New Roadmap
Christian Biesinger
well as mozilla-seamonkey as requested in the roadmap]
Hi,
so I've read the new roadmap now.
I have some questions (and comments on the general issue below):
"[mailnews] remains a complicated front end maintained by too few
people, most of whom have different day jobs now."
How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
replace mailnews with minotaur?
And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
"Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it has
a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
That sounds like mozilla would not have any extensions. In fact Mozilla
has many extensions, possibly more than phoenix (though I don't know
what either number is).
Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use Mozilla
today? And if people prefer Mozilla today, why do you think Phoenix
would be better for them later?
Not to mention that
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/phoenix-advantages.html is outdated in
several points (I have written a separate mail to asa about that).
That said, what I have always liked about Mozilla was both the many
features it offers and the integration of the different applications.
I am not convinced that switching Mozilla to Phoenix is the way to go.
Improvements to the Mozilla UI could be done without something as
radical as switching to Phoenix. I am not of the opinion that the most
important problem of the user interface, which is (in my opinion) too
few developers, will change with that step. I have not noticed any
Phoenix checkins in the recent past, while I have noticed Mozilla
checkins for features that were earlier only part of phoenix (Examples
include popup white-/blacklisting, Personal Toolbar overflow, Improved
bookmark manager, and probably other things).
Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years, and
users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla and
download numbers.
http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10192543.html?tag=lst-0-1 shows that
350.000 users have already downloaded Mozilla 1.3, while Phoenix 0.5 can
only offer ~16.000 downloads
(http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10188268.html?tag=lst-0-4). This
shows that the current Mozilla is preferred by many users.
What I do not understand is why you want to outright replace xpfe with
phoenix. In my opinion, there is room for both the integrated,
feature-rich approach of Mozilla, and the "slim" approach of phoenix. It
is my opinion that they can coexist very well, and that there is no need
to throw away mozilla/xpfe.
In short: I would really prefer if you would reconsider that decision.
> If enough contributors sign up to keep the XPFE-based browser working, mozilla.org will consider supporting that browser on the trunk beyond 1.4
hm, where would I sign up? :)
Christian Biesinger
Matthias Versen
Boris Merath
David Tenser
On 2003-04-02 23:42 Christian Biesinger wrote:
> I have some questions (and comments on the general issue below):
>
> "Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it has
> a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
>
> That sounds like mozilla would not have any extensions. In fact Mozilla
> has many extensions, possibly more than phoenix (though I don't know
> what either number is).
The answer would be: "Phoenix has implemented a simple mechanism for
management of extensions and encouraged the community to build
additional functionality as extensions, add-ons, plugins outside of the
core app. Phoenix currently supports the enabling and disabling of
installed extensions as well as a clean extension preferences API so
that extensions can have their own settings without polluting the
Phoenix browser preferences. Phoenix has plans for extension uninstall
to round out its extension story but this hasn't happened yet."
>
>
> Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use Mozilla
> today? And if people prefer Mozilla today, why do you think Phoenix
> would be better for them later?
My guess would be that Phoenix has so far been a small side-project in
it's early alpha stages, while Mozilla is a touted and mature release.
Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>
>
> Not to mention that
> http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/phoenix-advantages.html is outdated in
> several points (I have written a separate mail to asa about that).
Feel free to explain what is outdated about it here, so other people can
share the information too.
>
> That said, what I have always liked about Mozilla was both the many
> features it offers and the integration of the different applications.
Integration will still be maintained, as stated in the new roadmap proposal.
>
> I am not convinced that switching Mozilla to Phoenix is the way to go.
> Improvements to the Mozilla UI could be done without something as
> radical as switching to Phoenix.
But why going though the painfull process of de-bloating the current
Mozilla browser when we already have a slim and useful browser
available? The end result would look the same anyway, but now with less
work.
> I am not of the opinion that the most
> important problem of the user interface, which is (in my opinion) too
> few developers, will change with that step.
The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is replaced
by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
> I have not noticed any
> Phoenix checkins in the recent past, while I have noticed Mozilla
> checkins for features that were earlier only part of phoenix (Examples
> include popup white-/blacklisting, Personal Toolbar overflow, Improved
> bookmark manager, and probably other things).
This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go on
the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
>
> Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years, and
> users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla and
> download numbers.
Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained constant
for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves their UI over
time! ;) Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit that the UI in
Mozilla sucks (more or less).
> http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10192543.html?tag=lst-0-1 shows that
> 350.000 users have already downloaded Mozilla 1.3, while Phoenix 0.5 can
> only offer ~16.000 downloads
> (http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10188268.html?tag=lst-0-4). This
> shows that the current Mozilla is preferred by many users.
See my above explanation on why Mozilla is more used than Phoenix.
>
> What I do not understand is why you want to outright replace xpfe with
> phoenix. In my opinion, there is room for both the integrated,
> feature-rich approach of Mozilla, and the "slim" approach of phoenix. It
> is my opinion that they can coexist very well, and that there is no need
> to throw away mozilla/xpfe.
Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is pretty
easy.
/ David
us...@domain.invalid
> My guess would be that Phoenix has so far been a small side-project in
> it's early alpha stages, while Mozilla is a touted and mature release.
> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
sorry, that's not my opinion. I tested phoenix 0.5, but returned to
mozilla. I like that all-in-one-pasckage I get there. I won't use
phoenix for www and minotaur for mails/news.
So I think won't to the majority of users.
> The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is replaced
> by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
so I will lose that great integrity? Bad idea. I understand mozilla as
the "project" and the others were manifestations. I don't think thats a
great idea, that the children will replace the parents
> This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go on
> the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
mozilla means for me the same, what was netscape for me:
browser, and later mailnews and composer. mozilla is the whole. What
will happen, if dividing up? You get two profiles. You have two branches
of gui,... I think, that will bring more trouble to the users. think
about the SIU (stupidest imaginable user - translatet from the german
DAU). I think the mozilla fan community will lose friends or won't
aquire possible users because of a "shocking" effect like that:
What I need three different programs? No, I won't try it.
> Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained constant
> for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves their UI over
> time! ;) Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit that the UI in
> Mozilla sucks (more or less).
the latest nightlies have problems, right ;-)
> Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
> the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is pretty
> easy.
read, what I wrote above. For mee, I can arrange with it, because I'm
convinced from the message and the project. But getting/winning new
users will become more problematic
Frank Widmaier
***
sorry, If you see that article two times. I entered that group via a
message-ID and forgot to enter a username and email-adress after
subscribing to that newsserver.
I cancelled the older one and post it again
***
>> My guess would be that Phoenix has so far been a small side-project
>> in it's early alpha stages, while Mozilla is a touted and mature
>> release. Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much
>> more convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
sorry, that's not my opinion. I tested phoenix 0.5, but returned to
mozilla. I like that all-in-one-pasckage I get there. I won't use
phoenix for www and minotaur for mails/news.
So I think won't to the majority of users.
>> The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is
>> replaced by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
so I will lose that great integrity? Bad idea. I understand mozilla as
the "project" and the others were manifestations. I don't think thats a
great idea, that the children will replace the parents
>> This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go
>> on the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
mozilla means for me the same, what was netscape for me:
browser, and later mailnews and composer. mozilla is the whole. What
will happen, if dividing up? You get two profiles. You have two branches
of gui,... I think, that will bring more trouble to the users. think
about the SIU (stupidest imaginable user - translatet from the german
DAU). I think the mozilla fan community will lose friends or won't
aquire possible users because of a "shocking" effect like that:
What I need three different programs? No, I won't try it.
>> Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained
>> constant for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves
>> their UI over time! ;) Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit
>> that the UI in Mozilla sucks (more or less).
the latest nightlies have problems, right ;-)
>> Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
>> the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is
>> pretty easy.
read, what I wrote above. For mee, I can arrange with it, because I'm
Gervase Markham
> How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
> replace mailnews with minotaur?
> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
applications.
> "Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it has
> a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
>
> That sounds like mozilla would not have any extensions. In fact Mozilla
> has many extensions, possibly more than phoenix (though I don't know
> what either number is).
And hopefully they'll be available in the new architecture. The point is
that things currently built into Mozilla will become extensions as well.
> Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use Mozilla
> today?
Because when they go to www.mozilla.org, that's where the Download link
goes to.
> That said, what I have always liked about Mozilla was both the many
> features it offers and the integration of the different applications.
This integration will be maintained if you choose to install mail inside
Phoenix, rather than running it as a separate app.
> I am not convinced that switching Mozilla to Phoenix is the way to go.
> Improvements to the Mozilla UI could be done without something as
> radical as switching to Phoenix. I am not of the opinion that the most
> important problem of the user interface, which is (in my opinion) too
> few developers, will change with that step.
I can assure you that "too few developers" is _not_ a problem with our
UI. If anything, it's too many developers sticking their fingers in.
> Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years, and
> users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla and
> download numbers.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
> http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10192543.html?tag=lst-0-1 shows that
> 350.000 users have already downloaded Mozilla 1.3, while Phoenix 0.5 can
> only offer ~16.000 downloads
> (http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10188268.html?tag=lst-0-4). This
> shows that the current Mozilla is preferred by many users.
Again, you need to compare the levels of publicity the two have had.
> What I do not understand is why you want to outright replace xpfe with
> phoenix. In my opinion, there is room for both the integrated,
> feature-rich approach of Mozilla, and the "slim" approach of phoenix. It
> is my opinion that they can coexist very well, and that there is no need
> to throw away mozilla/xpfe.
No-one is saying we have to. If people emerge who want to continue
developing the app-suite, that can happen.
Gerv
Helge Hielscher
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>
>> How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
>> replace mailnews with minotaur?
>> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
>
>
> It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
> applications.
>
>> "Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it
>> has a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
>>
>> That sounds like mozilla would not have any extensions. In fact
>> Mozilla has many extensions, possibly more than phoenix (though I
>> don't know what either number is).
>
> And hopefully they'll be available in the new architecture. The point is
> that things currently built into Mozilla will become extensions as well.
That's where the mess starts. I have spent several hours trying to get
the tab-browser-extensions and Optimoz to work/install under
Mozilla/1.2.1. At the end I had to choose between tab extensions that
worked or Optimoz that worked.
It might indeed be a good idea to split Mozilla, but mozilla.org should
still offer a full featured Mozilla, to make sure everything is still
working together as it should.
Regards,
Helge
James Graham
> Am 03.04.2003 00:46 tippte *David Tenser* in die Kiste:
>
>
>>>in it's early alpha stages, while Mozilla is a touted and mature
>>>release. Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much
>>>more convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>
>
> sorry, that's not my opinion. I tested phoenix 0.5, but returned to
> mozilla. I like that all-in-one-pasckage I get there. I won't use
> phoenix for www and minotaur for mails/news.
> So I think won't to the majority of users.
The majority of users cope fine with the fact that Outlook Express and
IE are seperate applications. Why should they have problems with Mozilla
using seperate applications? Incidentally, Phoenix has undergone a lot
of revision since 0.5; you might like to try a recent nightly.
>
>>>The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is
>>>replaced by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
>
>
> so I will lose that great integrity? Bad idea. I understand mozilla as
> the "project" and the others were manifestations. I don't think thats a
> great idea, that the children will replace the parents
Well, if you like, gecko, necko and the other backend bits are 'the
project'. They're not going anywhere, just getting a more flexible
distribution and improved front end.
>
>>>This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go
>>>on the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
>
>
> mozilla means for me the same, what was netscape for me:
> browser, and later mailnews and composer. mozilla is the whole. What
> will happen, if dividing up? You get two profiles. You have two branches
> of gui,... I think, that will bring more trouble to the users. think
> about the SIU (stupidest imaginable user - translatet from the german
> DAU). I think the mozilla fan community will lose friends or won't
> aquire possible users because of a "shocking" effect like that:
> What I need three different programs? No, I won't try it.
I can think of lots of occasions where two profiles, one for mail/news
and one for browser are useful. For example, lots of people will have a
single user account on a machine shared by the whole family. In that
case, multiple mail profiles are necessary, but multiple browser
profiles may not be. I agree it's not ideal, but the rest of my family
uses that exact setup, and I would be surprised if it wasn't more common.
I don't see how your SIU conclusion is supported. Conceptually, browsing
the web, checking email, etc. are all seperate applications. I have
observed users start Mozilla (browser) and then go back to the 'Start'
menu and use the mail icon in order to get mail up. That seems to be the
expected setup. I'd also find it challenging to explain to the SIU why,
when their browser crashed, the email they had been composing was lost.
>
>>>Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained
>>>constant for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves
>>>their UI over time! ;) Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit
>>>that the UI in Mozilla sucks (more or less).
>
>
> the latest nightlies have problems, right ;-)
No. Lots of Mozilla UI sucks. Like File > New mentioned in the roadmap.
Or buttons on the /status bar/ that open a hardcoded (not system
default) mail client. Form autofill is another prominent example. For
what it's worth I don't like some of the Phoenix UI either, but there's
nothing so bad in there that (for example) perfectly computer literate
people have to ask where the popup blocking pref has moved to because
the dialog is such a mess.
>
>>>Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
>>>the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is
>>>pretty easy.
>
>
> read, what I wrote above. For mee, I can arrange with it, because I'm
> convinced from the message and the project. But getting/winning new
> users will become more problematic
>
I think it will be a lot easier. For example, you can suggest people who
have been hit by Outlook Express viruses use Minotaur, without needing
to foist a browser component on them, which they might never use because
their online bank won't support it.
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
>> replace mailnews with minotaur?
>> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
>
> It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
> applications.
Well, I hope for two things there:
1) I hope the future Mozilla application collection (trying to avoid
"suite here") will still offer to be somewhat integrated, so that
clicking on a mailto: URL still opens a mail window, posting into a
mailto: web form will still offewr to send the information via mail, or
clicking on different kinds of URIs in e.g. the mail application still
loads it in browser/chatzilla or wherever. Also, those access points
such as icons or menu entries that offer fast access to frequently
needed apps from the other apps tend to be very helpful - and also used
by competing products (see the mail button in IE and others).
2) I hope the applications will get real names now, speaking of
"Mozilla, er, you know, the browser" and "Mozilla Mail" isn't sounding
as good as talking of "Phoenix" or "Thunderbird".
And the Name "Mozilla" itself can talk of the project, and the
framework, even the application collection - but please have a different
name for the browser at least...
Robert Kaiser
Hendrik Brummermann
> Frank Widmaier wrote:
>> Am 03.04.2003 00:46 tippte *David Tenser* in die Kiste:
>> phoenix for www and minotaur for mails/news.
>> So I think won't to the majority of users.
> The majority of users cope fine with the fact that Outlook Express and
> IE are seperate applications. Why should they have problems with Mozilla
> using seperate applications?
- IE and OE are both preinstalled as parts of Windows.
- They share the same preference-settings.
- There is an Outlook Express menu in IE.
| In an attempt to avoid an explosion of unique builds that have to be
| supported by mozilla.org, we will likely ship with all of the popular
| extensions installed but disabled, so that they can be easily turned
| on by those who wish to use them, and uninstalled by those who don't.
| This picture shows Mail as both an Application and an Extension (the
| circle with an arrow pointing to the Browser application that Mail
| extends). The pure extensions, which are never applications as well,
| are shown at the top.
I am optimistic that there will be a "mozilla-application-suite" from
the user's point of view in the future.
>> so I will lose that great integrity? Bad idea. I understand mozilla as
>> the "project" and the others were manifestations. I don't think thats a
>> great idea, that the children will replace the parents
> Well, if you like, gecko, necko and the other backend bits are 'the
> project'. They're not going anywhere, just getting a more flexible
> distribution and improved front end.
I believe normal user have never head about gecko, necko or any other
parts of the backend. They see Mozilla, Mozilla-Mail, Mozilla-Composer,
Chatzilla,... as 'the project'.
Zbigniew Braniecki
All right. I get what You said...
I agree that Pheonix is quite nice, even if i still prefer Mozilla than
Pheonix.
But instead of 'pheonix adventages' i'd like to see 'mozilla adventages'
so-called 'what we have to add to pheonix to don't make a regression
while doing step forward'...
For example i really, really, really _don't_ like that in Pheonix i have
,different than location bar, input to type search term. What for? It's
'cleaner'? No! Not for me...
As i know, pheonix is lack of many addons for coders, like turning off
xul cache, DOM Inspector, venkman and so on, so on...
I think that list of this disadventages would be very usefull.
Greetings
Zbigniew Braniecki
--
Mozilla PL Team (http://mozillapl.org)
Alladyn Team (http://alladyn.art.pl)
Sports.pl (http://sports.pl)
David Tenser
On 2003-04-03 13:44 James Graham wrote:
> Frank Widmaier wrote:
>>
>> mozilla means for me the same, what was netscape for me:
>> browser, and later mailnews and composer. mozilla is the whole. What
>> will happen, if dividing up? You get two profiles. You have two branches
>> of gui,... I think, that will bring more trouble to the users. think
>> about the SIU (stupidest imaginable user - translatet from the german
>> DAU). I think the mozilla fan community will lose friends or won't
>> aquire possible users because of a "shocking" effect like that:
>> What I need three different programs? No, I won't try it.
>
>
> I can think of lots of occasions where two profiles, one for mail/news
> and one for browser are useful. For example, lots of people will have a
> single user account on a machine shared by the whole family. In that
> case, multiple mail profiles are necessary, but multiple browser
> profiles may not be. I agree it's not ideal, but the rest of my family
> uses that exact setup, and I would be surprised if it wasn't more common.
It should be noted that this hasn't been sorted out yet. Minotaur and
Phoenix may share the same profile in the future. That is not decided.
/ David
David Tenser
On 2003-04-03 09:41 us...@domain.invalid wrote:
> Am 03.04.2003 00:46 tippte *David Tenser* in die Kiste:
>
>
>>My guess would be that Phoenix has so far been a small side-project in
>>it's early alpha stages, while Mozilla is a touted and mature release.
>>Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>>convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>
>
> sorry, that's not my opinion. I tested phoenix 0.5, but returned to
> mozilla. I like that all-in-one-pasckage I get there. I won't use
> phoenix for www and minotaur for mails/news.
> So I think won't to the majority of users.
>
>
>>The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is replaced
>>by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
>
>
> so I will lose that great integrity? Bad idea. I understand mozilla as
> the "project" and the others were manifestations. I don't think thats a
> great idea, that the children will replace the parents
But in many organizations that is exactly what needs to be done. The
current Mozilla Suite is no longer a healthy project. Its UI is hacked
together by lots of different coders and the result is bloat and
confused users.
>
>
>>This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go on
>>the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
>
>
> mozilla means for me the same, what was netscape for me:
> browser, and later mailnews and composer. mozilla is the whole. What
> will happen, if dividing up? You get two profiles. You have two branches
> of gui,... I think, that will bring more trouble to the users. think
> about the SIU (stupidest imaginable user - translatet from the german
> DAU). I think the mozilla fan community will lose friends or won't
> aquire possible users because of a "shocking" effect like that:
> What I need three different programs? No, I won't try it.
Then you didn't read the new roadmap carefully. First, let's make a
correction: most users are using /two/, not three Mozilla applications
(browser and mail). These two programs will be available as a suite,
including many disabled extensions (possibly even the Composer, but that
hasn't been sorted out yet).
So the end-user will not have to download separate programs, he/she will
be able to download a suite too, only this suite is more intuitive and
uses separate processes sharing one gecko runtime.
>
>
>>Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained constant
>>for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves their UI over
>>time! ;) Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit that the UI in
>>Mozilla sucks (more or less).
>
>
> the latest nightlies have problems, right ;-)
>
>
>>Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
>>the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is pretty
>>easy.
>
>
> read, what I wrote above. For mee, I can arrange with it, because I'm
> convinced from the message and the project. But getting/winning new
> users will become more problematic
>
That's where you're plain wrong. The new suite of applications will be
much easier for new users, and they will be faster and more intuitive.
It will not present the new user will a menu that is about to explode.
Winning new users with a complex, bloated and /slow/ application suite
is much harder than to attract users with small, intuitive and fast
applications.
/ David
David Tenser
On 2003-04-03 15:52 KaiRo - Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>> How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
>>> replace mailnews with minotaur?
>>> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
>>
>>
>> It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
>> applications.
>
>
> Well, I hope for two things there:
> 1) I hope the future Mozilla application collection (trying to avoid
> "suite here") will still offer to be somewhat integrated, so that
> clicking on a mailto: URL still opens a mail window, posting into a
> mailto: web form will still offewr to send the information via mail, or
> clicking on different kinds of URIs in e.g. the mail application still
> loads it in browser/chatzilla or wherever.
Sure, most of these "integrations" are actually handled by the OS. Also,
as the roadmap explained, Thunderbird will be available as an extension
to the browser, which means that there will probably be some integration
points, such as a Send Link item in the file menu.
> Also, those access points
> such as icons or menu entries that offer fast access to frequently
> needed apps from the other apps tend to be very helpful - and also used
> by competing products (see the mail button in IE and others).
A mail button for Phoenix will probably be part of the Mail integration
extension as well.
>
> 2) I hope the applications will get real names now, speaking of
> "Mozilla, er, you know, the browser" and "Mozilla Mail" isn't sounding
> as good as talking of "Phoenix" or "Thunderbird".
> And the Name "Mozilla" itself can talk of the project, and the
> framework, even the application collection - but please have a different
> name for the browser at least...
The browser will have a new name, but it will also be known as the
Mozilla Browser, as stated in the roadmap.
/ David
Frank Widmaier
> The majority of users cope fine with the fact that Outlook Express and
> IE are seperate applications. Why should they have problems with Mozilla
> using seperate applications? Incidentally, Phoenix has undergone a lot
> of revision since 0.5; you might like to try a recent nightly.
no - IE and OE represent a unity for the most users. They were
preinstalled components. If you thinkabout the installation routine:
they will be installed together - they are bundled. That they use the
same systemfiles is another thing, that shows, that they are a
"suite"-product.
OK, the both components I use mostly are browser and mailnews. I have no
need for a html-editor, because I'm writing plaintext. But others use
more than those two components (calendar, chatzilla,..)
> Well, if you like, gecko, necko and the other backend bits are 'the
> project'. They're not going anywhere, just getting a more flexible
> distribution and improved front end.
I understand, what xou mean - but if I think about, that at the moment
you get in trouble with some xpi-installer, what will hapen, when the
backend will be developed in two directions?
> I can think of lots of occasions where two profiles, one for mail/news
> and one for browser are useful. For example, lots of people will have a
> single user account on a machine shared by the whole family. In that
> case, multiple mail profiles are necessary, but multiple browser
> profiles may not be. I agree it's not ideal, but the rest of my family
> uses that exact setup, and I would be surprised if it wasn't more common.
ok, I understand.
But if I look around, what is normal? how many people share a computer
and use them "exrtremely"?
Another question is - why can I set up different mailaccounts? It's
possible to use more adresses in one profile. I'm having 5
email-accounts and 2 newsgroup-accounts (one is divided by a local
newsserver again).
my father has a computer for himself (I installed him netscape7)
> I don't see how your SIU conclusion is supported. Conceptually, browsing
> the web, checking email, etc. are all seperate applications. I have
> observed users start Mozilla (browser) and then go back to the 'Start'
the question is: how sees a SIU the world? He sees "windowstools" He
sees the whole, not the seperate programs.
I can see that day for day. I'm helping people (often SIU) on the german
site www.expertenseite.de. On that plattform people may ask for support
and help on all situations. There you learn easily whst it means "to be
a siu and think like a siu".
In the german newsgroup-hierarchy de.comm.software.mozilla.* you find
many pople who have problems too, but thy were mosten some levels above.
They ask for "how can I inplement another mailprogramm"? OK, its written
in the FAQ - but it is possible. If you will divide up the project, the
users will ask "how can I stick the programs together?" Browser and
Mailnews will do so easier than composer and browser, I imagine. If
they're from different developments and time lines - I hope the
interfaces will work.
another question that's coming into my mind: what will happen with
netscape? It's the most spread branch, isn't it? Will there be a try to
take phoenix, minotaur,.... to bring them together - or will they be
developed seperately?
> No. Lots of Mozilla UI sucks. Like File > New mentioned in the roadmap.
> Or buttons on the /status bar/ that open a hardcoded (not system
> default) mail client. Form autofill is another prominent example. For
> what it's worth I don't like some of the Phoenix UI either, but there's
> nothing so bad in there that (for example) perfectly computer literate
> people have to ask where the popup blocking pref has moved to because
> the dialog is such a mess.
you think that it will get better with bugs, when replacing one product
by an other?
I learned in my studies, that there exists no bug-free software. I
phoenix gets the mainproject, it will get the same problems, like
mozilla now
> I think it will be a lot easier. For example, you can suggest people who
> have been hit by Outlook Express viruses use Minotaur, without needing
> to foist a browser component on them, which they might never use because
> their online bank won't support it.
you don't know the german OE front line, do you? It's stamped by hate
:o) On the one side OjE-users (oje is in germany an abbrev for "oh
jesus"), on the other side the others. You can't imagine what struggle
it is between those two parties. To convince those users to use another
programm is almost pointless
James Graham
> James Graham wrote:
>
>
> All right. I get what You said...
> I agree that Pheonix is quite nice, even if i still prefer Mozilla than
> Pheonix.
>
> But instead of 'pheonix adventages' i'd like to see 'mozilla adventages'
> so-called 'what we have to add to pheonix to don't make a regression
> while doing step forward'...
Asa also suggested that this list be created [1] so in response, I have
created a thread at the Mozillazine forums [2]. Hopefully this feedback
will be taken into account when the switch is made.
If anyone is interested in this feedback, I am happy to summarise it and
place it in an appropriate place (e.g. a newsgroup or a webpage) if
required.
[1] http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/asa/archives/002976.html
[2] http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8383
Simon Paquet
>> The majority of users cope fine with the fact that Outlook Express and
>> IE are seperate applications. Why should they have problems with Mozilla
>> using seperate applications? Incidentally, Phoenix has undergone a lot
>> of revision since 0.5; you might like to try a recent nightly.
>
>no - IE and OE represent a unity for the most users. They were
>preinstalled components.
And Phoenix and Minotaur will represent a unity, too, once they have been
renamed (phoenix has to be renamed, because of legal issues) and once
someone has seen both applications with their similar UI.
>OK, the both components I use mostly are browser and mailnews. I have no
>need for a html-editor, because I'm writing plaintext. But others use
>more than those two components (calendar, chatzilla,..)
The new model will allow the easy creation of distributions. Think of
Minotaur and Phoenix as the core products like the Linux Kernel. Around
these two core products or only one of them, a wide variety of add-ons
can be bundled. Some distributions will try to create a
everything-but-the-kitchen-sink-suite, others will create reduced
versions targeted at specific user demands.
>> I don't see how your SIU conclusion is supported. Conceptually, browsing
>> the web, checking email, etc. are all seperate applications. I have
>> observed users start Mozilla (browser) and then go back to the 'Start'
>
>the question is: how sees a SIU the world? He sees "windowstools" He
>sees the whole, not the seperate programs.
>I can see that day for day. I'm helping people (often SIU) on the german
>site www.expertenseite.de. On that plattform people may ask for support
>and help on all situations. There you learn easily what it means "to be
>a siu and think like a siu".
I don't think we have to think like SIUs (DAUs) in every single way.
There's a German saying, that translated to English, comes down to this:
"Every time a developer tries to make his app idiot-proof, nature creates
an even dumber idiot."
>In the german newsgroup-hierarchy de.comm.software.mozilla.* you find
>many pople who have problems too, but thy were mosten some levels above.
>They ask for "how can I implement another mailprogramm"? OK, its written
>in the FAQ - but it is possible.
I don't see your problem here.
>another question that's coming into my mind: what will happen with
>netscape? It's the most spread branch, isn't it? Will there be a try to
>take phoenix, minotaur,.... to bring them together - or will they be
>developed seperately?
I think that at first, Netscape will develop a new version, based on the
1.4-BRANCH. After that, they will take a look at the direction mozilla is
taking and how the mozilla community copes with the arising problems of
this radical strategic change and then they will act accordingly.
>> No. Lots of Mozilla UI sucks. Like File > New mentioned in the roadmap.
>> Or buttons on the /status bar/ that open a hardcoded (not system
>> default) mail client. Form autofill is another prominent example. For
>> what it's worth I don't like some of the Phoenix UI either, but there's
>> nothing so bad in there that (for example) perfectly computer literate
>> people have to ask where the popup blocking pref has moved to because
>> the dialog is such a mess.
>
>you think that it will get better with bugs, when replacing one product
>by an other?
Mozilla's File > New behaviour is not a bug. It's intended and it sucks.
Simon
--
Rusty: You scared?
Linus: You suicidal?
Rusty: Only in the morning.
(Ocean's Eleven)
Christian Biesinger
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
>> replace mailnews with minotaur?
>> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
>
> It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
> applications.
That does of course not address my first concern.
And, how does the integration make the application more complex? Could
you give an example?
>> "Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it
>> has a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
[...]
> And hopefully they'll be available in the new architecture. The point is
> that things currently built into Mozilla will become extensions as well.
It sounded to me like the point was that Phoenix had better/more
extensions because it was used as an argument to underline phoenix's
advantages.
>> Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use
>> Mozilla today?
>
> Because when they go to www.mozilla.org, that's where the Download link
> goes to.
I don't accept that answer.
When people install windows, MSIE is what is installed; still, people
use Mozilla.
If Phoenix were so much better, I am sure people would be able to find it.
> This integration will be maintained if you choose to install mail inside
> Phoenix, rather than running it as a separate app.
How is that any different from the current situation? You can already
choose if you want to install mailnews with mozilla.
> I can assure you that "too few developers" is _not_ a problem with our
> UI. If anything, it's too many developers sticking their fingers in.
Now wait a second.
o Nobody works on Mozilla's UI and nobody reviews patches
o Therefore, Phoenix is created, with several people working on it
o Phoenix has (supposedly) a better user interface
What _was_ the problem with Mozilla's ui, if not too few people working
on it?
>> Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years, and
>> users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla and
>> download numbers.
>
> Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
It does - if Mozilla's user interface were so bad, it would not have as
much users as it has today.
> No-one is saying we have to. If people emerge who want to continue
> developing the app-suite, that can happen.
Well, I will definitely try, as I said in my original post I think.
Christian Biesinger
> The answer would be: "Phoenix has implemented a simple mechanism for
> management of extensions and encouraged the community to build
> additional functionality as extensions, add-ons, plugins outside of the
> core app.
And Mozilla has not encouraged people to write extensions, huh?
> Phoenix currently supports the enabling and disabling of
> installed extensions
True, Mozilla has no user interface for this feature.
> as well as a clean extension preferences API so
> that extensions can have their own settings without polluting the
> Phoenix browser preferences.
Not sure what this means. What does it mean?
>Phoenix has plans for extension uninstall
> to round out its extension story but this hasn't happened yet."
Eh. Mozilla has plans to do that too. Search bugzilla for "xpi uninstall".
> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
You surely have numbers to back that up?
> Feel free to explain what is outdated about it here, so other people can
> share the information too.
I wrote a separate post for this.
>The end result would look the same anyway, but now with less
> work.
I would hope that it doesn't, because I don't like phoenix (didn't like
it last I tried, at least), which is why I suggested what I did.
> The bloated and unuseful interface will change when Mozilla is replaced
> by Phoenix. Put your trust in that.
Mozilla's UI is mostly fine for me.
> This is exactly why the change is necessary. The main focus should go on
> the Phoenix browser, not the bloated Mozilla suite.
My point was, there has not been any focus on the phoenix browser recently.
> Um... I hope you see what you just wrote. The UI has remained constant
> for several years. Coincidentally, other programs improves their UI over
> time! ;)
I do not see Phoenix as a large improvement over Mozilla.
> Even many prominent Mozilla developers admit that the UI in
> Mozilla sucks (more or less).
The UI, in general, is fine, imho.
> Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
> the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is pretty
> easy.
Firstly, mozilla.org does not support anything and makes builds
available for testing only, last I checked.
Also, who exactly do you mean with "mozilla.org"?
Drivers/Staff do not have much work with maintaining a project (or at
least I don't see a reason why they would). As long as there are
developers for a project, maintaining it is no problem. It's not like
maintaining it costs any money.
Simon Paquet
>>> Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use
>>> Mozilla today?
>>
>> Because when they go to www.mozilla.org, that's where the Download link
>> goes to.
>
>I don't accept that answer.
>When people install windows, MSIE is what is installed; still, people
>use Mozilla.
>
>If Phoenix were so much better, I am sure people would be able to find it.
Just compare the time Mozilla is out in the open with the time Phoenix is
out. Mozilla just had it's 5th birthday, Phoenix is barely 6 months old.
Mozilla receives much more public attention, because of the heavy
code-reuse that is taking place. Every time a new version of Netscape,
Camino, K-Meleon, Galeon, you name it comes out Mozilla is mentioned.
Mozilla simply has a better brand than Phoenix. The same goes for
Netscape. I remember a blog entry from Asa, where he stated, that for
every Mozilla download, there are 5 Netscape downloads. That is exactly
the same. Netscape has a better brand than Mozilla.
And don't underestimate Gerv's comment. If someone is directed to
mozilla.org it is seldom with a direct link to a downloadable build, but
with "Go to www.mozilla.org and download a build from there!"
>> This integration will be maintained if you choose to install mail inside
>> Phoenix, rather than running it as a separate app.
>
>How is that any different from the current situation? You can already
>choose if you want to install mailnews with mozilla.
But you still carry a lot of bloat with you. If you just install Mozilla
as browser, you have to download 10.3 MB (on windows). Ok, there's stuff
like talkback, which isn't included in the Phoenix default build, but
compared to the 10.3 MB, a current Phoenix windows build is 4 MB smaller,
with the potential to cut another 0.5 - 1.0 MB of bloat, which still
exists in Phoenix.
>>> Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years, and
>>> users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla and
>>> download numbers.
>>
>> Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
>
>It does - if Mozilla's user interface were so bad, it would not have as
>much users as it has today.
How do you know, that Mozilla wouldn't have more users with a
Phoenix-like user interface?
Sven Grull
>>> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>>> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>>
>> You surely have numbers to back that up?
>
> No but most Phoenix users are Mozilla converts. I've heard of only a few
> users moving back to Mozilla after trying Phoenix. I often get mail from
> people who write to me and tell me how much they love Phoenix compared
> to Mozilla.
Phoenis is not so bad, but I found nothing that makes it interesting
enough to leave mozilla.
Ciao Sven
David Tenser
On 2003-04-03 19:14 Christian Biesinger wrote:
> David Tenser wrote:
>> Phoenix currently supports the enabling and disabling of installed
>> extensions
>
> True, Mozilla has no user interface for this feature.
>
>> as well as a clean extension preferences API so that extensions can
>> have their own settings without polluting the Phoenix browser
>> preferences.
>
> Not sure what this means. What does it mean?
It means that you have to click on a "Settings" button in order to
configure the settings for an extension, unlike Mozilla where the
preferences are added in the existing, utterly bloated Preferences tree.
>
>> Phoenix has plans for extension uninstall to round out its extension
>> story but this hasn't happened yet."
>
>
> Eh. Mozilla has plans to do that too. Search bugzilla for "xpi uninstall".
Well now it's going to happen too.
>
>> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>
> You surely have numbers to back that up?
No but most Phoenix users are Mozilla converts. I've heard of only a few
users moving back to Mozilla after trying Phoenix. I often get mail from
people who write to me and tell me how much they love Phoenix compared
to Mozilla. (They are mostly mistaking me for a Phoenix developer! :) )
>> The end result would look the same anyway, but now with less work.
>
> I would hope that it doesn't, because I don't like phoenix (didn't like
> it last I tried, at least), which is why I suggested what I did.
>
> [snip]
> Mozilla's UI is mostly fine for me.
>
> I do not see Phoenix as a large improvement over Mozilla.
>
> The [Mozilla] UI, in general, is fine, imho.
>
Well then you clearly don't see the problems most Mozilla
developers/drivers are seeing. I'm don't think I can convince you
either. Sorry about that... :-\
Only time will tell if this leads to a more successful product in the end.
/ David
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
Erm, I'm not sure my OS does handle this, and also others on the unix
side probably won't handle it well enough themselves.
I know this is kinda weak point of especially Linux, but Mozilla should
have the capability of handling what it needs itself here.
On Windows and probably MacOS X as well (don't know it good enough),
you're right that it should be integrated with the OS to a fair extent.
I'd love to see integration with KDE and Gnome as well, but I don't
belive that would happen fast...
Robert Kaiser
David Tenser
I guess Windows has the #1 priority because of the huge user base, but
I'm certain the new mail client will integrate nicely in Unix too.
That's the whole point of offering the mail client as an extension to
Phoenix.
/ David
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
> UI. If anything, it's too many developers sticking their fingers in.
Sorry, I can't see it that way. We really have too few people caring
about UI, and we have missing leadership in UI questions, because the
Mozilla suite UI is too big for one person to keep control of it.
We need
1) at least rough UI guidelines (that are well-discussed and should
apply to all Mozilla applications, at least to all Mozilla apps
developed on mozilla.org)
and
2) leadership of dedicated people caring about seperate parts of UI
(Mozilla components, applications, or however you want to call it)
Robert Kaiser
L. David Baron
> >I can assure you that "too few developers" is _not_ a problem with our
> >UI. If anything, it's too many developers sticking their fingers in.
>
> Sorry, I can't see it that way. We really have too few people caring
> about UI, and we have missing leadership in UI questions, because the
> Mozilla suite UI is too big for one person to keep control of it.
Perhaps that's because anyone who tries to take a leadership role gets
bombarded by suggestions (and more) from the "too many developers" and
gives up trying to lead?
The solution to that problem isn't more process to burden the owners and
make their job even more difficult. It's giving the owners more freedom
to ignore the ideas they don't want.
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Torben
> For what it's worth I don't like some of the Phoenix UI either, but
> there's nothing so bad in there that (for example) perfectly computer
> literate people have to ask where the popup blocking pref has moved to
> because the dialog is such a mess.
Assuming they are able to find out that Preferences are called Options
and hidden under the Tools menu.
Christian Biesinger
> It means that you have to click on a "Settings" button in order to
> configure the settings for an extension, unlike Mozilla where the
> preferences are added in the existing, utterly bloated Preferences tree.
Ah... maybe that makes sense, actually probably it does.
>>> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>>> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>>
>> You surely have numbers to back that up?
>
> No [...]
"There are three kind of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics"
> Well then you clearly don't see the problems most Mozilla
> developers/drivers are seeing. I'm don't think I can convince you
> either. Sorry about that... :-\
That is true. (That I don't see it; and likely that you couldn't
convince me too :) )
James Graham
But it is consitent with eveything Microsoft seem to do, which doesn't
make it good, but might make it easier for new people to use.
James Graham
> On 2003-04-03 19:14 Christian Biesinger wrote:
>
>> David Tenser wrote:
>>> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>>> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>>
>>
>> You surely have numbers to back that up?
>
>
> No but most Phoenix users are Mozilla converts. I've heard of only a few
> users moving back to Mozilla after trying Phoenix. I often get mail from
> people who write to me and tell me how much they love Phoenix compared
> to Mozilla. (They are mostly mistaking me for a Phoenix developer! :) )
Just to clarify what you're saying; most people who email you and/or
post in the Phoenix forums about how much they like Phoenix, prefer
Phoenix. That sounds like a non-ideal sample to me.
In any case, people on the Mozilla forums don't tend to agree with you,
and miss many of the Mozilla features that have been removed from
Phoenix. Part of this is familiarity, no doubt but given that there are
phoenix advocates suggesting that it is impossible to browse without
installing the Tabbed Browser Extensions (which IMO almost define the
concept of a bloated interface and feature set).
Just to be clear, I think that seperating the applications is a very,
very good idea. But I also think that Phoenix will have to give somewhat
in terms of the customisability (number of *useful* UI prefs exposed)
and default feature set. With strong UI leadership, this can be done,
without creating a UI as messy as that which Mozilla has at the moment.
spaetz
>>If Phoenix were so much better, I am sure people would be able to find it.
>
> Just compare the time Mozilla is out in the open with the time Phoenix is
> out. Mozilla just had it's 5th birthday, Phoenix is barely 6 months old.
> Mozilla receives much more public attention, because of the heavy
> code-reuse that is taking place. Every time a new version of Netscape,
> Camino, K-Meleon, Galeon, you name it comes out Mozilla is mentioned.
>
> Mozilla simply has a better brand than Phoenix. The same goes for
> Netscape. I remember a blog entry from Asa, where he stated, that for
> every Mozilla download, there are 5 Netscape downloads. That is exactly
> the same. Netscape has a better brand than Mozilla.
>
> And don't underestimate Gerv's comment. If someone is directed to
> mozilla.org it is seldom with a direct link to a downloadable build, but
> with "Go to www.mozilla.org and download a build from there!"
I have to disagree there. I do know both browsers and I have tried
phoenix and I went back to mozilla because I liked it more. It's not
only the brand...
>>>This integration will be maintained if you choose to install mail inside
>>>Phoenix, rather than running it as a separate app.
>>
>>How is that any different from the current situation? You can already
>>choose if you want to install mailnews with mozilla.
>
> But you still carry a lot of bloat with you. If you just install Mozilla
> as browser, you have to download 10.3 MB (on windows). Ok, there's stuff
> like talkback, which isn't included in the Phoenix default build, but
> compared to the 10.3 MB, a current Phoenix windows build is 4 MB smaller,
> with the potential to cut another 0.5 - 1.0 MB of bloat, which still
> exists in Phoenix.
I expect my phoenix build to be roughly the same size after I install
the mailnews extension, the venkman extension, the dom-ispector
extension, the chatzilla extension, the composer extension and the
multi-tabbing extension (yes I do use all of these). So please don't
compare apples (stripped down browser) with oranges (full suite) here.
Don't get me wrong: I do see the advantage of a phoenix core as that's
what most people will need. But don't try to convince me with the
argument that the phoenix as I are going to use will be a lot smaller,
That having said, I am curious on how mozilla development will proceed.
Sebastian
spaetz
> Assuming they are able to find out that Preferences are called Options
> and hidden under the Tools menu.
Arrg, I hate that Microsoft style. I do want to *edit* the preferences
of the program. They are no "tool" in my opinion. *Sigh*
Heinrich C. Kuhn
>>> Most people really trying out Phoenix finds that it's much more
>>> convenient, since it's faster, leaner and less bloated.
>>
>>
>> You surely have numbers to back that up?
>
>
> No but most Phoenix users are Mozilla converts. I've heard of only a few
> users moving back to Mozilla after trying Phoenix.
Well, ahem, up to now according to our logfiles there are far
less users of Phoenix, than there are users of Mozilla (over the
last three months Phoenix hat just some 1.5% of the Mozilla-
usership [even without counting any Netscape versions]). And
there might be some reasons for this ... . Some of the reasons
of other people for *not* using Phoenix might coincide with mine:
- Installation of the English version of Phoenix0.5 does not
work on my machine (German NT4.0 Sp6a): I had to use the
German version
- No possibility to change *percentually* the size of the text
displayed
- Some extensions coming with warning boxes in at least 1
language I do not read (Japanese)?
- No option for permanent presence in the memory and toolbar
- For me there's no visible improvement of the CSS-support in
comparison to Mozilla (colour-statements for HRs are not
working)
- Dealing with preferences is a bit counter-intuitive to me
- I don't know how to get a splash screen with a dragon [:-)]
I do prefer Phoenix's bookmark management. But that's not enough
of a reason for me to switch.
I guess it's a good idea to split the projects (browser / mail /
etc.). But I'm not convinced it's a good idea to have Phoenix
as the basis for the browser. Thus I'd plead for orthodoxy:
stick with the Mozilla-Browser and make it Phoenix-like in
those aspects where Phoenix is superior (e.g. extensions
management).
Just my 2 cents (Euro) ... .
Heinrich C. Kuhn
imran.ge...@ttnet.net.tr
I recently tried Phoenix.
I can call it a very good browser.
However I'm still using mozilla!
Why?
Because
1- It lacks some features that I use
in mozillla.
2- It is not currently integrated with other
apps. (ie. mail.)
3- I'm not obliged to use it!
(The last one is the most effective in my decision...)
Fine...
But
1- if I've been convinced that someone will provide
the ease of use I had at mozilla
2- if I've been convinced that someone will provide
effort that will make the phoenix based suite a superior
to mozilla
3- if I've had a little feeling that I had to use it
(just because I know that phoenix will be the main branch)
then I would be glad to be a user of phoenix despite
the initial bumps that will disturb me.
So far, I've seen the commitment of all Netscape and Mozilla
people on this move and I've seen the new roadmap as
a good start.
And I'm convinced that in the end we will have a superior
platform which -I'm sure- will make all of us very
happy.
Thus, I'm with you guys..
Go head...
I'll do as much as I can, as been a beta tester
and bug reporter..
Are you ready to deal with my "harsh" bug reports? ;)
Imran
Dave Townsend
> Well, ahem, up to now according to our logfiles there are far
> less users of Phoenix, than there are users of Mozilla (over the
> last three months Phoenix hat just some 1.5% of the Mozilla-
> usership [even without counting any Netscape versions]). And there might
> be some reasons for this ...
My best guess for reasons for this would be the lack of awareness of
Phoenix. The numbers of the general public who have heard of
Netscape/Mozilla must be pretty high these days, but how many people do
you think have ever heard of Phoenix, let alone heard enough to consider
switching to it?
I've been a Mozilla convert for a few months now and had only vaguely
heard and never looked into Phoenix until hte new roadmap went up. I
immediately downloaded it, ran it and now use it instead of Mozilla. I
see no loss of features over Moz (although I still have Moz installed
for my mail) but do see advantages (particularly middle clicking on a
bookmark to open it in a tab).
I'm just guessing that the numbers of Phoenix would be much higher right
now if more people knew about it.
Dave
--
"You know that little indestructible black box that is used on
planes--why can't they make the whole plane out of the same substance?"
David Tenser
With your logic, you are also Filing your Exit form example. Of course
you're editing your preferences (or changing your options), but the Edit
menu is for editing content, not the program itself.
/ David
Simon Paquet
>>>If Phoenix were so much better, I am sure people would be able to find it.
>>
>> Just compare the time Mozilla is out in the open with the time Phoenix is
>> out. Mozilla just had it's 5th birthday, Phoenix is barely 6 months old.
>> Mozilla receives much more public attention, because of the heavy
>> code-reuse that is taking place. Every time a new version of Netscape,
>> Camino, K-Meleon, Galeon, you name it comes out Mozilla is mentioned.
>>
>> Mozilla simply has a better brand than Phoenix. The same goes for
>> Netscape. I remember a blog entry from Asa, where he stated, that for
>> every Mozilla download, there are 5 Netscape downloads. That is exactly
>> the same. Netscape has a better brand than Mozilla.
>>
>> And don't underestimate Gerv's comment. If someone is directed to
>> mozilla.org it is seldom with a direct link to a downloadable build, but
>> with "Go to www.mozilla.org and download a build from there!"
>
>I have to disagree there. I do know both browsers and I have tried
>phoenix and I went back to mozilla because I liked it more. It's not
>only the brand...
You didn't get my point. I was speaking about publicity and being out in
the open and how that relates to download numbers. I was not speaking
about convincing someone to use one of these tools via marketing.
>>>>This integration will be maintained if you choose to install mail inside
>>>>Phoenix, rather than running it as a separate app.
>>>
>>>How is that any different from the current situation? You can already
>>>choose if you want to install mailnews with mozilla.
>>
>> But you still carry a lot of bloat with you. If you just install Mozilla
>> as browser, you have to download 10.3 MB (on windows). Ok, there's stuff
>> like talkback, which isn't included in the Phoenix default build, but
>> compared to the 10.3 MB, a current Phoenix windows build is 4 MB smaller,
>> with the potential to cut another 0.5 - 1.0 MB of bloat, which still
>> exists in Phoenix.
>
>I expect my phoenix build to be roughly the same size after I install
>the mailnews extension, the venkman extension, the dom-ispector
>extension, the chatzilla extension, the composer extension and the
>multi-tabbing extension (yes I do use all of these). So please don't
>compare apples (stripped down browser) with oranges (full suite) here.
Read my posting. I was talking of installing Mozilla with the 'Browser
only'-option. If you choose to install Mozilla with all that stuff, the
build size will be much bigger than 10.3 MB.
Christian Biesinger
> - For me there's no visible improvement of the CSS-support in
> comparison to Mozilla
Hardly surprising, given that the rendering engine is exactly the same
in phoenix and mozilla.
James Graham
Presumably, the file menu is for interacting with files? In practice a
load of other options go in the 'file' menu, by convention, that have
noting to do with editing (or interacting with) a file. For example file
- new window doesn't open the current file in a new window, which I
would describe as the expected behaviour for an item on a menu marked
'file'. Similarly, the edit menu contains options beyond the editing of
content.
The tools - options menu would make more sense if the themes and
extensions preference panels were seperated into their own dialog so we
got something like tools - extensions which would, in fact, make sense.
Then the Preferences dialog could be tools - Preferences to be grouped
with the extensions manager.
Gervase Markham
> load of other options go in the 'file' menu, by convention, that have
> noting to do with editing (or interacting with) a file. For example file
> - new window doesn't open the current file in a new window, which I
> would describe as the expected behaviour for an item on a menu marked
> 'file'.
That's because IE has this behaviour by default, and it's really
irritating :-) Particularly if loading the URL you are currently on has
side-effects, like making an online purchase.
Gerv
James Graham
I'm certianly not arguing that we should duplicate the web page in the
new window, more that there is no 'application' menu (which would give
application - new window and application - preferences), so instead the
menu items that apply to the application as a whole are scattered about
into other menus where are inconsistent with other commands in the same
menu. Unfortuantley, this is seen on all other applications (at least on
windows and in general on linux) and so in unlikely to change.
Maybe File - Exit would have been a better example, since that doesn't
exit the current file, but in fact exits the application, and also
applies to document editing applications where file - new makes sense.
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
> make their job even more difficult. It's giving the owners more freedom
> to ignore the ideas they don't want.
Actually, what I stated above should nicely go hand in hand with that.
The owners/leaders of the applications (or extensions) have more freedom
for their own app - they should follow a bunch of common guidelines
though, so that it's easier for users who know one app to adopt to a
different one.
Perhaps we should look at freedesktop.org (KDE/Gnome), Windows and Mac
guidelines and compile a rough and small set of guidelines from all
those. This should be no big set, and it shouldn't be too strict, but
allow us some common style (Common menus, wordings, etc.)
Robert Kaiser
Jack Tanner
> Maybe File - Exit would have been a better example, since that doesn't
> exit the current file, but in fact exits the application, and also
> applies to document editing applications where file - new makes sense.
You may be interested in how this is playing out in Galeon and Gnome.
mpt has a nice lucid analysis of this:
http://mpt.phrasewise.com/2003/03/25#a486.
-JT
Henri Sivonen
Christian Biesinger <cbies...@web.de> wrote:
> What _was_ the problem with Mozilla's ui, if not too few people working
> on it?
Lack of suitable leadership.
mpt had the required clue, but he didn't have the means to make
other implement his ideas. In an open-source project, it is hard
to be the leader without writing code.
Trying to be cross-platform by being the same everywhere
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Having the same look everywhere
which is alien everywhere isn't good when a particular user cares
about the look, feel and behavior of the product on the platform
(s)he happens to use.
Making decisions behind the scenes.
Netscape's UI people (unlike mpt) have the means to make others
implement the things they want implemented. However, the process
isn't particularly open when viewed from the outside.
Defending one's own old decisions--even if they turned out to be bad.
It seems to me that it has been hard to get some bad decisions
reversed as long as the person who made the decision is around.
(Remember how long it took to get rid of the original *really*
ugly Modern theme? Netscape had to embarass itself by shipping
Netscape 6.0PR1 with it even though the ugliness had been pointed
out from inside the project earlier.)
Too many people complaining about any change.
Mozilla's UI has too many stakeholders. There's always someone who
happens to like the way things are now, so any improvement to the
UI faces opposition. Phoenix and Camino projects got a chance to fix
things before too many people started to get used to the status quo.
Developers getting used to bad UI.
People who have spent enough time with Mozilla's UI to be able to
modify it have learned to deal with the UI the way it is and may
fail to see the problems others face.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Henri Sivonen
cbies...@web.de (Christian Biesinger) wrote:
> Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use Mozilla
> today?
Do they if they
1) don't need Mail & News
*and*
2) know about the alternatives
?
I don't use Mozilla Mail&News. (I use Apple Mail, pine and IMP.)
I use Camino on OS X, Galeon on Linux and Phoenix on Windows XP. I use
Mozilla-the-browser on Solaris and IRIX, because Phoenix and Galeon are
not available for those platforms, AFAIK. I think making Phoenix the
official version is great and expect to be able to use Phoenix on
Solaris and IRIX in the future.
I have Mozilla installed, because
* Before Camino landed on the trunk, I used Mozilla when I wanted
to verify whether a bug exists on the trunk. This is not a good
reason for sticking with the current Mozilla, because the trunk
engine is now available with other front ends.
* Sometimes I use DOM Inspector when I'm trying to figure out what
is wrong with a Web page. An "average user" doesn't have a need
like this, and I'd prefer to have DOM Inspector as an *optional*
add-on to Phoenix (and Camino).
* I use Composer for editing large HTML tables. (Except for large
tables, I write HTML by hand.) However, I'd prefer to have
Composer as a separate app (preferably with bug 92686 fixed).
> That said, what I have always liked about Mozilla was both the many
> features it offers and the integration of the different applications.
I have disliked Mozilla's UI and the entanglement of many components all
the time.
> I am not convinced that switching Mozilla to Phoenix is the way to
> go. Improvements to the Mozilla UI could be done without something
> as radical as switching to Phoenix.
In theory perhaps but the past five years suggest otherwise. :-(
> Mozilla's UI has remained more or less constant in the last years,
> and users like it, proven by the many satisfied users of Mozilla
> and download numbers.
The numbers don't prove that the users like Mozilla's UI. I'd say that
people have other reasons for choosing Mozilla and use it *in spite of*
the UI--like I did before I switched to Camino, Galeon and Phoenix as
soon as I had the chance.
Karsten Düsterloh
> Trying to be cross-platform by being the same everywhere
> When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Having the same look everywhere
> which is alien everywhere isn't good when a particular user cares
> about the look, feel and behavior of the product on the platform
> (s)he happens to use.
Actually, this is one of the best points *for* Mozilla, especially in
heterogeneous environments: it's always the same look and feel on every
different machine you're using!
> Too many people complaining about any change.
> Mozilla's UI has too many stakeholders. There's always someone who
> happens to like the way things are now, so any improvement to the
> UI faces opposition. Phoenix and Camino projects got a chance to fix
> things before too many people started to get used to the status quo.
>
> Developers getting used to bad UI.
> People who have spent enough time with Mozilla's UI to be able to
> modify it have learned to deal with the UI the way it is and may
> fail to see the problems others face.
Do you know what I hate most in UI discussions? People telling "this is
bad UI" with just their personal opinion behind this statements or some
obscure studies made by their grand parents, but no real arguments.
See the grippies: they're really useful, but constantly fought as "bad
UI", just because some mousely challenged people cannot hit those big
buttons next to them? Now, really, ...
Karsten
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/
Boris Zbarsky
> See the grippies: they're really useful, but constantly fought as "bad
> UI", just because some mousely challenged people cannot hit those big
> buttons next to them? Now, really, ...
The story of the grippies is a perfect example of what's wrong with the
mozilla ui. Here's what we saw:
1) A decision was made by the people who actually own the UI to remove
them because they were slowing down window open time, were confusing
people, and frankly were not particularly useful (yes, I know you
disagree; gotta love UI).
2) An immeddiate whine-storm of immense proportions began (from all the
people who were used to the old UI).
3) Netscape's UI people randomly decided the grippies should be
restored.
4) A netscape employee checked them in without really explaining why
they were being restored (and with very fixhy reviews, I must say).
This fits almost every single bullet-point of wrongness that Henri
pointed out.
I suspect crap like this is why toolkit/ and browser/ are closed
partitions with restricted CVS access.... (and whatever else I may think
of the Phoenix UI, I'm glad the grippies are gone and real toolbar
customization is being worked on instead).
Henri Sivonen
Karsten Düsterloh <tr...@tprac.de> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
> > Trying to be cross-platform by being the same everywhere
> > When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Having the same look everywhere
> > which is alien everywhere isn't good when a particular user cares
> > about the look, feel and behavior of the product on the platform
> > (s)he happens to use.
>
> Actually, this is one of the best points *for* Mozilla, especially in
> heterogeneous environments: it's always the same look and feel on every
> different machine you're using!
Most people work using one system. What they see is inconsistency with
the platform conventions.
Some people might have a different system at home, but many people use
the same OS at home as well. Those who have a different system at home
are used to having two sets of conventions: the work system consistent
internally and the home system being consistent internally.
It is rather uncommon to use many systems like I do. (Not uncommon for
readers of this newsgroup but uncommon for people in general.) Even
though I use different systems, I want apps on each platform conform to
the platform conventions. I expect apps on OS X to feel like real Aqua
apps. I expect apps on Windows XP to have the Luna look. When I use
Gnome on Linux or FreeBSD, I want the apps to look and feel like GTK+
apps. (On Solaris and IRIX, it would be unrealistic to expect UI
consistency, but the UI situation with those platforms is quite
unfortunate.)
Christian Biesinger
> In article <3E8B5935...@web.de>,
> cbies...@web.de (Christian Biesinger) wrote:
>>Also, if Phoenix is so much better, then why do people still use Mozilla
>>today?
>
> Do they if they
> 1) don't need Mail & News
> *and*
> 2) know about the alternatives
> ?
How could I know? I am no statistician. I suppose some do, some don't.
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
> partitions with restricted CVS access.... (and whatever else I may think
> of the Phoenix UI, I'm glad the grippies are gone and real toolbar
> customization is being worked on instead).
Almost every real toolkit has some kind of toolbar grippies. You should
be able to use them for more than just collapsing, that's clear. But
it's a _very_ useful feature. I've always voted for having
enabling/disabling grippies as an option in customizing toolbars, and if
the Phoenix-style customizing ever gets really useable and professional
(instead of being simply mysterious and feeling strange like now), it
would be a charm to use also for that feature.
Robert Kaiser
Boris Zbarsky
> Speaking of which, is there any reason (technical or otherwise) not to
> ship different chrome for each platform? Obviously it would be a pain in
> terms of maintainance
Bingo. ;)
As a note, Phoenix does exactly this -- it runs the chrome through a
preprocessor prior to packaging and packages different things on
different platforms.
> You could also have a default theme that fitted
> with platform expectations e.g. a Luna theme for Windows XP, a Gnome and
> a KDE theme for Linux, an Aqua like theme for Mac, and so on.
That theme is called "Classic". That's what -moz-appearance is for.
James Graham
> In article <b6ms6m$6n3k6$1...@ID-14284.news.dfncis.de>,
> Karsten Düsterloh <tr...@tprac.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Sivonen aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>>
>>>Trying to be cross-platform by being the same everywhere
>>> When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Having the same look everywhere
>>> which is alien everywhere isn't good when a particular user cares
>>> about the look, feel and behavior of the product on the platform
>>> (s)he happens to use.
>>
>>Actually, this is one of the best points *for* Mozilla, especially in
>>heterogeneous environments: it's always the same look and feel on every
>>different machine you're using!
>
>
> Most people work using one system. What they see is inconsistency with
> the platform conventions.
>
> Some people might have a different system at home, but many people use
> the same OS at home as well. Those who have a different system at home
> are used to having two sets of conventions: the work system consistent
> internally and the home system being consistent internally.
Speaking of which, is there any reason (technical or otherwise) not to
ship different chrome for each platform? Obviously it would be a pain in
terms of maintainance, since some UI changes would have to be done 3
times (although not everything; in particular I can imagine having menu
structures that represent the expected structure on a particular
platform; in lots of cases the dialogs sitting behind the menu items
could be kept the same). You could also have a default theme that fitted
with platform expectations e.g. a Luna theme for Windows XP, a Gnome and
a KDE theme for Linux, an Aqua like theme for Mac, and so on.
Although it might be technically more complex, this would be even better
if the different look-and-feel for different platforms could be provided
as installable extensions, which would cover the 'I like all my machines
to look the same' argument.
Clearly it wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might be a step in
the right direction.
James Graham
>
>> You could also have a default theme that fitted with platform
>> expectations e.g. a Luna theme for Windows XP, a Gnome and a KDE theme
>> for Linux, an Aqua like theme for Mac, and so on.
>
>
> That theme is called "Classic". That's what -moz-appearance is for.
>
I always thought classic just looked out of place everywhere... ;)
The problem that moz-appearance doesn't solve is the different graphic
styles that are common on different platforms.
Boris Zbarsky
> The problem that moz-appearance doesn't solve is the different graphic
> styles that are common on different platforms.
You mean the images on the toolbar buttons and such? That's trivially
solvable at build time.... only requires forking the images, not the
whole theme and no XUL.
syd logan
I don't recall all the reasons, but IMHO, Apple going with kHTML should have been a call to arms for the Mozilla community to analyze what led to that decision and to work to makee sure it did't repeat by focusing on winning the technology provider war, putting aside the proposition of building a browser than can meet IE on equal terms and thus trying to win the browser war (which we know is impossible to win because of the distribution issues). How many technology providers does the world need? How many libc implementations matter in the open source world? With all that mozilla has come to be, can it stomach the fact that other options are out there and choices other than mozilla are being made? So much more can be gained by becoming the internet technology provider that is the defacto choice of the development community, and the home for hosting technolgies (like JS, XPCOM, and so forth) that exist now and will come later. Let the W3C (and others) define it, and let Mozilla provide it, package it, and distribute it. A "source forge" with an Internet focus, if you will. While close, I don't think Mozilla has done enough to make that happen, to get the technology in other peoples hands, and it should look to other open source efforts for inspiration on how to go forward. The problems as I see it are the focus on the browser application, the lack of providing a binary packaging of libraries (SDKs), and the lack of consistently good developer documentation..
syd
-- Syd Logan Principal Engineer, AOL Office: 858-618-2217 AIM: slogan621 e-mail: s...@netscape.com
Boris Zbarsky
> One question. Wouldn't such a major architecture change warrant a
> version change to 2.0?
That's been discussed. Quite frankly, most of the roadmap is not a big
_architecture_ change. It's a large change in development philosophy,
and a largish change to UI, but not a big change to architecture.
Now some of the gecko changes pointed to in the roadmap may indeed call
for a version 2.0 when they are finished. Which will be a while.... ;)
Kevin Berkheiser
Henri Sivonen
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser <Ka...@KaiRo.at> wrote:
> Almost every real toolkit has some kind of toolbar grippies.
The usual Cocoa toolbars don't have grippies.
> But it's a _very_ useful feature.
IMO, being able to move the bookmarks toolbar above the navigation
toolbar is rather limited in usefulness compared to being able to
shuffle things around within the toolbars.
James Graham
consistent with other apps on the platform. Obviously it wouldn't solve
the bigger problem of (for example) the menus not being grouped
according to the platform's interface guidelines, which would require
forking XUL and would therefore be difficult to maintain.
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
Well, I'd guess we could jump to some 1.9.x scheme (similar to the 0.9.x
scheme) with those changes, but I'm not sure it would be worth it.
In my opinion, this roadmap really maps the road to Mozilla 2.x though.
We should somehow reflect the big UI changes in version numbers of the
application collection, I'd think - but it's not really easy to define a
nice versioning scheme of that pre-2.0 movement...
Robert Kaiser
Karsten Düsterloh
> Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>> See the grippies: they're really useful, but constantly fought as "bad
>> UI", just because some mousely challenged people cannot hit those big
>> buttons next to them? Now, really, ...
>
> The story of the grippies is a perfect example of what's wrong with the
> mozilla ui. Here's what we saw:
>
> 1) A decision was made by the people who actually own the UI to remove
> them because they were slowing down window open time, were confusing
> people, and frankly were not particularly useful (yes, I know you
> disagree; gotta love UI).
Only one discussable reason: slowness...
> 2) An immeddiate whine-storm of immense proportions began (from all the
> people who were used to the old UI).
> 3) Netscape's UI people randomly decided the grippies should be
> restored.
> 4) A netscape employee checked them in without really explaining why
> they were being restored (and with very fixhy reviews, I must say).
>
> This fits almost every single bullet-point of wrongness that Henri
> pointed out.
That's true, but the problem lies still in (1): based upon which
criteria can someone decide to destroy something many people like and
use, without any "compensation"?
Features should only be removed if (a) they're replaced by a better
alternative or (b) they're *massively* degrading performance/stability.
This wasn't true for the grippies in the first place.
Another one of that sort is the sidebar in MailNews: during a very short
period of time it was decided to remove this - depart it's usefulness,
for no performance reason. True, it should have been replaced by
something more (? I doubt that, anyway) useful, but that never happened!
/Removing features is always a bad decision./
> I suspect crap like this is why toolkit/ and browser/ are closed
> partitions with restricted CVS access.... (and whatever else I may think
> of the Phoenix UI, I'm glad the grippies are gone and real toolbar
> customization is being worked on instead).
Be it as it may - it is simply bad style to replace features by void and
promises. Replacements should always be improvements.
Boris Zbarsky
> /Removing features is always a bad decision./
I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement here...
Karsten Düsterloh
> I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement here...
Alas, that seems to be the case. :(
Stephan Hohe
> Torben wrote:
>> Assuming they are able to find out that Preferences are called Options
>> and hidden under the Tools menu.
>>
> But it is consitent with eveything Microsoft seem to do, which doesn't
> make it good, but might make it easier for new people to use.
In fact I think it's wrong to copy things from Microsoft because new
users are assumed to be used to that. The declared target of this is to
make Mozilla looking and feeling like the according product Microsoft.
Nobody will change to a new product because it looks the same as the
product he's currently useing. He'll just stay with his old product. If
someone want's to try something new, he should get something new.
Nobody will change to something because it looks like a _copy_.
Stephan
Gervase Markham
> scheme) with those changes, but I'm not sure it would be worth it.
No, let's not do that. Last time, we very nearly ran out of numbers :-)
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> alternative or (b) they're *massively* degrading performance/stability.
Definitely, definitely wrong :-) Turn it round: features should only be
retained if you can justify them from a functional or usability point of
view.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> be able to use them for more than just collapsing, that's clear. But
> it's a _very_ useful feature.
I think that rearrangeable toolbars, the ability to hide them from the
View Menu, and Full Screen Mode all combine together to give you almost
all of what grippies give you, but without the extreme annoyance of
being able to click on them by accident.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> I have to think Mozilla's contribution would be so much greater and
> influencial if it were to focus on providing the technology instead of
> an end application like the browser. Sure, the browser is neat and all
> of that, but in a world where there is IE and Safari, it's influence is
> limiting.
I agree that we should provide technology, but we can only provide good,
well-tested technology if we provide a usable browser. 150,000 people
won't provide the extremely useful service of downloading and kicking
seven shades of whatever out of a "technology demo" or "sample
implementation".
Incidentally, where do Linux and the other OSes fit into your "Well,
there's IE and Safari" picture?
> I've always thought the ideal output from mozilla would be
> nicely packaged and well-documented (binary) components (like XPCOM,
> gecko/layout, JS), that could be used to build a wide variety of web-ish
> applications,
Then I'm sure you'll use your influence within Netscape to make such
packaging and documentation happen :-) That would be great.
> I don't recall all the reasons, but IMHO, Apple going with kHTML should
> have been a call to arms for the Mozilla community to analyze what led
> to that decision and to work to makee sure it did't repeat by focusing
> on winning the technology /provider/ war,
Did you not read the new roadmap, about the large changes to Gecko?
Although they might have been considered before Safari, they are
undoubtedly the right thing to do post-Safari.
Gerv
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
>>But it is consitent with eveything Microsoft seem to do, which doesn't
>>make it good, but might make it easier for new people to use.
>
> In fact I think it's wrong to copy things from Microsoft because new
> users are assumed to be used to that. The declared target of this is to
> make Mozilla looking and feeling like the according product Microsoft.
> Nobody will change to a new product because it looks the same as the
> product he's currently useing. He'll just stay with his old product. If
> someone want's to try something new, he should get something new.
> Nobody will change to something because it looks like a _copy_.
Yes, true. And don't expect people who converted from Windows to Linux
to suddenly start liking what has been copied fron Microoft. Remember
they already made their decision to not want the Microsoft style of things.
Roobert Kaiser
Karsten Düsterloh
> But it is consitent with eveything Microsoft seem to do, which doesn't
> make it good, but might make it easier for new people to use.
I strongly disagree.
Did you ever try to find a not-very-basic function in a MS product
"intuitively", without knowing the product before? With its real
non-helping help?
The only intuitive about those stuff is 'pain': it hurts without you
actively wishing you to be hurt...
If Mozilla wants to look'n'feel like MS, the lizard starts burning its
own dumb self. :(
Karsten Düsterloh
> all of what grippies give you, but without the extreme annoyance of
> being able to click on them by accident.
This (sorry) stupid argument does not get any "more true" by repeating it.
Let's remove all "delete" buttons! Someone has clicked it accidently
and now his data is lost!
Karsten Düsterloh
Well, we should stop the Mozilla project then.
Telnet to port 80 is still functional! ;-)
Boris Zbarsky
> Well, we should stop the Mozilla project then.
> Telnet to port 80 is still functional! ;-)
How truely you speak. telnet to port 80 is perfectly functional for
retrieval of a single page. But following links is a pain. Enough of
one, that a different approach is wanted.
Gervase Markham
> Gervase Markham aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>
>>all of what grippies give you, but without the extreme annoyance of
>>being able to click on them by accident.
>
> This (sorry) stupid argument does not get any "more true" by repeating it.
You're right; it was just as true at the beginning as it is now. I'm fed
up of going for the File menu and hitting the grippy instead. If I need
more screen space, I press F11.
> Let's remove all "delete" buttons! Someone has clicked it accidently
> and now his data is lost!
Most deletes are undoable with a single key combination. If you
accidentally hit a grippy, you have to click in a different place on the
screen to undo it. That's jarring.
Gerv
James Graham
> James Graham aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>
>>But it is consitent with eveything Microsoft seem to do, which doesn't
>>make it good, but might make it easier for new people to use.
>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> Did you ever try to find a not-very-basic function in a MS product
> "intuitively", without knowing the product before? With its real
> non-helping help?
Yes, but if you're already used to one interface, no matter how bad it
it, you are more likely to be able to use a second program with the same
interface than a second program with a different interface.
That's the theory anyway. In practice, I'd much rather we stuck to
trying for a *good* interface than one that make phoenix look like an IE
clone. On the other hand, if various interface features are *standard*
for windows *and* the majority of Mozilla downloads are for windows,
then using a windows-like interface is probably a good idea.
> The only intuitive about those stuff is 'pain': it hurts without you
> actively wishing you to be hurt...
Well we don't have both tools - options /and/ tools - customise in
Phoenix yet, which is one small victory for sanity.
> If Mozilla wants to look'n'feel like MS, the lizard starts burning its
> own dumb self. :(
The problem is producing a (say) mac-like interface would make the
program alien to most users. For example, no windows or *nix programs
that I know of have an application menu, they all use File as their
first menu and distribute application related commands at random through
the other menus.
I wound say that there are several interface options:
1. Produce an interface that is consistent with the expectations for one
platform (presumably the platform on which you have the largest
market-share).
2. Produce an interface that is a mix of the various elements from
different platforms (and hopefully includes the most useable bits from
all of these)
3. Somehow produce different frontend code for all the different platforms.
Typically Mozilla has done something approximating to 2, but Phoenix
seems to lean closer to 1. 3 is difficult to implement (but is well
catered for by Mozilla-based browsers such as camino and galeon, which
are actually intended to be end-user products).
Gervase Markham
> retrieval of a single page.
Although reading it is quite difficult. Perhaps we should write some
software that displays HTML pages in an easier-to-read form...
Gerv
Karsten Düsterloh
Oh, yes! Just recently, punch cards have been invented! ;-)
Karsten Düsterloh
>> "intuitively", without knowing the product before? With its real
>> non-helping help?
>
> Yes, but if you're already used to one interface, no matter how bad it
> it, you are more likely to be able to use a second program with the same
> interface than a second program with a different interface.
Of course.
> That's the theory anyway. In practice, I'd much rather we stuck to
> trying for a *good* interface than one that make phoenix look like an IE
> clone. On the other hand, if various interface features are *standard*
> for windows *and* the majority of Mozilla downloads are for windows,
> then using a windows-like interface is probably a good idea.
Probably, but more probably not.
Mozilla has been committed to platform indepence in some degree.
>> The only intuitive about those stuff is 'pain': it hurts without you
>> actively wishing you to be hurt...
> Well we don't have both tools - options /and/ tools - customise in
> Phoenix yet, which is one small victory for sanity.
:)
> I wound say that there are several interface options:
> 1. Produce an interface that is consistent with the expectations for one
> platform (presumably the platform on which you have the largest
> market-share).
> 2. Produce an interface that is a mix of the various elements from
> different platforms (and hopefully includes the most useable bits from
> all of these)
> 3. Somehow produce different frontend code for all the different platforms.
>
> Typically Mozilla has done something approximating to 2, but Phoenix
> seems to lean closer to 1. 3 is difficult to implement (but is well
> catered for by Mozilla-based browsers such as camino and galeon, which
> are actually intended to be end-user products).
IMHO, (2) with taking the *best* from every platform (though that's
highly discussable) would be the way to go - and has been gone to some
extend in Mozilla for good (preferences dialog excluded ;-) ).
So Mozilla was somewhat alien everywere.
But now alienating most people who have specifically *left* the MS way
of things seems to be no good idea. A less "billish" Phoenix would help
us folks a lot.
Karsten Düsterloh
>>> all of what grippies give you, but without the extreme annoyance
>>> of being able to click on them by accident.
>> This (sorry) stupid argument does not get any "more true" by
>> repeating it.
> You're right; it was just as true at the beginning as it is now. I'm
> fed up of going for the File menu and hitting the grippy instead. If
> I need more screen space, I press F11.
I've *never* hit the grippy "accidently".
Anyway, we don't get any closer on this point I guess. <shrug/>
>> Let's remove all "delete" buttons! Someone has clicked it
>> accidently and now his data is lost!
> Most deletes are undoable with a single key combination.
*All* menus are openable with a single key combination.
Karsten Düsterloh
Now that think of it: why did never someone get the idea making the
grippies change state only with a *double* click?
No "accidentally hitting" the grippy, and the grippy wars would have
ended just before they began...
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
>
> Now that think of it: why did never someone get the idea making the
> grippies change state only with a *double* click?
> No "accidentally hitting" the grippy, and the grippy wars would have
> ended just before they began...
The way others go is having a context menu on the grippy, and you can
choose "collapse" there. But then the grippy must be useable e.g. to
rearrange/move the toolbar as well, and the context menu must have
"hide" and "customize..." as well.
Robert Kaiser
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
>> it's a _very_ useful feature.
>
> I think that rearrangeable toolbars, the ability to hide them from the
> View Menu, and Full Screen Mode all combine together to give you almost
> all of what grippies give you, but without the extreme annoyance of
> being able to click on them by accident.
...and without the extrem comfort of a few clicks less (yes, I still
want e.g. the site navigation bar still shown but the others hidden to
use more of my 800x600 screen while showing that presentation)...
heck, this is an endless discussion...
...anyway, it doesn't really belong in this thread anyway...
...I'll just use Konqueror if I need a decent browser that's a little
less pain than phoenix...
Robert Kaiser
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser
>> 0.9.x scheme) with those changes, but I'm not sure it would be worth it.
>
> No, let's not do that. Last time, we very nearly ran out of numbers :-)
hehe...
Well, anyway, it would be nice to somehow show people more prominently
that 1.5 Alpha might be a completely different product than 1.4, and
that it's not just another upgrade to do that step...
Robert Kaiser
Karsten Düsterloh
I won't resent moveable toolbars, especially if I can put 'em vertical. ;-)
Boris Zbarsky
> Although reading it is quite difficult. Perhaps we should write some
> software that displays HTML pages in an easier-to-read form...
Actually, until the need to do this "linking" thing came along, telnet
to port 80 or the equivalent would have given you a perfectly readable
text document, which would display in your preferred colors at your
preferred font size and scroll when you scrolled it.
Rather a win over a lot of web pages, actually. ;)
Asa Dotzler
> Torben wrote:
>
>> Assuming they are able to find out that Preferences are called Options
>> and hidden under the Tools menu.
>
>
> of the program. They are no "tool" in my opinion. *Sigh*
>
Do you also want to *edit* the paste or *edit* the delete or *edit* the
find in page? No. You don't. You want to perform some editing action
(cut, copy, paste, etc.) on the document you're viewing. Right? All of
those items -cut, copy, paste, find, delete, undo, redo, etc. are
editing functionality performed on the document you are viewing.
Preferences are not the document you are viewing and your suggestion
that the diction of an english sentence that you think sounds nice is
rational for the placement of menus for some functionality seems kind of
odd to me.
I like using a tool to set my browsing preferences. If I wanted to edit
my preferences, I'd open up prefs.js in an editor and edit them.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
Well, I've used Linux semi-regularly for 3 years but only for testing
Mozilla. I did all of my other work and play on Windows. With RH8 I was
finally comfortable moving over to Linux as my default desktop and
specifically _because_ it was more MS Windows like than say RH5 or older
distributions. You can bash MS all you want but making things similar to
Microsoft made it possible for me to switch.
It was also critical to my switching that my primary app on Linux (the
browser) look and feel a lot like my it did on Windows. It was fortunate
that Mozilla was my browser of choice before I moved to Linux because it
made the transition so much easier. I'm pleased that the Linux version
of Mozilla is so close to the Windows version and all I had to learn
were a couple of different keyboard shortcuts with most functionality
being the same and located in the same place.
If you want people to migrate you have to make it as easy as possible. I
didn't abandon Windows because I didn't "want the Microsoft style of
things." I abandoned it because I wanted to move to a free solution that
worked for me as well or better than the costly Microsoft platform.
Linux and Mozilla gave that to me and I'm pleased every time I try to do
something the way I learned in Windows and it "just works" in Linux and
Mozilla.
Now Red Hat 9 is out and I upgraded immediately to find even more
Microsoft-like little details and I'm now very close to trying to get my
wife to move from Windows to RH9 because I think it will be easy enough
for her to learn.
If Linux (and Mozilla) are going to expand their user bases beyond
developers, free software fanatics and sysadmins, they will have to give
users something that is at least as easy to use as what they're using
now. That means making a lot of the functionality similar and familiar.
You also seem to miss the point that "the Microsoft style of things"
makes perfect sense for the majority of Mozilla users who are running
Mozilla on a Microsoft operating system and they _want_ it to look and
feel like the rest of their microsoft apps. And for Linux users, at
least those on the most popular distributions like Red Hat, the
"Microsoft style of things" isn't very out of place.
The earlier poster also misses the point. We're not just looking like
Microsoft (and I'd argue that neither Phoenix nor Mozilla look anything
like IE). We are offering some similar functionality and located in
similar places but we're also offering lots of functionality not offered
by MS IE. We have tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, dozens of great XUL
extensions, we're not a virus magnet, we have themes and much, much
more. Just because we put a couple of menu items in the same place as
some other app doesn't mean we're copying their app wholesale. By his
logic, Linux distros should never have adopted a MS-like taskbar/start
menu and window list structure. If copying is bad then I shouldn't be
able to see a clock applet in panel and I shouldn't be able to switch
between windows by clicking on the application button in the windows
list in the panel. Take away the MS-like functionality from my Red Hat
desktop and I'm no longer a Linux user.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
> David Tenser wrote:
<snip>
>> Mozilla.org can't afford supporting and maintaining both projects and
>> the focus has to go to the most promising project. The choice is
>> pretty easy.
>
>
> Firstly, mozilla.org does not support anything and makes builds
> available for testing only, last I checked.
>
> Also, who exactly do you mean with "mozilla.org"?
> Drivers/Staff do not have much work with maintaining a project (or at
> least I don't see a reason why they would). As long as there are
> developers for a project, maintaining it is no problem. It's not like
> maintaining it costs any money.
>
Wrong. Every bit of infrastructure that we have -Bugzilla, Bonsai,
Tinderboxen, LXR, CVS, Talkback, FTP, etc requires machines, reqires
bandwidth, requires sysadmins, etc. Every additional project that you
add to the already large list of mozilla.org projects adds overhead that
does cost money and does cost time.
Many, many hours of non-coding work go into making a Mozilla release
happen. I know because I've been working to make the last 25 Mozilla
releases happen. If you're suggesting that if we had 50 instead of 25
releases in that same time period that it wouldn't have been more work
for dri...@mozilla.org (and me in particular) then you're wildly wrong.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
<snip>
given that there are
> phoenix advocates suggesting that it is impossible to browse without
> installing the Tabbed Browser Extensions (which IMO almost define the
> concept of a bloated interface and feature set).
Then they should install the tabbed browser preferences which is a much
smaller set of preferences. If they're involved enough in Mozilla to be
posting regularly at mozillazine or the newsgroups (or bugzilla) then it
shouldn't be too much pain to install a nice little tabbed browser
preferences tool or to edit the prefs in about:config.
But that's just one small group of users -mozillazine posters who had
been using Mozilla and tried Phoenix, for which there are several easy
methods to getting what they want from tabbed browsing (the most wanted
thing seems to be "lots of preferences because I use tabs differently
than everyone else"). What about the 499,999,900 other browser users
that would be coming from IE? Are they going to be saying "it's
impossible to browse without installing TBE"?
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>>> How is the "too few people" part going to change in any way if you
>>> replace mailnews with minotaur?
>>> And the "complicated" part, for that matter?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's less complicated because it's not integrated with three other
>> applications.
>>
>>> "Phoenix is simply smaller, faster, and better [...] but because it
>>> has a strong "add-on" extension mechanism. "
>>>
>>> That sounds like mozilla would not have any extensions. In fact
>>> Mozilla has many extensions, possibly more than phoenix (though I
>>> don't know what either number is).
>>
>>
>> And hopefully they'll be available in the new architecture. The point
>> is that things currently built into Mozilla will become extensions as
>> well.
>
>
> That's where the mess starts. I have spent several hours trying to get
> the tab-browser-extensions and Optimoz to work/install under
> Mozilla/1.2.1. At the end I had to choose between tab extensions that
> worked or Optimoz that worked.
>
Mozilla doesn't have Optimoz or TBE and I suspect that you will have
similar problems with incompatible extensions in Mozilla as you would in
Phoenix. It is the intention of mozilla.org to keep the core set of
extensions, dom inspector, venkman, composer, and mail, all working and
compatible. Those extensions that are not hosted by mozilla.org like TBE
and optimoze will basically be in the same world as they are today.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
>
>
> Erm, I'm not sure my OS does handle this, and also others on the unix
> side probably won't handle it well enough themselves.
> I know this is kinda weak point of especially Linux, but Mozilla should
> have the capability of handling what it needs itself here.
> On Windows and probably MacOS X as well (don't know it good enough),
> you're right that it should be integrated with the OS to a fair extent.
> I'd love to see integration with KDE and Gnome as well, but I don't
> belive that would happen fast...
>
> Robert Kaiser
>
Windows, Mac, some Linux distros. For example, on windows when I click
on a mailto link in a browser, I expect it to launch my system default
email application. When I click on a link in a mail message, I expect it
to launch my system default web browser. This works quite well in most
windows and mac applications and is getting better on Linux.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
<snip>
> /Removing features is always a bad decision./
>
I disagree. I suspect that if you handed Mozilla to the world's top 100
usability experts and asked them to agree or disagree with your
statement that all 100 would disagree too.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
>> partitions with restricted CVS access.... (and whatever else I may
>> think of the Phoenix UI, I'm glad the grippies are gone and real
>> toolbar customization is being worked on instead).
>
>
> Almost every real toolkit has some kind of toolbar grippies. You should
> it's a _very_ useful feature.
Except that almost none of those "real toolkits" have grippies that
collapse the toolbars and in Mozilla, that's all they do. That makes
Mozilla's grippies an entirely differnt beast from the toolbar
dragpoints in other toolkits.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> James Graham wrote:
>>
>>> The problem that moz-appearance doesn't solve is the different
>>> graphic styles that are common on different platforms.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean the images on the toolbar buttons and such? That's trivially
>> solvable at build time.... only requires forking the images, not the
>> whole theme and no XUL.
>>
> Well yes, that would be an improvemnet and might make the toolbars look
> consistent with other apps on the platform. Obviously it wouldn't solve
> the bigger problem of (for example) the menus not being grouped
> according to the platform's interface guidelines, which would require
> forking XUL and would therefore be difficult to maintain.
>
You can already get themes that look like the OS from themes.mozdev.org,
texturizer.net/phoenix, deskmod.com and probably other places. You can
even get a theme that uses all of the IE images either the old ones or
the new Luna ones. I've also seen several nautilus/gnome icon-based
themes for Phoenix.
--Asa
Asa Dotzler
<snip>
Even
> though I use different systems, I want apps on each platform conform to
> the platform conventions. I expect apps on OS X to feel like real Aqua
> apps. I expect apps on Windows XP to have the Luna look.
I just installed Windows XP fired up IE and when I clicked on a video
link it threw up this new MS Windows Media Player that looks absolutely
nothing like IE or any other app that came with the system. When the
maker of the OS doesn't think that consistency of look and feel (on
major issues like rectangular windows) then it's hard to make the case
that other app makers should. Mac OS X has similar glaring
inconsistencies. Look at the new Safari browser which looks nothing like
most other productivity applications (using that brushed metal look
which I thought their guidelines restricted to apps that represented
real-world appliances like stereos or TVs). When the web browser from
Apple looks and feels nothing like the email app from Apple, why should
Mozilla worry about fitting in exactly with the other apps and the OS?
--Asa
Matthias Versen
> Preferences are not the document you are viewing and your suggestion
> that the diction of an english sentence that you think sounds nice is
> rational for the placement of menus for some functionality seems kind of
> odd to me.
>
> I like using a tool to set my browsing preferences. If I wanted to edit
> my preferences, I'd open up prefs.js in an editor and edit them.
I *EDIT* my prefs with the nice GUI Prefs Editor that i can find under
edit\preferences.
BTW: The "set as personal toolbar option" in the Bookmark Manager makes
no sense under view (currently in Mozilla)
Matthias
--
Please delete everything between "matti" and the "@" in my mail address.
Matthias Versen
Ask 100 people who are using Mozilla about that and you will get a
different answer.
But I agree that there are to many preferences in Mozilla but the
current Phoenix is the other side: not enough preferences (many basic
prefs are missing).
The best solution IMHO would be the middle of both.
That would be a "normal" Browser for me and I don't use many Mozilla
features. (only the password Manager,Tabbed Browsing,popup bloker,
Bookmark Keywords)
David Tenser
On 2003-04-08 00:45 Matthias Versen wrote:
> Asa Dotzler wrote:
>
>> Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> /Removing features is always a bad decision./
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. I suspect that if you handed Mozilla to the world's top
>> 100 usability experts and asked them to agree or disagree with your
>> statement that all 100 would disagree too.
>
>
> Ask 100 people who are using Mozilla about that and you will get a
> different answer.
Naturally, since most people using Mozilla are not average end-users,
but in fact power-users or even programmers/web designers.
/ David
David Tenser
On 2003-04-08 00:36 Matthias Versen wrote:
> Asa Dotzler wrote:
>
>
>> Preferences are not the document you are viewing and your suggestion
>> that the diction of an english sentence that you think sounds nice is
>> rational for the placement of menus for some functionality seems kind
>> of odd to me.
>>
>> I like using a tool to set my browsing preferences. If I wanted to
>> edit my preferences, I'd open up prefs.js in an editor and edit them.
>
>
> I *EDIT* my prefs with the nice GUI Prefs Editor that i can find under
> edit\preferences.
>
You fail to see Asa's point: the Edit menu is for editing the current
document. It's not a place to put application-wide menu items.
Of course "edit preferences" sounds better than "tools options", since
edit is a verb and tool is a noun; that has nothing to do with the
placement of the menu item. You're not tools your options, and you're
also not filing your exit.
/ David
Andrew Schultz
And also because most people only consider the one or two features they
want and not the incremental damage the additional (mostly) useless feature
would add. Performance, bloat and too-much-stuff-to-wade-through effect
all suffer from each additional feature (even the good ones).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Schultz | The views expressed might
ajsc...@eos.ncsu.edu | not represent those of NCSU.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ajschult/ | They are however, correct.
James Graham
> James Graham wrote:
> <snip>
>
> given that there are
>
>> phoenix advocates suggesting that it is impossible to browse without
>> installing the Tabbed Browser Extensions (which IMO almost define the
>> concept of a bloated interface and feature set).
>
>
> Then they should install the tabbed browser preferences which is a much
> smaller set of preferences. If they're involved enough in Mozilla to be
> posting regularly at mozillazine or the newsgroups (or bugzilla) then it
> shouldn't be too much pain to install a nice little tabbed browser
> preferences tool or to edit the prefs in about:config.
Well maybe. Lets assume that you're right and everyone who visits
mozillazine and says 'tabbed browsing is great! How can I get it to
dox?' is capable of setting a hidden preference or downloading an extension.
First, lets note that a *lot* of the people asking for extra tab
functionality at mozillazine are first time posters, and many of them
never return. If that wasn't true then there would be no need for a
sticky topic about the extension, since anyone who has used the forums
for more than about a week knows all about tabbed browser extension
anyway. The fact that all the people who are posting regually at
mozillazine already know about it is precisely because of the number of
new user requests that are answered 'Mozilla/Phoenix doesn't have that,
but you can get the TBE which has that and a whole load of other stuff'.
Also, I contest that, if x is a commonly used feature, then setting a
hidden preference (or downloading an extension to provide a GUI for a
preference that was always there in the first place) shouldn't be
necessary. Since tabbed browsing is a core feature of the browser, there
should be a reasonable set of both features and customisation options
avaliable, which reflect the fact that not everyone uses the
functionality in the same way. If that set of features and preferences
(where necessary) don't exist, then you are making the browser *harder*
to use, not easier - i.e. you're making the interface worse.
Your assumption also doesn't cover the people who will never get as far
as Mozilazine or Mozdev. Those people will either believe that
Mozilla/Phoenix is plain difficult to use, or will give up and use
something else. For example, a reviewer for UK PC Pro magazine comparing
Mozilla, Netcaptor and Opera:
"Even the tabbed browsing [in Mozilla], one of the main improvements,
isn't as flexible or intuitive as NetCaptor." [2]
Normal users will not install extensions. A significant fraction of
these people will, however be able to adjust settings to get the
behaviour they desire. It's not that installing a 'nice little
extension' is too much pain for these people, it's that they'll never
know it exists. Even if they do, lots of people are wary of installing
things that are difficult to remove (true of most Mozilla and Phoenix
extensions at the moment) and could potentially mess up their browser
or, worse, their computer.
If you use the browser in a locked down environment, where sysadmins
don't mind users adjusting settings but are wary of them installing
random code from the internet, things are clearly much worse, since the
choice doesn't exist.
> But that's just one small group of users -mozillazine posters who had
> been using Mozilla and tried Phoenix, for which there are several easy
> methods to getting what they want from tabbed browsing (the most wanted
> thing seems to be "lots of preferences because I use tabs differently
> than everyone else")
I disagree. What most people want are a limited set of useful
preferences. In fact, of the Mozilla tabs preferences that are missing
in Phoenix, the only one that has been requested [1] for reinclusion is
'Hide tab bar when only one tab is open', which is useful once you
realise that links or even text with the form of a URI can be dragged to
the tab bar to open in a new tab. I'm sure you understand since your
blog opens comments in a new window, and comments typically contain URIs
as text. Without the tab bar, there is no way to open these in a new
tab. If everyone used tabs, always showing the tab bar could be the
default setting. For whatever reasons, people use their web browsers
differently and some people dislike tabs, whilst others like the extra
20 pixels of vertical space hiding the bar provides. Consequentually
there is a need for a preference, since the default doesn't represent
the best option for a significant fraction of the user base. This
feature is *very* useful and totally undiscoverable in Phoenix.
. What about the 499,999,900 other browser users
> that would be coming from IE? Are they going to be saying "it's
> impossible to browse without installing TBE"?
No, but a lot of them will say "this browser sucks, it doesn't work the
way I want it to and I can't do xyz in the way that Opera / IE addon
with tabs / some other browser does." I'm not advocating the Mozilla
approach of having preferences for http arcana and the behaviour of the
tab key. I am advocating having a core functionality such that
Mozilla/Phoenix don't gain a reputation for being underpowered and
inflexible. Extensions that really are extensions should be packaged as
such. Extensions that are really core functionality that has been
removed to save one checkbox worth of complexity in the prefs window
should not be extensions.
[1] http://zeus.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~jg307/mozilla/advantages.html
[2] http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6498