Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Linux integration tradeoff for a better looking theme?
560 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Rouget
Feb 6, 2012, 12:15:35 PM2/6/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
To follow-up on comments:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
(I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
A couple of things that feel wrong:
- the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
- the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
- the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484 & bug 572485
Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
-- Paul Rouget
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
(I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
A couple of things that feel wrong:
- the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
- the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
- the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484 & bug 572485
Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
-- Paul Rouget
michael...@gmail.com
Feb 6, 2012, 1:23:47 PM2/6/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Paul, I strongly agree with most of the points you raised. While a certain desktop environment does not longer officially support changing the icon theme, most of them still do and will continue to do so. The result is that we need to come up with workarounds and trade-offs. Still, Firefox does not totally look or feel "native" in any Linux desktop and it probably never will.
Some time ago, the tab rendering was changed from GTK-emulation to match the same shape as used on other platforms and I am sure most people really liked that change.
As for the icons: the proposed new look uses very simple shapes and is not as colorful as previous Firefox default looks. I think it will fit in just fine with about anything.
I would not bother trying to "save" the native close icon: a lot of icon themes just have huge close icons which would not look nice on Firefox tabs. Also, I would get rid of the button look on hover and press just as on Windows. Let's just think of the "x" as part of the tab, not an icon on a button on a tab widget. This button looks especially awful when using Persona themes right now.
In short: I would prefer Firefox to just look great, matching the style of Firefox on other platforms while not having to make bad trade-offs in order to show native icons.
Some time ago, the tab rendering was changed from GTK-emulation to match the same shape as used on other platforms and I am sure most people really liked that change.
As for the icons: the proposed new look uses very simple shapes and is not as colorful as previous Firefox default looks. I think it will fit in just fine with about anything.
I would not bother trying to "save" the native close icon: a lot of icon themes just have huge close icons which would not look nice on Firefox tabs. Also, I would get rid of the button look on hover and press just as on Windows. Let's just think of the "x" as part of the tab, not an icon on a button on a tab widget. This button looks especially awful when using Persona themes right now.
In short: I would prefer Firefox to just look great, matching the style of Firefox on other platforms while not having to make bad trade-offs in order to show native icons.
Asa Dotzler
Feb 6, 2012, 5:34:17 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/2012 9:15 AM, Paul Rouget wrote:
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
> don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484& bug 572485
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
>
> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
>
> -- Paul Rouget
I think most of those suggestions are good ones but I'm not a full-time
> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
>
> -- Paul Rouget
Linux user and I'd like to hear from some of them before making any
de-GTK-ification changes.
- A
Mike Connor
Feb 6, 2012, 6:40:46 PM2/6/12
to Paul Rouget, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Everything old is new again!
So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one way or another. The last time I was involved in this, we concluded that looking like a native app mattered more on Linux than having our own ideal of a look and feel, especially since there's highly divergent look and feel across distros/themes. Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years, and is that hurting us?
I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
* what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
* is there user feedback/questions acting as support for either side of things?
* is this going to have a tangible impact on adoption/use of Firefox, and is that enough to justify significant work to design and implement a new theme?
-- Mike
On 2012-02-06, at 12:15 PM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
> don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484 & bug 572485
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one way or another. The last time I was involved in this, we concluded that looking like a native app mattered more on Linux than having our own ideal of a look and feel, especially since there's highly divergent look and feel across distros/themes. Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years, and is that hurting us?
I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
* what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
* is there user feedback/questions acting as support for either side of things?
* is this going to have a tangible impact on adoption/use of Firefox, and is that enough to justify significant work to design and implement a new theme?
-- Mike
On 2012-02-06, at 12:15 PM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
>
> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
>
> -- Paul Rouget
> _______________________________________________
> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
>
> -- Paul Rouget
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
Sonny Piers
Feb 6, 2012, 6:41:46 PM2/6/12
to
If we break the GTK integration, can we provide the user and/or the
packager a way to keep the GTK integration as it was?
I'm in favor of breaking the GTK integration but I know that many users
will disagree.
On 02/06/2012 06:15 PM, Paul Rouget wrote:
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
> don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484& bug 572485
packager a way to keep the GTK integration as it was?
I'm in favor of breaking the GTK integration but I know that many users
will disagree.
On 02/06/2012 06:15 PM, Paul Rouget wrote:
> To follow-up on comments:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>
> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
>
> A couple of things that feel wrong:
> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
>
> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
>
> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>
> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
Barry van Oudtshoorn
Feb 6, 2012, 7:20:22 PM2/6/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On 07/02/12 06:34, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> I think most of those suggestions are good ones but I'm not a
> full-time Linux user and I'd like to hear from some of them before
> making any de-GTK-ification changes.
>
> - A
As a full-time Linux user, I'm entirely in favour of these changes. I
> I think most of those suggestions are good ones but I'm not a
> full-time Linux user and I'd like to hear from some of them before
> making any de-GTK-ification changes.
>
> - A
think, though, that there needs to still be a modicum of integration:
things like the colour of toolbars, text, etc. I recently helped a
colleague move to Firefox from Chrome (on Linux), and one of the first
things he mentioned was the lack of a "pretty orange Firefox button".
I also think that if Firefox moves away from GTK integration, it will
look better in other environments. At present, Firefox is certainly no
looker when run in KDE; I think that having an aesthetically-pleasing,
consistent (both within the application itself and across platforms)
interface is very important.
For what it's worth, I've taken a screenshot of the Firefox chrome on
my machine. [1] You'll see that, as Paul mentioned, some of the toolbar
icons are from Firefox, and others are from GTK (specifically, the
back/forward icons are from my GTK icon theme, whereas the bookmarks
icon and the various bits-and-pieces in the awesomebar are
Firefox-supplied).
[1] http://barryvan.com.au/temp/firefox-chrome.png
--
Barry van Oudtshoorn
www.barryvan.com.au
Dao
Feb 6, 2012, 8:20:02 PM2/6/12
to
On 07.02.2012 00:41, Sonny Piers wrote:
> If we break the GTK integration, can we provide the user and/or the
> packager a way to keep the GTK integration as it was?
Well, the user or packager could pick a custom theme. We're not going to
> If we break the GTK integration, can we provide the user and/or the
> packager a way to keep the GTK integration as it was?
maintain both, if that's what you're asking.
Paul Rouget
Feb 7, 2012, 12:00:21 AM2/7/12
to Mike Connor, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Mike Connor wrote:
> Everything old is new again!
>
> So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if it's a mix of native and non-native
This is the situation we are in already, and this is part of the problem.
> Everything old is new again!
>
> So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if it's a mix of native and non-native
Things are "looking broken/half-assed".
We use native icons and non-native icons: http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png
> so we really have to commit one way or another.
We can't use GTK tabs, so we use "XUL" tabs.
But at the same time, we use native close buttons and the native "add-tab" icon.
We are mixing GTK and non-native UIs. And this will never change.
What I am proposing here is that *sometimes* we should NOT use GTK, to avoid
this "broken/half-assed" UI.
> The last time I was involved in this, we concluded that looking like a native app mattered more on Linux than having our own ideal of a look and feel, especially since there's highly divergent look and feel across distros/themes. Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years, and is that hurting us?
of these discussions, but from what I see in bugzilla, we don't have the keyhole
because we never really got the ressources, and the implementation was kind of
problematic. I haven't seen a "don't do this" comment anywhere. But again, I wasn't
involved in the UI work at all back then.
> is that hurting us?
I have no data to back this up, but I'd be happy to setup a survey: because we
don't get the nice-looking mac/windows theme, a lot of our linux users feel like
they are left behind.
And I believe this is hurting us.
> I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
>
> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
I am not sure that this theme will ever be implementable without this
native/non-native tradeoff.
> * is there user feedback/questions acting as support for either side of things?
Again - and this is just from my experience - I hear a lot of people complaining about this.
I can write a blog post about this and setup a survey.
Would that help?
> * is this going to have a tangible impact on adoption/use of Firefox, and is that enough to justify significant work to design and implement a new theme?
I think, the minimum, is:
- close buttons + new-tab button
- keyhole
- glyphs
And I don't think it's even possible to know if this is going to have a tangible
impact. I don't think this will be huge. But I am pretty sure this will bring
back some users.
> On 2012-02-06, at 12:15 PM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> > To follow-up on comments:
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
> >
> > Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
> > On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
> > Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
> > (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2 months old).
> >
> > A couple of things that feel wrong:
> > - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
> > Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
> > - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
> > - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
> > The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the keyhole.
> >
> > To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
> > integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin close icon
> > in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example - bug 572484
> >
> > Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and Windows will
> > make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
> >
> > For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they usually
> >
> > Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> > Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
> >
> > -- Paul Rouget
> > Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
> > Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it even possible?
> >
> > -- Paul Rouget
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> > dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
-- Paul
> > dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> > dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Cedric Vivier
Feb 7, 2012, 1:51:38 AM2/7/12
to Mike Connor, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org, Paul Rouget
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 07:40, Mike Connor <mco...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
> I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
when subtle and consistent.
It is difficult to be consistent when using native theme visuals that
we do not control.
Currently, Chrome certainly has the consistency advantage on Linux.
On the Gnome desktop, Epiphany has improved a lot in recent
months/years, people who are *really* concerned about native
look/integration should (have) probably rather switch(ed) to it (or
Konqueror) anyways.
Henri Sivonen
Feb 7, 2012, 2:45:06 AM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Mike Connor wrote:
>> so we really have to commit one way or another.
>
> No, because it is just impossible to do 100% GTK or 100% "Firefox".
> We can't use GTK tabs, so we use "XUL" tabs.
> But at the same time, we use native close buttons and the native "add-tab" icon.
>
> We are mixing GTK and non-native UIs. And this will never change.
>
> What I am proposing here is that *sometimes* we should NOT use GTK, to avoid
> this "broken/half-assed" UI.
I agree that this isn't a "commit one way or another" issue. GTK
> Mike Connor wrote:
>> so we really have to commit one way or another.
>
> No, because it is just impossible to do 100% GTK or 100% "Firefox".
> We can't use GTK tabs, so we use "XUL" tabs.
> But at the same time, we use native close buttons and the native "add-tab" icon.
>
> We are mixing GTK and non-native UIs. And this will never change.
>
> What I am proposing here is that *sometimes* we should NOT use GTK, to avoid
> this "broken/half-assed" UI.
integration works great outside the main browser window (in prefs,
etc.). Also, the appearance of Chrome and Opera is wrong on Linux,
let's not make Firefox look as bad as them.
Right now, the main browser windows seems to be half native-look and
half non-native native-colored look.
Native look:
Menubar on non-Ubuntu.
Back & forward buttons.
Reload icon.
New tab icon.
Metrics of the bookmark bar.
Non-native:
Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
Tabs.
URL field.
Search field.
As someone who uses Ubuntu as the work computer, I'd like to see the
UI outside the main browser window to stay as native-looking as it is
now. However, recognizing that the main browser window is visible all
the time, has specialized widgets anyway (so it isn't 100% GTK anyway)
and is screen real estate-sensitive, I'd like to the main browser
window to be more carefully Firefox-tuned within the general UI color
constraints of the system theme. This might mean special-casing the
top themes as on Windows instead of being completely generic. I think
Firefox should look great at least using Ambiance (Ubuntu default),
Radiance (Ubuntu color variant) and the default theme of Fedora
(whatever it's called; I suspect it isn't quite vanilla Clearlooks).
It seems to me that making Firefox look great using the default themes
of the most-used distros could mean some degradation in
radically-different custom themes. As a user of a default theme, I'd
prefer the default experience to be optimized.
Specifically on Ubuntu, I'd like to see these changes:
* Global menubar instead of XUL menubar. (Canonical already has code
for this. Dunno if the code structure and license would make it easy
to import it to m-c.)
* Hand-crafted but system theme color-conforming keyhole back and
forward button that fit together with the already-non-native URL
field.
* System theme-congruent but Firefox-supplied toolbar icons to avoid
icon mismatch situations. (Obviously, Firefox-supplied system
theme-congruent icons means they could be congruent with only a small
number of themes known in advance.)
* Slightly compressed metrics for the bookmark toolbar so that it's
congruent with the metrics of the tab bar. (Currently on Ambiance, the
bookmarks toolbar looks too high relative to the tab bar.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mike Ratcliffe
Feb 7, 2012, 7:52:04 AM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
I am a full time Linux user and 100% agree with Barry that we should
only use the general colors from a theme. In fact, until we move away
from GTK integration Firefox can never look as good on Linux as it does
on other platforms. To be completely honest, I think that you would be
hard pressed to find a Linux user that disagrees.
~Mike Ratcliffe
only use the general colors from a theme. In fact, until we move away
from GTK integration Firefox can never look as good on Linux as it does
on other platforms. To be completely honest, I think that you would be
hard pressed to find a Linux user that disagrees.
~Mike Ratcliffe
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 8:16:59 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 08:45, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Non-native:
> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
It does if you run the Ubuntu-supplied Firefox.
> Non-native:
> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
> URL field.
> Search field.
Those are actually native.
Paul Rouget
Feb 7, 2012, 8:17:52 AM2/7/12
to Henri Sivonen, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Mike Connor wrote:
> >> so we really have to commit one way or another.
> >
> > No, because it is just impossible to do 100% GTK or 100% "Firefox".
> > We can't use GTK tabs, so we use "XUL" tabs.
> > But at the same time, we use native close buttons and the native "add-tab" icon.
> >
> > We are mixing GTK and non-native UIs. And this will never change.
> >
> > What I am proposing here is that *sometimes* we should NOT use GTK, to avoid
> > this "broken/half-assed" UI.
>
> I agree that this isn't a "commit one way or another" issue. GTK
> integration works great outside the main browser window (in prefs,
> etc.). Also, the appearance of Chrome and Opera is wrong on Linux,
> let's not make Firefox look as bad as them.
>
> Right now, the main browser windows seems to be half native-look and
> half non-native native-colored look.
>
> Native look:
> Menubar on non-Ubuntu.
> Back & forward buttons.
> Reload icon.
> New tab icon.
> Metrics of the bookmark bar.
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Mike Connor wrote:
> >> so we really have to commit one way or another.
> >
> > No, because it is just impossible to do 100% GTK or 100% "Firefox".
> > We can't use GTK tabs, so we use "XUL" tabs.
> > But at the same time, we use native close buttons and the native "add-tab" icon.
> >
> > We are mixing GTK and non-native UIs. And this will never change.
> >
> > What I am proposing here is that *sometimes* we should NOT use GTK, to avoid
> > this "broken/half-assed" UI.
>
> I agree that this isn't a "commit one way or another" issue. GTK
> integration works great outside the main browser window (in prefs,
> etc.). Also, the appearance of Chrome and Opera is wrong on Linux,
> let's not make Firefox look as bad as them.
>
> Right now, the main browser windows seems to be half native-look and
> half non-native native-colored look.
>
> Native look:
> Menubar on non-Ubuntu.
> Back & forward buttons.
> Reload icon.
> New tab icon.
> Metrics of the bookmark bar.
>
> Non-native:
> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
> Tabs.
> URL field.
> Search field.
>
> As someone who uses Ubuntu as the work computer, I'd like to see the
> UI outside the main browser window to stay as native-looking as it is
> now. However, recognizing that the main browser window is visible all
> the time, has specialized widgets anyway (so it isn't 100% GTK anyway)
> and is screen real estate-sensitive, I'd like to the main browser
> window to be more carefully Firefox-tuned within the general UI color
> constraints of the system theme. This might mean special-casing the
> top themes as on Windows instead of being completely generic. I think
> Firefox should look great at least using Ambiance (Ubuntu default),
> Radiance (Ubuntu color variant) and the default theme of Fedora
> (whatever it's called; I suspect it isn't quite vanilla Clearlooks).
>
> It seems to me that making Firefox look great using the default themes
> of the most-used distros could mean some degradation in
> radically-different custom themes. As a user of a default theme, I'd
> prefer the default experience to be optimized.
>
> Specifically on Ubuntu, I'd like to see these changes:
> * Global menubar instead of XUL menubar. (Canonical already has code
> for this. Dunno if the code structure and license would make it easy
> to import it to m-c.)
Do we have a bug for that?
> URL field.
> Search field.
>
> As someone who uses Ubuntu as the work computer, I'd like to see the
> UI outside the main browser window to stay as native-looking as it is
> now. However, recognizing that the main browser window is visible all
> the time, has specialized widgets anyway (so it isn't 100% GTK anyway)
> and is screen real estate-sensitive, I'd like to the main browser
> window to be more carefully Firefox-tuned within the general UI color
> constraints of the system theme. This might mean special-casing the
> top themes as on Windows instead of being completely generic. I think
> Firefox should look great at least using Ambiance (Ubuntu default),
> Radiance (Ubuntu color variant) and the default theme of Fedora
> (whatever it's called; I suspect it isn't quite vanilla Clearlooks).
>
> It seems to me that making Firefox look great using the default themes
> of the most-used distros could mean some degradation in
> radically-different custom themes. As a user of a default theme, I'd
> prefer the default experience to be optimized.
>
> Specifically on Ubuntu, I'd like to see these changes:
> * Global menubar instead of XUL menubar. (Canonical already has code
> for this. Dunno if the code structure and license would make it easy
> to import it to m-c.)
> * Hand-crafted but system theme color-conforming keyhole back and
> forward button that fit together with the already-non-native URL
> field.
> * System theme-congruent but Firefox-supplied toolbar icons to avoid
> icon mismatch situations. (Obviously, Firefox-supplied system
> theme-congruent icons means they could be congruent with only a small
> number of themes known in advance.)
> * Slightly compressed metrics for the bookmark toolbar so that it's
> congruent with the metrics of the tab bar. (Currently on Ambiance, the
> bookmarks toolbar looks too high relative to the tab bar.)
-- Paul
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 8:20:59 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 07:51, Cedric Vivier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 07:40, Mike Connor<mco...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
>> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
>
> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
> when subtle and consistent.
You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and unpolished
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 07:40, Mike Connor<mco...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I think there's some core questions to answer here, before we change anything:
>> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
>
> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
> when subtle and consistent.
state of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome integrates better
with Gtk than it used to, it uses stock icons and dropped the custom
persistent button shapes something like a year ago.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 8:28:10 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 06:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
>> The last time I was involved in this, we concluded that looking like a native app mattered more on Linux than having our own ideal of a look and feel, especially since there's highly divergent look and feel across distros/themes. Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years, and is that hurting us?
>
> Is that the actual reason for not having the keyhole? I wasn't involved in any
> of these discussions, but from what I see in bugzilla, we don't have the keyhole
> because we never really got the ressources, and the implementation was kind of
> problematic. I haven't seen a "don't do this" comment anywhere. But again, I wasn't
> involved in the UI work at all back then.
It was a deliberate decision in favor of platform integration. Note that
>> The last time I was involved in this, we concluded that looking like a native app mattered more on Linux than having our own ideal of a look and feel, especially since there's highly divergent look and feel across distros/themes. Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years, and is that hurting us?
>
> Is that the actual reason for not having the keyhole? I wasn't involved in any
> of these discussions, but from what I see in bugzilla, we don't have the keyhole
> because we never really got the ressources, and the implementation was kind of
> problematic. I haven't seen a "don't do this" comment anywhere. But again, I wasn't
> involved in the UI work at all back then.
at that time, we had the back, forward, reload, stop and home buttons
next to each other and the point of the keyhole was to highlight the
back button as the most used UI element, so there would have been very
good reasons for deciding differently. The situation today with the back
button sitting alone in the top left corner is different.
Cedric Vivier
Feb 7, 2012, 8:39:04 AM2/7/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 21:20, Dao <d...@design-noir.de> wrote:
>> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
>> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
>> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
>> when subtle and consistent.
>
> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and unpolished state
> of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome integrates better with Gtk
> than it used to, it uses stock icons and dropped the custom persistent
> button shapes something like a year ago.
I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
>> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
>> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
>> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
>> when subtle and consistent.
>
> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and unpolished state
> of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome integrates better with Gtk
> than it used to, it uses stock icons and dropped the custom persistent
> button shapes something like a year ago.
look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
http://imgur.com/NW5gX
Their GTK integration has indeed improved a lot since the early
versions but you actually notice it only quite rarely (eg. file
chooser).
You wouldn't notice even with their new Preferences panel, formerly a
unpolished dialog then a GTK-esque dialog, indeed, but now just
content in a tab.
Paul Rouget
Feb 7, 2012, 8:40:14 AM2/7/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
While they don't use the native GTK close button for tabs, they use it for other
part of the UI (like for the download toolbar).
In this thread, I am talking about this kind of trade-off.
Their main recognizable UI, the curvy tabs, don't look like GTK tabs at all,
even if they could have done like us (mimicking GTK theme).
People don't complain about that (they even copied this style in GTK3).
Having this kind of "brand-UI" is what I want us to do with the keyhole button.
-- Paul
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 8:45:03 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 14:40, Paul Rouget wrote:
>> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and
>> unpolished state of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome
>> integrates better with Gtk than it used to, it uses stock icons and
>> dropped the custom persistent button shapes something like a year
>> ago.
>
> The tab-close buttons are not the native close button. The new-tab button neither.
> While they don't use the native GTK close button for tabs, they use it for other
> part of the UI (like for the download toolbar).
You're mixing all kinds of different stuff here. We're not considering
>> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and
>> unpolished state of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome
>> integrates better with Gtk than it used to, it uses stock icons and
>> dropped the custom persistent button shapes something like a year
>> ago.
>
> The tab-close buttons are not the native close button. The new-tab button neither.
> While they don't use the native GTK close button for tabs, they use it for other
> part of the UI (like for the download toolbar).
going back to gtk tabs. We've agreed on the tab close button not
fitting, but since it's a problem for all tabbed gtk apps, it would be
preferable to get it fixed upstream.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 8:53:55 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 14:39, Cedric Vivier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 21:20, Dao<d...@design-noir.de> wrote:
>>> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
>>> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
>>> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
>>> when subtle and consistent.
>>
>> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and unpolished state
>> of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome integrates better with Gtk
>> than it used to, it uses stock icons and dropped the custom persistent
>> button shapes something like a year ago.
>
> I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
> look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
> http://imgur.com/NW5gX
This is what I usually see in Chrome-on-Ubuntu screenshots nowadays:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 21:20, Dao<d...@design-noir.de> wrote:
>>> Also, I'd think that Google Chrome/Chromium happened.
>>> Imho it has changed a bit of the mindset within the Linux desktop
>>> community by demonstrating that non-native UIs can be acceptable
>>> when subtle and consistent.
>>
>> You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and unpolished state
>> of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome integrates better with Gtk
>> than it used to, it uses stock icons and dropped the custom persistent
>> button shapes something like a year ago.
>
> I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
> look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
> http://imgur.com/NW5gX
http://cache.sudobits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/google-chrome-on-ubuntu-11-10.jpg
I guess it's possible that this is some (Ubuntu-supplied?) custom theme.
bold...@googlemail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 9:48:21 AM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Debian/Ubuntu/Windows user here. I, too, vote for moving away from GTK in those situations in question.
As a cross-OS user, inconsistencies do sum up, and the Ubuntu and Debian/Mint versions are less attractive than the Windows fox. The full-featured approach for native look and deep integration should be left to other projects like Konqueror and Epiphany.
My two versions of Firefox, which run with the same theme:
* Debian w/ Gnome 2, Compiz configured to remove window decoration: http://imgur.com/OhMQ8
* WinXP: http://imgur.com/rKjd6
As a cross-OS user, inconsistencies do sum up, and the Ubuntu and Debian/Mint versions are less attractive than the Windows fox. The full-featured approach for native look and deep integration should be left to other projects like Konqueror and Epiphany.
My two versions of Firefox, which run with the same theme:
* Debian w/ Gnome 2, Compiz configured to remove window decoration: http://imgur.com/OhMQ8
* WinXP: http://imgur.com/rKjd6
Paul Rouget
Feb 7, 2012, 10:00:10 AM2/7/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Dao wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 14:40, Paul Rouget wrote:
> >>You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and
> >>unpolished state of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome
> >>integrates better with Gtk than it used to, it uses stock icons and
> >>dropped the custom persistent button shapes something like a year
> >>ago.
> >
> >The tab-close buttons are not the native close button. The new-tab button neither.
> >While they don't use the native GTK close button for tabs, they use it for other
> >part of the UI (like for the download toolbar).
>
> You're mixing all kinds of different stuff here. We're not
> considering going back to gtk tabs.
Did I say that? Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> On 07.02.2012 14:40, Paul Rouget wrote:
> >>You seem to be misinterpreting the formerly-unfinished and
> >>unpolished state of Chrome as something deliberate. Today, Chrome
> >>integrates better with Gtk than it used to, it uses stock icons and
> >>dropped the custom persistent button shapes something like a year
> >>ago.
> >
> >The tab-close buttons are not the native close button. The new-tab button neither.
> >While they don't use the native GTK close button for tabs, they use it for other
> >part of the UI (like for the download toolbar).
>
> You're mixing all kinds of different stuff here. We're not
> considering going back to gtk tabs.
> We've agreed on the tab close
> button not fitting, but since it's a problem for all tabbed gtk
> apps, it would be preferable to get it fixed upstream.
1) close buttons in tabs & new tab button don't look good on the majority of the Linux themes.
2) icons in the toolbar are both native and non-native. It doesn't look right.
3) we don't have the keyhole
Things I think we should do:
1) having our own icons.
This could be fixed upstream, indeed. But this doesn't sound really possible.
There are a lot of themes out there.
Having our own icons will ensure that this very important part of the UI (the
tabs!) will always look good. And it will much faster/easier to fix.
The downside is the integration. But I would be really surprised to hear users
complaining about these icons not being the stock ones.
2) same thing: having our own icons.
If I'm not mistaken, this is what Thunderbird does. That will give us more room to
improve the overall toolbar look. Right now, we are stuck because changes need to
work for both native and non-native icons.
The downside is the integration. And this might be a bit too much though.
We should probably wait and see what Shorlander comes with for the Australis theme.
3) Implement the keyhole.
The keyhole (or just the round button) is what makes Firefox different.
I just "feel" that the Linux users would really appreciate getting the
same look as on Mac and Windows.
I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what I hear,
I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will prefer to have
the round back button. But I might be wrong.
-- Paul
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 10:24:58 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 16:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
> 2) icons in the toolbar are both native and non-native. It doesn't look right.
All icons we put there by default should be native. If you deactivate
> 2) icons in the toolbar are both native and non-native. It doesn't look right.
the menu bar (not allowed on Ubuntu), we show the custom bookmarks icon,
though.
> The keyhole (or just the round button) is what makes Firefox different.
> I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what I hear,
> I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will prefer to have
> the round back button. But I might be wrong.
with meaningful choices.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 10:39:52 AM2/7/12
to
Sorry, but cross-OS desktop users are a minority. When Firefox is used
on one OS most of the time, it makes perfect sense to integrate there.
> The full-featured approach for native look and deep integration should be left to other projects like Konqueror and Epiphany.
Really? Why?
on one OS most of the time, it makes perfect sense to integrate there.
> The full-featured approach for native look and deep integration should be left to other projects like Konqueror and Epiphany.
Mike Ratcliffe
Feb 7, 2012, 10:59:23 AM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
We should also consider the dev benefits here as well. I had a feature
held back for a few weeks because the treetwisties changed between one
version of Ubuntu and another. As it stands, in order to have a clean
interfacte across platforms we would need to test on Windows, OS X, and
every flavor of Linux (including multiple versions of each). Also, to
fix a bug in a specific version of Linux you have to build a dev box
that fits.
Just my 2 pence.
held back for a few weeks because the treetwisties changed between one
version of Ubuntu and another. As it stands, in order to have a clean
interfacte across platforms we would need to test on Windows, OS X, and
every flavor of Linux (including multiple versions of each). Also, to
fix a bug in a specific version of Linux you have to build a dev box
that fits.
Just my 2 pence.
Paul Rouget
Feb 7, 2012, 11:16:15 AM2/7/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Dao wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 16:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
What do you think about 1)?
> On 07.02.2012 16:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
> >2) icons in the toolbar are both native and non-native. It doesn't look right.
>
> All icons we put there by default should be native. If you
> deactivate the menu bar (not allowed on Ubuntu), we show the custom
> bookmarks icon, though.
>
> > The keyhole (or just the round button) is what makes Firefox different.
>
> I think you're exaggerating.
Linux, you will recognize Chrome with no doubt (tabs!).
Same things for Opera with its red button.
What about Firefox? The round back button.
iirc, the keyhole has been designed to give some personnality to Firefox, a way
to make it different from the others.
> > I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what I hear,
> > I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will prefer to have
> > the round back button. But I might be wrong.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how you'd set up a representative
> survey with meaningful choices.
I'll think about this.
-- Paul
WLS
Feb 7, 2012, 11:29:39 AM2/7/12
to
On 02/07/2012 10:00 AM, Paul Rouget wrote:
<snip>
> I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what
> I hear, I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will
> prefer to have the round back button. But I might be wrong. -- Paul
As a Linux user, I would prefer that my favorite theme works.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/mozillafirefox10.png/
--
Thunderbird Daily | openSUSE 11.4 Linux
Get openSUSE: http://software.opensuse.org/121/en
<snip>
> I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what
> I hear, I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will
> prefer to have the round back button. But I might be wrong. -- Paul
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/mozillafirefox10.png/
--
Thunderbird Daily | openSUSE 11.4 Linux
Get openSUSE: http://software.opensuse.org/121/en
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 11:35:17 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 16:59, Mike Ratcliffe wrote:
> We should also consider the dev benefits here as well. I had a feature
> held back for a few weeks because the treetwisties changed between one
> version of Ubuntu and another.
This is somewhat misleading (and doesn't have much to do with this
> We should also consider the dev benefits here as well. I had a feature
> held back for a few weeks because the treetwisties changed between one
> version of Ubuntu and another.
thread). Tree twisties aren't generally a problem. The problem here was
some hackish CSS with position:absolute, hardcoded dimensions and
margins and whatnot.
michael...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 11:35:47 AM2/7/12
to
On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 2:45:03 PM UTC+1, Dao wrote:
> We've agreed on the tab close button not fitting, but since
> it's a problem for all tabbed gtk apps, it would be preferable
> to get it fixed upstream.
It is "fixed" upstream... for GTK apps. Which Firefox is not, let's not forget about this.
> We've agreed on the tab close button not fitting, but since
> it's a problem for all tabbed gtk apps, it would be preferable
> to get it fixed upstream.
Have a look at the GNOME 3.2 versions of gedit and gnome-terminal for example: there is *no* button look when hovering the close icon anymore. However, there is a visual distinction of the hover and pressed state, not too different how Chrome has always handled this (similar to Firefox on Windows, actually).
Really, let's not think about icons on buttons on tab widgets here. Let's think about tabs, which have a certain look and feel in Firefox across all platforms.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 11:51:48 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 17:16, Paul Rouget wrote:
> Dao wrote:
>> On 07.02.2012 16:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
>
> What do you think about 1)?
I can't add much there.
> Dao wrote:
>> On 07.02.2012 16:00, Paul Rouget wrote:
>
> What do you think about 1)?
>>> 2) icons in the toolbar are both native and non-native. It doesn't look right.
>>
>> All icons we put there by default should be native. If you
>> deactivate the menu bar (not allowed on Ubuntu), we show the custom
>> bookmarks icon, though.
>>
>>> The keyhole (or just the round button) is what makes Firefox different.
>>
>> I think you're exaggerating.
>
> I am speaking about the UI here. When you get a quick look at a browser on
> Linux, you will recognize Chrome with no doubt (tabs!).
ourselves in to the idea that the round back button is the Holy Grail.
> What about Firefox? The round back button.
>
> iirc, the keyhole has been designed to give some personnality to Firefox, a way
> to make it different from the others.
among others but emphasized. This is true on Linux today.
>>> I can setup a survey to see how people feel about that, but from what I hear,
>>> I am pretty sure that a vast majority of the Linux users will prefer to have
>>> the round back button. But I might be wrong.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing how you'd set up a representative
>> survey with meaningful choices.
>
> This can be a little tricky. I don't know much about how to setup a fair survey.
> I'll think about this.
environments, you'd need to give them choices showing Firefox on their
particular desktop. And of course even then it's unclear how you'd get
representative results -- most of our users don't care enough about this
stuff.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 11:53:35 AM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 17:35, michael...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 2:45:03 PM UTC+1, Dao wrote:
>> We've agreed on the tab close button not fitting, but since
>> it's a problem for all tabbed gtk apps, it would be preferable
>> to get it fixed upstream.
>
> It is "fixed" upstream... for GTK apps. Which Firefox is not, let's not forget about this.
>
> Have a look at the GNOME 3.2 versions of gedit and gnome-terminal for example: there is *no* button look when hovering the close icon anymore. However, there is a visual distinction of the hover and pressed state, not too different how Chrome has always handled this (similar to Firefox on Windows, actually).
We're not even talking about these states yet. The close icon itself
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 2:45:03 PM UTC+1, Dao wrote:
>> We've agreed on the tab close button not fitting, but since
>> it's a problem for all tabbed gtk apps, it would be preferable
>> to get it fixed upstream.
>
> It is "fixed" upstream... for GTK apps. Which Firefox is not, let's not forget about this.
>
> Have a look at the GNOME 3.2 versions of gedit and gnome-terminal for example: there is *no* button look when hovering the close icon anymore. However, there is a visual distinction of the hover and pressed state, not too different how Chrome has always handled this (similar to Firefox on Windows, actually).
isn't nice.
bold...@googlemail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 12:25:03 PM2/7/12
to
With Macs all around and netbooks cross-OS is not this astronomically unlikely as it was 5 years ago. But agreed, we are a minority.
> Really? Why?
Because features of the software should come first, integration second IMHO. If both clash, features get advantage. As long as Firefox doesn't aim at *complete* integration in every detail, Mozilla should decide on each part, if its integration in the OS's look and feel makes sense.
> Really? Why?
Because features of the software should come first, integration second IMHO. If both clash, features get advantage. As long as Firefox doesn't aim at *complete* integration in every detail, Mozilla should decide on each part, if its integration in the OS's look and feel makes sense.
Matt Brubeck
Feb 7, 2012, 12:27:47 PM2/7/12
to
default, but there is an option to switch back to the "Classic" custom
theme (Preferences: Personal Stuff: Apppearance: Use Classic Theme).
Dao's screenshot above shows the default GTK+ theme, while Cedric's
shows the alternate Classic theme.
miguel...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 12:45:33 PM2/7/12
to
I'm 90% full time Linux user and I've been using Firefox since 0.93 now the browser looks old when using it on Linux.
I'm agree to make these changes,I use kde and if you want to use an integrated browser you should use konqueror or epiphany.
Chromium looks good and almost no difference from windows version, some people tell me why Firefox doesn't have the orange button or the tabs on the title bar
I'm agree to make these changes,I use kde and if you want to use an integrated browser you should use konqueror or epiphany.
Chromium looks good and almost no difference from windows version, some people tell me why Firefox doesn't have the orange button or the tabs on the title bar
Nukeador
Feb 7, 2012, 1:42:47 PM2/7/12
to
Hello,
I'm a full-time linux user I completely agree with Paul.
Just one link I have on my bookmarks:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Linux_Theme_Mockups
Regards.
--
Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Council Member
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
I'm a full-time linux user I completely agree with Paul.
Just one link I have on my bookmarks:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Linux_Theme_Mockups
Regards.
--
Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Council Member
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano
leonard...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 1:54:25 PM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
As Ubuntu user, as a web developer who need to check on every possible platform, as a Firefox user I will like to see a Firefox UI consistency between Linux and the other desktop platforms.
From my point of view Linux is the last platform that receive UI love, from the starting point where the mockups that show the new UI for tabs only show windows and mac images, not trace about linux. (I dont know if at this time theres a mockup for linux)
I know Dao and Paul need some data about what the linux users think about Firefox UI so I send the link to this thread to mozilla hispano community but I think that a research is needed so what about a quick poll on facebook or another place where linux community can share what they think beside this thread?
As nukeador, this is what I would love to see on Firefox for linux
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Linux_Theme_Mockups
From my point of view Linux is the last platform that receive UI love, from the starting point where the mockups that show the new UI for tabs only show windows and mac images, not trace about linux. (I dont know if at this time theres a mockup for linux)
I know Dao and Paul need some data about what the linux users think about Firefox UI so I send the link to this thread to mozilla hispano community but I think that a research is needed so what about a quick poll on facebook or another place where linux community can share what they think beside this thread?
As nukeador, this is what I would love to see on Firefox for linux
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Linux_Theme_Mockups
leonard...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2012, 1:54:25 PM2/7/12
to mozilla.dev....@googlegroups.com, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Martin Stransky
Feb 7, 2012, 2:16:42 PM2/7/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
As a Fedora Firefox co-maintainer I'm receiving lots of user feedback.
Although I don't have strong opinion there, I've never heard anything
about bad/ugly look from linux users. But everyone (from the unhappy
people) is complaining about memory usage/slow rendering/UI freezes and
so on.
Anyway, there's the GTK3 Firefox support project
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627699) and GKT3 allow to
use custom application theme/style.
ma.
On 02/06/2012 11:34 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:15 AM, Paul Rouget wrote:
>> To follow-up on comments:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>>
>> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
>> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
>> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
>> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2
>> months old).
>>
>> A couple of things that feel wrong:
>> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
>> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
>> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
>> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
>> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the
>> keyhole.
>>
>> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
>> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin
>> close icon
>> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example
>> - bug 572484
>>
>> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and
>> Windows will
>> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>>
>> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they
>> usually
>> don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484&
>> bug 572485
>>
>> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
>> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it
>> even possible?
>>
>> -- Paul Rouget
>
> I think most of those suggestions are good ones but I'm not a full-time
> Linux user and I'd like to hear from some of them before making any
> de-GTK-ification changes.
>
> - A
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Although I don't have strong opinion there, I've never heard anything
about bad/ugly look from linux users. But everyone (from the unhappy
people) is complaining about memory usage/slow rendering/UI freezes and
so on.
Anyway, there's the GTK3 Firefox support project
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627699) and GKT3 allow to
use custom application theme/style.
ma.
On 02/06/2012 11:34 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 9:15 AM, Paul Rouget wrote:
>> To follow-up on comments:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635316#c10
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572484#c36
>>
>> Firefox on Linux doesn't look good compared to Firefox on Mac or Windows.
>> On Linux, there are plenty of GTK themes, that makes things difficult.
>> Here are 35 screenshots of Firefox on Linux http://imgur.com/a/3SUqp
>> (I asked on twitter, not sure how representative this is. This is 2
>> months old).
>>
>> A couple of things that feel wrong:
>> - the close button on tabs and the "add-tab" button look too thick.
>> Most of the GTK themes come with a thick close button.
>> - the toolbar icons don't look well-integrated in Firefox.
>> - the "go back" button, when alone, look kind of "lost". It's too small.
>> The back button is a very important element of the UI. I want the
>> keyhole.
>>
>> To fix these problems, we need to use our own icons and break the GTK
>> integration. Not completely, just a little. We can use a thin builtin
>> close icon
>> in the tabs, and keep the GTK close icon for the Addon-bar for example
>> - bug 572484
>>
>> Trading the GTK back icon for the round back icon we use on Mac and
>> Windows will
>> make the application be less "GTK", but much more "Firefox".
>>
>> For the toolbar icons, some are built-in, some are from GTK, and they
>> usually
>> don't work together. See http://i.imgur.com/Jm65o.png - bug 572484&
>> bug 572485
>>
>> Can we break the GTK integration to address these problems?
>> Should we fix some of these problems upstream (close button)? Is it
>> even possible?
>>
>> -- Paul Rouget
>
> I think most of those suggestions are good ones but I'm not a full-time
> Linux user and I'd like to hear from some of them before making any
> de-GTK-ification changes.
>
> - A
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Zack Weinberg
Feb 7, 2012, 3:23:39 PM2/7/12
to
As a longtime Linux (not Ubuntu)/Firefox user, the #1 thing that bugs me
about our Gtk theme integration is none of the above: it's that <input
style="background-color:whatever"> triggers fallback rendering. As a
result, if you have two text-entry fields next to each other and one of
them is given a non-default background color, they look more different
from each other than the site author intended. This seems to be a
popular method of indicating keyboard focus and/or form validation
errors nowadays, so I see it a lot.
(Is there already a bug on this? I'd be happy to file a bug, but I'm
really bad at finding existing theme integration bugs.)
zw
about our Gtk theme integration is none of the above: it's that <input
style="background-color:whatever"> triggers fallback rendering. As a
result, if you have two text-entry fields next to each other and one of
them is given a non-default background color, they look more different
from each other than the site author intended. This seems to be a
popular method of indicating keyboard focus and/or form validation
errors nowadays, so I see it a lot.
(Is there already a bug on this? I'd be happy to file a bug, but I'm
really bad at finding existing theme integration bugs.)
zw
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 3:48:19 PM2/7/12
to
On 07.02.2012 21:23, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> As a longtime Linux (not Ubuntu)/Firefox user, the #1 thing that bugs me
> about our Gtk theme integration is none of the above: it's that <input
> style="background-color:whatever"> triggers fallback rendering.
This is the case on all platforms, doesn't have much to do with Gtk in
> As a longtime Linux (not Ubuntu)/Firefox user, the #1 thing that bugs me
> about our Gtk theme integration is none of the above: it's that <input
> style="background-color:whatever"> triggers fallback rendering.
particular.
Dao
Feb 7, 2012, 3:50:32 PM2/7/12
to
Zack Weinberg
Feb 7, 2012, 4:16:03 PM2/7/12
to
Has anyone looked into the *possibility* of preserving themed rendering
for form elements with page-specified background colors, on any platform?
zw
Boris Zbarsky
Feb 7, 2012, 4:52:18 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/12 4:16 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Has anyone looked into the *possibility* of preserving themed rendering
> for form elements with page-specified background colors, on any platform?
Yes. It's hard because the platform theme is typically provided by
> Has anyone looked into the *possibility* of preserving themed rendering
> for form elements with page-specified background colors, on any platform?
theme engines as a single bitmap that contains what you would think of
as the "background", "borders", etc. At least as I understand it.
So painting "the platform look but with a different background" is sort
of rocket science, because you have to figure out what part of what the
theme engine handed you is the background....
-Boris
Stephen Horlander
Feb 7, 2012, 11:30:41 PM2/7/12
to
> So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a
> middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if
> it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one
> way or another.
I think this sums up the current situation pretty nicely. While trying
to respect the system theme we end up having to design around it. The
end result is that we don't feel like a cohesively designed product.
It is really hard to create a good design when so many of the elements
are completely out of our control. Ideally we would control as much of
the look and feel as possible even at the possible expense of feeling
native.
> Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years,
> and is that hurting us?
I think it would be hard to prove that this specific thing is hurting
us. By itself I don't think it is. Even though I get requests for it
fairly often.
I think the aggregate of generally looking out of date and out of sync
with the other platforms is hurting us. It creates the perception that
we don't care about Linux because Windows and Mac get the new shiny
stuff and Linux doesn't. Firefox on Linux ends up being perceived as
outdated relative to the other platforms.
> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly
> Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
An obvious answer would be "Chrome".
A more interesting answer would be that desktop Linux is changing
faster now than it ever has. Ubuntu and Gnome 3 are both trying out new
UI concepts and rapidly evolving their UI. The groundwork for
experimentation and shaking up a conservative approach to Linux is
already established.
However even if the answer was "nothing has changed" I don't think that
would be a reason to not update the design. There are too many
instances where we don't do a thing because it might not be native. I
don't think we need to feel too constrained in the look and feel
department here. Or on any platform for that matter.
> * is there user feedback/questions acting as support for either side of things?
Totally anecdotal but one of the most common complaints I hear about
Linux is that it feels dated and it still doesn't have things like the
keyhole.
> * is this going to have a tangible impact on adoption/use of Firefox,
> and is that enough to justify significant work to design and implement
> a new theme?
My feeling is that yes making a sleeker updated theme would be a win.
Although I can't prove that unless we do it ;)
The design work is (largely) completed as part of the Australis work:
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-design/firefox-visual-design-across-platforms.html
Part of this work is aimed at carrying more design elements across all
of our products. This includes Firefox for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android
and even some crossover between our web sites and products.
This doesn't mean we should avoid native look and feel entirely. We
should be informed by the system environment where it makes sense.
Things like color, texture, fonts, certain shapes/icons that have a
strong foundation and other select system elements and conventions. Of
course even then there are situations where breaking with system
conventions is the better route.
As to whether or not it is worth the implementation resources… again I
would have to say yes. That is if the updates are only to the chrome
that we currently control. Something like getting tabs in the titlebar
would require changes that I don't think anyone is comfortable with.
-- Stephen
> middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if
> it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one
> way or another.
I think this sums up the current situation pretty nicely. While trying
to respect the system theme we end up having to design around it. The
end result is that we don't feel like a cohesively designed product.
It is really hard to create a good design when so many of the elements
are completely out of our control. Ideally we would control as much of
the look and feel as possible even at the possible expense of feeling
native.
> Because of this, we haven't had the keyhole on Linux for four years,
> and is that hurting us?
I think it would be hard to prove that this specific thing is hurting
us. By itself I don't think it is. Even though I get requests for it
fairly often.
I think the aggregate of generally looking out of date and out of sync
with the other platforms is hurting us. It creates the perception that
we don't care about Linux because Windows and Mac get the new shiny
stuff and Linux doesn't. Firefox on Linux ends up being perceived as
outdated relative to the other platforms.
> * what has changed in the Linux marketplace to argue for "distinctly
> Firefox" over "as native as possible"?
An obvious answer would be "Chrome".
A more interesting answer would be that desktop Linux is changing
faster now than it ever has. Ubuntu and Gnome 3 are both trying out new
UI concepts and rapidly evolving their UI. The groundwork for
experimentation and shaking up a conservative approach to Linux is
already established.
However even if the answer was "nothing has changed" I don't think that
would be a reason to not update the design. There are too many
instances where we don't do a thing because it might not be native. I
don't think we need to feel too constrained in the look and feel
department here. Or on any platform for that matter.
> * is there user feedback/questions acting as support for either side of things?
Totally anecdotal but one of the most common complaints I hear about
Linux is that it feels dated and it still doesn't have things like the
keyhole.
> * is this going to have a tangible impact on adoption/use of Firefox,
> and is that enough to justify significant work to design and implement
> a new theme?
My feeling is that yes making a sleeker updated theme would be a win.
Although I can't prove that unless we do it ;)
The design work is (largely) completed as part of the Australis work:
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-design/firefox-visual-design-across-platforms.html
Part of this work is aimed at carrying more design elements across all
of our products. This includes Firefox for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android
and even some crossover between our web sites and products.
This doesn't mean we should avoid native look and feel entirely. We
should be informed by the system environment where it makes sense.
Things like color, texture, fonts, certain shapes/icons that have a
strong foundation and other select system elements and conventions. Of
course even then there are situations where breaking with system
conventions is the better route.
As to whether or not it is worth the implementation resources… again I
would have to say yes. That is if the updates are only to the chrome
that we currently control. Something like getting tabs in the titlebar
would require changes that I don't think anyone is comfortable with.
-- Stephen
Gijs Kruitbosch
Feb 8, 2012, 1:45:27 AM2/8/12
to
that but the theme's foreground color, the text in the input might no longer be
readable.
~ Gijs
Dao
Feb 8, 2012, 4:32:40 AM2/8/12
to
On 08.02.2012 05:30, Stephen Horlander wrote:
>> So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a
>> middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if
>> it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one
>> way or another.
>
> I think this sums up the current situation pretty nicely. While trying
> to respect the system theme we end up having to design around it. The
> end result is that we don't feel like a cohesively designed product.
... to those comparing across platforms. I assert that this isn't the
>> So... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there isn't much of a
>> middle ground here. Mostly stuff ends up looking broken/half-assed if
>> it's a mix of native and non-native, so we really have to commit one
>> way or another.
>
> I think this sums up the current situation pretty nicely. While trying
> to respect the system theme we end up having to design around it. The
> end result is that we don't feel like a cohesively designed product.
bulk of users. Why somebody would complain about Firefox having the same
back button as the file manager is much less clear to me.
> It is really hard to create a good design when so many of the elements
> are completely out of our control. Ideally we would control as much of
> the look and feel as possible even at the possible expense of feeling
> native.
is a problem. Of course this isn't a necessity. You can give control
over icons to the host environment and those responsible for it can do
good things as IMHO Ubuntu did in most cases (the tab close icon being a
remaining problem). I don't think we need to feel bad for bad OS
designs, as their users usually have a choice. Maybe they actually like
those quirky icons that all of us would frown upon. Happens all the
time, see https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/themes/.
Dao
Feb 8, 2012, 4:44:31 AM2/8/12
to
On 07.02.2012 18:27, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 05:53 AM, Dao wrote:
>> On 07.02.2012 14:39, Cedric Vivier wrote:
>>> I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
>>> look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
>>> http://imgur.com/NW5gX
>>
>> This is what I usually see in Chrome-on-Ubuntu screenshots nowadays:
>> http://cache.sudobits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/google-chrome-on-ubuntu-11-10.jpg
>>
>>
>> I guess it's possible that this is some (Ubuntu-supplied?) custom theme.
>
> Current versions of Chromium use colors/icons/etc. from the GTK theme by
> default
Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
> On 02/07/2012 05:53 AM, Dao wrote:
>> On 07.02.2012 14:39, Cedric Vivier wrote:
>>> I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
>>> look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
>>> http://imgur.com/NW5gX
>>
>> This is what I usually see in Chrome-on-Ubuntu screenshots nowadays:
>> http://cache.sudobits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/google-chrome-on-ubuntu-11-10.jpg
>>
>>
>> I guess it's possible that this is some (Ubuntu-supplied?) custom theme.
>
> Current versions of Chromium use colors/icons/etc. from the GTK theme by
> default
competitors. (Yes, I'm ignoring Opera.) I'd be concerned about Firefox
becoming the exotic choice rather than the obvious choice on Linux.
Paul Rouget
Feb 8, 2012, 5:48:46 AM2/8/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Dao wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 18:27, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> >On 02/07/2012 05:53 AM, Dao wrote:
> >>On 07.02.2012 14:39, Cedric Vivier wrote:
> >>>I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
> >>>look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
> >>>http://imgur.com/NW5gX
> >>
> >>This is what I usually see in Chrome-on-Ubuntu screenshots nowadays:
> >>http://cache.sudobits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/google-chrome-on-ubuntu-11-10.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >>I guess it's possible that this is some (Ubuntu-supplied?) custom theme.
> >
> >Current versions of Chromium use colors/icons/etc. from the GTK theme by
> >default
>
> Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
> competitors.
No, this is not true:
> On 07.02.2012 18:27, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> >On 02/07/2012 05:53 AM, Dao wrote:
> >>On 07.02.2012 14:39, Cedric Vivier wrote:
> >>>I have Chrome 17 installed here, the main window certainly does not
> >>>look like using stock icons and GTK-looking tabs etc :
> >>>http://imgur.com/NW5gX
> >>
> >>This is what I usually see in Chrome-on-Ubuntu screenshots nowadays:
> >>http://cache.sudobits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/google-chrome-on-ubuntu-11-10.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >>I guess it's possible that this is some (Ubuntu-supplied?) custom theme.
> >
> >Current versions of Chromium use colors/icons/etc. from the GTK theme by
> >default
>
> Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
> competitors.
Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
They use their own window decoration by default.
They have their own tabs look.
They don't use GTK and the right colors for most of their UI
(prefs http://i.imgur.com/KXrGT.png, bookmarks manager, print dialog, history, downloads, …)
(tested with Chrome 18 with the Dust GTK theme)
They are far from being as integrated are we are.
Just changing the close and newtab icons and implementing the keyhole won't make
Firefox less integrated than Chrome. Really.
> (Yes, I'm ignoring Opera.) I'd be concerned about
> Firefox becoming the exotic choice rather than the obvious choice on
> Linux.
Dao
Feb 8, 2012, 6:00:16 AM2/8/12
to
On 08.02.2012 11:48, Paul Rouget wrote:
>> Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
>> competitors.
>
> No, this is not true:
>
> Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
> They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
You're repeating this over and over again and I've responded to it a
>> Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
>> competitors.
>
> No, this is not true:
>
> Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
> They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
couple of times. I will just say that it doesn't prove the point I made
above wrong. In particular, dropping stock icons and adding custom
permanent button borders in the navigation toolbar would make us less
integrated.
> They use their own window decoration by default.
being broken forever.
> They have their own tabs look.
Paul Rouget
Feb 8, 2012, 6:33:51 AM2/8/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Dao wrote:
> On 08.02.2012 11:48, Paul Rouget wrote:
> >>Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
> >>competitors.
> >
> >No, this is not true:
> >
> >Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
> >They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
>
> You're repeating this over and over again and I've responded to it a
> couple of times.
Sorry if I missed something, but it's still not clear to me :/
> On 08.02.2012 11:48, Paul Rouget wrote:
> >>Right, so we'd actually be less integrated than all of our Linux
> >>competitors.
> >
> >No, this is not true:
> >
> >Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
> >They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
>
> You're repeating this over and over again and I've responded to it a
> couple of times.
Re-reading the whole thread, you said it should be fixed upstream (so use a
a native icon). I replied explaining why I thought we should use our own
icons (see what I reference a '1)' in one of my previous message).
I didn't get a reply to that, only "I can't add much there".
Does that mean you agree or don't agree?
> I will just say that it doesn't prove the point I
> made above wrong. In particular, dropping stock icons and adding
> custom permanent button borders in the navigation toolbar would make
> us less integrated.
-- Paul
Dao
Feb 8, 2012, 6:46:17 AM2/8/12
to
On 08.02.2012 12:33, Paul Rouget wrote:
>>> Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
>>> They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
>>> Chrome uses their own "close" icon (in tabs).
>>> They use their own "+" icon (in tabs).
> Re-reading the whole thread, you said it should be fixed upstream (so use a
> a native icon). I replied explaining why I thought we should use our own
> icons (see what I reference a '1)' in one of my previous message).
> I didn't get a reply to that, only "I can't add much there".
> Does that mean you agree or don't agree?
I said that it would ideally be fixed upstream. That doesn't rule out
> a native icon). I replied explaining why I thought we should use our own
> icons (see what I reference a '1)' in one of my previous message).
> I didn't get a reply to that, only "I can't add much there".
> Does that mean you agree or don't agree?
deploying custom icons, but I think we should contact people responsible
e.g. for the Gnome and Ubuntu default themes first. (Does Fedora use the
default Gnome icons?)
Paul Rouget
Feb 8, 2012, 7:00:36 AM2/8/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
-- Paul
Henri Sivonen
Feb 8, 2012, 7:06:09 AM2/8/12
to Paul Rouget, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paul Rouget <pa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> * Global menubar instead of XUL menubar. (Canonical already has code
>> for this. Dunno if the code structure and license would make it easy
>> to import it to m-c.)
>
> Do we have a bug for that?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719477
>> * Slightly compressed metrics for the bookmark toolbar so that it's
>> congruent with the metrics of the tab bar. (Currently on Ambiance, the
>> bookmarks toolbar looks too high relative to the tab bar.)
>
> Do we have a bug for that?
We have now:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725264
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Dao <d...@design-noir.de> wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 08:45, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> Non-native:
>> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
>
> It does if you run the Ubuntu-supplied Firefox.
Yes, but we are offering MoCo Firefox to Ubuntu users, too, instead of
telling them to got get it from Canonical. Also, it's an annoyance
with self-compiled or pre-release builds. (We don't make Mac users
install an add-on to get a system-appropriate menubar, either.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>> * Global menubar instead of XUL menubar. (Canonical already has code
>> for this. Dunno if the code structure and license would make it easy
>> to import it to m-c.)
>
> Do we have a bug for that?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719477
>> * Slightly compressed metrics for the bookmark toolbar so that it's
>> congruent with the metrics of the tab bar. (Currently on Ambiance, the
>> bookmarks toolbar looks too high relative to the tab bar.)
>
> Do we have a bug for that?
We have now:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725264
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Dao <d...@design-noir.de> wrote:
> On 07.02.2012 08:45, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> Non-native:
>> Menubar on Ubuntu (should use global menubar but doesn't).
>
> It does if you run the Ubuntu-supplied Firefox.
Yes, but we are offering MoCo Firefox to Ubuntu users, too, instead of
telling them to got get it from Canonical. Also, it's an annoyance
with self-compiled or pre-release builds. (We don't make Mac users
install an add-on to get a system-appropriate menubar, either.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
michael...@gmail.com
Feb 8, 2012, 12:46:20 PM2/8/12
to
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 12:46:17 PM UTC+1, Dao wrote:
> I said that it would ideally be fixed upstream. That doesn't rule out
> deploying custom icons, but I think we should contact people responsible
> e.g. for the Gnome and Ubuntu default themes first. (Does Fedora use the
> default Gnome icons?)
Yes Fedora ships the default GNOME icons. Note that changing icon themes is no longer supported in GNOME 3 (read: there is no UI to change the theme anymore, however you can still change it with 3rd party tools)
> I said that it would ideally be fixed upstream. That doesn't rule out
> deploying custom icons, but I think we should contact people responsible
> e.g. for the Gnome and Ubuntu default themes first. (Does Fedora use the
> default Gnome icons?)
michael...@gmail.com
Feb 8, 2012, 1:00:18 PM2/8/12
to
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 5:30:41 AM UTC+1, Stephen Horlander wrote:
> The design work is (largely) completed as part of the Australis work:
> http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-design/firefox-visual-design-across-platforms.html
That looks absolutely fantastic!
> The design work is (largely) completed as part of the Australis work:
> http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/firefox-ui-design/firefox-visual-design-across-platforms.html
Ok let's see: home, back, forward, close, new-tab, reload, star, settings. All of them using a very subtle "less is more" style. I just don't see how something like this could offend anyone. For the record: I really hated the candy-style Firefox had back in the 2.0 days, which really did not fit into either GNOME or KDE or any other Linux desktop at that time.
Using native icons would certainly be possible but it would also destroy much of the design. And for what benefit? It would still not look and feel like a [GNOME,KDE,...] application.
To sum it up: if Firefox on Windows ever looks like this and the Linux build does not, I *will* feel left behind.
0 new messages