Enough.
Jonas Jørgensen
with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
domination. I'm outta here.
/Jonas
J.O. Aho
Gosh, you could always create your own theme/plugin which would have what ever
bottoms you like and you have always the option to go back to NS4.x.
Jonas Jørgensen
OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my life.
"Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
"Why Free Software Usability Tends To Suck Even More",
<http://mpt.phrasewise.com/discuss/msgReader$182>, point 11.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Well, sorry to see ya go. I have a HOME button right where I want or
don't want it, in the personal toolbar. It comes and goes as I see fit,
not in a *permanent* location where I have no say-so.
At any rate, we'll keep a life-ring handy for ya in case you want to
come back on-board.
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
** Post To Group ONLY, do NOT email **
rob
Have you thought about using Phoenix?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=2494
J.O. Aho
>> Gosh, you could always create your own theme/plugin which would have
>> what ever bottoms you like and you have always the option to go back
>> to NS4.x.
> OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my life.
> "Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
It's not worse than your excuse to not use mozilla, you sound more "I can't
have the bottoms I want, so I won't use it".
The theme/plugin combo gives you the oertunity to create your own buttons and
have them where you want, with other words a solution to your problem, but as
you have put your mind into that everything suxx for it's not as you want,
then there aren't much anyone can do to help you.
//Aho
Jonas Jørgensen
> Have you thought about using Phoenix?
That's kinda my point. Something has got to be *very* wrong with Mozilla
when you can speed it up by over 50% overnight and at the same time
increase its usability by an order of magnitude.
Jonas Jørgensen
>>> Gosh, you could always create your own theme/plugin which would have
>>> what ever bottoms you like and you have always the option to go back
>>> to NS4.x.
>> OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my life.
>> "Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
>
> It's not worse than your excuse to not use mozilla, you sound more "I can't
> have the bottoms I want, so I won't use it".
Oh, I'll _use_ it alright, but I have supported my last end-user,
written my last patch and triaged my last UNCO.
/Jonas
dwx
> J.O. Aho wrote:
> [snip]
> OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my life.
> "Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
>
be courteous
John Levon
And another one bites the dust ... are there any frontend contributors
*left* ?
Jonas why not join the Phoenix effort ? It certainly seems to be last
hope for sanity.
regards
john
--
Tedious line noise since 1977.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Why Can't MOZ/N7 do like IE (Since we love to emulate IE anyway) ability
to drag and drop icons where we want and change the
background/foreground colors.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
dwx wrote:
>
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> > J.O. Aho wrote:
> > [snip]
> > OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my life.
> > "Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
> >
> I don't care how much you resent a reply or a person here, but please
> be courteous
------------snip------------
I agree, while I may not agree with some of Jonas' replies, I do
"respect" him. Everyone has a point of view.
Everyone should respect everyone's point of view whether they agree with
it or not.
Everyone has the right to express their opinion.
Jonas Jørgensen
You can't just join Phoenix. You have to get invited. I certainly won't
be, since I 1) wasn't a significant Mozilla contributor -- I only made 7
or so patches, 2) wouldn't have time to create more than a couple of
patches a month even if I wanted to, and 3) am nowhere near the skill
level of the Phoenix contributors.
/Jonas
Inca
>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
>> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
>> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
>> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name
>> "Bookmarks Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it
>> in Netscape 7. A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough
>> of Netscape domination. I'm outta here.
>
> don't want it, in the personal toolbar. It comes and goes as I see
> fit, not in a *permanent* location where I have no say-so.
Of course this makes no sense at all. (Take a look at the 'go'button.
What do you mean - no saying?)
--
Inca
Many questions are answered at http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/
Sailfish
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>
>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>> [snip]
>> OMG. That is probably the most *stupid* followup I have seen in my
>> life. "Bad usability? Who cares, as long as it's SKINNAABLE!"
>>
> I don't care how much you resent a reply or a person here, but please
> be courteous
From my limited exposure, Jonas has exhibited the patience of Jobe and
courtesy beyond what many others' limits. Clearly, this particular
thread was a "hot-button" issue for him and he allowed his normally
reserved demeanor to move into the strident territory. However, in
careful reading of his reply, he wasn't disparaging the poster but,
rather, the poster's response.
If he does decide to leave, his talent and expertise will be sorely
missed on these newsgroups, imo.
fwiw ...
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
John Levon
> You can't just join Phoenix. You have to get invited. I certainly won't
I can't believe the maintainers would be so stupid as to turn down good
patches
Esben Mose Hansen
IMHO, since there is no reason given that I can detect, that bug could
just be reopened. I may do it myself if the no reason is given very
soon... ( This is just the kind of thing that creates code forks, which
mozilla certainly doesn't need.
I would be sorry to see you go. If you move to another browser project,
might I ask which?
(As for the home button thingy, that may be resolved wont-fix now, but
it should be customizable as soon as the general toolbar-customization
lands, but that is another matter.)
regards, Esben, who is off making idle threats in bug 48820 ;-)
Blake Ross
> be, since I 1) wasn't a significant Mozilla contributor -- I only made 7
> or so patches, 2) wouldn't have time to create more than a couple of
> patches a month even if I wanted to, and 3) am nowhere near the skill
> level of the Phoenix contributors.
You can't just get cvs access, but sure you can join Phoenix. We
welcome help triaging our growing bug list and would certainly look at
patches attached to bugs targetted toward pending milestones.
Blake
Jonas Jørgensen
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
>> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
>> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
>> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
>> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
>> A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
>> domination. I'm outta here.
>
> IMHO, since there is no reason given that I can detect, that bug could
> just be reopened. I may do it myself if the no reason is given very
> soon... ( This is just the kind of thing that creates code forks, which
> mozilla certainly doesn't need.
It's not just 48820 or the home button... it's the feeling that Netscape
controls too much. I'm almost starting to think of them like Microsoft :-(
> I would be sorry to see you go. If you move to another browser project,
> might I ask which?
At the moment I think I'll just stick with being a web developer.
Phoenix looks promising, though.
mozilla.org has created a lot of great things... XUL, Gecko, Bugzilla,
et cetera. It's just too bad that the front end of the flagship product
seems to be, IMO, stuck somewhere in the last millenium. It's like
nobody cares about it, and Netscape's UI (marketing?) people certainly
doesn't seem to be designing for end users.
> (As for the home button thingy, that may be resolved wont-fix now, but
> it should be customizable as soon as the general toolbar-customization
> lands, but that is another matter.)
See above.
/Jonas
Jonas Jørgensen
Guess http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/browser/README.html needs to
be updated, then.
Q6: So to whom do I send patches?
We're not quite ready for this stage.
Q7: How do I get involved?
By invitation. This is a meritocracy -- those who gain the respect of
those in the group will be invited to join the group. See Q6.
/Jonas
flacco
> rob wrote:
> That's kinda my point. Something has got to be *very* wrong with Mozilla
> when you can speed it up by over 50% overnight and at the same time
> increase its usability by an order of magnitude.
Could you be a bit more specific about these usability improvements you
refer to? I'm just curious because I find Mozilla very usable. I'd like
to know what I'm missing out on. (Seriously.)
pch
>> Jonas why not join the Phoenix effort ? It certainly seems to be last
>> hope for sanity.
>
>
> You can't just join Phoenix. You have to get invited. I certainly won't
> be, since I 1) wasn't a significant Mozilla contributor -- I only made 7
> or so patches, 2) wouldn't have time to create more than a couple of
> patches a month even if I wanted to, and 3) am nowhere near the skill
> level of the Phoenix contributors.
>
> /Jonas
>
I think that the whole point in phoenix has not yet been understood. At
this moment, there are few tens of phoenix files unlike Seamonkey (few
thousands). These few UI files are actively worked on by the phoenix
team unlike many files in seamonkey where contributions make sense since
default owners are overloaded. Phoenix default owners are not overloaded
and therefore, we can quickly fix reported bugs.
Since there are few files, and since default owners have an idea how to
fix the bugs, contributions are not critical. The same thing applies to
us: even if I can fix bugs in let's say the download manager and blake
can fix bookmark bugs I guess we won't do that because we would step
into our feet and may slow down the process.
On the other hand, QA and testing phoenix to its limits to see how it
reacts to 'silly' (or not so silly, he) actions is needed. We
wholeheartly appreciate good bug reports.
Phoenix is intended to be a core browser with functionalities designed
for the majority of the users. The fact that it is managed by a small
team ensures that the responsibility for perf/stability regression won't
be diluted and fixed asap.
But very soon, it will have an add-on manager, then everybody will be
able to write creative tab or bookmark enhancers, search add-ons and
other good pieces of software... that will be made by a broader de-facto
phoenix community.
I hope that the collaboration between add-on creators and the phoenix
team will be really tight. If s.o. realizes that s/he needs an id of a
xul element in order to insert/modify sth, I expect that in a few days,
the modification will be checked in.the phoenix trunk.
There will be a phoenix newsgroup also, in which discussions will happen.
Also, keep in mind that Phoenix does not exist without the seamonkey
trunk where the true majority of the fixes (also the trickiest, imho)
goes in.
So don't be afraid and don't give up, there are already and there will
be many ways to participate to the Phoenix effort.
pch
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Usability problems with Mozilla? Let's see:
>
> * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as opening
> a new window hidden in a submenu?
Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be there
to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components (altho' looking
at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-( ).
The one that bugs me is the way off-line menu items are set up in Mail/News
-- and I don't make use of it. That one just makes /no/ sense.
> * File menu -- hit Exit in the bookmarks manager and the entire
> application, including mailnews (!), is gone.
I know people have been griping about this, but I really have problems
understanding how people have problems distinguishing between Exit/^Q and
Close/^W. Since I tend to use keyboard short-cuts rather than menu items,
I'm actually not sure if this really /is/ a problem for many Windows users;
that said, if placing Close at the bottom of the menu and Quit above it
means fewer people will accidentally quit the entire application, then it
should perhaps be done.
> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
Hmm . . . I don'know 'bout that. I suspect it could be cleaned up a bit.
To listen to many users, however, they seem to want /more/ prefs revealed
thro' the UI.
The one that really needs work is Mail & Newsgroups Preferences; that seems
to cause people a lot of grief -- especially when it comes to SMTP settings.
> * Lack of Home button on main toolbar.
<personalOpinion>Not until your next point is addressed.</personalOpinion>
> * Toolbars can't be moved or customized.
Agreed.
> * Browser, mailnews and composer are three separate applications -- what
> are they doing in the same process?
Definitely agreed.
> * Why can't I zoom text using the toolbar?
Like Opera? I'm guessing it's one of those 4xp things: NC 4.x did it this
way; therefore we can't do it any differently. I'm increasingly thinking
that 4xp is just an excuse for not thinking of better ways in which to do
things.
> * Form Manager -- too advanced. Me no get it.
Not overly intuitable, is it? -- Isn't there s'posed to be some work coming
up on this? or is that just a Phoenix thing?
> * Password Manager -- when I say yes to remember my username and
> password for one site, it fills out the fields for me next time I visit.
> So far so good. Then my username is changed, for whichever reason. So I
> type in my new username and password, and say yes when the password
> manager asks if I want to save it. Whenever I visit the page in the
> future, I get a dialog asking me to pick a username. That dialog does
> not allow me to click on my old username and delete it.
Agreed that having to go to Tools | Password Manager | Manage Stored
Passwords isn't exactly the cleverest in UI design.
> * Sidebar -- cloning IE's and adding a panel selector dropdown would be
> more usable than the current design.
Hmm . . . ; I don't know about that. . . .
> * *Horrible* alerts and error messages... "The message has been sent but
> could not be copied to your Sent folder. Would you like to return to the
> compose window? [OK] [Cancel]"
Agreed. There are some pretty daft ones there.
> ...just to name a few. See also
> <http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$35>.
Hmm . . . whatever /did/ become of mpt?
> You and I are both cabable of using Mozilla despite of these flaws. So
> are Netscape's UI designers. But an average end user is not.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this, since I have three people using
it with relative comfort; at any rate, I'm not getting any negative
usability feedback from 'em (the last one had to do with importing messages
from OE to Moz Mail).
How is Moz' UI any better or worse than that of IE/OE -- from the
perspective of an end-user?
I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily intuitable by
the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of people not take advantage
of the UI customisablity of IE let alone realise that there were 'Internet
Options' they could set.
I don't know what the answer is to the issue. Perhaps the lighter UI of
Phoenix may provide a place in which these kinds of issues could be
explored.
And I agree that the performance improvements to Phoenix suggest that
something is horribly wrong.
> /Jonas
Anyway -- to repeat something I mentioned on the n.m.u.* groups -- , I'll be
sorry to see you go. From my end, your contributions to the NGs were what I
most saw, and I suspect that I won't be the only one to say that they have
been invaluable.
/b.
--
Mozilla end-user questions should be directed to:
* snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
* snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
* snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
* snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
Note that you need to have SSL enabled and the port set to 563.
Justin H.
>
> * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as opening
> a new window hidden in a submenu?
>
> application, including mailnews (!), is gone.
Ew.
> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
Consider: what would the prefs window look like if you combined Internet
Options, and Outlook/OE's Tools | Options together? Not to mention that
there's more in Netscapes prefs than just browser and mail/news prefs.
Besides breaking up the prefs into separate panels, what are the other
options, then?
> * Lack of Home button on main toolbar.
I don't find this disabling, just because it's right there labelled Home
on my personal toolbar (by default).
> * Toolbars can't be moved or customized.
Toolbars can't be moved or customized *easily*.
> * Browser, mailnews and composer are three separate applications -- what
> are they doing in the same process?
Are they? Really? Nah. Maybe mail/news could survive separately, but
I doubt it. At least, not 100%.
> * Why can't I zoom text using the toolbar?
>
> * Form Manager -- too advanced. Me no get it.
>
> * Password Manager -- when I say yes to remember my username and
> password for one site, it fills out the fields for me next time I visit.
> So far so good. Then my username is changed, for whichever reason. So I
> type in my new username and password, and say yes when the password
> manager asks if I want to save it. Whenever I visit the page in the
> future, I get a dialog asking me to pick a username. That dialog does
> not allow me to click on my old username and delete it.
Ew again.
> * Sidebar -- cloning IE's and adding a panel selector dropdown would be
> more usable than the current design.
>
> * *Horrible* alerts and error messages... "The message has been sent but
> could not be copied to your Sent folder. Would you like to return to the
> compose window? [OK] [Cancel]"
>
> ...just to name a few. See also
> <http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$35>.
>
> You and I are both cabable of using Mozilla despite of these flaws. So
> are Netscape's UI designers. But an average end user is not.
Are you a time traveller?! What are you doing in January!?
Justin H.
Jenny Craig
> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created.
Yes. The browser does suck. Not because of Gecko, but rather, the
BLUI.
Kill the BLUI and smelter the blubber.... smelter the blubber... and let
Gecko fly.
--
Jenny Craig - #1 Success Rate in Blubber Busting
Just say NO to Netscape BLUI - Blubber Layered User Interface
BLUI Demonstration: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui_demo.html
Jenny in Action: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui_busters2.jpg
A Slice of BLUI: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui.jpg
A BLUI Victim: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blubber_moz.png
David Tenser
I remember almost a year ago when I posted a my first few threads about
toolbar customization, I immediately got a reply from a guy called JTK
who ranted about the lack of it. I didn't know about the concept of
"trolls" back then, so I replied back and the thread started to grow
rapidly. Then Jonas stepped in and told me "Don't feed the trolls.", and
I learned that I shouldn't complain about things that are not good in
Mozilla, or at least I shouldn't do it the way I did back then. From
that day, I have respected you Jonas, and your opinions and knowledge
about Mozilla. You even helped me confirming my very first bug reports!
I think it's sad to hear that you are leaving the project, but I am not
entirely surprised. Mozilla /does/ have serious usability problems, and
this was the first thing I noticed when starting to use it. Somehow,
I've grown to love it as it is, but I doubt end-users will accept it the
way I have.
Nevertheless, things does improve in Mozilla, even when it comes to
usability. Maybe one day we will have the customizable toolbars! That
would be a big step forwards in my (and many other's) opinion.
I hope you will reconcider your decision some day. I also hope Jenny
Craig doesn't see this thread! ;)
/ David
Neil Marshall
> On 24 Jan 2002, it is alleged that Jonas Jørgensen sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>
>> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
>
>
> Hmm . . . I don'know 'bout that. I suspect it could be cleaned up a
> bit. To listen to many users, however, they seem to want /more/ prefs
> revealed thro' the UI.
There should be something available similar to TweakUI for windows.
It's seperated from the basic preferences as to not confuse new users
but you are still able to tweak things the way you like them.
Jenny Craig
>
> I hope you will reconcider your decision some day. I also hope Jenny
> Craig doesn't see this thread! ;)
>
You're about 24 minutes too late. :)
David Tenser
> David Tenser wrote:
>
>>I hope you will reconcider your decision some day. I also hope Jenny
>>Craig doesn't see this thread! ;)
>>
>
>
> You're about 24 minutes too late. :)
>
Arghh! That's just because my message took longer to write! :)
/ David
Inca
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created.
>
> Yes. The browser does suck. Not because of Gecko, but rather, the
> BLUI.
>
> Kill the BLUI and smelter the blubber.... smelter the blubber... and
> let Gecko fly.
What do you propose? You mean phoenix now? What suggestions do you have
for making a better UI?
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>> On 24 Jan 2002, it is alleged that Jonas Jørgensen sauntered in to
>> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>>
>>> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
>>
>>
>> Hmm . . . I don'know 'bout that. I suspect it could be cleaned up a
>> bit. To listen to many users, however, they seem to want /more/ prefs
>> revealed thro' the UI.
>
> There should be something available similar to TweakUI for windows.
> It's seperated from the basic preferences as to not confuse new users
> but you are still able to tweak things the way you like them.
I agree. Unfortunately, the only thing I know of is TweakMoz, and it's not
very useful unless you already know what you're doing -- /e.g./, if you want
to over-ride target="_blank", you /already/ need to know that you need to
set |user_pref("browser.block.target_new_window", true);|.
Jonas Jørgensen
> Are you a time traveller?! What are you doing in January!?
Trying to get an expired evaluation version to start. But don't tell anyone.
/Jonas (who hadn't expected this thread to generate that many replies,
who doesn't like Netscape, who notices that the tinderboxen has just
gone red, who seems to developing a nasty habit of typing increasingly
larger parts of his news posts in parenthesises(sp?) after his name, and
who is now unsubscribing from this group -- bye Brian, bye David, bye
everyone.)
Jenny Craig
> Jenny Craig wrote:
>> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created.
>>
>> Yes. The browser does suck. Not because of Gecko, but rather, the
>> BLUI.
>>
>> Kill the BLUI and smelter the blubber.... smelter the blubber... and
>> let Gecko fly.
>
> What do you propose? You mean phoenix now? What suggestions do you
> have for making a better UI?
No, I most certainly do not mean Phoenix. Pheonix is nothing more than
a 'proof of concept' project so a few developers can try to convince
themselves, and others, that BLUI doesn't suck. Despite the typical
little rants and raves about how wonderful Phoenix is (or will be) at
Mozillazine or these newsgroups, I can assure you right now that it will
never amount to anything worth shaking a stick at.
In any event, the keyword here is 'native UI'. And I certainly don't
mean that pilfered junk that some refer to as K-Meleon. Not only is it
an insult to what a decent native UI is, the name alone reminds me of a
kangaroo wolfing down on a watermelon.
us...@domain.invalid
> a 'proof of concept' project so a few developers can try to convince
> themselves, and others, that BLUI doesn't suck. Despite the typical
> little rants and raves about how wonderful Phoenix is (or will be) at
> Mozillazine or these newsgroups, I can assure you right now that it will
> never amount to anything worth shaking a stick at.
>
> In any event, the keyword here is 'native UI'. And I certainly don't
> mean that pilfered junk that some refer to as K-Meleon. Not only is it
> an insult to what a decent native UI is, the name alone reminds me of a
> kangaroo wolfing down on a watermelon.
>
>
Har har, obviously you haven't even the slightest clue as regards
Phoenix. Figgers, you're just against anything produced by Netscape,
Mozilla, etc. just for the sake of being negative.
Henri Sivonen
"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote:
> Gosh, you could always create your own theme/plugin which would have what
> ever
> bottoms you like and you have always the option to go back to NS4.x.
That attitude is one of the things that are wrong with the things
surrounding Mozilla's UI.
Person 1: "Mozilla's UI is bad. Here are some good ways of improving it."
Person 2: "No, it is based on XUL which is as easy to write as HTML, so
feel free to fix it in your own copy."
It isn't productive to have everyone doing the fixes privately. (See
also http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156)
Being able to edit the source is not a proper substitute for real
toolbar customization that Mozilla spectacularly lacks and that Galeon,
then Chimera and now Phoenix provide. (And yes, I could customize
Mozilla. That's not the point. I even have a script for automating some
basic annoyance removal.)
Also, Mozilla themability isn't a good substitute for adhering to GUI
environment-wide themes.
Having Galeon and Chimera is excellent. There's no way a non-native
toolkit could (in reality) be better than GTK+ on Gnome and Cocoa on OS
X. However, the existence of these browsers and Phoenix is evidence of
something being wrong with Mozilla itself:
1) the UI
2) putting more than the browser in the same process
Also, the pace at which Chimera and, in particular, Phoenix have
progressed indicates a problem with Mozilla's UI process (or the lack
thereof).
There are a lot of people who prefer Chimera and Galeon over Mozilla
itself. I'm one of them. I had for a long time been waiting for
browser-only browsers with native UIs. When I had the chance to switch
to Galeon, I did so on Linux. When Chimera became stable enough on OS X,
I switched to Chimera on OS X. (I still use Mozilla on Solaris and IRIX,
for which Galeon and Phoenix aren't available at the moment.)
But what does it mean for Mozilla to have people moving to spin-offs?
First of all, there's less QA for the UI of Mozilla itself. I, for
example, don't think it is worthwhile for me to actively file bugs on
Mozilla's UI now that I'm no longer using Mozilla for my daily browsing
at home. Many people who have tried to contribute UI patches have given
up. They have either left altogether, moved to the back end or moved to
the spin-offs.
But the UI problems have an effect on the back end QA as well. It is
often said that Mozilla is just for testing when someone points out a
usability problem. Now that assertion is actually coming true.
I don't believe most people test Mozilla just out of the sheer joy of
testing. People want a browser to *use* and a lot of Mozilla "testing"
is actually real use. As more and more people move to the spin-offs
there will be less and less real-world use kind of testing done on the
trunk--that is, less ad hoc regression testing with real-world Web pages.
The number of people who are willing to use trunk build just for testing
is likely smaller than the number of people who would report real bugs
when encountering them during daily use of the browser. If I launch
Mozilla itself on OS X these days, it is very likely that I'm launching
it just for testing some engine things with the expectation that QA help
there will help Chimera later on. But this means I won't find new trunk
bugs unless I'm looking for them. Also, participating in confirming
trunk bugs is behind a bigger hurdle now.
How many other people are there that contribute less to the engine QA
because the UI problems? How many users who tried a spin-off first don't
bother downloading Mozilla trunk nightlies for checking whether bugs
still exist on the trunk?
(No, I'm not implying that the spin-off are bad. They're *good*. What I
am implying is that it would be good the back end QA to have nightly
builds of the spin-offs with the back end from the trunk.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@niksula.hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>> No, I most certainly do not mean Phoenix. Pheonix is nothing more than
1. He's a troll -- an exceedingly arrogant one at that.
2. He doesn't actually object to Gecko.
3. He objects strenuously to XUL.
4. I have no idea WTF he's on about with K-Meleon, unless he's admitting
that IE's UI sucks as well.
5. I don't think he's yet come up with an alternative 'native UI' for the
rest of us to see.
/b. (who's just had what he hopes will be his last cigarette and will likely
be in a somewhat more surly mood than usual for some time. . . .)
Gervase Markham
> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
> 48820 too...
According to that bug, the inability to make the bookmark root the PT
folder is merely temporary.
> presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
> A UI fork was rumored but never came.
Er, hello? Haven't you heard of Phoenix? :-)
Gerv
Ron Hunter
browser is lousy because YOU don't like the UI? Moving the 'home' to
the personal toolbar (it IS a personal option isn't it?) offends you so
badly, I don't know WHAT you are going to do for a browser. Maybe when
you have written your own, you will share your concept of the perfect UI
with us.
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
> A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
> domination. I'm outta here.
>
> /Jonas
>
>
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Jonas Jørgensen
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> > This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
> > with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
> > Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
> > Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
> > 48820 too...
>
> According to that bug, the inability to make the bookmark root the PT
> folder is merely temporary.
That wasn't what the bug was about -- someone changed the summary after
it was wontfixed.
Anyway, 48820 and the home button was just a couple of examples. It's
not the bad UI that I'm tired of -- it's knowing that the UI cannot be
improved because Netscape doesn't won't it to.
> > presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
> > Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
> > A UI fork was rumored but never came.
>
> Er, hello? Haven't you heard of Phoenix? :-)
A UI fork *within Netscape* was rumored but never came:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ui+fork&selm=3D1495AB.1060404%40netscape.com
Yes, I have heard of Phoenix. But I don't understand why the good UI
coders need to create a fork to improve the UI, leaving the trunk in the
hands of Netscape to destroy. That is a sign of weak project management
IMO, and it shows that Netscape has *way* to much influence with
mozilla.org. It should be the other way around -- fix the trunk, let
Netscape create a fork that they can ruin.
/Jonas (who *really* doesn't like Netscape)
Jonas Jørgensen
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>> > This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> > with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
>> > Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
>> > Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
>> > 48820 too...
>>
>> According to that bug, the inability to make the bookmark root the PT
>> folder is merely temporary.
>
> That wasn't what the bug was about -- someone changed the summary after
> it was wontfixed.
>
> Anyway, 48820 and the home button was just a couple of examples. It's
> not the bad UI that I'm tired of -- it's knowing that the UI cannot be
> improved because Netscape doesn't won't it to.
s/won't/want/. Oops.
michael lefevre
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Usability problems with Mozilla? Let's see:
>>
>> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
>
> Consider: what would the prefs window look like if you combined Internet
> Options, and Outlook/OE's Tools | Options together? Not to mention that
> there's more in Netscapes prefs than just browser and mail/news prefs.
>
> Besides breaking up the prefs into separate panels, what are the other
> options, then?
well you seem to have described the solution - don't have one dialog with
the prefs for the browser and mail/news and the other stuff all mixed up
together.
if people really want UI for that many prefs, hide some of them behind
some kind of advanced interface - as it is, the average user won't be
able to find or understand anything in there...
>> * Lack of Home button on main toolbar.
>
> I don't find this disabling, just because it's right there labelled Home
> on my personal toolbar (by default).
but if you don't want a bar for bookmarks, that's another strip of screen
you've lost just to have one button.
>> * Toolbars can't be moved or customized.
>
> Toolbars can't be moved or customized *easily*.
well, being open source, anything can be fixed, but moving that stuff
around is beyond just making a skin - most people don't want to have to
build their own UI in XUL...
>> * Browser, mailnews and composer are three separate applications -- what
>> are they doing in the same process?
>
> Are they? Really? Nah. Maybe mail/news could survive separately, but
> I doubt it. At least, not 100%.
there is enough separation that having different processes would be good,
so if something freezes or crashes in a web page, it doesn't kill off
your email app as well...
mozilla's UI sucks... there seem to be many and varied opinions on which
bits suck most and how to improve things, but there doesn't seem to be
anyone sitting back and saying "this is a great UI, i'm glad it works
exactly like this"...
--
michael
Henri Sivonen
Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
> 4. I have no idea WTF he's on about with K-Meleon, unless he's admitting
> that IE's UI sucks as well.
K-Meleon is not on the level of Galeon and Chimera as a native-UI
replacement for Mozilla.
Henri Sivonen
Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
> > * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as opening
> > a new window hidden in a submenu?
>
> Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be there
> to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components (altho' looking
> at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-( ).
But forcing the "components" that really should be separate apps in one
process is part of the problem. "New Message" belongs in a menu of a
separate mail app--not in the File menu of a browser.
> I'm increasingly thinking that 4xp is just an excuse for not thinking of
> better ways in which to do things.
Indeed.
> How is Moz' UI any better or worse than that of IE/OE -- from the
> perspective of an end-user?
Whatever IE/OE do is no excuse for Mozilla not having a better UI.
Besides, when it comes usability of mail apps, I'd rather use Apple Mail
as a benchmark.
> I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily intuitable by
> the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of people not take advantage
> of the UI customisablity of IE let alone realise that there were 'Internet
> Options' they could set.
I suggest observing OS X users drag & drop toolbar buttons.
Inca
<snip>
> /b. (who's just had what he hopes will be his last cigarette and will
> likely be in a somewhat more surly mood than usual for some time. . .
> .)
Good luck, and thanks for the warning. (-:
pch
> No, I most certainly do not mean Phoenix. Pheonix is nothing more than
> a 'proof of concept' project so a few developers can try to convince
> themselves, and others, that BLUI doesn't suck. Despite the typical
> little rants and raves about how wonderful Phoenix is (or will be) at
> Mozillazine or these newsgroups, I can assure you right now that it will
> never amount to anything worth shaking a stick at.
>
> In any event, the keyword here is 'native UI'. And I certainly don't
> mean that pilfered junk that some refer to as K-Meleon. Not only is it
> an insult to what a decent native UI is, the name alone reminds me of a
> kangaroo wolfing down on a watermelon.
>
Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.
pch
Inca
>>>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back
>>>> ends with one of the most lousy front ends ever created.
>>>
>>> Yes. The browser does suck. Not because of Gecko, but rather, the
>>> BLUI.
>>>
>>> Kill the BLUI and smelter the blubber.... smelter the blubber... and
>>> let Gecko fly.
>>
>> What do you propose? You mean phoenix now? What suggestions do you
>> have for making a better UI?
>
> No, I most certainly do not mean Phoenix. Pheonix is nothing more
> than a 'proof of concept' project so a few developers can try to
> convince themselves, and others, that BLUI doesn't suck. Despite the
> typical little rants and raves about how wonderful Phoenix is (or
> will be) at Mozillazine or these newsgroups, I can assure you right
> now that it will never amount to anything worth shaking a stick at.
>
> In any event, the keyword here is 'native UI'. And I certainly don't
> mean that pilfered junk that some refer to as K-Meleon. Not only is
> it an insult to what a decent native UI is, the name alone reminds me
> of a kangaroo wolfing down on a watermelon.
Ok, so you did not mean Phoenix. Then what do you mean? I am really
interested in any real suggestions. Do you have an example of decent
native UI?
David Tenser
> /b. (who's just had what he hopes will be his last cigarette and will
> likely be in a somewhat more surly mood than usual for some time. . . .)
>
As long as you're not jumping on me again, I support your decision! ;)
/ David
pch
> coders need to create a fork to improve the UI, leaving the trunk in the
> hands of Netscape to destroy. That is a sign of weak project management
> IMO, and it shows that Netscape has *way* to much influence with
> mozilla.org. It should be the other way around -- fix the trunk, let
> Netscape create a fork that they can ruin.
>
> /Jonas (who *really* doesn't like Netscape)
>
No no no, we all should be grateful to Netscape that has paid many
developers to provide a viagratic trunk.
Netscape wants to have its $$ back? It's normal, even if we can be
doubtful how clever they are to achieve it.
But please realize that anybody can take the trunk and do whatever he
wants with it. UI frontend development time over trunk development time
should be sth like 0.0001%
A fork was badly needed and it has happened with phoenix.
I hope that AOL will get its money back and continue the open source
experience and that phoenix will satisfy unsatisfied users so that both
will benefit from each other.
I don't see any conflict between Phoenix and Netscape. We only have
different goals.
pch
Ron Hunter
your screen space, to the point of taking about 1.5 times the normal
space of one toolbar for ALL of them. And, the icons are colorful!
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
michael lefevre
> You could use a theme like 'little mozilla' which is VERY frugal with
> your screen space, to the point of taking about 1.5 times the normal
> space of one toolbar for ALL of them. And, the icons are colorful!
that would improve the situation... but making everything smaller in
order to reduce the wasted space isn't an ideal solution... you could
then either save the space and keep the larger buttons, or use little
mozilla and save even more space...
> michael lefevre wrote:
>> In article <3D90EA22...@whidbey.net>, Justin H. wrote:
>>
>>>Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>Usability problems with Mozilla? Let's see:
>>>>
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>* Lack of Home button on main toolbar.
>>>
>>>I don't find this disabling, just because it's right there labelled Home
>>>on my personal toolbar (by default).
>>
>>
>> but if you don't want a bar for bookmarks, that's another strip of screen
>> you've lost just to have one button.
>>
[snip]
--
michael
Augh!
all the way back at M18. Back then I never understood why they didn't
look at NS4.x and see what parts of it's UI worked and what didn't and
start from there...always has been a bit of a sore point that.
I've learnt to work round the UI faults because I like Moz and as such
have to live with the "I have no other reason other than I don't want
to" replies of the UI designers. I wish I could understand the process
better and sort some stuff myself but I just don't have the time to do it.
Brian Heinrich wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2002, it is alleged that Jonas Jørgensen sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>
>> flacco wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:11:52 -0400, Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>>>
>>>> rob wrote:
>>>> That's kinda my point. Something has got to be *very* wrong with
>>>> Mozilla
>>>> when you can speed it up by over 50% overnight and at the same time
>>>> increase its usability by an order of magnitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you be a bit more specific about these usability improvements you
>>> refer to? I'm just curious because I find Mozilla very usable. I'd
>>> like
>>> to know what I'm missing out on. (Seriously.)
>>
>>
>> Usability problems with Mozilla? Let's see:
>>
>> * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as
>> opening a new window hidden in a submenu?
>
>
> Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be
> there to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components (altho'
> looking at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-( ).
I dunno. I knida like it there. Saying that, I tend to use the context
menu and the shortcuts to open tabs, the only time I tend to Open A New
Window is when I'm clicking on a link in Mail/News (which will
hopefully/eventually open in a tab)
>
> The one that bugs me is the way off-line menu items are set up in
> Mail/News -- and I don't make use of it. That one just makes /no/ sense.
>
>> * File menu -- hit Exit in the bookmarks manager and the entire
>> application, including mailnews (!), is gone.
>
>
> I know people have been griping about this, but I really have problems
> understanding how people have problems distinguishing between Exit/^Q
> and Close/^W. Since I tend to use keyboard short-cuts rather than menu
> items, I'm actually not sure if this really /is/ a problem for many
> Windows users; that said, if placing Close at the bottom of the menu and
> Quit above it means fewer people will accidentally quit the entire
> application, then it should perhaps be done.
For me, the problem would setm from the fact that like, say, the prefs
window the Bookmarks one is, for me at least, concidered a Sub-Window of
the main browsing session. If I click on Exit there I expect to be
returned to the borwser I opened it from, not shutting down the entier
program. Sub-Windows shouldn't do that in my opinion.
>
>> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
>
>
> Hmm . . . I don'know 'bout that. I suspect it could be cleaned up a
> bit. To listen to many users, however, they seem to want /more/ prefs
> revealed thro' the UI.
>
> The one that really needs work is Mail & Newsgroups Preferences; that
> seems to cause people a lot of grief -- especially when it comes to SMTP
> settings.
>
>> * Lack of Home button on main toolbar.
>
>
> <personalOpinion>Not until your next point is addressed.</personalOpinion>
Now this is my biggest gripe. Good ol' bug 89350. Marlon, who's sole
reason for not putting it in the Toolbar is because "it's not a
navigation button" and "I don't want to" and "It would make the Location
bar too short"...yet happily accepts things like Go and the massive
Print button. Then when you look deeper you find bug 164868 which seems
to turn what Marlon says on it's head. This one should really be in The
Best of Bugzilla cos it has turned into a joke.
I suspect if they did change it now though we'd get the same uproar as
we did when they swaped "Open in New Tab" and "Open in New Window" round
in the context menu. (FYI, my own pref is for OinT to be top...it's a
pain having to alter the XUL every time I download a new nightly)
>
>> * Toolbars can't be moved or customized.
>
>
> Agreed.
Whenever that happens...I'm not holding my breath.
>
>> * Browser, mailnews and composer are three separate applications --
>> what are they doing in the same process?
>
>
> Definitely agreed.
These last few points (inc. my own OinW/OinT gripe) seem to be big
contention points. From what I've seen they're almost split 50/50 in
terms of folk that want it and folk that don't. You can't please
everyone all the time I guess.
>
>> * Why can't I zoom text using the toolbar?
>
>
> Like Opera? I'm guessing it's one of those 4xp things: NC 4.x did it
> this way; therefore we can't do it any differently. I'm increasingly
> thinking that 4xp is just an excuse for not thinking of better ways in
> which to do things.
>
>> * Form Manager -- too advanced. Me no get it.
>
>
> Not overly intuitable, is it? -- Isn't there s'posed to be some work
> coming up on this? or is that just a Phoenix thing?
>
>> * Password Manager -- when I say yes to remember my username and
>> password for one site, it fills out the fields for me next time I
>> visit. So far so good. Then my username is changed, for whichever
>> reason. So I type in my new username and password, and say yes when
>> the password manager asks if I want to save it. Whenever I visit the
>> page in the future, I get a dialog asking me to pick a username. That
>> dialog does not allow me to click on my old username and delete it.
>
>
> Agreed that having to go to Tools | Password Manager | Manage Stored
> Passwords isn't exactly the cleverest in UI design.
>
>> * Sidebar -- cloning IE's and adding a panel selector dropdown would
>> be more usable than the current design.
>
>
> Hmm . . . ; I don't know about that. . . .
I don't bother with any of these so I'll take your word for it. :)
>
>> * *Horrible* alerts and error messages... "The message has been sent
>> but could not be copied to your Sent folder. Would you like to return
>> to the compose window? [OK] [Cancel]"
>
>
> Agreed. There are some pretty daft ones there.
>
>> ...just to name a few. See also
>> <http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$35>.
>
>
> Hmm . . . whatever /did/ become of mpt?
I'm not to bothered with silly error messages so long as they are vaugly
descriptive. I like to know what's happened when something goes wrong so
I can fix it. Saying that, I'm glad there is work happening on making
the boxes "Document contains no data" and "connecton refused" into
websites. It just seems so stupid pausing the entier browsing session
(especially when you have about 6/7 pages open) until you click OK all
because of one page having a minor problem. This is especially true for
me because I'm stuck behind a Norton Internet firewall/proxy and I don't
think it likes Moz all that much...not that I can do much about it, I
don't have access to it to fiddle with its settings. :P
>
>> You and I are both cabable of using Mozilla despite of these flaws. So
>> are Netscape's UI designers. But an average end user is not
>
Yes, this is the big problem. I agree with you entierly. When I design
the web pages I write I try to start from the ground up believing my end
users to be complete idiots. There are times when I think "Nahh, they
can't be /that/ stupid" and make things a little more complex. After the
site goes live, guess which bit of the site gets the most
complaints/problems? The bit where I tried to treat them as though they
had an IQ higher than the seat they're sitting on.
Never underestimate your oponent, they will always find ways to be dumber.
>
> I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this, since I have three people
> using it with relative comfort; at any rate, I'm not getting any
> negative usability feedback from 'em (the last one had to do with
> importing messages from OE to Moz Mail).
>
> How is Moz' UI any better or worse than that of IE/OE -- from the
> perspective of an end-user?
Well, I think it's not as intuative as it is with IE. I had a friend
recently give Moz a go. He came from an IE/Pegasus backround was was
full of gripes saying "Why can't I do this" and "Why can't I do that"
until I told him where the options to do what he wanted were. One of his
particular gripes I remember agreeing with was the way the Attachments
were handled in Mail/News
>
> I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily intuitable
> by the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of people not take
> advantage of the UI customisablity of IE let alone realise that there
> were 'Internet Options' they could set.
>
> I don't know what the answer is to the issue. Perhaps the lighter UI of
> Phoenix may provide a place in which these kinds of issues could be
> explored.
>
I agree with you there...for me I use Moz because, thankfully, the
issues I have with it now are realtivly minor and I have al but given up
on seeing them fixed for now. As for people not taking full advantage of
the customisability, I think thats normal. Most people seem to have it
in their head that those options are for "techy people and hackers" and
they are happy to just use the defaults, provided the defaults allow
them to browse websites.
Peter Lairo
Jenny Craig wrote:
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>
>>This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>>with one of the most lousy front ends ever created.
>
>
>
> Yes. The browser does suck. Not because of Gecko, but rather, the
> BLUI.
>
> Kill the BLUI and smelter the blubber.... smelter the blubber... and let
> Gecko fly.
>
>
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Peter Lairo
and out came crap - sorry everyone. :-[
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> In article <Xns9293A9799...@204.29.187.156>,
> Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
>
>> > * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as
>> > opening a new window hidden in a submenu?
>>
>> Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be
>> there to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components
>> (altho' looking at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-(
>> ).
>
> But forcing the "components" that really should be separate apps in one
> process is part of the problem. "New Message" belongs in a menu of a
> separate mail app--not in the File menu of a browser.
I don't have a copy of 4.x kicking around, but opening up IE 5 (recently did
a system re-install and haven't up-graded to 5.5 SP2) shows File | New |
[Window | Message | Post | Contact].
I'm not saying that this justifies the current UI design; however, given
that people seem to have a tendency to hold up IE as a paragon of rational
UI design, I find it ironic that a similar menu (sub)structure in Mozilla
would beocme a point of contention (except for Ron and Phillip, of course,
for whom it is proof that Moz just wants to be IE. Or something . . . ).
That multiple apps are part of a single process seems to me to be
potentially more confusing to users, at least as far as ^W and ^Q are
concerned.
>> I'm increasingly thinking that 4xp is just an excuse for not thinking
>> of better ways in which to do things.
>
> Indeed.
The question then becomes one of what to do about it.
>> How is Moz' UI any better or worse than that of IE/OE -- from the
>> perspective of an end-user?
>
> Whatever IE/OE do is no excuse for Mozilla not having a better UI.
> Besides, when it comes usability of mail apps, I'd rather use Apple Mail
> as a benchmark.
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to look at Apple Mail. Of the Windows
ones I've looked at or used recently -- OE, Moz Mail, Eudora, Mahogany,
Mulberry, Pegasus, Pine -- , Mozilla has, for me, the most intuitable
interface, but that might be in part because I did use NC for several years.
How to go about rethinking the UI is another matter altogether. . . .
>> I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily
>> intuitable by the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of people
>> not take advantage of the UI customisablity of IE let alone realise
>> that there were 'Internet Options' they could set.
>
> I suggest observing OS X users drag & drop toolbar buttons.
Since the nearest OS X user I know is 500 km away, I don't understand what
you're getting at, I'm afraid. . . .
/b.
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> there is enough separation that having different processes would be good,
> so if something freezes or crashes in a web page, it doesn't kill off
> your email app as well...
Agreed. I don't think anyone's really gonna argue this.
> mozilla's UI sucks... there seem to be many and varied opinions on which
> bits suck most and how to improve things, but there doesn't seem to be
> anyone sitting back and saying "this is a great UI, i'm glad it works
> exactly like this"...
I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely wretched.
Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are problems with
/any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of the menus and the two
sets of prefs panels needs some work.
Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of toolbar
customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being able to move
buttons about.
Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that I've
encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it seems to be
/de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> In article <Xns9293E794C...@204.29.187.156>,
> Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
>
>> 4. I have no idea WTF he's on about with K-Meleon, unless he's admitting
>> that IE's UI sucks as well.
>
> K-Meleon is not on the level of Galeon and Chimera as a native-UI
> replacement for Mozilla.
Hmm . . . this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, in
comparison to Gnome or Aqua, Windows' native UI sucks, would it? ;-)
/b.
Inca
>> there is enough separation that having different processes would be
>> good, so if something freezes or crashes in a web page, it doesn't
>> kill off your email app as well...
>
> Agreed. I don't think anyone's really gonna argue this.
>
>> mozilla's UI sucks... there seem to be many and varied opinions on
>> which bits suck most and how to improve things, but there doesn't
>> seem to be anyone sitting back and saying "this is a great UI, i'm
>> glad it works exactly like this"...
>
> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of
> the menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
I think Jonas' problem is not only with the UI itself, but also some
good suggestions to make it better are simply refused. Some 'wontfixes'
are impossible to understand - the links have been posted here before. I
think it is that what is putting him off (understandable IMO)
> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or
> being able to move buttons about.
>
> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
But I miss it in almost every app (-:
Also, it might be because browsers are so commonly used and for very
different purposes, with very different intentions. (Actually, I
personally don't mind the non-customisability as long as the
home-button-patch works.)
In mail / news I certainly miss it, since the buttons 'mark as... ' are
overly used by me, while cut / copy / paste / print and save are never
used.
Inca
>>>> * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as
>>>> opening a new window hidden in a submenu?
>>>
>>> Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be
>>> there to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components
>>> (altho' looking at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-
The Bat comes close to intuitive, I think. I certainly would take a look
at it. There are many many options, and most of them are more or less
where I expect them to be. There are no customisable toolbars though,
and the looks aren't as smooth as in some other programs.
Then again, I just looked at The Bat once more, and the menus are
crowded, and a little complicated... Okok, it is not very good UI-design
after all. But still, I find it workable anyway (-:
Still, if you are interested you might want to take a look at it.
Because I think The Bat has some good things, and while the menus aren't
that good, the panes are mostly quite logically set up. (Still a bit too
crowded at times, but well - one cannot everything have
(-: ).
> How to go about rethinking the UI is another matter altogether. . . .
I am interested in this, not only for mozilla but just in general. I
think (as I might or might not have said before) most UI grows by having
a new feature that needs to be stuck somewhere. But I am interested in
the principles that make good UI design. Do you know anywhere I can look
for that?
>>> I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily
>>> intuitable by the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of
>>> people not take advantage of the UI customisablity of IE let alone
>>> realise that there were 'Internet Options' they could set.
>>
>> I suggest observing OS X users drag & drop toolbar buttons.
>
> Since the nearest OS X user I know is 500 km away, I don't understand
> what you're getting at, I'm afraid. . . .
--
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> How to go about rethinking the UI is another matter altogether. . . .
>
> I am interested in this, not only for mozilla but just in general. I
> think (as I might or might not have said before) most UI grows by having
> a new feature that needs to be stuck somewhere. But I am interested in
> the principles that make good UI design. Do you know anywhere I can look
> for that?
Off-hand, no. But -- assuming you've not ditched 'em -- you might want to
look at the pages bookmarked under Bookmarks | Personal Toolbar Folder |
Mozilla Project | Developer Information | User interface design. At the
very least, it would be a place from which to begin. . . .
michael lefevre
> On 25 Sep 2002, it is alleged that michael lefevre sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>
>> there is enough separation that having different processes would be good,
>> so if something freezes or crashes in a web page, it doesn't kill off
>> your email app as well...
>
> Agreed. I don't think anyone's really gonna argue this.
well Justin kind of did, although I'm not sure he was actually talking
about processes...
>> mozilla's UI sucks... there seem to be many and varied opinions on which
>> bits suck most and how to improve things, but there doesn't seem to be
>> anyone sitting back and saying "this is a great UI, i'm glad it works
>> exactly like this"...
>
> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely wretched.
> Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are problems with
> /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of the menus and the two
> sets of prefs panels needs some work.
i wouldn't say it was wretched. however, browser UIs have been around a
while, and other browsers have better UI than mozilla. the most serious
issue is that the UI seems to be getting worse (or at least no better) as
time progresses, rather than better. people who want to clean things up
are ignored...
> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of toolbar
> customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being able to move
> buttons about.
>
> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that I've
> encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it seems to be
> /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
and word processors, and a whole bunch of other apps. it's getting more
common, on all platforms, for apps to allow extensive customisability.
mozilla should be moving to be _better_ than the rest, not simply staying
still in a position where it's not quite as good...
--
michael
Esben Mose Hansen
> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of the
> menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
I agree with you, but since Jonas has left the group, I saw no point in
arguing. As much as I respect Jonas's work, I'm a little perplexed by
this reaction. Sure, the management of this beast can be frustrating,
but this is so with projects of any size of 10 upwards. But I digress: I
find mozilla UI intuitive and easy to use except for a few strange
items, which no doubt will be eliminated at some point (like being able
to quit the entire applications from Manage bookmarks :O) )
>
> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being
> able to move buttons about.
> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
I have questioned this need before. In fact, I'm not sure this is such a
good idea in any case. I believe IE has this ability; yet I've yet to
see anyone who has actually moved stuff around. I believe that this
demand stems primarily from two groups:
1) People who are just into this feature and use it in other browsers.
2) People who actually use the home button, and who doesn't use the
personal toolbar.
Neither group is very large, I think, but I may be wrong, of course.
regards, Esben
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> damn, I tried to post a cute ascii art about *not feeding the trolls*
> and out came crap - sorry everyone. :-[
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
------------snip-------------------------
> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that I've
> encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it seems to be
> /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>
> /b.
Biting my tongue to the point of bleding heavily! :
IE does, Microsoft Office Does (at least on the Mac OS 9 and below platform).
--
Phillip M. Jones, CET
Jenny Craig
Yes, I do have an example of a decent native UI. The UI of Netscape
Communicator 4 polished up a bit for tabbed browsing, additional prefs
(anti-popup), multiple pop-accounts, etc.... Not only is the UI native,
thereby completely eliminating the buggy and bloated BLUI factor, it is
also one that millions.... upon millions.... upon millions.... of users
were accustomed to and liked.
The sheer irony is that the BLUI advocates probably have it already,
buried deep within their blubber archives at mozilla.org.
--
Jenny Craig - #1 Success Rate in Blubber Busting
Just say NO to Netscape BLUI - Blubber Layered User Interface
BLUI Demonstration: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui_demo.html
Jenny in Action: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui_busters2.jpg
A Slice of BLUI: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blui.jpg
A BLUI Victim: http://www.geocities.com/moz_blubber/blubber_moz.png
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>> there is enough separation that having different processes would be
>>> good, so if something freezes or crashes in a web page, it doesn't
>>> kill off your email app as well...
>>
>> Agreed. I don't think anyone's really gonna argue this.
>>
>>> mozilla's UI sucks... there seem to be many and varied opinions on
>>> which bits suck most and how to improve things, but there doesn't
>>> seem to be anyone sitting back and saying "this is a great UI, i'm
>>> glad it works exactly like this"...
>>
>> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
>> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
>> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of
>> the menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
>
> I think Jonas' problem is not only with the UI itself, but also some
> good suggestions to make it better are simply refused. Some 'wontfixes'
> are impossible to understand - the links have been posted here before. I
> think it is that what is putting him off (understandable IMO)
I'm aware of that; I think anyone who's been reading some of these NGs for
more than a couple weeks is aware of it. I'd also say that (AFAIC) it's
less the WONTFIX as it is the lack of anything approaching a comprehensible
rationale for the decision.
> > Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
>> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or
>> being able to move buttons about.
>>
>> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
>> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
>> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>
> But I miss it in almost every app (-:
*LOL!*
> Also, it might be because browsers are so commonly used and for very
> different purposes, with very different intentions. (Actually, I
> personally don't mind the non-customisability as long as the
> home-button-patch works.)
>
> In mail / news I certainly miss it, since the buttons 'mark as... ' are
> overly used by me, while cut / copy / paste / print and save are never
> used.
It's rare that I ever use any of the buttons in the Mail Toolbar, so it's
not that big a deal to me -- tho' I can understand why the default set might
prove annoying to some people.
(Hmm . . . now that I think of it, just turning that toolbar off would speed
loading the Mail/News window -- at least while I'm stuck using Modern. . .
.)
Jonas Jørgensen
> BTW, I've been investigating bug 48820 for you. The bug that was
> WONTFIXED was "Change the name of the Personal Toolbar". People have
> assumed, wrongly, that you left in a huff because you couldn't call it
> the Bookmarks Bar. You and I both know that this is wrong - there's just
> been a miscommunication. It would have been stupid to leave over the
> name of a UI feature.
I didn't leave over 48820, the home button on the navigation toolbar, or
any other specific bug. I left because I was tired of watching Netscape
make bad decisions. 48820 just happened to be the latest of those bad
decisions; I could have picked any other bug instead. I regret that I
even mentioned that bug, seeing how much confusion it caused.
> If you want to be able to make the bookmarks root the PT folder (which I
> assume is what you actually want), then that'll be possible after we
> _get_ a bookmarks root, which we don't have at the moment. And if you
> file a bug asking for that particular feature, I assure you it won't be
> WONTFIXED.
I want that ability, sure. But I also wanted it to be the default,
because I think that's most intuitive for the average end user. 'Cause I
wanted Mozilla to be the ideal end user browser. Now that I just want it
to work for me, I couldn't care less about neither the toolbar name nor
the default setting.
/Jonas
Inca
<snip>
>>> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
>>> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
>>> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of
>>> the menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
>>
>> I think Jonas' problem is not only with the UI itself, but also some
>> good suggestions to make it better are simply refused. Some
>> 'wontfixes' are impossible to understand - the links have been
>> posted here before. I think it is that what is putting him off
>> (understandable IMO)
>
> I'm aware of that; I think anyone who's been reading some of these
> NGs for more than a couple weeks is aware of it. I'd also say that
> (AFAIC) it's less the WONTFIX as it is the lack of anything
> approaching a comprehensible rationale for the decision.
Oh ok, then I misread your post. I'm sorry.
<snip more>
>> In mail / news I certainly miss it, since the buttons 'mark as... '
>> are overly used by me, while cut / copy / paste / print and save are
>> never used.
>
> It's rare that I ever use any of the buttons in the Mail Toolbar, so
> it's not that big a deal to me -- tho' I can understand why the
> default set might prove annoying to some people.
Who knows what you might do if you had just The Perfect Buttons there
(-:
> (Hmm . . . now that I think of it, just turning that toolbar off
> would speed loading the Mail/News window -- at least while I'm stuck
> using Modern. . . .)
I have snipped some, especially for you, now how's that. (Of course not
responding would even be better (-: )
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
>> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
>> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of the
>> menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
>
> I agree with you, but since Jonas has left the group, I saw no point in
> arguing. As much as I respect Jonas's work, I'm a little perplexed by
> this reaction.
Sheer out-&-out frustration, I suspect. It seems to've been building for a
little while now -- ever since the whole <marquee> fiasco. . . .
> Sure, the management of this beast can be frustrating,
> but this is so with projects of any size of 10 upwards.
And this particular beast also has a reputation for being intensely
political.
> But I digress: I
> find mozilla UI intuitive and easy to use except for a few strange
> items, which no doubt will be eliminated at some point (like being able
> to quit the entire applications from Manage bookmarks :O) )
OK, there is perhaps something a bit goofy in that, since it's a sub-
component, but I still find it appalling that people can't figure out that
Exit/^Q isn't quite the same as Close/^W. Then again, I've been using this
Windows box for five years now and still haven't quite gotten used to
Alt+F4. . . .
>> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
>> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being
>> able to move buttons about.
>> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
>> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
>> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>
> I have questioned this need before. In fact, I'm not sure this is such a
> good idea in any case. I believe IE has this ability; [ . . . ]
It does.
> [ . . . ]yet I've yet to
> see anyone who has actually moved stuff around.
You'll have to take my word for it that I and most of my friends -- at least
those who use IE -- have all done so.
> I believe that this
> demand stems primarily from two groups:
>
> 1) People who are just into this feature and use it in other browsers.
> 2) People who actually use the home button, and who doesn't use the
> personal toolbar.
>
> Neither group is very large, I think, but I may be wrong, of course.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it's a bit glibly dismissive,
since the /lack/ of the feature seems to be providing a barrier to some
people using Mozilla.
> regards, Esben
Brian Heinrich
I'm in part inclined to agree. It's like the 4xp thing: the fact that it's
skinnable ends up becoming an excuse for not working on improving the
usability of the UI. (Hmm . . . weird: seems I actually agree with mpt on
something. . . .) UIs grow by accretion; at some point someone has to do
something before it collapses under its own dead weight -- and it would seem
that Moz is rapidly finding itself in this position.
This, I think, is where Jonas' frustration with NS comes in to play: he can
see a need for something to be done about the UI and yet likewise sees what
he considers as Netscape's rigidity when it comes to all matters UI.
>> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
>> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being
>> able to move buttons about.
>>
>> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
>> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
>> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>
> and word processors, and a whole bunch of other apps.
I s'pose I should probably point out that the bulk of my apps are nearly
five years old. As much as I might dislike M$ at times, I will say that one
thing I like about Word, for instance, is the way in which it allows for
keystroke short-cuts to be customised. (There was some GUI customisability
as well, IIRC -- I actually have it installed right now, so I can't check.)
> it's getting more
> common, on all platforms, for apps to allow extensive customisability.
> mozilla should be moving to be _better_ than the rest, not simply
> staying still in a position where it's not quite as good...
This could become its own trap, tho' -- that is, assuming such
customisability becomes possible, it's quite possible for people to use it
as another excuse for not doing anything about the UI: 'Well, if a user
doesn't like it, he/she can do something about it.'
That said, I still think there needs to be a re-examination of the menu
stucture and the two sets of pref panels. -- I'd actually, several weeks
ago, posted something in to n.p.m.ui in the hopes of trying to encourage
discussion of the matter. Needless to say, it was me with resolute silence,
which was a bit annoying since what had prompted the posting was the
recognition that, for many end users, certain things just weren't clearly
intuitable at all.
Inca
>>> I'm apparently one of the few who doesn't find Moz' UI absolutely
>>> wretched. Are the problems with it? -- Yes, no doubt. But there are
>>> problems with /any/ UI. There's a bit of inconsistency in some of
>>> the menus and the two sets of prefs panels needs some work.
>>
>> I agree with you, but since Jonas has left the group, I saw no point
>> in arguing. As much as I respect Jonas's work, I'm a little
>> perplexed by this reaction.
>
> Sheer out-&-out frustration, I suspect. It seems to've been building
> for a little while now -- ever since the whole <marquee> fiasco. . . .
>
>> Sure, the management of this beast can be frustrating,
>> but this is so with projects of any size of 10 upwards.
>
> And this particular beast also has a reputation for being intensely
> political.
>
>> But I digress: I
>> find mozilla UI intuitive and easy to use except for a few strange
>> items, which no doubt will be eliminated at some point (like being
>> able to quit the entire applications from Manage bookmarks :O) )
>
> OK, there is perhaps something a bit goofy in that, since it's a sub-
> component, but I still find it appalling that people can't figure out
> that Exit/^Q isn't quite the same as Close/^W. Then again, I've been
> using this Windows box for five years now and still haven't quite
> gotten used to Alt+F4. . . .
If the wording was something like
Close Page Ctrl+W
Exit Program Ctrl+Q
I think confusion is minimised.
<snip the rest>
dwx
>> I don't know what the answer is to the issue. Perhaps the lighter UI
>> of Phoenix may provide a place in which these kinds of issues could be
>> explored.
>
> I agree with you there...for me I use Moz because, thankfully, the
> issues I have with it now are realtivly minor and I have al but given up
> on seeing them fixed for now. As for people not taking full advantage of
> the customisability, I think thats normal. Most people seem to have it
> in their head that those options are for "techy people and hackers" and
> they are happy to just use the defaults, provided the defaults allow
> them to browse websites.
>
it seems that while some people think customization will help casual
users such feature is actually meant for advanced users...
dwx
Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> * File menu -- why is the menu command for something as basic as
>> opening a new window hidden in a submenu?
>
> Agreed that it's kinda silly, but I suspect that it's supposed to be
> there to provide some kind of consistency amongst the components (altho'
> looking at the sub-menu reveals inconsisencies of its own :-( ).
>
> The one that bugs me is the way off-line menu items are set up in
> Mail/News -- and I don't make use of it. That one just makes /no/ sense.
>
I count 14 items in the File Menu in Navigator. Care to add more?
We could move 'open a new window' off the sub menu, but then having
a 'open other...' sub-menu for other options is sillier.
>> * File menu -- hit Exit in the bookmarks manager and the entire
>> application, including mailnews (!), is gone.
>
another problem: in Navigator 'close window' is very far away from
'exit', so the chance of clicking exit by accidently is pretty high...
> I know people have been griping about this, but I really have problems
> understanding how people have problems distinguishing between Exit/^Q
> and Close/^W. Since I tend to use keyboard short-cuts rather than menu
> items, I'm actually not sure if this really /is/ a problem for many
> Windows users
It is a problem. It's one thing confusing new window shortcut with new
tab shortcut, it's another confusing close window shortcut and quit
shortcut. Basically, I avoid using non-reversible shortcuts :)
>; that said, if placing Close at the bottom of the menu and
> Quit above it means fewer people will accidentally quit the entire
> application, then it should perhaps be done.
>> * Preferences: Too many panels, too many prefs.
Actually, it is pretty good. I don't know about any usability test about
this, but having many options in one place should be more usable and
user-friendly (that is, doesn't terrify the user) than having many
dialogs. I have always thought MSIE's options (preferences) UI design
horrible. Let's compare MSIE's with Netscape 4's:
* MSIE has a multi-tab interface and Netscape uses a two-pane interface
with a perf navigation tree and a content pane.
/can't argue which one is better.../
* MSIE hides options in dialogs. To access something not even advanced,
you need to open a dialog window (remember, you already have a dialog
open). In Navigator, you can access most stuff in one place.
* MSIE put a lot of semi-sorted options in a advanced option list. The
options are grouped into trees, but it's very difficult to understand
what the options are.
* MSIE's option dialog has a few tabs (a plus). Navigator's pref dialog
has many (too many?) pages (a minus minus). But in MSIE, each tab
contains many options; wheras in Navigator most pages have only a
few of options.
* In MSIE real customization is tiresome. Setting more than one option
often require switching back and forth between dialogs. In Navigator,
customization is confusing at first, but once you find the pages you
want, you can change settings real fast.
* MSIE's script & security customization really sucks and do nothing,
but that's probably another story :p
Anyway, yes we have too many prefs, but the design is adequate. At least
for Navigator 4.x, I might add. For Mozilla, we have a bigger beast to
tame, I think -- too many RFEs and duplicates at bugzilla!!!!!
> Hmm . . . I don'know 'bout that. I suspect it could be cleaned up a
> bit. To listen to many users, however, they seem to want /more/ prefs
> revealed thro' the UI.
but that's not as bad as MSIE. MSIE has many options that do nothing
except gives it an air of customizability whereas in Mozilla I find
most of the settings useful.
> The one that really needs work is Mail & Newsgroups Preferences; that
> seems to cause people a lot of grief -- especially when it comes to SMTP
> settings.
>
>> * Toolbars can't be moved or customized.
>
> Agreed.
>
but toolbars are useless!!!! Here's what I have observed with people using
MS Office: people who use MS Office almost everyday tend to move the menu
bar /below/ the toolbars. I have never asked them why, but I suspect the
reason to be that using menu (text) is way easier than using toolbars
(graphics). While toolbar is fun to look at, its useless except to hold
buttons with icons that you can understand and function you know. Of course
you can customize the toolbar in MS Office, but apparently people who use
it for work would rather avoid playing with it too much.
I don't understand all the fuzz about toolbars; all I know is looking at
toolbars make you feel good (dunno why). Beginners don't use toolbars,
they use menus instead. Advanced users don't use toolbars, they use
keyboard shortcuts.
Anyone tried to use an Adobe graphics application? With all the floating
windows you might suspect that they are floating because using a graphic
app requires extensive mouse usage and floating windows are easier to
access with mouse. However, my experience is using the tool buttons
is so repetitive and tiring (it requires more mouse movement than
necessary) that very soon I learned most of the shortcuts and killed all
the annoying windows.
>> * Form Manager -- too advanced. Me no get it.
>
suggestion: don't use it, it doesn't even work half the time :p
What I do is letting it fill the form as it wishes and then edit the
form if it doesn't work. I don't even bother 'manage' the thing.
> Not overly intuitable, is it? -- Isn't there s'posed to be some work
> coming up on this? or is that just a Phoenix thing?
How can we make it more intuitable? Form manger might make form
filling faster, but form filling will remain terrifying for most
users.
>> * Password Manager -- when I say yes to remember my username and
>> password for one site, it fills out the fields for me next time I
>> visit. So far so good. Then my username is changed, for whichever
>> reason. So I type in my new username and password, and say yes when
>> the password manager asks if I want to save it. Whenever I visit the
>> page in the future, I get a dialog asking me to pick a username. That
>> dialog does not allow me to click on my old username and delete it.
>
> Agreed that having to go to Tools | Password Manager | Manage Stored
> Passwords isn't exactly the cleverest in UI design.
hey, that's one thing I'll be forced to manage :p
>
>> * Sidebar -- cloning IE's and adding a panel selector dropdown would
>> be more usable than the current design.
>
>
> Hmm . . . ; I don't know about that. . . .
me neither. Having options immediately present should be more usable
than hiding them in a drop-down menu.
>> ...just to name a few. See also
>> <http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$35>.
>
re. the story
1. Navigator chrome structure
dunno. toolbar might not be customizable but it's minimum screen real
estate is rather lovely.
6. Menu structure:
partially disagree: cluttered menu is always more accessible than a
cluttered toolbar.
10. Preferences
disagree: kill the tree and you run into MSIE usability problems.
Tabs are only good if they fit in one row; more than one row and
you got troubles. Drop-down page selection (in Adobe apps, for
example) is even worse--it hides more information than a tree does.
And having >1 dialog is just evil.
12 Toolbar icon design
dunno where the follow-up article is, but icons are evil. They
are good to look at, but they are also confusing--a picture always
worth a thousand different interpretations.
agree with other stuff.
>
> I'm /not/ saying there aren't flaws or that the UI is readily intuitable
> by the average end user, but I've also seen a lot of people not take
> advantage of the UI customisablity of IE let alone realise that there
> were 'Internet Options' they could set.
see my rants about MS Office.
> I don't know what the answer is to the issue. Perhaps the lighter UI of
> Phoenix may provide a place in which these kinds of issues could be
> explored.
>
eventually Phoenix will become bloated...
Sailfish
My revelation to that simple truth came a long time ago, back when
Win3.x was king. At the time, micros~1 had a barely adequate file
manager called, winfile.exe. Eventually, I got turned onto a program
suite from Central Point Systems (now gobbled by Norton who was gobbled
by Symantec) called PC Tools. It had a bunch of neat stuff in it but the
thing I fell in love with was their file manager. I could easily
customize the toolbars, create my own buttons, view zip files as folders
(much like Norton's Navigator or Power Desk today.)
Anyway, I started proselytizing this file manager in the office to
anyone who would listen. I finally got enough people interested to get
authorization to test it with a small group of average Windows users.
After a few months I gave up on the process. Why? Because 96+% of them
kept complaining that it was more than they needed and too difficult to
use, even after I'd spent many hours showing them how they could use it
to be much more productive.
Go figger....
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
michael lefevre
wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2002, it is alleged that michael lefevre sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>
>> In article <Xns929474EA7...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
>> wrote:
>>> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
>>> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or being
>>> able to move buttons about.
>>>
>>> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
>>> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
>>> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>>
>> and word processors, and a whole bunch of other apps.
>
> I s'pose I should probably point out that the bulk of my apps are nearly
> five years old. As much as I might dislike M$ at times, I will say that one
> thing I like about Word, for instance, is the way in which it allows for
> keystroke short-cuts to be customised. (There was some GUI customisability
> as well, IIRC -- I actually have it installed right now, so I can't check.)
there was (assuming you mean Word 6/95), but it was rather limited
compared to what is now available in Word, and indeed other word
processors...
>> it's getting more
>> common, on all platforms, for apps to allow extensive customisability.
>> mozilla should be moving to be _better_ than the rest, not simply
>> staying still in a position where it's not quite as good...
>
> This could become its own trap, tho' -- that is, assuming such
> customisability becomes possible, it's quite possible for people to use it
> as another excuse for not doing anything about the UI: 'Well, if a user
> doesn't like it, he/she can do something about it.'
that's already happened... the moving of the home button was WONTFIXed
partly on the basis that people can fix it themselves when things become
customisable. given a choice between annoying defaults I can change, and
annoying defaults I can't change, I'll take the former.
> That said, I still think there needs to be a re-examination of the menu
> stucture and the two sets of pref panels. -- I'd actually, several weeks
> ago, posted something in to n.p.m.ui in the hopes of trying to encourage
> discussion of the matter. Needless to say, it was me with resolute silence,
> which was a bit annoying since what had prompted the posting was the
> recognition that, for many end users, certain things just weren't clearly
> intuitable at all.
can't say that's surprising... who were you hoping would be involved in
such a discussion? what would you do with any conclusions from it? if
you want to collect some views, there's plenty of material in previous
threads in this and other groups, and in numerous bugzilla bugs to draw
from. the issue is actually getting decisions made and implemented.
--
michael
dwx
>>>it's getting more
>>>common, on all platforms, for apps to allow extensive customisability.
>>>mozilla should be moving to be _better_ than the rest, not simply
>>>staying still in a position where it's not quite as good...
customization is for advanced users only, casual users really don't care
about customizability...
taking this idea further:
- everyone here is in some way an 'advanced user'
- most feature requests in bugzilla are really beyond comprehension of
a casual user
- none of us can objectively back up an argument on Mozilla advocacy
without real-life observations of how 'others' use Mozilla
>>This could become its own trap, tho' -- that is, assuming such
>>customisability becomes possible, it's quite possible for people to use it
>>as another excuse for not doing anything about the UI: 'Well, if a user
>>doesn't like it, he/she can do something about it.'
if our dear Mozilla engineers are overloaded with work, would you rather
they focus energy on solving problems with wider implications or putting
out flames set by users? It's better to do a real customizable toolbar
than having an option for HOME button, no?
I don't believe 'leave-it-to-the-user' is the attitude of Mozilla
engineers. Nevertheless many believe so because:
- they lack understanding of the significance of usability tests and
how they work
- they consider themselves casual users and believe that they can
speak for non-techies when all the while they are adovcating for
features only intermediate-advanced users understand
- they mistakenly believe that everything a geek does must be for
geeks only, ignoring the fact that engineers are trained to solve
real-life problems
- they mistakenly use Bugzilla as a discussion forum when it is mutually
agreed upon that politics and stuff should be taken to a newsgroup
and they got annoyed when told to cease useless discussion
- they don't have time or don't bother to spend time reading what other
people have said but expect themselves to be heard, ignoring the fact
that too much reading is a problem for everyone involved.
I'm not blaming the end users. Some of the stuff said is beyond people's
normal life experience. And when arguments like home button arise,
parties involved usually got too frustrated to even listen to others;
this applies to engineers and users.
> that's already happened... the moving of the home button was WONTFIXed
> partly on the basis that people can fix it themselves when things become
> customisable. given a choice between annoying defaults I can change, and
> annoying defaults I can't change, I'll take the former.
File a bug on putting Home button in the toolbar by default when the thing
become customizable. It's not the end of world, you know... the feature you
want will be fixed, let's hope it's soon.
Torben
news:amsumr$hi...@ripley.netscape.com:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>> How to go about rethinking the UI is another matter altogether. . . .
>
> I am interested in this, not only for mozilla but just in general. I
> think (as I might or might not have said before) most UI grows by having
> a new feature that needs to be stuck somewhere. But I am interested in
> the principles that make good UI design. Do you know anywhere I can look
> for that?
<URL:http://www.asktog.com/menus/designMenu.html > might be a good start,
maybe also <URL:http://www.nngroup.com/index.html >
dwx
>>I am interested in this, not only for mozilla but just in general. I
>>think (as I might or might not have said before) most UI grows by having
>>a new feature that needs to be stuck somewhere. But I am interested in
>>the principles that make good UI design. Do you know anywhere I can look
>>for that?
>
>
> <URL:http://www.asktog.com/menus/designMenu.html > might be a good start,
> maybe also <URL:http://www.nngroup.com/index.html >
>
Parish
hind legs and bellowed:
NS4.x did a good thing, IMHO, which was to pop-up a "Close all windows
and exit" confirmation dialogue if the user did File->Exit when there
were more than one Netscape window (of any kind) open.
Just for comparison, IE only has Close on it's File menu, not Exit and
each IE window (appears) to run in it's own process so you can't kill
the whole thing even if you wanted to.
> <snip the rest>
--
Your mouse has moved
Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect
Reboot now? [ OK ]
Anti-spam e-mail address, sorry for the inconvenience
Parish
on its hind legs and bellowed:
> OK, there is perhaps something a bit goofy in that, since it's a sub-
> component, but I still find it appalling that people can't figure out that
> Exit/^Q isn't quite the same as Close/^W. Then again, I've been using this
> Windows box for five years now and still haven't quite gotten used to
> Alt+F4. . . .
>
I suspect that it is more to do with the location on the menu. One thing
Windows (and other UIs of course) have done is standardize the
location/order of the menus (File Edit View .... Windows Help) and the
items on the menus so people instinctively pick the bottom item on the
File menu to close the window, I know that's what I do and that is why I
kept Exiting when I first started using Moz.
It's rather like the speedo on your car; you get to learn where the
needle points at various speeds (30mph when just above horizontal and 70
mph when vertical in my car) so you don't actually have to "read" the
speedo, just the angle of the needle, which means you don't take your
eyes of the road for as long.
It isn't obvious that all the various Mozilla windows are a single
app/process (effectively it's a MDI app).
David Tenser
> I have questioned this need before. In fact, I'm not sure this is such a
> good idea in any case. I believe IE has this ability; yet I've yet to
> see anyone who has actually moved stuff around.
Most of my friends are changing the toolbar in IE. For example, removing
the redicolous Media button.
/ David
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
Mine doesn't have a Home button, either. ;-)
I have everything dumped on one line: The menus, then the 'standard
buttons' (back, forward, stop, refresh; the rarely-used sidebar stuff
(search, favorites, history); mail, print), address bar, and links bar
(which used to be fairly heavily customised and used to be on the other side
of the address bar -- gives you an idea how much I'm using IE these days . .
. ).
Blake Ross
No, it won't.
Blake Ross
not to...
David Tenser wrote:
> Blake Ross wrote:
>
>>> eventually Phoenix will become bloated...
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it won't.
>>
>
> ...because..?
>
David Tenser
>> eventually Phoenix will become bloated...
>
>
> No, it won't.
>
...because..?
David Tenser
> Because to get bloated you have to add bloat, and we're making a point
> not to...
Are there any plans on making a standalone non-bloated (but fully
functional) mail/news reader? Currently I have all my mail in Mozilla
and I don't want to switch to Phoenix if I can't use mail (without
having to launch Mozilla, then I can just as well keep using it for web
browsing).
/ David
Neil Marshall
Bamm Gabriana
> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
> A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
> domination. I'm outta here.
>
> /Jonas
I can't believe this. I was gone for a month (no more phone line -> no
more internet connection for now) and here I am reading Google Groups
in an internet cafe, finding out that my most respected poster in the
group is leaving. I am saddened, and I wish he'd stay.
In fact I signed up with Google just to reply to this post.
I largely agree with Jonas' observations. I myself had been involved
in a new distro recently and one of the first things I did was to edit
navigator.xul and placed the Home and Print buttons near the other
buttons in the main toolbar. This way our users in the Philippines
won't be exposed to Mozilla's UI which I consider bad UI. (Of course,
I also made IE Skin the default cause I love my own, hehe.. would cdn
allow me to bundle Orbit with it too?)
However, I think the best thing about Mozilla is the fact that people
can easily make their own forks. I know very little xul, if at all,
and even less javascript. But I wanted to make my own fork and I did.
Even deciding to bundle my fork in our Bayanihan Linux project instead
of the standard Mozilla.
Netscape does have too much influence over Mozilla, that's for sure.
But that's because they have contributed a lot. Ordinary folks like us
can still create our own browsers if we wanted to, and I realized it
wasn't that difficult. It was even fun, creating my own about box and
UA string and icons etc. :)
Want a fork? I have my own. And it's still Mozilla, with just the few
enhancements I want. And I have the Home button on the toolbar. :)
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> In article <Xns9294C0C0B...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
> wrote:
>> On 25 Sep 2002, it is alleged that michael lefevre sauntered in to
>> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>>
>>> In article <Xns929474EA7...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
>>> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Weirdly, for most people the major problem seems to be with lack of
>>>> toolbar customisability, whether that's text labels /v/ icons or
>>>> being able to move buttons about.
>>>>
>>>> Why do I find that so weird? Because there are /very/ few apps that
>>>> I've encountered that allow for this kind of customisability, but it
>>>> seems to be /de rigeur/ for browsers. . . .
>>>
>>> and word processors, and a whole bunch of other apps.
>>
>> I s'pose I should probably point out that the bulk of my apps are
>> nearly five years old. As much as I might dislike M$ at times, I will
>> say that one thing I like about Word, for instance, is the way in which
>> it allows for keystroke short-cuts to be customised. (There was some
>> GUI customisability as well, IIRC -- I actually have it installed right
>> now, so I can't check.)
>
> there was (assuming you mean Word 6/95), but it was rather limited
> compared to what is now available in Word, and indeed other word
> processors...
Word 97. (BTW, that should've been I /don't/ actually have it installed
right now.) Didn't find myself using the buttons a lot, tho' I did spend
some time customising keyboard shortcuts.
>>> it's getting more
>>> common, on all platforms, for apps to allow extensive customisability.
>>> mozilla should be moving to be _better_ than the rest, not simply
>>> staying still in a position where it's not quite as good...
>>
>> This could become its own trap, tho' -- that is, assuming such
>> customisability becomes possible, it's quite possible for people to use
>> it as another excuse for not doing anything about the UI: 'Well, if a
>> user doesn't like it, he/she can do something about it.'
>
> that's already happened... the moving of the home button was WONTFIXed
> partly on the basis that people can fix it themselves when things become
> customisable.
That's ridiculous.
> given a choice between annoying defaults I can change,
> and annoying defaults I can't change, I'll take the former.
Yeh, pretty much.
>> That said, I still think there needs to be a re-examination of the menu
>> stucture and the two sets of pref panels. -- I'd actually, several
>> weeks ago, posted something in to n.p.m.ui in the hopes of trying to
>> encourage discussion of the matter. Needless to say, it was me with
>> resolute silence, which was a bit annoying since what had prompted the
>> posting was the recognition that, for many end users, certain things
>> just weren't clearly intuitable at all.
>
> can't say that's surprising...
Probably not. :-(
> who were you hoping would be involved in
> such a discussion?
Anyone who might've been interested. Including mpt.
> what would you do with any conclusions from it?
I didn't want to do /any/thing with the conclusions from it; it was hoping
someone better qualified would be able to do something. Like I don't know
that anything having to do with the UI isn't an upwards battle. . . .
> if
> you want to collect some views, there's plenty of material in previous
> threads in this and other groups, and in numerous bugzilla bugs to draw
> from. the issue is actually getting decisions made and implemented.
In this particular case, it was a very specific issue with which I was
concerned, one for which there seemed to be enough empirical evidence that
people were having problems with it to make it worthwhile opening that
particular issue to discussion. -- Kinda like the ^Q issue, I guess: I
don't personally have a problem with it, but there seem to be enough people
who find it (at least the location of the menu item, if not the actual
short-cut (tho' I'd hate to see the short-cut disappear)) problematic that
it /should/ be opened to discussion and some kind of solution found for what
/becomes/ a usability issue. . . .
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> Perhaps we should take this issue to the accessibility newsgroup?
See, I'd've thought it would be a UI issue rather than an accessibility one;
shows what I know.
/b. (who's getting damned near as frustrated as Jonas nowadays . . . or
maybe that's just the whole nicotine withdrawal thing. . . .)
<snip />
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> jon...@jonasj.dk (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jonas_J=F8rgensen?=) wrote in message
> news:<3D905236...@jonasj.dk>...
>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
>> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
>> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
>> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
>> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
>> A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
>> domination. I'm outta here.
>>
>> /Jonas
>
> I can't believe this. I was gone for a month (no more phone line -> no
> more internet connection for now) and here I am reading Google Groups
> in an internet cafe, finding out that my most respected poster in the
> group is leaving. I am saddened, and I wish he'd stay.
>
> In fact I signed up with Google just to reply to this post.
You're not the only one saddened to see Jonas leave. On the plus side, it's
nice to see a posting from you again after such a long time.
/me wonders how long it'll be before David bugs Bamm about the XP skin. . .
.
/b.
michael lefevre
> On 26 Sep 2002, it is alleged that michael lefevre sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>> In article <Xns9294C0C0B...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
>> wrote:
>>> I s'pose I should probably point out that the bulk of my apps are
>>> nearly five years old. As much as I might dislike M$ at times, I will
>>> say that one thing I like about Word, for instance, is the way in which
>>> it allows for keystroke short-cuts to be customised. (There was some
>>> GUI customisability as well, IIRC -- I actually have it installed right
>>> now, so I can't check.)
>>
>> there was (assuming you mean Word 6/95), but it was rather limited
>> compared to what is now available in Word, and indeed other word
>> processors...
>
> Word 97.
well it certainly existed in that...
> (BTW, that should've been I /don't/ actually have it installed
> right now.)
indeed... it wouldn't have made much sense otherwise :)
[snip]
>>> That said, I still think there needs to be a re-examination of the menu
>>> stucture and the two sets of pref panels. -- I'd actually, several
>>> weeks ago, posted something in to n.p.m.ui in the hopes of trying to
>>> encourage discussion of the matter. Needless to say, it was me with
>>> resolute silence, which was a bit annoying since what had prompted the
>>> posting was the recognition that, for many end users, certain things
>>> just weren't clearly intuitable at all.
>>
>> can't say that's surprising...
>
> Probably not. :-(
>
>> who were you hoping would be involved in
>> such a discussion?
>
> Anyone who might've been interested. Including mpt.
I think mpt has already made his views on the subject very clear. it
seems he's pretty much given up on mozilla anyway...
>> what would you do with any conclusions from it?
>
> I didn't want to do /any/thing with the conclusions from it; it was hoping
> someone better qualified would be able to do something. Like I don't know
> that anything having to do with the UI isn't an upwards battle. . . .
if there was a chance of someone better qualified doing something, it
would already have happened...
>> if
>> you want to collect some views, there's plenty of material in previous
>> threads in this and other groups, and in numerous bugzilla bugs to draw
>> from. the issue is actually getting decisions made and implemented.
>
> In this particular case, it was a very specific issue with which I was
> concerned, one for which there seemed to be enough empirical evidence that
> people were having problems with it to make it worthwhile opening that
> particular issue to discussion. -- Kinda like the ^Q issue, I guess: I
> don't personally have a problem with it, but there seem to be enough people
> who find it (at least the location of the menu item, if not the actual
> short-cut (tho' I'd hate to see the short-cut disappear)) problematic that
> it /should/ be opened to discussion and some kind of solution found for what
> /becomes/ a usability issue. . . .
it has been discussed endlessly already... there's a bunch of people that
have problems with it, and a bunch of people that don't. the decision
has been made already, and i think it's pretty clear that no amount of
discussion is going to change that in a hurry...
--
michael
Henri Sivonen
Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
> > K-Meleon is not on the level of Galeon and Chimera as a native-UI
> > replacement for Mozilla.
>
> Hmm . . . this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that, in
> comparison to Gnome or Aqua, Windows' native UI sucks, would it? ;-)
You said that, not me. :-)
But no, it is not only about that.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@niksula.hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
Henri Sivonen
Brian Heinrich <hum...@myrealboxXXX.com> wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2002, it is alleged that Henri Sivonen sauntered in to
> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> > But forcing the "components" that really should be separate apps in one
> > process is part of the problem. "New Message" belongs in a menu of a
> > separate mail app--not in the File menu of a browser.
>
> I don't have a copy of 4.x kicking around, but opening up IE 5 (recently did
> a system re-install and haven't up-graded to 5.5 SP2) shows File | New |
> [Window | Message | Post | Contact].
>
> I'm not saying that this justifies the current UI design;
It doesn't. And for comparison, the following *browsers*, for example,
do not have a command in the File menu for creating an *email* message:
* Chimera
* Mac IE 5
* Opera 6b1 for Mac
* iCab
* OmniWeb
> however, given that people seem to have a tendency to hold up IE as a
> paragon of rational UI design,
(However, people who have used Mac IE 5 on Mac OS 8.5 or on Mac OS 9
seen to prefer it as a good example over Windows IE which lacks a proper
font size UI for one thing.)
> >> I'm increasingly thinking that 4xp is just an excuse for not thinking
> >> of better ways in which to do things.
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> The question then becomes one of what to do about it.
Chimera, Galeon, (possibly Phoenix; haven't tried it yet) etc.
> >> How is Moz' UI any better or worse than that of IE/OE -- from the
> >> perspective of an end-user?
> >
> > Whatever IE/OE do is no excuse for Mozilla not having a better UI.
> > Besides, when it comes usability of mail apps, I'd rather use Apple Mail
> > as a benchmark.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to look at Apple Mail. Of the Windows
> ones I've looked at or used recently -- OE, Moz Mail, Eudora, Mahogany,
> Mulberry, Pegasus, Pine -- , Mozilla has, for me, the most intuitable
> interface, but that might be in part because I did use NC for several years.
OE makes it difficult (or impossible? I couldn't figure it out.) to
write a reply in between of quoted parts of a message as one is supposed
to do (without marking the new text quoted, that is).
Pegasus shows an intimidating and complex dialog when the user tries to
do a basic thing like replying to a message. Pegasus also tells users
that sending 8bit instead of quoted-printable is still unsafe. And
Pegasus mislabels Windows-1252 as ISO-8859-1.
Pine (at least by default) doesn't transcode UTF-8 to the tty encoding
even if the bulk of a message was representable using the tty encoding.
Line wrap behavior in pine is rather annoyning when editing something in
the middle of a paragraph.
I think one of the basic things a format=flowed-generating app needs is
a way to inrease and decrease the quote level. As far as I could see,
the closest thing Mozilla Mail offers in cutting the text and pasting it
as quote. IIRC, Eudora has the same problem.
Apple Mail has none of the above-mentined problems.
> I suggest observing OS X users drag & drop toolbar buttons.
>
> Since the nearest OS X user I know is 500 km away, I don't understand what
> you're getting at, I'm afraid. . . .
I had two points:
* Some customization features can be made easy enough for "normal"
users to use.
* When looking for a good UI to compare something with, one should be
looking at Apple's products--not at Microsoft's products.
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
> In article <Xns9295DA493...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
> wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2002, it is alleged that michael lefevre sauntered in to
>> netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>>> In article <Xns9294C0C0B...@204.29.187.156>, Brian Heinrich
>>> wrote:
<snip />
>>>> That said, I still think there needs to be a re-examination of the
>>>> menu stucture and the two sets of pref panels. -- I'd actually,
>>>> several weeks ago, posted something in to n.p.m.ui in the hopes of
>>>> trying to encourage discussion of the matter. Needless to say, it
>>>> was me with resolute silence, which was a bit annoying since what had
>>>> prompted the posting was the recognition that, for many end users,
>>>> certain things just weren't clearly intuitable at all.
>>>
>>> can't say that's surprising...
>>
>> Probably not. :-(
>>
>>> who were you hoping would be involved in
>>> such a discussion?
>>
>> Anyone who might've been interested. Including mpt.
>
> I think mpt has already made his views on the subject very clear. it
> seems he's pretty much given up on mozilla anyway...
>
>>> what would you do with any conclusions from it?
>>
>> I didn't want to do /any/thing with the conclusions from it; it was
>> hoping someone better qualified would be able to do something. Like I
>> don't know that anything having to do with the UI isn't an upwards
>> battle. . . .
>
> if there was a chance of someone better qualified doing something, it
> would already have happened...
*sigh* I was afraid of something like this. . . .
The fact is that I'm not qualified to do something about it -- I can start
and participate in discussion and that's about it -- ; at the same time,
it's evident that something /does/ need to be done. (And, no disrespect to
mpt, but he certainly didn't help matters much in earlier discussions that
I'd followed. . . .)
>>> if
>>> you want to collect some views, there's plenty of material in previous
>>> threads in this and other groups, and in numerous bugzilla bugs to
>>> draw from. the issue is actually getting decisions made and
>>> implemented.
It wasn't, BTW, so much a matter of collecting views as it was the hope that
it would be possible to achieve /some/ sort of 'consensus' a) that something
needed do be done, and b) just what needed to be done.
Implementation . . . well, that's another matter -- altho', since it would
have been less a matter of adding/changing functionality than of re-
organising the existing functionality in the UI, I am assuming
implementation shouldn't have proven to be too onerous.
>> In this particular case, it was a very specific issue with which I was
>> concerned, one for which there seemed to be enough empirical evidence
>> that people were having problems with it to make it worthwhile opening
>> that particular issue to discussion. -- Kinda like the ^Q issue, I
>> guess: I don't personally have a problem with it, but there seem to be
>> enough people who find it (at least the location of the menu item, if
>> not the actual short-cut (tho' I'd hate to see the short-cut
>> disappear)) problematic that it /should/ be opened to discussion and
>> some kind of solution found for what /becomes/ a usability issue. . . .
>
> it has been discussed endlessly already... there's a bunch of people
> that have problems with it, and a bunch of people that don't. the
> decision has been made already, and i think it's pretty clear that no
> amount of discussion is going to change that in a hurry...
This is all very silly, in a way. While I don't necessarily have a problem
navigating Moz' UI, the fact that there seem to be a lot of people who /do/
suggests that there is a problem here somewhere. Someone (presumably
Netscape) at some point is going to have to revisit the whole UI/menu/prefs
usability issue. I'm not saying it (usability) is bad; I am, however,
saying that it needs to to be better.
The last time(s) I'd come across heated UI discussion, it seemed to
encompass the entire menu structure. Well, /quelle surprise/ that a
discussion like that would go nowhere quickly. Guess I had, rather naďvely,
hoped that focussing on a single issue that is provably a barrier to users
(you'd have to search now, but at the time there were several threads
relating to SMTP servers on both the n.m.u.* and n.p.m.* groups) would
result in productive discussion. How silly of me. . . . :-\
David Tenser
Thanks for the link! I was a bit confused by the page. What's the status
of this project? The link to the bug report suggests that nothing is
happening.
/ David
David Tenser
> You're not the only one saddened to see Jonas leave. On the plus side,
> it's nice to see a posting from you again after such a long time.
>
> /me wonders how long it'll be before David bugs Bamm about the XP skin.
> . . .
Shouldn't take too long. ;)
/ David
andkonDOTcom
> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks
> Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7.
> A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape
> domination. I'm outta here.
What??? Netscape and AOLTW doesnt give a rat's ass about anything
other than its profits and own good? How could this be? Oh the great
shock... I feel so betrayed...
JTK
> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>
>> This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends
>> with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as
>> Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing
>> Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug
>> 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name
>> "Bookmarks Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in
>> Netscape 7. A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of
>> Netscape domination. I'm outta here.
>>
>
> toolbar customization, I immediately got a reply from a guy called JTK
> who ranted about the lack of it.
My ears are burning! ;-)
> I didn't know about the concept of
> "trolls" back then, so I replied back and the thread started to grow
> rapidly. Then Jonas stepped in and told me "Don't feed the trolls.", and
> I learned that I shouldn't complain about things that are not good in
> Mozilla,
Right, you should not complain about AOL's Mozilla, because:
1. Dissent is not tolerated in China.
2. You will be ignored, just like I was[1], just like Jonas was.
[1] Well, they did finally get context menus working after I bitched
about it enough; but bitching's hard work, and one tires of it
eventually. Just the way the Politburo likes it.
> or at least I shouldn't do it the way I did back then. From
> that day, I have respected you Jonas, and your opinions and knowledge
> about Mozilla. You even helped me confirming my very first bug reports!
>
And now here we are today. Jonas has finally seen the incontravertible
truth of what I tried to tell you and him and everybody else oh so many
years ago, early and often. That AOL is the alpha and the omega here.
That Mozilla == Netscape == AOL. That XUL was and still is a silly
idea. That "skinning" is synonymous for "a slow, crappy excuse to not
do a real UI". That the "netscape." was never coming off the newsgroup
name. Well, better to realize it late than never, I suppose.
> I think it's sad to hear that you are leaving the project,
Why is that sad? He's clearly unhappy, AOL has no use for him, he's
finally figured out that Mozilla is going nowhere fast and he will
surely move on to more fruitful pursuits... sounds to me like everybody
wins here. Oh, well, except for Mozilla users. Oh, but then again,
"Mozilla isn't for users(tm)", is it?
"Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk
in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no
light in him." - John 11:9-10
> but I am not
> entirely surprised. Mozilla /does/ have serious usability problems, and
> this was the first thing I noticed when starting to use it.
And it is the last thing AOL is willing to address.
> Somehow,
> I've grown to love it as it is, but I doubt end-users will accept it the
> way I have.
>
You don't have to doubt: the numbers (or rather, number) could not
scream louder that the general public has no use for Mozilla.
> Nevertheless, things does improve in Mozilla, even when it comes to
> usability.
And the sun will burn out in a few bajillion years too, but I'll let
somebody else worry about that.
> Maybe one day we will have the customizable toolbars! That
> would be a big step forwards in my (and many other's) opinion.
>
AOL doesn't have calanders with days on them. I think centuries are the
finest granularity that Mozilla's progress is measured in.
> I hope you will reconcider your decision some day.
"Loose him, and let him go." - John 11:44
barney
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>> It's rare that I ever use any of the buttons in the Mail Toolbar, so
>> it's not that big a deal to me -- tho' I can understand why the
>> default set might prove annoying to some people.
>
> Who knows what you might do if you had just The Perfect Buttons there
> (-:
I imagine he'd still use keyboard shortcuts. ;)
I can't remember the last time I used the mail-news toolbar for
_anything_. Nothing would make me want to use the mouse when the same
thing can easily be done via the keyboard.
cristo morlanski
news:an3v34$db...@ripley.netscape.com...
Well, there's *two* halves to the brain, you know. And anyone who works in
more than a small handful of programs (all with their own keyboard
*short-cuts*) can *not* remember them all. Thus the *need* for a well
designed UI. A frustrating example of Moz over technical UI is a simple
function like marking a newsgroup read. Try it in OE. ONE click. Moz?
Well you have to right click the newsgroup name and select from a menu
(stupid, unless you want to 'catch-up'). Well then there's the menu button.
*IF* you've already read a message in said group, you *still* have to click
on the little dangling arrow thingie and click again on 'mark newsgroup
read'. You do this many times a day in several groups and you see how
poorly design the UI is. Of course, a customizable button bar would fix this
if it were possible, but it ain't. So keep in mind, all you keyboard
fanitics, that at most, you're only half the population (if that). So don't
dismiss viewpoints other than your own as less than valid.
--
cristo morlanski
In Moz/N7 Profile Migration Hell?
http://www.benway.com/misc/moz_n7.html