New theme/UI inconsistency
Zbigniew Braniecki
that.
1) The theme is a bit more glossy. I understand that it's because the
target no. 1 of Firefox is Windows platform, and hitting Windows Vista
UE with theme that matches Vista is important. It looks ok.
2) I was using it on Linux which is probably the last-of-three polished
version. There's a lot of glitches that will be fixed, I'm sure about it
and I'm not going to comment them.
3) The new main icons are ok
4) I don't like home icon. The icon is very hard to understand in small
size, and for me is not a good graphical representation of "Home".
5) The icons go darker on hover. It's strange. Maybe it's a Vista UI
part, but it doesn't match most of UI I met with. Hovered icons usually
go brighter to indicate that this is the icon "chosen" from the list, to
make it easier for the reader eye to see it because of bright. You loose
this effect here
6) The search box bar is wider than in Fx 1.5. More, scaling the browser
window shrinks the url bar, not the search bar. I'm wondering what was
the reason behind this decision. The bar with new "click me" button,
makes it really too wide imho.
7) I don't like that the list of tabs on the right is displayed by
default (most users will spend their life not know what is it for
because they NEVER open more than 3-4 tabs).
8) It also confuses me that the list is displaying all the tabs, instead
of displaying only the tabs that are not visible. So, instead of logical
continuation of the tab bar, it is a different view of list of tabs that
duplicates most of the tabs in 99% of cases (see point 7, and think of
default user with max 15 tabs - he'll use the list to select those 2
tabs that doesn't fit the bar, but the list will have 15 positions).
9) The new icons in preferences panel clear and macosx'ish.
10) The three notes are:
- The main icon is too mac os x. Most world doesn't know this icon,
and it's not that clear imho. But because it's hard to find a good icon
that means "general", I'd choose at least an icon in more Firefoxish
colors than dark silver. Those ones are just not matching the theme,
raising the amount of dark silver which is not a color of Firefox at all.
- Tabs icon is bad. It doesn't look like tabs. Maybe like an old printer.
- Content icon presents the earth. But not the same earth as Firefox
logo. Why?
11) About the content of preferences tabs I have a feeling that it's in
the middle of transition, there's a little mess with buttons, options,
lack of clean separation of logical groups etc.
12) The new theme has more colors than any previous theme. Qute was
bright, ok, but had a colorline containing a few colors that made the
theme. Here we have three greens (the Go button green is different from
Back arrow one, and from Addons entry icon), blue, many kind of gray
(home button, security lock, few preferences icons), red, silver (search
go button), white (tabs icon), light blue (Addons related to bookmarks),
dark blue gradient (for addons selected row background), yellow for
security bar and lock, orange for feed icon.
And Firefox logo is made of dark blue, light blue and orange! So Those
three colors should be there, contrasting each other, with orange being
visible icon, to make it easier to remember and recognize it just by
seeing the color scheme.
Mark Schuttleworth said on one meeting that the goal of Ubuntu Visual
Identity team is to make sure that anyone could recognize ubuntu looking
at the monitor in the other corner of the room, basing only on the
colors and some shapes from distance.
12) And here we come to last issue. Firefox theme is not matching the OS
theme. If I'll change the Vista theme it'll look the odd. It's almost
sure that it won't match my Linux theme. Firefox hitting massive market
must follow toolkits and their theming. It doesn't. And the best way to
stay recognizable in this situation is to keep unique, nice icons on top
of the OS-backgrounds, OS-borders, OS-fonts etc. Icons are identifying
the app here and the overall shape of the UI.
And most users, for most of the time will see two green icons, light
blue one and white-n-gray one.
I hope you'll find it worth reading. If you disagree, that's great! It
means that the theme is for you! If you don't understand any of my
concerns, ask me, I'll try to provide more detailed feedback and reasoning.
Bottom line is that I feel that the new theme is different, but similar
to previous one. It's not a clear step forward for me. You may be easily
tricked by users feedback praising this theme, because it's really more
"trendy" than the previous one (glossy, white, opacity etc.), but in
fact it misses at least few important points of the default theme I can
think of. It's "prettier" but not "memorizable",
Greetings
Zbigniew Braniecki
pascal chevrel
> I decided to try Fx 2.0 beta 2 today and I want to share my feedback on
> that.
>
> 1) The theme is a bit more glossy. I understand that it's because the
> target no. 1 of Firefox is Windows platform, and hitting Windows Vista
> UE with theme that matches Vista is important. It looks ok.
I am of the opinion that targetting Vista users shoulnd't be Firefox 2
priority since WinXP users are and will remain for a very long time the
vast majority of surfers.
I think that we should target and please our potential user-base and not
an operating system, if we can make it look good in Vista without
breaking XP-Luna, then fine, but if looking nice for an OS that is yet
to be released is making Firefox 2 look worse in XP than in 1.5, then it
is a marketing mistake.
I agree that looking great in Vista should be a Firefox objective in
late 2007, which I guess means Firefox 3.
> 3) The new main icons are ok
There are at least 5 bugs saying that the main icons are too washed out,
showed the new FF2 theme to my little sister (ff1.5 user) and her first
reaction was to say that the icons are "fade" which means in my language
"not appealing, lacking of colours" or untasty when you talk about food.
>
> 4) I don't like home icon. The icon is very hard to understand in small
> size, and for me is not a good graphical representation of "Home".
I agree; I think this one needs more polished and I am not sure about
the brownish looks it has (it does look good on Ubuntu with Human theme
though).
>
> 5) The icons go darker on hover. It's strange. Maybe it's a Vista UI
> part, but it doesn't match most of UI I met with. Hovered icons usually
> go brighter to indicate that this is the icon "chosen" from the list, to
> make it easier for the reader eye to see it because of bright. You loose
> this effect here
agree, I guess they cjhose to go darker because the inactive colour is
already so faint that making them lighter would mean almost invisible ;)
>
> 6) The search box bar is wider than in Fx 1.5. More, scaling the browser
> window shrinks the url bar, not the search bar. I'm wondering what was
> the reason behind this decision. The bar with new "click me" button,
> makes it really too wide imho.
I think it depends on languages, for French the previous bar was crearly
too short because our words are usually longer than in English and we
tend to search using sentences (because some of the meaning like gender
or number is in the article and not in the main word). For French, a
wider bar is clearly a plus, but it could be shorthened a bit without
problem.
>
> 7) I don't like that the list of tabs on the right is displayed by
> default (most users will spend their life not know what is it for
> because they NEVER open more than 3-4 tabs).
I have no strong feelings against or for this option.
>
> 8) It also confuses me that the list is displaying all the tabs, instead
> of displaying only the tabs that are not visible. So, instead of logical
> continuation of the tab bar, it is a different view of list of tabs that
> duplicates most of the tabs in 99% of cases (see point 7, and think of
> default user with max 15 tabs - he'll use the list to select those 2
> tabs that doesn't fit the bar, but the list will have 15 positions).
I think that I prefer the whole list because it allows you to find the
right tab when you have opened many tabs from the same site and they all
show 'New York Times - Magazine..." in the tab.
>
> 10) The three notes are:
> - Tabs icon is bad. It doesn't look like tabs. Maybe like an old printer.
Really agree on this one :)
I would had that the Advanced icon looks like Netscape 3 boat wheel.
> 12) The new theme has more colors than any previous theme. Qute was
> bright, ok, but had a colorline containing a few colors that made the
> theme. Here we have three greens (the Go button green is different from
> Back arrow one, and from Addons entry icon), blue, many kind of gray
> (home button, security lock, few preferences icons), red, silver (search
> go button), white (tabs icon), light blue (Addons related to bookmarks),
> dark blue gradient (for addons selected row background), yellow for
> security bar and lock, orange for feed icon.
I filed a bug about the green inconsistencies.
>
> And Firefox logo is made of dark blue, light blue and orange! So Those
> three colors should be there, contrasting each other, with orange being
> visible icon, to make it easier to remember and recognize it just by
> seeing the color scheme.
agreed
>
> Mark Schuttleworth said on one meeting that the goal of Ubuntu Visual
> Identity team is to make sure that anyone could recognize ubuntu looking
> at the monitor in the other corner of the room, basing only on the
> colors and some shapes from distance.
That'"s the case for Winstripe, not for the new theme, go back 3 metres
from your screen and you don't even distinguish the toolbar icons :(
>
> 12) And here we come to last issue. Firefox theme is not matching the OS
> theme. If I'll change the Vista theme it'll look the odd. It's almost
> sure that it won't match my Linux theme. Firefox hitting massive market
> must follow toolkits and their theming. It doesn't. And the best way to
> stay recognizable in this situation is to keep unique, nice icons on top
> of the OS-backgrounds, OS-borders, OS-fonts etc. Icons are identifying
> the app here and the overall shape of the UI.
> And most users, for most of the time will see two green icons, light
> blue one and white-n-gray one.
I agree, it looks to me as if the new theme is an attempt to replicate
what was meant to be done with the Modern theme in Netscape, it just
doesn't fit the OS.
> Bottom line is that I feel that the new theme is different, but similar
> to previous one. It's not a clear step forward for me. You may be easily
> tricked by users feedback praising this theme, because it's really more
> "trendy" than the previous one (glossy, white, opacity etc.), but in
> fact it misses at least few important points of the default theme I can
> think of. It's "prettier" but not "memorizable",
Totally agree with you, the new theme has an unfinished feeling to it
and I really hope that most of the bugs will be fixed before the final
release, I also read a lot of negative feedback today from end-users
which basically say they love the new features but find the new theme dull.
Pascal
Charli Li
Hash: SHA1
pascal chevrel wrote:
> Le 01/09/2006 03:36, Zbigniew Braniecki a ecrit :
>> I decided to try Fx 2.0 beta 2 today and I want to share my feedback
>> on that.
>>
>> 1) The theme is a bit more glossy. I understand that it's because the
>> target no. 1 of Firefox is Windows platform, and hitting Windows Vista
>> UE with theme that matches Vista is important. It looks ok.
>
> I am of the opinion that targetting Vista users shoulnd't be Firefox 2
> priority since WinXP users are and will remain for a very long time the
> vast majority of surfers.
>
> I think that we should target and please our potential user-base and not
> an operating system, if we can make it look good in Vista without
> breaking XP-Luna, then fine, but if looking nice for an OS that is yet
> to be released is making Firefox 2 look worse in XP than in 1.5, then it
> is a marketing mistake.
To satisfy those who want a theme that blends in with XP's Luna theme,
look on AMO and there is a theme called "Luna" made by Chris Cook. The
only problem is that it only supports the Firefox 1.5.0.* line, and
because of the changes of the Extensions/Theme managers merged into a
single "Add-ons" manager, it just doesn't look right in that manager.
>
> I agree that looking great in Vista should be a Firefox objective in
> late 2007, which I guess means Firefox 3.
>
Exactly.
>
>> 3) The new main icons are ok
>
> There are at least 5 bugs saying that the main icons are too washed out,
> showed the new FF2 theme to my little sister (ff1.5 user) and her first
> reaction was to say that the icons are "fade" which means in my language
> "not appealing, lacking of colours" or untasty when you talk about food.
>
>>
>> 4) I don't like home icon. The icon is very hard to understand in
>> small size, and for me is not a good graphical representation of "Home".
>
> I agree; I think this one needs more polished and I am not sure about
> the brownish looks it has (it does look good on Ubuntu with Human theme
> though).
>
>>
>> 5) The icons go darker on hover. It's strange. Maybe it's a Vista UI
>> part, but it doesn't match most of UI I met with. Hovered icons
>> usually go brighter to indicate that this is the icon "chosen" from
>> the list, to make it easier for the reader eye to see it because of
>> bright. You loose this effect here
>
> agree, I guess they cjhose to go darker because the inactive colour is
> already so faint that making them lighter would mean almost invisible ;)
>
Well then how about making the inactive colour darker and active colour
lighter?
It is like that on the Mac version of Firefox too!
Minefield should be the one supplying the new unfinished theme rather
than Bon Echo. If the new theme is in Minefield, nightly testers
(trunk) would be able to rant and rave about what should be done with
it, and all that. It being on the trunk means more time for development.
- --
Charli
- ---
PCYMTNQREAIYR!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE+fcWKGyf4JaPChgRAoHBAJ4/XgXGWUuAVjbSWzah6QGrEjRcUwCgsthY
dtm6gP9TrkNLLuGKiHQi3fA=
=TJm8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zbigniew Braniecki
> I am of the opinion that targetting Vista users shoulnd't be Firefox 2
> priority since WinXP users are and will remain for a very long time the
> vast majority of surfers.
It's very important to "be prepared" for Vista with Fx 2 because:
1) Most journalists will test Fx 2 next to IE7 on Vista.
2) It's a case of "are you ready?". Vista will hit the market soon, and
they'll hit it hard with tens of millions dollars on marketing. They'll
use all their power to make Vista theme a trendy one. To make sure that
for Joe Average, Vista theme is awesome, cool, trendy etc. Making Fx
theme similar is just allowing it to use the same wave.
> I think it depends on languages, for French the previous bar was crearly
> too short because our words are usually longer than in English and we
> tend to search using sentences (because some of the meaning like gender
> or number is in the article and not in the main word). For French, a
> wider bar is clearly a plus, but it could be shorthened a bit without
> problem.
I'm ok with this, I just think that search textbox and address textbox
should both shrink, not only location bar.
>>
>> 7) I don't like that the list of tabs on the right is displayed by
>> default (most users will spend their life not know what is it for
>> because they NEVER open more than 3-4 tabs).
>
> I have no strong feelings against or for this option.
And I'd say that it's important problem for me. What we have here is a
new UI element, that for most users makes no sense. Most users will open
max 4 tabs.They don't need it. So we're adding an UI element that most
users will never use by default. And we're adding it in the UI area
where users are confused overall, because:
1) Tabs are new to them
2) Firefox changes the tab UI in each release.
What for? To simplify how it works with 30 tabs? Then it should be
invisible by default.
Greetings
Zbigniew Braniecki
Sohail Mirza
pascal chevrel wrote:
> > 3) The new main icons are ok
>
> There are at least 5 bugs saying that the main icons are too washed out,
> showed the new FF2 theme to my little sister (ff1.5 user) and her first
> reaction was to say that the icons are "fade" which means in my language
> "not appealing, lacking of colours" or untasty when you talk about food.
I really agree here. The new icons are washed out. I have not seen
this theme on Vista, but when comparing the theme to Vista screenshots,
the look and feel of Vista is markedly more colourful and having more
contrast.
> > 4) I don't like home icon. The icon is very hard to understand in small
> > size, and for me is not a good graphical representation of "Home".
>
> I agree; I think this one needs more polished and I am not sure about
> the brownish looks it has (it does look good on Ubuntu with Human theme
> though).
Personally I prefer the Fx1.5 Home icon.
> > 6) The search box bar is wider than in Fx 1.5. More, scaling the browser
> > window shrinks the url bar, not the search bar. I'm wondering what was
> > the reason behind this decision. The bar with new "click me" button,
> > makes it really too wide imho.
>
> I think it depends on languages, for French the previous bar was crearly
> too short because our words are usually longer than in English and we
> tend to search using sentences (because some of the meaning like gender
> or number is in the article and not in the main word). For French, a
> wider bar is clearly a plus, but it could be shorthened a bit without
> problem.
I have a major issue with the searchbar, and that is its flex property.
I have been meaning to open a bug on this, but haven't had the time
thus far.
I have been used to moving the searchbar to the same toolbar with the
menus, just to the left of the throbber's default position. However,
this updated searchbar will now expand to take up all the free space on
that toolbar, which is not the behaviour of the old searchbar.
> > 12) And here we come to last issue. Firefox theme is not matching the OS
> > theme. If I'll change the Vista theme it'll look the odd. It's almost
> > sure that it won't match my Linux theme. Firefox hitting massive market
> > must follow toolkits and their theming. It doesn't. And the best way to
> > stay recognizable in this situation is to keep unique, nice icons on top
> > of the OS-backgrounds, OS-borders, OS-fonts etc. Icons are identifying
> > the app here and the overall shape of the UI.
> > And most users, for most of the time will see two green icons, light
> > blue one and white-n-gray one.
>
> I agree, it looks to me as if the new theme is an attempt to replicate
> what was meant to be done with the Modern theme in Netscape, it just
> doesn't fit the OS.
I don't mind so much that the look and feel doesn't match the OS.
There are clear advantages to matching the OS, but sometimes it can be
done well the other way. For example, I love the ease and simplicity
of Google's Picasa and GTalk, though neither use default OS widgets.
What bothers me right now about the Fx2.0 theme is the inconsistency.
The tab bar is skinned to look non-native, but the rest of the browser
is not atm. The consistency may follow at a later date, so I'll take a
wait-and-see attitude.
And I have to comment... what in the world is that strange thing behind
the back and forward arrows when I hover?? It just looks so out of
place and non-intuitive!
> > Bottom line is that I feel that the new theme is different, but similar
> > to previous one. It's not a clear step forward for me. You may be easily
> > tricked by users feedback praising this theme, because it's really more
> > "trendy" than the previous one (glossy, white, opacity etc.), but in
> > fact it misses at least few important points of the default theme I can
> > think of. It's "prettier" but not "memorizable",
>
>
> Totally agree with you, the new theme has an unfinished feeling to it
> and I really hope that most of the bugs will be fixed before the final
> release, I also read a lot of negative feedback today from end-users
> which basically say they love the new features but find the new theme dull.
Agree and agree!
-- Sohail Mirza