The Navigator Window UI
Dave Hyatt
holding in my local tree. I am making a public post here because I am
seeking approval from Mozilla to land these changes into the Mozilla
tree.
The changes in question all revolve around issues I have with the
current structure of navigator.xul, namely that it is too complex and
that it makes specific assumptions about the structure of the XUL that
are not acceptable for other Mozilla skins.
It is my belief that the content, the XUL, must be designed to be
skinnable, so that when Mozilla begins accepting other skins, those
skins aren't constrained by some of the oddities that plague the current
navigator XUL file.
I am listing below the changes that I have made, along with a
justification for each change below.
(1) The personal toolbar was moved back to its original position and its
font size has been restored to normal.
Justification: The problem with the XUL file right now is that it forces
the toolbar to live above the command toolbar. This visual look really
only works when the toolbar has a very tiny font. If you try increasing
the font and leaving the personal toolbar where it is, you'll see that
it doesn't work in that position.
With the personal toolbar underneath the command toolbar, the font size
becomes less relevant, and users familiar with 4.x find the bookmarks
button and the personal toolbar buttons in a more familiar location.
(2) The menu bar has been placed back inside the toolbox.
Justification: It was the intent of the menu bar's design as a XUL
widget all along that it be used inside a toolbox, so that it can pick
up all of the functionality that the toolbox will provide when
complete. This functionality includes reordering of toolbars and menu
bars, the ability for toolbars and menu bars to occupy the same line,
the ability to float and dock elements of the toolbox, and the ability
to collapse both toolbars and menu bars.
Many members of the Mozilla community have asked for these capabilities
from menu bars, and we have listened, and that's why we designed the
menu bar as a derived toolbar object.
By taking the menu bar out of the toolbox you lose these capabilities,
and you prevent other Mozilla skins from taking advantage of those
capabilities. Therefore I believe it is in Mozilla's best interest to
return the menu bar to its rightful place inside the toolbox.
(3) The personal toolbar is now grey and now extends all the way to the
right edge of the window.
Justification: There are several reasons for these changes.
First of all, the command toolbar has a grey stripe along its base, and
this allows the personal toolbar to join seamlessly with the toolbar
above.
Second, the blue color of the toolbar forced it to incorporate a rounded
corner effect that would cause problems if the personal toolbar were to
be reordered by the user.
Third, the personal toolbar was losing 68 pixels on its right hand side
to a throbber that wasn't even contained within the toolbar itself.
This damaged the usefulness of the toolbar, since it cut down the number
of links you could hold. By making the personal toolbar grey, its
contents can span all the way out to the right hand side, going
underneath the throbber, without clashing.
(4) Home and My Netscape were removed from the Mozilla XUL.
Justification: The latter doesn't belong in the Mozilla chrome, and the
former doesn't belong in the XUL. It needs to be placed into an RDF
data source so that a user can remove it from the personal toolbar
without having to resort to an arcane overlay patch (which is what would
be required otherwise). Alternatively it should be moved to another
location in the UI. The user's personal toolbar is just that: a
personal toolbar. It is not in the best interest of Mozilla to place
buttons into a toolbar that has been designated as a user's personal
space that cannot be deleted.
Maybe Netscape wants to plague the users with undeletable buttons, but
that is not a pattern that Mozilla should support, perpetuate, or lend
its assistance to in any way.
(5) Icons were placed back into the Personal Toolbar and into the
Bookmarks menu.
Justification: The current XUL scheme of using spacers that flex is way
too complicated. This was done precisely because a visual break was
required in order to be able to distinguish the links from one another.
A much simpler tactic, one that hardly even consumes more space, given
the large size of the spacers in question anyway, is to rely on icons to
get the visual break you need (just as in 4.x).
With this design, the personal toolbar can become what it was meant to
be: simple... nothing more than a toolbar with titledbutton children.
The extra boxes and the flexible spring spacers can be eliminated.
Other Mozilla skins should not have to contend with complicated XUL
here. This also simplifies drag and drop on the personal toolbar, since
we don't have to contend with all the extra content (springs and boxes).
With the return of icons to the personal toolbar, it seemed consistent
to also have those icons in the popup Bookmarks button on the personal
toolbar, and once there, it seemed consistent to also have them in the
Bookmarks menu accessible from the menu bar.
Also, since Messenger uses icons in its menus to represent mail folders,
it seemed that icons should also be present in Bookmarks menus for the
sake of consistency.
(6) The menu bar was changed to be grey.
Justification: In order to achieve a rounded corner effect, a slice of
white padding was placed on top of the command toolbar. Because the
menu bar was white, this padding was needed in order to do a grey
rounded corner edge on the command toolbar. Of course the big problem
here is that the Macintosh has no menu bar in the window, so this just
looked stupid on the Mac. So justification #1 for this change is that
we should not have platform-specific CSS just because we want to achieve
a rounded corner effect. That's overly complex.
Secondly, by making the personal toolbar and the menu bar different
colors, you end up having to write two complete sets of rules for the
popup menus that are accessible via both, and you end up needing
different images for both (consider the submenu arrows and check menu
images, which would have to change based on the color of the menu). It
is a far simpler design to have a single consistent color for menus,
regardless of which toolbar they live on, and to do that, the toolbars
should be colored consistently.
Third, the white color simply didn't look good on the menus. This
problem was especially noticeable with context menus. The white menu
appearing on top of the typical white Web page background simply didn't
work on Unix or Win32.
So to finish up, all of these changes were made to simplify the XUL for
other Mozilla skins. Because this XUL is not simply the province of a
single skin, but is something that other skin designers are going to
have to live with, it is up to us to make it simple, functional,
elegant, and intuitive.
That's what these changes are about. I am submitting these changes to
Mozilla in the hopes that they will be accepted.
Thank you,
Dave
(hy...@netscape.com)
Stuart Parmenter
should greatly reduce the complexity of the XUL which is currently in
the tree and should resolve most all of the UI issues I currently have.
Making the current XUL skinable is nearly impossible because the XUL was
designed to match a certain skin and not the other way around. My
Netscape has already been removed from the Mozilla build.
Stuart
pav...@netscape.com
Ben Goodger
> (1) The personal toolbar was moved back to its original position and its
> font size has been restored to normal.
yup. this would ease the pain for my classic skin.
besides in the current impl, the toolbar looks weird when personalbar is
collapsed, yet in the other modules, the bars don't look so odd when
collapsed.
> (2) The menu bar has been placed back inside the toolbox.
---
yes. the menu bar is supposed to be in the toolbox. my initial
motivation for supporting this system was the ability to collapse this
easily to gain more browsing area.
> (3) The personal toolbar is now grey and now extends all the way to the
> right edge of the window.
>
> Justification: There are several reasons for these changes.
>
> First of all, the command toolbar has a grey stripe along its base, and
> this allows the personal toolbar to join seamlessly with the toolbar
> above.
---
yes, this also matches the style offered by the other components.
Furthermore, by getting rid of the grey stripe in the command bar, you'd
allow the main toolbar to have labels on its buttons - which are
necessary for new users (who may not know what a web browser is, or its
conventions) or 4.x users wanting quick orientation after installation.
> Third, the personal toolbar was losing 68 pixels on its right hand side
---
style should never come before substance ;)
> location in the UI. The user's personal toolbar is just that: a
> personal toolbar. It is not in the best interest of Mozilla to place
> buttons into a toolbar that has been designated as a user's personal
> space that cannot be deleted.
---
both these buttons, IMO, should be normal bookmarks.
the home button is simply a javascript: url that sends the user to the
homepage, and the my netscape button is a link. whether netscape likes
it or not, people will be able to change the UI (although the people
they make the money from the ad buttons proabbly wont) but I wonder if
those people would remove the button if it looked sufficiently
different.
> (5) Icons were placed back into the Personal Toolbar and into the
> Bookmarks menu.
---
yay. actually I have a change in my tree somewhere that does this too. I
think its in my classic skin. (when I say menu, I mean in the actual
menu on the menubar)
> (6) The menu bar was changed to be grey.
---
the white doesnt look /too/ bad on the menubar, but its certainly more
complex, as you say.
> Third, the white color simply didn't look good on the menus. This
---
agreed. people who haven't seen my artwork yet are invited to check out:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rgoodger/lizard/widgets/menus2b.gif
for a creative alternative ;)
> That's what these changes are about. I am submitting these changes to
> Mozilla in the hopes that they will be accepted.
---
you've got my vote.
Chris Nelson
are reasonable), but I could get my fix from a screenshot or two :-)
--chris
Oleg Rekutin
> [SNIP]
Oh yeah! to all except:
> (4) Home and My Netscape were removed from the Mozilla XUL.
>
> Justification: The latter doesn't belong in the Mozilla chrome, and the
> former doesn't belong in the XUL. It needs to be placed into an RDF
> data source so that a user can remove it from the personal toolbar
> without having to resort to an arcane overlay patch (which is what would
> be required otherwise). Alternatively it should be moved to another
> location in the UI. The user's personal toolbar is just that: a
> personal toolbar. It is not in the best interest of Mozilla to place
> buttons into a toolbar that has been designated as a user's personal
> space that cannot be deleted.
>
> Maybe Netscape wants to plague the users with undeletable buttons, but
> that is not a pattern that Mozilla should support, perpetuate, or lend
> its assistance to in any way.
> That's what these changes are about. I am submitting these changes to
Ok, but then you should definitely keep a button/link (by default,
erasable, etc.) in the default Personal Toolbar called "Home", bound to
home dir in prefs, so that new users will have an easier time switching
(instead of saying, "hey, where did my home button go?")
> Mozilla in the hopes that they will be accepted.
All good!
German Bauer
I appreciate your thinking through this.
But as the owner for the UI I do not approve of the changes, especially as
they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
default skin. In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
the same structure and XUL.
I agree that we still need to fine-tune the default skin but we have
committed to doing this togther with you and others in XPToolkit after
dogfood to find a mutually agreeable and useable solution. The Netscape
design team's priority of providing an interesting, delightful, but also
useful and integrated user experience is higher for us than providing a
generic lowest-common denominator skinnability for the Mozilla build.
Proposed Details:
(1) we will work together to create a solution that both makes the current
skin look good/ as spec'd as well as makes the toolbars flexible so they
can be positioned in any order
(2) I don't see the point for the majority of Netscape users of wanting the
menu bar collapsed or even repositioned.
(3) does not conform to the spec'd design for the Netscape skin. see (1)
(4) one of the areas wihere the XULs need to differ anyway
(5) this is a usability issue where I am not sure your statements are fact.
This will be subject to testing.
(6) this once again is part of the design spec for the default Netscape
skin, which is actuallyis related to Netscape branding.
+ German
leaf (Daniel Nunes)
German,
Can you see the demand for the changes hyatt is proposing? It seems
pretty clear that the community is behind the redesign, so how can you,
as a mozilla owner, deny them?
The correct solution to this problem (netscape's design v. mozilla's),
is not to ram a ui down mozilla's throat, when so many of its users
would prefer a different ui. The correct solution is to focus on a
method of putting netscape's design where it should be, in netscape's
cvs tree. I'm not sure how the ui is a dogfood problem. None of Hyatt's
changes interferes with the ability to use the application.
Please reconsider your stand on this.
leaf
--
``What is this talk of "release?" We do not make software "releases."
Our software "escapes" leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in its wake.''
-- Moncr...@gvl.esys.com, as seen on the on the PerlTK mailing list
Chris Nelson
> David:
> I appreciate your thinking through this.
>
> But as the owner for the UI I do not approve of the changes, especially as
> they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
> These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
> default skin. In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
> the same structure and XUL.
Why can't Netscape's skin be designed to fit within the
lowest-common-denominator, instead of forcing everyone into the current screwy
structure that only Netscape settled on? I thought that the purpose of an open
design was to allow others to comment on and recommend changes where needed.
Hyatt's changes are sensible, they don't stray from the *mozilla* design specs,
and they provide the opportunity for others to start skinning the UI. It seems
senseless for Netscape to keep a lock down on the UI when it's clear that the
UI structure is going to have to change *anyway* if the app is ever to be
skinnable by users.
>
> I agree that we still need to fine-tune the default skin but we have
> committed to doing this togther with you and others in XPToolkit after
> dogfood to find a mutually agreeable and useable solution. The Netscape
> design team's priority of providing an interesting, delightful, but also
> useful and integrated user experience is higher for us than providing a
> generic lowest-common denominator skinnability for the Mozilla build.
Netscape doesn't control the UI of Mozilla. If you are the owner, even if you
work for Netscape, you shouldn't be allowing Netscape's opinions to sway you
whenever the Mozilla community wants things differently (and whenver the
changes would be good for *Mozilla* despite their implications for Netscape's
short-term plans). If Netscape has problems with the fact that altering the XUL
will hork their current skin design, they need to work out their design on a
separate CVS tree.
The fact is that the current Netscape skin (to your own admission) doesn't even
allow for the most rudimentary UI needs (toolbar reordering, for example). Yet
you state that some of Dave's changes do not "conform to the spec'd design for
the Netscape skin." My answer: "So what?" If Netscape wants Mozilla to conform
to Netscape's plans, then reign in the whole crew, and give up this open source
initiative. Otherwise, let Mozilla develop, and don't hinder it so that it can
fit into Netscape's internal strategy.
Whatever Netscape priorities, Mozilla won't be finished until these issues are
addressed, and a "lowest-common-denominator" skinnability is reached. Which
means that Communicator is also delayed by putting this off. If these changes
aren't addressed, we could end up in a position where people start doing up
their own XUL files to get around the limitations of the current structure, and
we'll all be screwed.
--chris
http://www.mozillazine.org
Marshall
You submit a change and you get a responce something along the lines of:
no-no that isn't what we (Netscape) want to do.
Kaj Nygren
/Kaj
>
Dean Tessman
>
> David:
> I appreciate your thinking through this.
>
> But as the owner for the UI I do not approve of the changes, especially as
> they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
> These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
> default skin. In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
> the same structure and XUL.
So suddenly we're limited by what the commercial Netscape product is
going to end up being?
Dean Tessman
Kaj Nygren
> they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
> These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
> default skin.
That may be, but the *Mozilla* UI should really be independent of this.
What if any other company using mozilla said that they didn't like the UI.
> In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
> the same structure and XUL.
Well, if Netscape has issues with the UI that cannot be resolved with
skinning, then forking the XUL-code may be needed, as suggested in
another post.
But that also means that the Netscape UI won't really be skinnable right?
That would be a great loss.
I think we should put these changes in, and then "skin" the UI to look like
Netscape wants.
Also a good idea would probably be to add one or two "extra" skins to
the build, this would ensure that Mozilla is skinnable in the future.
/Kaj
pete collins
I just think he put a lot of heart and soul into the current UI and wants
to fight to keep it.
People are attached to the creations they make.
It has personal significance to them.
It is just a creative issue not a Netscape thing.
I could be wrong but that is how i see it . . .
So cut the guy some slack.
The bottom line is we ALL want to see not only mozilla succeed, but really
kick some serious ass.
pete
Steve Lamm
Netscape specific look. Netscape can still achieve that look later (without
all the hackery) when some css issues are resolved. Netscape may rather
keep these hacks until then, but this will give some incentive to fix the
real issues.
Besides, we, Netscape, does not want to come across as Netscape == Mozilla,
we want to do what is reasonable.
The changes not only make sense because they take a Netscape-ism out of
Mozilla-land, but the changes also make the XUL simpler. As a XUL
developer, I would appreciate that.
-slamm
*disclaimer*: These are only my personal opinions.
Brendan Eich
here. What the right thing is should be clear from this newsgroup thread.
It would be best of owner and peers came to agreement on how to keep the UI
simple, skinable, with reconfigurable toolbars, etc. Worse, but better than
losing those UI goods, would be for netscape.com to fork its own copies of
navigator.xul, etc.
No matter what, I and st...@mozilla.org are here to tell you that we won't
let the XUL community go away unhappy with the outcome. More on this soon.
/be
Ben Bucksch
general speaking.
German Bauer wrote:
> But as the owner for the UI I do not approve of the changes, especially as
> they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
> These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
> default skin. In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
> the same structure and XUL.
We are talking about the Mozilla tree. Mozilla.org and you in your role
as module owner don't know, what Netscape's default skin is.
I think, relying on comments of Ben Goodger and Chris Nelson, Hyatt's
changes should be checked in and Netscape should use its own version of
the relevant files. That way, Netscape has to decide, if it wants to (A)
suffer from a maintainance hell or (B) develop a way to make the Mozilla
version more flexible without such major disadvantages (see Germans
comment to (1) below), from which both sides will profitate.
The alternative, leaving the tree are it is, will mean the opposite: a
maintainance hell for all other Mozilla skin suppliers.
> I agree that we still need to fine-tune the default skin but we have
> committed to doing this togther with you and others in XPToolkit after
> dogfood to find a mutually agreeable and useable solution. The Netscape
> design team's priority of providing an interesting, delightful, but also
> useful and integrated user experience is higher for us than providing a
> generic lowest-common denominator skinnability for the Mozilla build.
Substitute "interesting, delightful, but also useful and integrated user
experience" with "specialized and proprietary skin".
I think, Mozilla module owners should rate Mozilla's interests higher
than Netscape's.
I don't even think, easy skinnablity is against Netscape's interest. I
actually think, it's one of the greatest strengths of Mozilla and
Communicator 5 (see my reply to Dan Ridley). And I guess, Hyatt thinks
so, too.
To the technical details, which should not get lost:
> Proposed Details:
> (1) we will work together to create a solution that both makes the current
> skin look good/ as spec'd as well as makes the toolbars flexible so they
> can be positioned in any order
Very good.
> (2) I don't see the point for the majority of Netscape users of wanting the
> menu bar collapsed or even repositioned.
Many users still use 800x600 and 4.x leaves only 60% or so for browsing.
Same applies for higher resolutions in windowed mode.
It was one of the major reasons for me using Internet Explorer. I don't
need a "Print" button, I want menus, icons and address bar being small
and all in the same line.
> (3) does not conform to the spec'd design for the Netscape skin. see (1)
Do we have to care? See above.
> (4) one of the areas wihere the XULs need to differ anyway
> (5) this is a usability issue where I am not sure your statements are fact.
> This will be subject to testing.
I like a space better than icons. But Hyatt mentioned technical
problems. Isn't it possible to use opaque PNG icons?
> (6) this once again is part of the design spec for the default Netscape
> skin, which is actuallyis related to Netscape branding.
I don't care about Netscape's design specs, but I like the white and
blue menus and if Netscape will maintain the different menu skins
anyway, it's no problem for Mozilla to use them (at least in one of many
skins, if others disagree).
> > The changes in question all revolve around issues I have with the
> > current structure of navigator.xul, namely that it is too complex and
> > that it makes specific assumptions about the structure of the XUL that
> > are not acceptable for other Mozilla skins.
Why do we have skinablity at all, if we're willing to give it up just
for some inconvience on Netscape's side?
--
Ben Bucksch
http://www.bucksch.org
Brian Mathis
I really appreciate all the German has done, and often feel guilty about
criticizing the current UI.
BUT, I also think that Mozilla is very cool, and should not get sunk
because the current state of the UI is pretty bad. If that hurts some
feelings, but helps the community as a whole, that's the way it should
go.
--
Brian Mathis
Direct Edge
http://www.directedge.com
Brian Mathis
[..]
> But as the owner for the UI I do not approve of the changes, especially as
> they will also affect the default skin of the commercial Netscape build.
I think this statement is a HUGE problem. This is not Netscape's
project, it is OSS. OSS is *everyone's* stuff. Netscape can do
whatever they want with their commercial version, but don't even TRY to
start restricting the OSS part of the project based on Netscape's
commercial interests.
Daniel Veditz
>
> This is why people continue to feel that Mozilla == Netscape.
>
> You submit a change and you get a responce something along the lines of:
> no-no that isn't what we (Netscape) want to do.
And what, pray tell, does "Netscape" want?
As a module owner and someone who has poured a lot of effort into the
current UI German is surely entitled to a couple of extra votes. But
only a couple :-)
Look at the mail addresses in this thread and you'll see that all the
@netscape.com people disagree with the supposed "Netscape" position. In
fact this thread started with a an obviously thought-through detailed
set of suggestions from hy...@netscape.com.
So why is German's the "Netscape" postition? Because it's easier to
twist into some paranoid conspiracy fantasy? Since I know there are
folks in Netcenter-land salivating over the possibilities of "skins" it
would be just as accurate to say hyatt's proposed changes are what
Netscape wants.
"Netscape" is not some monolithic group-mind, it's a bunch of people who
often want different and sometimes conflicting things. And I'm not just
talking about subversive independent-minded engineers, either, but
entire marketing divisions.
Please, lose the chip on your shoulder. Watching out for conflicts of
interest is useful and good, but presuming every disagreement shows
Netscape is taking over is really not helpful.
-Dan Veditz
Marshall
> And what, pray tell, does "Netscape" want?
>
> As a module owner and someone who has poured a lot of effort into the
> current UI German is surely entitled to a couple of extra votes. But
> only a couple :-)
>
> Look at the mail addresses in this thread and you'll see that all the
> @netscape.com people disagree with the supposed "Netscape" position. In
> fact this thread started with a an obviously thought-through detailed
> set of suggestions from hy...@netscape.com.
I know that... but the declining email was worded as Netscape this and
Netscape that. And from my personal experience with submitting stuff,
its always netscape employees who decline it (I know they are in the
majority for obious reasons but still... its always netscape employees
who decline my little patches.)
Daniel Veditz
>
> > Look at the mail addresses in this thread and you'll see that all the
> > @netscape.com people disagree with the supposed "Netscape" position. In
> > fact this thread started with a an obviously thought-through detailed
> > set of suggestions from hy...@netscape.com.
>
> I know that... but the declining email was worded as Netscape this and
> Netscape that.
Clearly Netscape has a lot invested in that look, they even went so far
as to change the home page to match. We even have a lot of usability
data to support the simplification aspects of the UI. But I think German
went too far to speak for Netscape in saying that the small changes
hyatt suggested were out of the question. I happen to know that
"Netscape" is also very interested in skinnability, and I suspect that
when German, Hyatt, and the folks who *can* speak for Netscape get
together some room for compromises will be found.
> And from my personal experience with submitting stuff,
> its always netscape employees who decline it (I know they are in the
> majority for obious reasons but still... its always netscape employees
> who decline my little patches.)
It sucks to be on the receiving end of that, but if you try to be
objective were the patches declined for good reasons or for "Netscape"
reasons?
The best tracking might be to create a bugzilla report (put [feature] in
the summary if it's not a bugfix) and attach the patch. Then cc
bre...@mozilla.org on the bug if it's unfairly declined and let him
kick some Netscape butt over the issue.
-Dan Veditz
Ben Goodger
> These changes are unacceptable now for the planned Netscape design and
> default skin. In the past it was said that both builds should likely share
> the same structure and XUL.
but this is ridiculous. the mozilla builds could contain purple
polkadots on them if the community wished it to be so, and Netscape
would have to Deal - the mozilla builds have nothing to do with the
Netscape builds, AT ALL. Sure, they can serve as a proving ground for
netscape designs if you want, to run them by the developer public. The
developer public's feelings are mixed. The most vocal developers seem to
want to explore alternatives, or try changes.
> design team's priority of providing an interesting, delightful, but also
> useful and integrated user experience is higher for us than providing a
> generic lowest-common denominator skinnability for the Mozilla build.
---
I'll spare everyone a complete argument of my points against the current
skin, (especially as its a Netscape skin, rather than a Mozilla one) but
I feel it may have overstepped the line dividing delightful and useful.
I certainly find the appearance interesting, and judging by the shots on
projects/ui/ even pretty darned cool looking, but I don't know how well
it'll fly with /everyone/. I guess beta periods will give us some
feedback on that.
> (2) I don't see the point for the majority of Netscape users of wanting the
> menu bar collapsed or even repositioned.
---
yes but I do, and the creators of other skins may want this too. I was
one of the original proponents of the xpmenu system, and it was for this
very reason that I supported it! Without this feature we may as well
have native menus.
> (5) this is a usability issue where I am not sure your statements are fact.
> This will be subject to testing.
---
hyatts changes result in a more conventional appearance - browsers have
looked pretty much the same since the dawn of time. While I think you're
on track with the "simpler is better" philosophy, I don't see how moving
and resizing the toolbar and other components simplifies the UI as much
as only having four toolbar buttons.
> (6) this once again is part of the design spec for the default Netscape
> skin, which is actuallyis related to Netscape branding.
---
again, see above, and please find the thread with "Mozilla == Netscape"
in its subject lines on mozilla.editor.
Robert Kaiser
Did you ever start a Netscape 4.5+ using the -k or -sk options? There
you'll see windows without menu- or toolbars. If Mozilla or even
Netscape 5 should be able to use such modes, you MUST be able to
collapse the menubar!
LWP...@aol.com
After looking at Hyatt's screenshot, I can't see what this whole fuss is all
about. The changes are small.
>The Netscape
>design team's priority of providing an interesting, delightful, but also
>useful and integrated user experience is higher for us than providing a
>generic lowest-common denominator skinnability for the Mozilla build.
Give another statement of this kind and Mozilla might be as good as dead.
>Proposed Details:
>(1) we will work together to create a solution that both makes the current
>skin look good/ as spec'd as well as makes the toolbars flexible so they
>can be positioned in any order
What spec?
>(2) I don't see the point for the majority of Netscape users of wanting the
>menu bar collapsed or even repositioned.
When grandma wants to get a "little" more space to view the gigantic JPG
photo of her grandchild on her grandchild's website, it could come in handy ;)
>(3) does not conform to the spec'd design for the Netscape skin. see (1)
What spec?!!!!
>(4) one of the areas wihere the XULs need to differ anyway
Huh?
>(5) this is a usability issue where I am not sure your statements are fact.
>This will be subject to testing.
If it is going to be subject to testing why not get Mozilla to be able to
switch between the two UIs, release the alpha, announce it to the world and
take a survey of which they like, and then decide?
>(6) this once again is part of the design spec for the default Netscape
>skin, which is actuallyis related to Netscape branding.
What spec? If Mozilla is going to follow some spec, then give us the details
of the specs so that we can have an open discussion on it (like the API's
currently listed at bugzilla).
Just my rant. Before the current UI landed, I thought I read in this list
that one of the main reason for the "new" UI to make it more "skinable", but
now you imply that the changes were to follow netscape's spec?!!
LW
Matthew Thomas
>
> I have made some changes to the navigator UI recently that I am now
> holding in my local tree. I am making a public post here because I am
> seeking approval from Mozilla to land these changes into the Mozilla
> tree.
These are all good. Well done. And good luck changing the mind of the
module owner ... :-/
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, usability weenie
http://critique.net.nz/
Marshall
> the summary if it's not a bugfix) and attach the patch. Then cc
> bre...@mozilla.org on the bug if it's unfairly declined and let him
> kick some Netscape butt over the issue.
Thats what I've done. I'm not saying that the patch was amazing or
anything (It was a very basic 3 line xul hack) but it was declined
because "I don't think this is the direction we want to go".
I've had bugs set to 'not resolving' because "Hopefully it won't happen
often". Its just starting to piss me off.
Robert O'Callahan
> >(5) this is a usability issue where I am not sure your statements are
> >fact. This will be subject to testing.
> If it is going to be subject to testing why not get Mozilla to be able
> to switch between the two UIs, release the alpha, announce it to the
> world and take a survey of which they like, and then decide?
What a bunch of early-adopting alpha testers feel good about is not
necessarily particularly usable.
Having said that, as an early-adopting alpha tester, I definitely vote
against white popups on white backgrounds :-). Actually, I think the
default skin should use the platform default colour for menus (and for the
other UI elements).
Rob
--
[Robert O'Callahan http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~roc 6th year CMU CS PhD student
"I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything
beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet
they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."
--- Ecclesiastes 3:10-11]
LWP...@aol.com
> Actually, I think the
> default skin should use the platform default colour for menus (and for the
> other UI elements).
Same here, and I hope that by beta, the platform UI sniffer will be ready.
LW
David Hyatt
Even ignore icons. I'm not a graphics designer, and I'm not trying to state
that these icons or colors should be used. I'm concerned with the structure
of the XUL itself and not as much with the appearance.
Anyway, I am withholding these changes from checkin. Let's work together to
make the personal toolbar usable in the current UI and to deal with the
problems that arise when collapsing/reordering toolbars.
Dave
(hy...@netscape.com)
Ben Goodger wrote:
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
> > Others may disagree, but to me, the new UI looks bad. I guess, German
> > thinks so, too, and defends the "old" layout with Netscape's specs. That
> > must make sense to him as Netscape certainly invested a lot of time in
> > developping it.
> ---
> Remember that hyatt's XUL is just that, I don't think he spent much time
> prettying it up. Yes it looks bad, but that doesn't mean that it has to
> stay that way. I spent some time last night trying to achieve the same
> effect while trying to maintain the spirit of the UE specification. I'm
> no graphics master, but I think I achieved a reasonable appearance. No
> doubt someone with more skill than me can achieve more.
>
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rgoodger/lizard/moz2.JPG
> (this is real XUL and CSS, not a photoshop hack)
>
> XUL is incredibly flexible. I have no doubt that we can use a "correct"
> implementation and still create a neat looking browser that doesn't have
> any usability woes.
Jerry Baker
>
> (6) this once again is part of the design spec for the default Netscape
> skin, which is actuallyis related to Netscape branding.
> > Third, the white color simply didn't look good on the menus. This
> > problem was especially noticeable with context menus. The white menu
> > appearing on top of the typical white Web page background simply didn't
> > work on Unix or Win32.
Oh crap. I swear that I thought those white menus were just temporary
because more XUL work needed to be done. Netscape and Mozilla are really
supposed to go with a two-dimensional 16-bit looking menu system? Ewwww.
Jerry Baker
>
> Since I know there are folks in Netcenter-land salivating over the > possibilities of "skins"
You guys have to keep'em in a seperate area huh? Can you just push that
part of the building into the ocean for us ;-)
Jerry Baker
>
> I've been asked for a screenshot, so here it is.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Cool. You really should use PNG's for UI captures though. That would
have only been about 150 lines as a PNG.
Jerry Baker
>
> I've had bugs set to 'not resolving' because "Hopefully it won't happen
> often". Its just starting to piss me off.
Just think of it as an insider's look into how we got we got with the
4.X line.
Ben Bucksch
> Guys, i don't think German is being "Mr Netscape UI".
> I just think he put a lot of heart and soul into the current UI and wants
> to fight to keep it.
>
> People are attached to the creations they make.
> It has personal significance to them.
> It is just a creative issue not a Netscape thing.
>
> I could be wrong but that is how i see it . . .
>
> So cut the guy some slack.
I'm still standing to my earlier post, but after I saw Dave's screenshot
of the new UI, I also think, German just made a very unfortunate choice
of words.
Ben Goodger
> Others may disagree, but to me, the new UI looks bad. I guess, German
> thinks so, too, and defends the "old" layout with Netscape's specs. That
> must make sense to him as Netscape certainly invested a lot of time in
> developping it.
Matthew Thomas
>
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
> >
> > Others may disagree, but to me, the new UI looks bad. I guess,
> > German thinks so, too, and defends the "old" layout with Netscape's
> > specs. That must make sense to him as Netscape certainly invested a
> > lot of time in developping it.
> ---
> Remember that hyatt's XUL is just that, I don't think he spent much
> time prettying it up. Yes it looks bad, but that doesn't mean that it
> has to stay that way.
Zigackly. How good it looks is a lot to do with color choice, 3-D
borders, and exact positioning of elements. How good it *feels* has to
do with the underlying XUL, and how easily things can be
shown/hidden/rearranged/used.
> I spent some time last night trying to achieve
> the same effect while trying to maintain the spirit of the UE
> specification. I'm no graphics master, but I think I achieved a
> reasonable appearance. No doubt someone with more skill than me can
> achieve more.
>
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rgoodger/lizard/moz2.JPG
> (this is real XUL and CSS, not a photoshop hack)
I think curvy-cornered menus belong to the `impressive, but stupid'
school of design. :-)
> XUL is incredibly flexible. I have no doubt that we can use a
> "correct" implementation and still create a neat looking browser that
> doesn't have any usability woes.
Some of us are concerned with creating a neat-looking browser that has
reasonable usability, while others are concerned with creating a highly
usable browser that has reasonable looks. I think it's fair to say that
German is in the former camp, and a large chunk of n.p.m.ui is in the
latter.
Ben Goodger
> > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rgoodger/lizard/moz2.JPG
> > (this is real XUL and CSS, not a photoshop hack)
>
> I think curvy-cornered menus belong to the `impressive, but stupid'
> school of design. :-)
i was simply trying to achieve a better appearance to prove the point
that a XUL shift doesn't mean the end o fthe world to the appearance UE
has obviously worked hard on.
I am still working on my classic skin ;)
Daniel Veditz
Sometimes we'd like to, but everything they do is what's paying for
everything *we* do.
-Dan Veditz