvantage. however the real browser buttons have
tooltips already, so quite similar.)
arrows callouts, labels. hmm, i think those are not so easily placed in html editor.
perhaps save a screenshot of the html mockup, then add labeling with faststone, irfanview,
or similar simple image editor.
[versus, those spellcheckers!]
seems true. however should "powerusers" be given additional "voting weight" by
proportional usage? but then can't they fend for themselves (using ui options to show
statusbar)
>I refer to Gervase Markhams comments on the matter
> from a previous debate here;
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/browse_frm/thre
> ad/6947a05fed1e088c/73c66a86dd3cf11d?tvc=1&hl=en#73c66a86dd3cf11d
>
>"The status bar display of URLs is not going to be a significant tool
>in
> protecting users from phishing. 99.9% of users don't look at it, and
> of those that do, most probably don't carefully parse the URL (as
> would be necessary for a look-alike phishing URL)."
true, but if uing proxomitron or similar to snuff statusbar tricks, i like to see if links are
redirect links. statusbar can quickly show (or confirm the visual intuition) whether i'm on a
junk page.
> This is directly linked with the need for the status bar being on by
> default for all users, when only a minority actually use it, meaning
> its un-necessary clutter for the majority.
btw, the progressbar p##es off people when it appears to finish, yet the page never
appears. of course, this is not a ui problem :-)
>Firefox is intended to
> suite the majority of web users, of whom are novice, and of whom do
> not for the most part use the statusbar, benefit from it. So, its an
> overwhelming valid point and case, as to not having the status bar on
> by default based on these fundamental points. Suite the majority
> maximising the best for the most, leaving the minority who wish for
> another way to be able to change as they wish. If really deemed
> necessary, then like Opera, upon hovering over a link fo a certain
> amount of time (perhaps make it longer than with Opera) show a tooltip
> with the link url so the user can see it in the same area and its more
> logical, plus whether it will open in a new tab/window or current one.
> As for page resizing, I see this as per phishing where I agree with
> Gervase Markham, its somewhat seperate, and isnt as yet as implemented
> as best as possible. It should again be treated seperately. Opera's
> page button and toolbar at the top of the window. This should deal
> with all page related matters such as zooming, dealing with images,
> searching and any more necessary. A Page button linking to this
> toolbar is needed in the dropdown in view, or in the UI similar to
> where Opera places it (thus more obvious and intuitive to users).
(what is a "page button"?)
> This then sections this area quite nicely for the user to grasp and
> use (know where to find things like this > in the relevent section not
> several)and doesnt foce one or all of its features, which shouldnt be
> the case as many choose not to use one, or all of the functions.
>
> 2. Go/Stop/Reload button
>
> After careful consideration of many points in debates all over the
> place, I see the most valid point being with the Opera implementation
> of joining Stop/Reload, because allbeit very rare, and it really is, a
> user could mean to stop but get reload. I still however think that
> realistically as someone that uses the Stop/Reload button for Firefox,
> that its such a rare scenario especially for the average user. These
> buttons in any case are not used much by most users, and in any case,
> users accidentally hit some buttons, menial things like this that are
> rare, are also quickly resolveable by repeating the process in
> seconds, which regardless, users often do no matter the
> implementation. With stop and reload seperate, it requires more
> effort and mouse work, thus many click the stop meaning to hit reload
> anyway due to this, infact in my experience this infact happens more
> often compared with if they were joined. I do think a joint
> Go/Stop/Reload button therefore would work out best all round,
i don't think reload can be combined with Go, becaues which action occurs if you paste
or type into the urlbar, then click hte button? i guess if you changed your mind about Go,
and wanted Reload, you'd have to Undo your paste or typing before clicking the button
(final intention being Reload).
>and
> especially for the majority of users whom for the most part dont use
> these loading functions, largely because theres so many confusing
> buttons for such simple things. Again, its a case of the benefits far
> out weighing the cons.
and this button can serve as throbber.
> One very good simple intuitive way to implement the favoured Go/Reload
> button like in IE7, which also solves the minor cons of a changing
> name, would be to just have a universal loading button for both these
> actions called "Load" This is far more straighforward, more people
> understand Load better than reload or go in any case. With "Go" well
> where does it go the user says, is it connected with the "Go" in the
> file edit menu and my history? When a novice user does reload (not
> often) its often d to a page not actually loading in the first place,
> so the term "Reload" when it never really loaded in the first place,
> is also slightly confusing. These are are more likely mis
> interpretations and confusions caused as of now, and in the longterm.
> One universal Load button for loading, intuitively caled "Load" is far
> more understandable, logical, easy to grasp, use, and takes out a lot
> of un-necessary clutter and complexity compared with present. As per
> paragraph one above on this, I also still feel "Stop" should be
> encorporated here, purely because it really is an all in one load
> button then, the only load related button a user need worry about,
> (and arguably should be the load button for the search bar when that
> fields selected. Again for the same reaosns that the benefits of an
> all in one button meanding no other buttons of clutter and complexity
> there, and only one loading button needed to look at and use.
> Regardless the Go/Reload or rather "Load" button should be where the
> Go button is at present (as per IE7) with the Stop button encorporated
> too, or to the right of "Load" again as per IE7.
i suppose some of these could be determined by choice of right or left click, but here's
when ff loses Grandma users. :-\
> 3. Bookmarks Toolbar
>
>>From the Mozilla community wiki entry for Places:
>>http://wiki.mozilla.org/Places#Background
>
>"Studies from the late 1990s show that while revisitations of pages
> previously seen counted for roughly 39% of all page navigations (see
> Google Scholar), Bookmarks and History usage was low (1-3%), despite
> the fact that roughly 20% of those revisitations were to pages seen >
> 10 URLs ago (and thus outside the usefulness range of the Back button
> or menu)."
>
> With the above considered and if anything it is likely due to trends
> continuing, more emphasis on searching the improving search engines to
> find sites users want, that even less than the proposed %'s use
> bookmarks. However, it is safe to say that users using bookmarks are
> a minority, and those not using bookmarks much or at all are in a
> majority. Firefox is intended to suite the majority of internet users
> of whom are novice with a simple, easy to use interface. Of the
> minority whom to any great degree use Bookmarks, of this figure, how
> many use the actual bookmarks toolbar, this minority figure then
> shrinks further still.
people are bipolar about bookmarks/faves. they want to "save everything, just in case", but
soon clutter their regularly visited bookmarks.
is there a way to search bookmarks first, then transfer the search to search engine? is that
what ms didn't realize they've wanted to do with win's "search assistant"? (i doubt very
many people use the "search internet" or "search people" options of win's find)
ideally "someone" will improve life for us people who do this to ourselves :-)
> The bookmarks toolbar is not shown by default in IE6, IE7, Opera and
> others, Bookmarks are used by a minority, and that minority even then
> benefit little from an entire space using toolbar meaning bookmarks
> are very public in the UI, and merely just pressable with one less
> click. This is a menial benefit for the majority whom use bookmarks,
> but un-necessary clutter, less website, more buttons, complexity, and
> things to worry about in the interface for the majority.
>
> It is toally within reason then, and logical then if Firefox really
> does intend to suite the majority with the simplest interface and
> browser, that the Bookmarks toolbar should not be shown by default to
> ALL users, of whom a majority dont use it or benefit from it, and a
> minority benefit little. It is not an essential item, it is not used
> by the majority, do not force it upon users un-necessarily causing a
> more cluttered, space using, complicated interface, and provide choice
> to the minority whom wish to change or continue using something the
> majority do not.
ok, right click > checkmark bookmark toolbar. if desired. easy
hmm.. right click history > choose sort type.
then traverse history tree structure? similar to traverse bookmarks or menus?
otherwise compare history to bookmarks:
both bookmarks and history contain huge number of items. though, presumably a higher %
of bookmarks are desirable.
> 4. Tools > Add-ons
> Should show and cater for all 4 types of add-ons, as per users see at
> the add-ons site itself, the 2 remaining addons being;
> Web Plugins, and Search Engines. Otherwise it contradicts and
> confuses as to what are addons, users dont know where to manage some,
> where not to for others, rather than being able to fully manage all
> addons as expected in the Addons Manager.
yeah
or is searchplugins and plugins a confusing similarity of names? content "plugins" aren't
functionally similar to "searchplugin" website search textboxes.
> 5. Options > General > Feed Handler
> Not something the majority of internet users currently or need to
> worry about using, feed handling is still very new, feed handlers is
> something the majority of users do not know about, and for the ones
> who do, most at best only understand Firefox handling them. Using a
> seperate application applies to a minority, thus is clutter and not
> warranted to be in the very prominent General section in Options meant
> for very basic, common, general options, but instead more suited to
> the
>"Content" section & Places.
ok, reorganize options.
> 6. Tools Menu > Javascript console, Dom Inspector, and Page info
> Not something the majority of internet users currently, or need to
> worry about, thus is un-necessary clutter in this most commonly used
> dropdown menu for users for necessary, regular, useful functions. Need
> to look at ways to hide, or cater for elsewhere in the browser,
> less prominently and putting off users with clutter and things they
> dont know what they are, or need to.
Dom Inspector shows only if installed optionally during intsall process?
these are in tools menu. seems appropriate to me.
grandma users use very little of the main (text) menus.
> 7. Tabs
> Tools > Options > Tabs "Open links that would open new windows in:" is
> a confusing and misleading desciption for dealing with pages. This
> description is not obvious, and will even become obsolete as virtually
> all browser inc; IE use Tabs by default for pages, not windows. So
> they are not as far as the user is concerned links that would open new
> windows really. This should be more appropriately titled something
> like "Open new web page links in". "Hide the tab bar when only one web
> site is open" is largely most
> beneficial if a "open new Tab" button is catered for on the tab bar
> obviously to the user as the whole bar for tab related items, much
> like in IE7. This new tab button on the tab bar, much in the same way
> as IE7 right of the current tab, is infact an important, logical and
> fundamental to an easy to understand/use tab browser. Additional basic
> tab options like Opening order, and the tab close
> button should be catered for here also, and there is plently of room
> for these basic tab handling options.
visual differences are difficult to describe by only text. so, maybe imitate the practice of
providing small images to show the option chosen.
> For large amounts of tabs, Scrollable tabs are far better in terms of
> interface, space usage, understanding logically the order of tabs for
> users, and more. Tabs being default for browsing and rightly so,
> improvements need to be made in this area. Users now expect tabs, and
> not a confusing mixture of tabs and windows.
need a way to "demote" windows. "tabs rool" by default.
(but, let user change this "default" if desired?)
>Firefox has far too many
> uses of windows for internal dialogue boxes, options and more, plus
> still pages, links, pop ups, and more. Opera and IE7 are far ahead in
> terms of logically using tabs as the overally way for dealing with
> pages as a whole, extremely rarely confusing the user with a mixture
> of both, and windows popping up. This needs to be true of Firefox,
> configured as such in options relative to this, and tweaked as such,
> for the same seamless, logical, space/memory savings to be true of
> Firefox, as per with other browsers. Tab options found in "Advanced"
> should appear in the Tab section. They are not overly advanced
> options, and it confused the user, makes it more difficult to find
> options, and get an overall idea of options for an area such as tabs,
> by seperating in this way. Tabs section is very bare and has room for
> these options. If needs be an "Advanced" button can be provided in
> the Tabs section where they'd expect to find and change ALL options
> relating to tabs.
yeah, encourage user to explore advanced options. put advancd functions in category
rather than dumping categories in an "advanced" ui.
sometimes settings or options may ap;ly to more than one category.
and sometimes (avoid this!) software dialogs allow settings changes in different locations -
annoying because the two locations are *not independent of the other*. (example: autocad
dimension dialog. values in one tab ricochet to value in another tab. and vice-versa. it's very
annoying to slowly discover this.)
>This can also be said for the other sections within
> advanced, an "Advanced" button could be provided for many/all of the
> sections, in there home section, such as General.
>
> 8. Back & Forwards joint history
>
> Research shows the forward button is increasingly not used by the
> majority of users, and most cant quite grasp when an item is in
> forwards versus back causing confusion and a lack of use. IE7's joint
> list of back/forward pages in a dropdown is a vast improvement,
> showing recently viewed pages in a logical format of forward versus
> back, the user can understand, and use easily all in one, without much
> or any need for thought/effort. This like most of the points raised
> in the post is being looked at. Currently it is available as an
> extension;
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=389946&highlight=
> which is quite nicely implemented. Improvements to it exist not
> bundling the back, forwards, and recent history dropdown list as on
> item, enabling users to rid of any one of them, move them around etc,
> as per consistent with the UI customisation.
i didn'tcheck that url, but maybe the forward list could flow out in diferent direction than
back/history flows?
could it be useful to consider fwd/back as a special type of sort of history (tab and
sequence dependent)
> Users should also be
> able to choose just the dropdown menu and be able to move it where
> they like, meaning no requirement for an individual back or forwards.
> The back and forward buttons should remain the same size as other
> buttons. The recent history or rather joint back/forwards dropdown
> should not be where the forward dropdown currently is, as users will
> think they have lost the back dropdown list, and the forwards one just
> remains, as if the forwards dropdown was there before, surely thats
> what is still there. It should be in between the back and forwards
> button not suggesting its a dropdown only for the forwards button but
> for both forward & back.
should individual history or bookmark urls (easily) become toolbar buttons, if user
customizes them?
didn't moz suite have a profiles command (switch profile?) in a pulldown (text) menu?
put it in tools or windows type menu.
or in "file" menu (similar to "logoff profile")?
> Summary
>
> All these points, cases, proposals, outlines of factors have been in
> consideration of much information on the web, mozilla wiki,
> newsgroups, google groups debates on proposals on the UI, and more.
> I've taken into account several points made in previous debates, and
> several comments made on the previous topic on this area. I see the
> above 10 as the best, most simple, intuitive, clutter free, efficient,
> easy interface for the majority of users, maximising website,
> minimising browser, as per IE7, Opera and others are well ahead in
> sadly, despite Firefox claiming to be a simple, straight forward,
> light weight easy to use browser. That needs to come first, as part
> of having a simple, straight forward browser, putting the majority of
> users first based on facts, research, information, suggestions on the
> part of staff, those in the community, common sense, comparing to
> other browsers, software, and I see as a good common ground for
> de-cluttering and simplifying the Firefox interface.
ff is most usable, imo. pehaps ie7 will be competitive. hopefully opera will continue to fix
their cumbersome aspects.
> I sincerely hope therefore based on everything that it will not
> recieve negative un constructive comments based on persons disagreeing
> and exaggerating cons, because all has been considered, and its about
> having the simplest, most effieicent easy browser for the majority,
> you cant suite 100%. So if you disagree with some points, hey fine
> but dont claim that to be not only your preference but the preference
> of many. Some of the points may not even be to my preference as over
> the years I've become a slightly more advanced browser user, but its
> about suiting the majority, of which are novice, not individuals,
> theyre individual preferences and stating that for all users. So lets
> please work towards the simplest, most intuitive, un cluttered with
> the most toolbars and buttons interface browser, and not showing
> information only the minority use whilst not then suiting the
> majority, whom Firefox is supposed to put first and make browsing easy
> for. Thats my passion, thats what many other browsers sadly are
> succeeding in far more than Firefox despite it supposed to be the most
> light weight, un cluttered, easy to use browser, thats make that true
> again. Many thanks.
i still think the quickest for users is to choose default level: "beginner", "intermediate", or
"experienced" UI. other ware, such as spybots&d, do this.
reminds me: much software provides a "return to defaults" button. this button shuold
convert to "return to last customizations" after clicking return to defaults. (button should
toggle)
Splibbilla
news:1151616429.7...@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:
"save to this computer"
btw, irfanviews "copy" or "move" to dialog is unique :-)
and fastmail's move-checked-message-to-choesn-folder UI is unusual (to me)
> Users should also not be forced to go into options to be able to save
> a file elsewhere, even if only once in a blue moon, it should always
> be possible within the download dialogue box as per other browsers,
> not forcing the user to go into options (many wont) or manually move
> the file (much more of a task).
>
> A subtle button/blue link "Browse" should appear just right of desktop
> to enable the selecting of another destination. There's other ways to
> enable this also but this seems the simplest, most harmless,
> beneficial way and should be implemented to not force users into doing
> things in a more complex way, even if a user only saves elsewhere once
> in a while and desktop being default is still suitable.
more clutter, but the "save to" dialog could provide the oft-seen "make this choice
permanent" next to folder chice? (such as in the cookie request popup. or the "leaving
secure page" popup.)