Back to the "old look" option
Sarah Cain
switch back to the old look of Firefox (3.6) easily? I know that there
are lots of people who are not fans of the new Chrome-like interface,
and use Firefox /because/ it is different. I'd appreciate any response
to this.
Thanks,
Sarah
Ron Hunter
Look for themes that deliver the appearance you want. FF3 theme for FF4
does a great job for FF4, but doesn't work properly for FF5 or FF6 beta.
I hope it is updated soon. Meanwhile, I am using Microfox, which
isn't nearly as 'polished' a theme, but does get rid of most of the Aero
Glass that makes things hard to read.
Tony Mechelynck
Depending on what you call "the old look", the option might already be
there. As has been said, there are a lot of themes, and if you mean move
the tabs down where they used to be, and get the menu bar back, that's
in Firefox → Preferences → [ ] Tabs on Top and → [ ] Menu Bar.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
All the taxes paid over a lifetime by the average American are spent by
the government in less than a second.
-- Jim Fiebig
JohnQPublic
news:iMednfuBbY-qHYTT...@mozilla.org...
Sarah, I doubt that there are any such plans (haven't heard of any), but
maybe there will be if you and I and others keep asking proper questions in
the right places.
Ron, the Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4+ 1.3.3 works fine with my
FF5_portable, for my purposes:
http://ffaddons.game-point.net/ff3ff4/
The changelog says there's a 1.4.0 version, presumably later, but I'm unable
to find it for download (yet).
However that is only a partial fix. FF5 makes quite a few other design and
theme changes from FF3.6x, for example getting rid of the status bar, how
the add-on manager looks and works, etc. I imagine that's what OP is hoping
for, and I as well. It would be analogous to Windows XP, where you can keep
the defaults or revert to the Classic Start menu which looks and works like
former versions of windows. That sort of thing would be ideal for Firefox
too -- where the FF3.6.18 default design & theme would be defined as the
Classic Firefox view. I'm sure that if this were implemented the popularity
of Firefox would rebound from its current slump and decline because all
established users could keep what they're most familiar with in a GUI.
Using extensions/themes is only a temporary solution, not a long term one,
because every new version of FF breaks some of the old ones. FF5 breaks a
lot, FF6 will break a lot more soon, etc.
--
J.Q.P.
(FF3.6.18 default browser, customized FF5.0_portable with FF3+ theme,
Chrome12_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron12_portable, Maxthon3_portable,
Seamonkey2.2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default mail/news, XP Home SP3)
Asa Dotzler
JohnQPublic wrote:
> "Ron Hunter"<rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:iMednfuBbY-qHYTT...@mozilla.org...
>> On 7/10/2011 5:21 AM, Sarah Cain wrote:
>>> Are there any plans to add an option to Firefox in which people can
>>> switch back to the old look of Firefox (3.6) easily? I know that there
>>> are lots of people who are not fans of the new Chrome-like interface,
>>> and use Firefox /because/ it is different. I'd appreciate any response
>>> to this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sarah
>> Look for themes that deliver the appearance you want. FF3 theme for FF4
>> does a great job for FF4, but doesn't work properly for FF5 or FF6 beta. I
>> hope it is updated soon. Meanwhile, I am using Microfox, which isn't
>> nearly as 'polished' a theme, but does get rid of most of the Aero Glass
>> that makes things hard to read.
>
> Sarah, I doubt that there are any such plans (haven't heard of any), but
> maybe there will be if you and I and others keep asking proper questions in
> the right places.
You are correct that there are no plans. Each new release is going to
evolve some parts of the interface and maintaining every previous look
as an option is just not feasible.
Even just maintaining a couple of "classic" options would become
impossible after a few Firefox updates because we're not just changing
the look but re-organizing, re-designing, and even removing features or
feature access points.
So, this isn't analogous to maintaining something like the "Classic"
theme for Windows. That's a theme change that is pretty much only about
icons, borders, padding, fonts, gradients, and colors. If Window's UI
made radical changes each release, either the Classic mode wouldn't
exist or it wouldn't help the folks that want the old look and feel back.
- A
JohnQPublic
news:4E1A8B77...@mozilla.com...
>> JohnQPublic wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2011 5:21 AM, Sarah Cain wrote:
>>>> Are there any plans to add an option to Firefox in which people can
>>>> switch back to the old look of Firefox (3.6) easily? I know that there
>>>> are lots of people who are not fans of the new Chrome-like interface,
>>>> and use Firefox /because/ it is different. I'd appreciate any response
>>>> to this.
>>
>> maybe there will be if you and I and others keep asking proper questions
>> in
>> the right places.
>
> You are correct that there are no plans.
Well, I'll keep asking, and encourage Sarah and others to do likewise.
Ron Hunter
> Classic Firefox view. I'm sure that if this were implemented the popularity
> of Firefox would rebound from its current slump and decline because all
> established users could keep what they're most familiar with in a GUI.
>
> Using extensions/themes is only a temporary solution, not a long term one,
> because every new version of FF breaks some of the old ones. FF5 breaks a
> lot, FF6 will break a lot more soon, etc.
At the moment, I am using FF6 beta. I breaks nothing here. The
breakage from 4 to 5, on my system, was limited to a rather obscure
problem with the FF3 for FF4 theme. When displaying PDF files within a
FF window, the text and images are 'transparent', which is to say that
the wallpaper shows through, making it rather hard to read text, and
impossible to see images. This affects both Adobe Reader and Foxit
Reader. FF6 exhibits the same problem. Users who don't use these
readers to read PDF files in FF windows will never see it.
Returning the 'status bar' was one of the first things I changed, and
the 'fix' has worked through subsequent versions, through the current
FF7 alpha version (Aurora).
The fact that Google Chrome continues to garner increasing market share,
primarily at the expense of IE, argues against your point about the
current FF theme not being popular with users, as it is so similar to
the GC theme that I have to look carefully to tell which one I am using.
RamonS
Throwing my five cents in here and I appreciate not to be alone in
this request.
On Jul 11, 1:34 am, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.com> wrote/quoted:
> > Sarah, I doubt that there are any such plans (haven't heard of any), but
> > maybe there will be if you and I and others keep asking proper questions in
> > the right places.
Where would the right places be? Is there a direct, public contact to
the UX team?
> You are correct that there are no plans. Each new release is going to
> evolve some parts of the interface and maintaining every previous look
> as an option is just not feasible.
FF4 and on have devolved in this regards. Honestly, the UI is horrible
compared to FF3.x and turning back on what is missing by default is
only patching the problem so far. There was absolutely nothing wrong
with the FF3 UI and the best thing about it was that it did not look
like Chrome. IF FF users would be interested in a browser that looks
and works like Chrome they'd use Chrome rather than wait for the FF
devs to make a perfect clone.
> Even just maintaining a couple of "classic" options would become
> impossible after a few Firefox updates because we're not just changing
> the look but re-organizing, re-designing, and even removing features or
> feature access points.
Who decides that? The developers or the FF users? This discussion
would be on a much better level if we, the users, knew how the FF team
comes to its conclusions, for example, why switch to tab was a feature
to add when in fact it is for many an annoyance. Same applies to the
lack of having a UI by default. I can't think of any reason why this
is a good idea, but maybe there are some.
> So, this isn't analogous to maintaining something like the "Classic"
> theme for Windows. That's a theme change that is pretty much only about
> icons, borders, padding, fonts, gradients, and colors. If Window's UI
> made radical changes each release, either the Classic mode wouldn't
> exist or it wouldn't help the folks that want the old look and feel back.
True, what Microsoft sells as "Classic" these days has nothing to do
with the old, functional, easy to comprehend Windows UI. My impression
was always that the FF team and Mozilla as a whole can do better, but
maybe that morphs into a myth now. Overall, very disappointing on way
too many levels.
- Dave
Robert Kaiser
> Even just maintaining a couple of "classic" options would become
> impossible after a few Firefox updates because we're not just changing
> the look but re-organizing, re-designing, and even removing features or
> feature access points.
Still, we offer something that is very similar to 3.6 just by doing a
few customization steps to 4.0 or 5.0 - not theme-wise, but
functionality-wise at least. And there has been that idea of possibly
giving those reluctant to upgrade for the UI changes an upgrade to a
variant with those customizations set - at least once we have done a few
offerings of "major updates" to 3.6 users (it's bad enough IMHO that we
have only done one such offer so far).
We also need to be more aggressive on pointing people who shout about
those disruptive UI changes to articles like
http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize-firefox-4s-ui/ -
it's better to get people to the new releases with some customizations
than to leave them stuck with old versions like 3.6 or even older. Aside
from that, promoting customizability means promoting one thing Firefox
has that other competitors don't. ;-)
Robert Kaiser
--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
B.J. Herbison
>
> FF4 and on have devolved in this regards. Honestly, the UI is horrible
> compared to FF3.x and turning back on what is missing by default is
> only patching the problem so far.
Do you have any hard evidence, any usability studies, to back up this opinion?
My personal opinion is that the changes made in Firefox 4 were overall an improvement. I need to make fewer customizations to newer versions of Firefox than to 3.6 and earlier.
I don't agree with everything the Mozilla UI designers have done (as can be seen from some of my bug reports and comment in bugzilla), but they are experts, they see all the feedback Mozilla gets from users, they have reasons for their changes, and they often have UI studies to back up the changes.
Almost any change will cause someone to object, but that doesn't mean the change is bad.
Martijn
> FF4 and on have devolved in this regards. Honestly, the UI is horrible
> compared to FF3.x and turning back on what is missing by default is
> only patching the problem so far. There was absolutely nothing wrong
> with the FF3 UI and the best thing about it was that it did not look
> like Chrome. IF FF users would be interested in a browser that looks
> and works like Chrome they'd use Chrome rather than wait for the FF
> devs to make a perfect clone.
I'm a fan of the older look and UI myself, but it's quite easy to
achieve most of what I want by changing stuff that is in there by
default.
> Who decides that? The developers or the FF users? This discussion
> would be on a much better level if we, the users, knew how the FF team
> comes to its conclusions, for example, why switch to tab was a feature
> to add when in fact it is for many an annoyance. Same applies to the
> lack of having a UI by default. I can't think of any reason why this
> is a good idea, but maybe there are some.
To not get open duplicate tabs? To quickly switch to an already open tab?
I don't use this feature myself, but I can see why it was added, though.
Regards,
Martijn
>> So, this isn't analogous to maintaining something like the "Classic"
>> theme for Windows. That's a theme change that is pretty much only about
>> icons, borders, padding, fonts, gradients, and colors. If Window's UI
>> made radical changes each release, either the Classic mode wouldn't
>> exist or it wouldn't help the folks that want the old look and feel back.
>
> True, what Microsoft sells as "Classic" these days has nothing to do
> with the old, functional, easy to comprehend Windows UI. My impression
> was always that the FF team and Mozilla as a whole can do better, but
> maybe that morphs into a myth now. Overall, very disappointing on way
> too many levels.
>
> - Dave
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
--
Martijn Wargers - Help Mozilla!
http://quality.mozilla.org/
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_QA_Community
irc://irc.mozilla.org/qa - /nick mw22
Ron Hunter
> My bloviated meandering follows what Robert Kaiser graced us with on
> 7/11/2011 5:30 AM:
>> Asa Dotzler schrieb:
>>> Even just maintaining a couple of "classic" options would become
>>> impossible after a few Firefox updates because we're not just changing
>>> the look but re-organizing, re-designing, and even removing features or
>>> feature access points.
>>
>> Still, we offer something that is very similar to 3.6 just by doing a
>> few customization steps to 4.0 or 5.0 - not theme-wise, but
>> functionality-wise at least. And there has been that idea of possibly
>> giving those reluctant to upgrade for the UI changes an upgrade to a
>> variant with those customizations set - at least once we have done a
>> few offerings of "major updates" to 3.6 users (it's bad enough IMHO
>> that we have only done one such offer so far).
>>
>> We also need to be more aggressive on pointing people who shout about
>> those disruptive UI changes to articles like
>> http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize-firefox-4s-ui/ -
>> it's better to get people to the new releases with some customizations
>> than to leave them stuck with old versions like 3.6 or even older.
>> Aside from that, promoting customizability means promoting one thing
>> Firefox has that other competitors don't. ;-)
>>
> the intrinsic "duplicate" tab feature, Serviceability additions in Help
> and have grown to appreciate the new Add-on content page and App menu
> (although, I still don't understand why the decision was made to "off"
> the statusbar rather than simply hide it as the default, thus
> necessitating the Status4Evar extension?) I was a bit taken aback when I
> first installed Fx4 but after posting questions in the support group, I
> was able to get Fx4 to look pretty much like Fx3.x was but these
> newsgroups are fairly obscure so it's unclear how many of the masses
> would become aware of this. Your idea of the having an article like the
> link above being part of the "Welcome to Fx 4.0" screen would have
> helped a lot to minimize the vitriol I read early on, I think.
>
> As far as having an intrinsic "Classic" theme as part of the package,
> I'm a bit more conflicted on. I don't particularly like the blandness
> and lack of actual "large" buttons of the existing 4.x theme but I also
> understand the problem with maintain another theme (what with each theme
> having separate skins for Mac, Linux and 2 for Windows.) This would
> become a non-issue if the theme add-on authors were able to keep up with
> the new quick release cycle but from what I'm seeing, this is not
> turning out to be the case. I don't have any suggestions on how to
> mitigate this one except, perhaps, to have one same theme for all
> platforms that is, say, an Accessibility theme that would have colorful
> and true large icons?
>
I think the UX team feels that icons shouldn't be in color because they
distract the user. I don't feel distracted by them, but that seems to
be the trend for just about all browsers.
RamonS
> I think the UX team feels that icons shouldn't be in color because they
> distract the user. I don't feel distracted by them, but that seems to
> be the trend for just about all browsers.
Who on the UX team comes to such conclusions? I have a tough time to
determine which shade of gray means what. Colors are essential for the
majority of users.
Again, can anyone tell me a direct contact to the UX team so that I
can discuss this with the right people?
RamonS
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:11 PM, RamonS <ramonsd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FF4 and on have devolved in this regards. Honestly, the UI is horrible
> > compared to FF3.x and turning back on what is missing by default is
> > only patching the problem so far. There was absolutely nothing wrong
> > with the FF3 UI and the best thing about it was that it did not look
> > like Chrome. IF FF users would be interested in a browser that looks
> > and works like Chrome they'd use Chrome rather than wait for the FF
> > devs to make a perfect clone.
>
> I'm a fan of the older look and UI myself, but it's quite easy to
> achieve most of what I want by changing stuff that is in there by
> default.
I disagree, but I guess we will need to leave it at that. As mentioned
before, there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with the UI how
it is in FF3. Why change for something worse then?
> > Who decides that? The developers or the FF users? This discussion
> > would be on a much better level if we, the users, knew how the FF team
> > comes to its conclusions, for example, why switch to tab was a feature
> > to add when in fact it is for many an annoyance. Same applies to the
> > lack of having a UI by default. I can't think of any reason why this
> > is a good idea, but maybe there are some.
>
> To not get open duplicate tabs? To quickly switch to an already open tab?
> I don't use this feature myself, but I can see why it was added, though.
Ok, but I do want to open duplicate tabs, especially those where the
URL is the same, but the content is different. Any page with dynamic
content falls under that and there are tons of such sites out there,
most prominently any of the map sites. What bugs me most is that there
is no way to remove this. It should be configurable at least.
Again, the performance and memory issues in FF are the most important
things to fix, not adding some useless feature, ruining the UI, or
cloning Chrome.
Martijn
>> I'm a fan of the older look and UI myself, but it's quite easy to
>> achieve most of what I want by changing stuff that is in there by
>> default.
>
> I disagree, but I guess we will need to leave it at that. As mentioned
> before, there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with the UI how
> it is in FF3. Why change for something worse then?
Well, if you don't point out what stuff is not possible to get easy
get back to, then we indeed have to leave it at that.
>> > Who decides that? The developers or the FF users? This discussion
>> > would be on a much better level if we, the users, knew how the FF team
>> > comes to its conclusions, for example, why switch to tab was a feature
>> > to add when in fact it is for many an annoyance. Same applies to the
>> > lack of having a UI by default. I can't think of any reason why this
>> > is a good idea, but maybe there are some.
>>
>> To not get open duplicate tabs? To quickly switch to an already open tab?
>> I don't use this feature myself, but I can see why it was added, though.
>
> Ok, but I do want to open duplicate tabs, especially those where the
> URL is the same, but the content is different. Any page with dynamic
> content falls under that and there are tons of such sites out there,
> most prominently any of the map sites. What bugs me most is that there
> is no way to remove this. It should be configurable at least.
> Again, the performance and memory issues in FF are the most important
> things to fix, not adding some useless feature, ruining the UI, or
> cloning Chrome.
I just pointed out to you why it's not a useless feature. You mean
it's useless to you, right?
I don't care much about it myself, but I can see why other people would like it.
I agree that fixing performance and memory issues in FF are important
to fix, but that's really not what this topic is about, is it?
Regards,
Martijn
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Again, can anyone tell me a direct contact to the UX team so that I
> can discuss this with the right people?
Many developers check in here from time to time.
However, you may be interested in:
mozilla.dev.usability
--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Robert Kaiser
> there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with the UI how
> it is in FF3.
Do you have usability studies on that? We do have some, and they have
show that there's a lot of mostly unused stuff there, and that the FF4
UI is less confusing and more helpful to less experienced users - and
the more experienced can get something very similar to the FF 3.6 UI
back with some customization steps.
RamonS
> Well, if you don't point out what stuff is not possible to get easy
> get back to, then we indeed have to leave it at that.
RamonS
> RamonS schrieb:
>
> > there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with the UI how
> > it is in FF3.
>
> Do you have usability studies on that? We do have some, and they have
> show that there's a lot of mostly unused stuff there, and that the FF4
> UI is less confusing and more helpful to less experienced users - and
> the more experienced can get something very similar to the FF 3.6 UI
> back with some customization steps.
>
> Robert Kaiser
None that I'd consider independent, systematic studies that are
publicly accessible. But what I did find are the many comments in the
mozilla / google / yahoo / etc peer to peer forums where a quite large
number of FF users complains bitterly about the new UI. A good amount
of that may just be confused, because it no longer looks the way it
did and get used to it, but that alone is reason for concern. Keep in
mind that the majority of users who have reason to complain don't do
so (some sources peg that at 2/3 of all dissatisfied users).
The fact that many features were not used can have various reasons. It
may be really something nobody is interested it, but also something
that is either awkward to use, too difficult, or just hidden where
many don't see it. I have a difficult time to follow the conclusion
that removing functionality and hiding everything that is left behind
one button will help making features easier to use. Even after
customizing to get some 'old' UI back things are still unintuitive.
Best example is accessing browsing history both backward and forward.
FF3 used to have small arrow heads pointing down in the keyhole
buttons. Generally, that is an indication that there is more to see
and that a list will expand downward when clicked on. And exactly that
happened. Now these glyphs are gone and the expected functionality is
only accessible through the less common right-click.
That change did not remove any functionality per sé, but it hid it so
well that I assumed after installing FF4 that it is gone for good. I
had to ask for help to figure out how to access browsing history. How
is that less confusing and more helpful to less experienced users when
it baffles a daily FF users since version 1.0?
What makes matters even worse in this case is that the back/forward
buttons are now only changing the shade of gray rather than show a
different color when history is present. The first time after
upgrading I was utterly confused that after going backward a few pages
FF4 seemingly did not indicate that there was anything for going
forward in the sequence. Of course it did not help that I used this on
an old server box with a craptastic graphics chip, but that never was
a problem with FF3 or below.
What is also troublesome is that everything is hidden behind one
button that is rather small. The Firefox button is difficult to click.
I reinstalled FF5.0.1 on a test system (W7) and see that below that
button is a good amount of free space that could have easily be
assigned to the button. Aside from that, by default every item that
used to be accessible from the menu bar now requires at least one, but
often two extra mouse clicks to access. Any UX / UI design book I ever
came across describes that the goal is to reduce the number of clicks
just because this makes it less confusing and more helpful to less
experienced users. Shoving everything behind one button increases the
number of clicks. And with hires desktops being the norm these days do
we really have to be careful about using screen real estate to show a
menu bar, especially when almost every other app has a big fat ribbon
(which I loathe even more than the single button).
I understand that a less UI is easier to grasp, but there is a
difference between less and none, especially since there is also talk
to kill the address bar by default (which would have significant
safety implications aside from bad UX).
In the end much is up to perception, a subjective view of things. But
as Galitz put it "Perception = Reality!"
Lastly, thank you very much for having this discussion with me. It
shows that at least someone is listening.
Dave
Robert Kaiser
> None that I'd consider independent, systematic studies that are
> publicly accessible.
Then it's hard to believe anything you say is representative.
> But what I did find are the many comments in the
> mozilla / google / yahoo / etc peer to peer forums where a quite large
> number of FF users complains bitterly about the new UI.
Those are the <.1% of people who are usually advanced and very vocal,
far away from being representative.
But pointing those to e.g.
http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize-firefox-4s-ui/
should be easy and solve the vast majority of their problems.
> only accessible through the less common right-click.
Interesting, I never even tried right-click as I found click-and-hold to
work fine and end up more intuitive for me...
> Aside from that, by default every item that
> used to be accessible from the menu bar now requires at least one, but
> often two extra mouse clicks to access.
The often-used ones have the same amount of clicks, they were hidden at
least one click behind a menu even in the older default UI - and it's
easy to get the menu back permanently if you need it more often (it even
is displayed temporarily by default when you press the Alt key on your
keyboard).
Any UX / UI design book I ever
> came across describes that the goal is to reduce the number of clicks
For very frequently accessed items that's true. For rarely used ones not
necessarily, as other factors come into play, like distracting from what
you actually want to do.
> And with hires desktops being the norm these days
Interesting, I thought small netbook, and tablet displays would be
becoming the norm fast - and most people laugh at me because I have a
full-HD 23" screen as they rarely have seen a computer screen that large
with that high resolution. But maybe we're living in different worlds.
Hint: I'm not living in Silicon Valley.
> especially since there is also talk
> to kill the address bar by default
Don't take talk for decisions - and I think in an innovative space, all
*ideas* need to be allowed, even if some of them end up not being
*executed*. There's a large difference there.
> In the end much is up to perception, a subjective view of things. But
> as Galitz put it "Perception = Reality!"
Right, and you are trying to paint your perception as everyone's
reality. QED.
> Lastly, thank you very much for having this discussion with me. It
> shows that at least someone is listening.
Well, I'm just someone working for Mozilla - and I'm not having to do
anything with UI design in what I'm working. I'm just one of many
following what the UI designers are e.g. blogging about and thinking
about all those issues myself as well.
Dr J R Stockton
zilla.org>, Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:56:41, Sailfish <REMOVECAPSsailfish@REMO
VECAPSunforgettable.com> posted:
>My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>7/11/2011 2:46 PM:
>Sure, I can understand that but it might work as an Accessibility
>theme. Several site-challenged posters indicated that colors were
>helpful for them locating the buttons at a glance. Also, speaking for
>myself, I don't ever recall the buttons being distracting. And, for
>Windows users, what's with that big orange App menu button nestled into
>a field of gray? :) Now that's noticeable but, even so, not
>distracting, imo.
The buttons should be in colour - not pretty full multicolour, but each
using perhaps one foreground and one background colour. That should be
on by default, with an option to use black-and-white versions for those
who need or prefer it. The colours should all contrast well with the
background.
I think that it would be useful to have colour options for the normally-
grey background, without resorting to personas or themes. Just a colour
specified as #EEEEEE or #FFDDFF maybe, entered as such a string. The
design would expect a pale colour. Two reasons - one gets a little
tired of the grey, and it would enable recognition by colour of almost-
hidden Firefox windows.
And the Zoom Text Only bit should be sticky in just the same manner as
the Zoom level is (it isn't in FF3, and my FF5 PC is not running).
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
RamonS
> RamonS schrieb:
>
> > None that I'd consider independent, systematic studies that are
> > publicly accessible.
>
> Then it's hard to believe anything you say is representative.
That is well possible, but I go by what the popular peer to peer
forums paint as opinion. And yes, of course, my arguments are biased,
because they are my arguments, but so are most studies. They are
either biased based on the hypothesis put out or by the entity paying
for them. I also wonder if any number of studies truly represents the
user opinion. I find that using user opinion directly is a much more
direct approach. That said, even after longer search I cannot find any
studies about FF UX that are publicly available. If there are, may you
point me to them? Maybe I understand better then.
> > But what I did find are the many comments in the
> > mozilla / google / yahoo / etc peer to peer forums where a quite large
> > number of FF users complains bitterly about the new UI.
>
> Those are the <.1% of people who are usually advanced and very vocal,
> far away from being representative.
That is what my argument is. The majority of those who have reason to
complain do not do so. We know that and it would be foolish to ignore
them. Yet, that seems to be the case. Consider the negative comments
as FF's business analysis and detract from that what larger numbers of
users consider positive (tabs come to mind). And then there you have
it. What a UX team made up of coders thinks is IMHO irrelevant. They
are by far less than the number of vocal users, both positive and
negative.
> But pointing those to e.g.http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize-firefox-4s-ui/
> should be easy and solve the vast majority of their problems.
If it is necessary to point many users to customization then the
defaults are wrong. Besides that, now users have to do extra work to
get somewhat closer to what FF3.6 offered. How does that constitute
better UX? That is a prime example for worse UX.
> > only accessible through the less common right-click.
>
> Interesting, I never even tried right-click as I found click-and-hold to
> work fine and end up more intuitive for me...
Interesting, both work the same way, but right-click is faster. And
having two ways of accomplishing the same thing is also generally
considered less than ideal UI design. Still, there is no indication in
the UI that either one will work whereas there used to be before. Why
is having visual cues worse than having none? And that tiny drop-down
arrow really confused the masses? I find that hard to believe.
> > Aside from that, by default every item that
> > used to be accessible from the menu bar now requires at least one, but
> > often two extra mouse clicks to access.
>
> The often-used ones have the same amount of clicks, they were hidden at
> least one click behind a menu even in the older default UI - and it's
> easy to get the menu back permanently if you need it more often (it even
> is displayed temporarily by default when you press the Alt key on your
> keyboard).
Some consider the menu driven UI not as the best solution, but it is
one that is around and commonly mastered for the past 30 years.So why
remove something that the vast majority of users is accustomed to and
knows how to use? As for temporarily or permanently displaying the
menu bar, yes, there is a way and it is greatly appreciated (the devs
could have eradicated the menu bar entirely), but it comes back to my
argument that the defaults are wrong when a large number of users
needs to customize. Customization is something that can be done as an
option, it shouldn't become a mandate.
Are there any usage stats about how many users turned off the menu bar
under FF3? That was an option for a long time already. I am just
guessing here, but that number is rather low. So why not point that
likely much lower number of users to a customization guide?
> > came across describes that the goal is to reduce the number of clicks
>
> For very frequently accessed items that's true. For rarely used ones not
> necessarily, as other factors come into play, like distracting from what
> you actually want to do.
Are there any tests done and are the results public? Otherwise I will
do that assessment myself, but that may take some time.
> > And with hires desktops being the norm these days
>
> Interesting, I thought small netbook, and tablet displays would be
> becoming the norm fast - and most people laugh at me because I have a
> full-HD 23" screen as they rarely have seen a computer screen that large
> with that high resolution. But maybe we're living in different worlds.
> Hint: I'm not living in Silicon Valley.
I have 2x 21" monitors and do not live in Silicon Valley either
(although they like to call this place here Tech Valley). I find it
interesting that there seems to be the common misunderstanding that
what works for a desktop will work on a tablet or smartphone and vice
versa. Those are very different platforms with more and more different
means of operation (mouse and keyboard on desktop, touch on tablets
with almost no keyboard input). We need UIs that are designed for
these devices. The one size fits all will quickly be a one size fits
none. That said, my points are exclusively about desktop use. I
wouldn't even lump laptops into that group, although those more than a
tablet.
> > especially since there is also talk
> > to kill the address bar by default
>
> Don't take talk for decisions - and I think in an innovative space, all
> *ideas* need to be allowed, even if some of them end up not being
> *executed*. There's a large difference there.
Until Google puts it into Chrome. Then we will see it in the next FF
version. There is precedence for that. Innovation and new stuff is
great as long as it is noticeably better than what was there before.
Just being a wee bit better or the same is not reason enough to
disrupt usage patterns. Again, the new default UI does not provide
that noticeable improvement.
> > In the end much is up to perception, a subjective view of things. But
> > as Galitz put it "Perception = Reality!"
>
> Right, and you are trying to paint your perception as everyone's
> reality. QED.
Wrong! I am not a sole complainer here. See the many forums and the
post that started this thread.
>
> > Lastly, thank you very much for having this discussion with me. It
> > shows that at least someone is listening.
>
> Well, I'm just someone working for Mozilla - and I'm not having to do
> anything with UI design in what I'm working. I'm just one of many
> following what the UI designers are e.g. blogging about and thinking
> about all those issues myself as well.
Besten Dank dafür!
I am not sure if our discussion remains fruitful for others, if you
think it isn't we can take it offline (in either German or English,
whatever suits you best). I really do appreciate your efforts and
engagement.
> --
> Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
> meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
> arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the
> time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
That is true for my comments as well....in the end we are just talking
about a web browser.
Asa Dotzler
appropriate for dev.usability rather than dev.apps.firefox. They're not
off-topic here, but they're more on topic there.
- A
Dr J R Stockton
zilla.org>, Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:24:14, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at>
posted:
>RamonS schrieb:
>> there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with the UI how
>> it is in FF3.
>
>Do you have usability studies on that? We do have some, and they have
>show that there's a lot of mostly unused stuff there, and that the FF4
>UI is less confusing and more helpful to less experienced users - and
>the more experienced can get something very similar to the FF 3.6 UI
>back with some customization steps.
That's not a user-friendly attitude.
There should be a readily-accessible menu entry for choosing the Old
Default Look, the Old Customised Look, the New Default Look, and the New
customised Look.
That way, one can select how one had things in FF3, and continue to
work; and, when time permits, safely explore the new way. Also, while
benefiting from a customised version, one can still see what those who
have not customised will see.
In a business context, many staff just work according to the
instructions that they have been given. Change the controls, and they
may not be able, or allowed, to operate until the new instructions have
been formally issued.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk IE8 FF3 Op10 Sf5 Cr7
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Justin Dolske
Actually, I think this thread is pretty much done.
With nearly half a billion users, we know we can't please everyone.
That's why Firefox has themes and addons available, if you don't like
the look of things you can configure it to something more to your taste.
To be blunt, we're simply not going to roll-back the Firefox UI to that
of Firefox 3.6 (or before). Nor are we able to do anything actionable on
generic "Firefox looks like crap" gripes.
We _do_ listen to constrictive feedback on future UI directions, which
is why we post about upcoming work and try things out on the UX branch.
Comments for that (or current specific UI issues) based on sounds UX
principles are quite welcome.
Justin
RamonS
Thanks for the clear words. I take that as "we don't care what users
think and do our thing"...which appears to be cloning Chrome. In the
end users will decide....of to searching for a better browser. Thanks
for your time.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Moving "back" to a previous version is not conducive to maintaining a
safe and secure model. If all you want or need to do is to revert back
to a UI then there are many ways to do this.
One way:
http://www.howtogeek.com/58035/how-to-make-firefox-4-look-like-firefox-3
To address your assertion "we don't care ...." is patently false. The
open-source community is made up of unpaid *volunteers* that giveth of
their time and effort to provide the user-community with an application
that is friendly and secure as well as functional. There are addons and
plugins available that enable the user to adjust the useability to their
particular liking and needs, etc.
There are several feedback and contribution channels available from
Mozilla where you, et al, can voice your collective opinions, requests
and suggestions, enter support questions, join the community in various
venues such as QA, Coding, Design and so on. If you are interested in
joining this community, let me know and I'll point you in the direction
of choice.
But please ... don't accuse us of "not caring", we do and we're here to
help.
Martijn
That's not what he's writing at all, afaict. I read the exact opposite
of what you're making of it.
How come you read it in such a negative way?
Regards,
Martijn
Sarah Cain
the new UI is a step in the wrong direction, and that cloning another
browser because it has been successful over IE is not the way forward. I
also feel that the ability for people to customize the look of their
browsers has now been limited because it takes so much extra knowledge
to get the new Firefox to be what I consider 'usable'. I am not a
random technically-illiterate user. I'm a linux administrator, but I am
getting calls all of the time from those in my organization who don't
know how to use their browser -- the one that I recommended to them
(before the "upgrade"). I'd appreciate any time you'd take to listen to
our collective opinions, and if you could tell me anywhere else that you
think would be better to air our grievances, that would be great.
Thank you.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
If you're interested in browser design, I'd recommend checking out some
of the opportunities related to our user experience projects.
Mozilla Labs has regular design challenges focused on interface design
innovation:
http://design-challenge.mozillalabs.com/
There is a list of visual bugs that you can help us fix at:
You can also check out Test Pilot to try some of the newest and coolest
user-interface ideas:
https://testpilot.mozillalabs.com/
I'd also encourage you to read through and post on the usability group at:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/topics
For design projects, there are a couple of good places to get started.
and
http://design-challenge.mozillalabs.com/
If you want to help or find an area of interest where you need more
direct information:
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
I am part of this Mozilla Community and I answer over 1000 queries
monthly. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly -
j...@jaygarcia.com
Cheers
RamonS
>
> That's not what he's writing at all, afaict. I read the exact opposite
> of what you're making of it.
> How come you read it in such a negative way?
>
> Regards,
> Martijn
OK, here is what I read and understood. the - are the quoted text that
I hope remains visible as such.
-- RamonS, your last few comments in this thread are probably more
-- appropriate for dev.usability rather than dev.apps.firefox. They're
not
-- off-topic here, but they're more on topic there.
- Actually, I think this thread is pretty much done.
That means to me: any further discussion of this topic is not desired.
- With nearly half a billion users, we know we can't please everyone.
- That's why Firefox has themes and addons available, if you don't
like
- the look of things you can configure it to something more to your
taste.
That means to me: go away, you already have everything you need and we
won't bother with dealing with the thousands of users that do complain
about the new UI or the even bigger number that doesn't bother to
complain. Simply just wait until you are either lucky to find or smart
enough to make your own add-on to jam into FF, regardless if the
masses ask the old look to be the default again.
- To be blunt, we're simply not going to roll-back the Firefox UI to
that
- of Firefox 3.6 (or before). Nor are we able to do anything
actionable on
- generic "Firefox looks like crap" gripes.
That means to me: 'resistance is futile, you will be assimilated' or
just left at the side of the road. On top of that, we will never ever
even think about to consider debating what you are asking. And all
your comments are useless crap anyway and entirely unspecific. Mind
you, no matter how good your arguments are, ours will always be
better, even if you are right.
- We _do_ listen to constrictive feedback on future UI directions,
which
- is why we post about upcoming work and try things out on the UX
branch.
- Comments for that (or current specific UI issues) based on sounds UX
- principles are quite welcome.
That means to me: go complain somewhere else where we will ignore you
as well, because anything you write is unconstructive feedback.
Besides that, it is your fault that you weren't all over this when the
first nightly build came out. And clearly you have no clue about user
experience, now shush.
===========
It is very well possible that what I understood is not what was meant.
In that case I apologize for misunderstanding. Although the first
sentences were rather clear that any request to have the old (and IMHO
much more functional) UI at least as an option reinstated are
fruitless.
During the past months I submitted several bug reports that were
either closed as duplicates of issues that will not get fixed or were
outright rejected. Using the FF internal feedback option sends notes
to somewhere, but there is no trace as to what happens. In one of the
bugzilla comments it was recommended that I post here, but that is
obviously a waste of time as well. Now I am supposed to try my luck
somewhere else.
And yes, it is partly myself as well. After over 15 years in software
QA and UI design I consider myself as somewhat knowledgeable. I know
that the Mozilla devs have equally or more experience and I know that
I am not always right. Yet I am still waiting for just one convincing
argument why the new, gray, all bland, one button UI is any better and
why efforts were spent on UI redesign when there are clearly bigger
fish to fry.
At the same time active engagement in the community is encouraged. But
why when all the answers are "No" ? At least I tried. I filed bug
reports, I started and joined discussions, I asked for more
information assuming that I missed something, spent hours without end
to try things out, got all excited to received messages from people
who I usually only read about in magazines, and always tried to keep
it well above the "everything is crap" level. What more is there to
do? Learn C++ and roll my own? In the end it turns out to be a one way
street leaving behind a deeply frustrated loyal FF user.
Who knows, maybe I just got it all wrong, not that it would matter.
That said, I'll stop bothering you and volunteer somewhere else where
it may make an impact.
lea...@live.com
> Are there any plans to add an option to Firefox in which people can
> switch back to the old look of Firefox (3.6) easily? I know that there
> are lots of people who are not fans of the new Chrome-like interface,
> and use Firefox /because/ it is different. I'd appreciate any response
> to this.
>
> Thanks,
> Sarah
i hate the neww google!!!!!!
Ron Hunter
EE
version. It has only the results in the results page.
www.google.com/m/
You can edit the search plugin to put that address in to get the same
results.
As for getting Firefox back to the appearance of 3.6, you can get it
close. You can move the buttons back to where they used to be, you can
disable the settings which make most of the address in the address bar
barely readable, and make the http:// protocol visible again. You can
disable Tabs on Top from View > Toolbars. I have found the add-ons bar
to be better than the status bar because one can put more add-on buttons
on it manually. You can restore the menu bar if you are using Windows
by pressing Alt to make it visible, then using View > Toolbars.
Asa Dotzler
> On 2012-03-19 01:05, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 3/18/2012 10:30 AM, lea...@live.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:21:13 AM UTC-4, Sarah Cain wrote:
>>>> Are there any plans to add an option to Firefox in which people can
>>>> switch back to the old look of Firefox (3.6) easily?
>>>
>> There are several themes which restore the old appearance quite well.
>>
>
> If you dislike the new Google results page, you can bookmark the mobile
> version.
take it to the support forums if you wish to continue.
Thanks.
- A