Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Bieeardo posted:

I'll probably be first in line for BottomTabs4EVA because my personal browsing metaphor explains them as being spawned from (and thus subordinate to) the URL bar.
Its been that way for so many years that this seems pretty normal to me.

Constantly trying to force new visual habits on old users is loving dumb. Improve functions, add features, stop trying to shove the sperg-of-the-month aesthetic on people that just want to use a program instead of jack off about how new their cutting edge alpha test version is.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
This stupid thing worked so (relatively stable anyway) well back in the version 3's.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

You know that tabs on top is objectively better, right?
This "objectively better" thing that started popping up in regards to opinions the last couple years is loving dumb.

In my opinion it is "objectively better" to sort the screen by a kind of contextual relevance and tabs are beneath the url, and that is beneath the menu bar. The menu bar controls everything, the url controls the tab, the tab identifies the page.

The visual inefficiency is also an irritation to me. I want the tabs close to the space I am working with so that I can scan across them when I am actively working with several instead of looking at the top of the window edge.

There should be a simple setting to switch between the "move everything around because of ..." and "leave things where they were" settings - (like there is for this issue) for all of the changes.




"Objectively better" :rolleyes:

quote:

top-of-screen menus (e.g., Mac OS) are sometimes easier to acquire than top-of-window menus (e.g., Windows OS)
Hey lets make everything overlapping circles, you know the way you actually read in most languages (in circles!) right?! Its "objectively better".

quote:

Pie menu items typically are selected faster and have a lower error rate than linear menu items, for two reasons: because pie menu items are all the same, small distance from the centre of the menu; and because their wedge-shaped target areas (which usually extend to the edge of the screen) are very large.
Why is no one arguing to make all of the various lists of commands into several hundred pies instead of the "objectively inferior" lists?




Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

Have you actually used those versions recently, or are you just talking about the 'good old days'?
I have 10 and 15 installed in different locations.

In general with most programs I find redesigns to be wasteful of my time as a user. With UIs I do not want to spend any of my effort re-learning it because someone else decided I should. I am well aware that some people love having everything changed with some frequency. I just want to not have to waste time on it myself.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Alereon posted:

Please chill out, no one is throwing out "objectively" in the way you think. Fitts' law is a real thing, and a design that conforms to really is objectively better than one that doesn't. If you had read the page before excitedly posting, you would have seen that this has already been discussed, and it's a perfectly valid matter of opinion for un-maximized browsing. For maximized browsing, tabs-on-top is provably better, because the interface can be navigated more quickly and accurately with less mental attention paid.
I understand, but this is why I was also poking fun at this measure of "objectively better" in that it also implies that pie-menus would be better in most cases.

I am questioning the model in general as it implies to a UI that has so many "moving parts" and user-memory-driven tasks that need to be available. The pie-menu example fits into video games well because a twitch memory is easily adaptable to a single menu level for [whatever] selection. It fits poorly into a tools>options>advanced>encryption>security devices flow.



zachol posted:

I fundamentally disagree. The title bar is for the title. You don't stick other stuff there, regardless of what the program is. Anytime I see a program violating this it really irritates me. There needs to be a really good reason beyond "well you're just wasting space otherwise." It's part of the overall system UI remaining consistent. To me, overall system consistency is more important than taking advantage of that space. Having an area (and a fairly broad area) that I know I can click on to select and move the window around is more important. If there's no title bar, or if it's taken up by tabs, it's no longer clear what you can click on to move the window.

...

Also I really don't need that space. If anything, the very top of the monitor is out of my field of view. It would be uncomfortable to focus on it constantly. The most commonly used UI elements should go closest to the center, where you're usually focused. The least used elements (like "moving the window around") should be on the periphery. Tabs on top breaks this up, it puts a commonly used UI element (for me) on the periphery.

...

Like, I'm throwing out a bunch of reasons, but that's sort of also my point. A lot of these rely on how I use my computer, but that's also my point. This is what's comfortable for me, and it's fine if someone else uses it differently, but it's not like this is just some illogical "I just don't like change" sort of deal.
I agree with these things as well.

FRINGE fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 10, 2012

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Question Mark Mound posted:

Also, regarding the whole URL owns tab / tab owns URL thing - it's always made sense to me for the tabs to be on top. To me, the URL is a piece of information about the current status of just that tab, as changing the tab will change the URL, so the URL would be beneath the tab.
This is looking more and more like a method-of-thought thing that only has resolution if both options are left. (Like mouse y-axis reversals. If you visualize the mouse moving the "front" of your head you tend to want mouse-forward to do "head looks up". If you visualize the mouse moving the back of your head you want mouse-back to do "head looks up". (I was going to link it but I cant remember a decent string and it would take a while to wade through all the "mouse" studies that have to do with actual animal-mice. :p ) (ed: found one: http://gamepeople.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/down-is-up/ )

I sort/remember the window information in a different way than you do.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Lum posted:

Reader has viable 3rd party replacements.
Ive never had a single problem with foxit yet. (No jinx no jinx :ohdear:)

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Lum posted:

Does foxit still bundle shovelware toolbars in the installer?

They also had that buffer overrun where a really long URL to a PDF file allowed code execution.
Yeah theres something in the free installer (maybe the ask toolbar?) you have to remember to opt out of during installation.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Oracle has Ask packaged with the java update installer as well. (They have less of an excuse since they are buried in cash.)

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Aquila posted:

I truly don't care what a ui expert
Most of what they think is bullshitbullshit ~their opinion~ bullshitbullshit anyway.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
This is a powerful feature and they should have PR'ed it instead of dropping it.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Axiem posted:

People complain about how bloated Microsoft Word has become for just a simple word processor. Though once upon a time I came across someone from Microsoft who pointed out that while 80% of Word's users only use 20% of the program, that 20% is different for each user. Beyond a couple of really common things ("Paste", as I recall, being the most-used feature), everyone does different things. I suspect that sort of thing is similar in a browser market.
This is a much better way to look at it.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

WastedJoker posted:

4 tabs open and FF 25 is using 700mb of RAM :psyduck: My work pc only has 2 bloody GB of it and this is really hammering my multitasking ability.

What are good tips for minimizing FF memory usage? I only have 2 add-ons - Fire IE and Stylish.
Go back to 21-24? These updates are ridiculous. (Remember when youtube used to work?!)

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Re-learning UI sucks when you have real things to do. Especially when it is 98% style masturbation over "how I think it should be" that will change again when someone else seizes the reigns.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
These people are insane. They took the most used and best loved browser and have made it too irritating to get people to switch to, and are losing more and more of the people they already had.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Avenging Dentist posted:

Honestly, I've seen people make this exact argument with every browser. I think it boils down more to the fact that people hate change.
No one likes relearning UI. Its a complete waste of time when its still just a browser. Im one of the last holdouts at work using FF.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Fangs404 posted:

Dude, come on. Relearning a browser UI takes minutes. You're being a little dramatic here.
Not at all. When you use something day in and day out the clicking is partially worked into muscle memory. Moving things around has a real effect.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Ryokurin posted:

Get in line of complaining though.

People complained in the 3.6 days that it looked outdated. They complained in the 4 days that it was too different. They said they wanted something similar to Chrome and now they are complaining that it's Chrome. Someone is not going to like change, and someone is not going to like that it isn't changing.
The problem with one part of that though is - the people that wanted something "like Chrome" are using Chrome. Listening to them accomplishes nothing.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

zachol posted:

it's a negative feature, because now there's this extremely distracting popup at the edge of your vision constantly appearing and disappearing. Parts of the UI should only be coming up or going away when they're significant changes in status that deserve your attention, not as a thing that will appear and disappear with essentially every new page and link mouseover. It's super incredibly distracting and bad design.
I agree. Its someones idea of shoving their aesthetic on everyone and creating excuses for it.

Pretty much the same reason for every unneeded UI rearrangement.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

The Merkinman posted:

By shoving you mean, "down your throat" because your way is the one true way to use a browser, right?
The non-popup bar that has been used for a very long time was just too hard to keep on with so now its removed so that we have dynamic popups that require a lot of user/pointer tracking and dynamic generation because that is "easier".

So yes. This was someone shoving their aesthetics on the users.

Your comment is actually exactly what is being done to the established users, you just got it backwards.

And its not working out too well.

FRINGE fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 7, 2014

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

The Merkinman posted:

First off, you're asuming people are leaving Firefox due to UI change. Maybe they feel Chrome is faster, or prefer Webkit Blink, maybe something else.
Second, even if you assume UI is why they are leaving, they are leaving for Chrome.
Every month Firefox looks more like Chrome. Every month Firefox has less users.

Your hand-waving isnt even facing the right direction.

At best you get this:

GrizzlyCow posted:

Firefox is so close to Chrome aesthetically I figure that I might as well get the real deal instead of a second-tier knock off.

The Merkinman posted:

Therefore the solution would be to make the UI more like Chrome...
Firefox was great. Its too bad that people are cheerleading its downfall.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Maybe Firefox can integrate with Myspace.

Soon everyone the world over will be junior HTML coders!

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

AlmightyBob posted:

According to the firefox UX designer, I should just be using keyboard shortcuts :rolleyes:
They are just helping you know what you want.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Will firefox ever handle missing image placeholders correctly again?

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Alereon posted:

How does the current behavior differ from what you expect?

This: browser.display.show_image_placeholders

... does not seem to do what it claims. I can open something at work in IE and it shows the broken/missing placeholder. Firefox shows nothing.

There are a variety of sometimes-working hack-fixes floating around*, but this seems to have persisted for a while (mid 2000s?) with no good response.



* some of many:

http://megashare.altervista.org/blog/2012/08/enable-broken-image-placeholders-in-firefox/

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1694937/firefox-show-broken-images

http://www.deuxcode.com/articles/102/show-broken-image-placeholders-in-firefox



People are still trying to replace this basic function:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/show-picture/

... but stacking addon after addon is not ideal at work.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Noscript belongs in the bottom right corner. No exceptions.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Knormal posted:

I just don't get the logic of having the stop/reload buttons out there in the middle of nowhere at the end of URL bar rather than by the back/forward buttons where you're used to moving your mouse to anyway. That alone was a dealbreaker.
Its for our own good because.....

Also you fear change why do you fear change?

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Desuwa posted:

I have a stupid amount of tabs open because that's how I use a browser.
Youre not alone.

I also have to have tabs below the url. I flip through tabs constantly. I type directly into the url bar much less often.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
nevermind

We're not allowed to discuss it.

Firefox is amazing.

FRINGE fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 3, 2014

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

The Dark One posted:

Mozilla is going to pay Adobe to be able to plop a
At least that Google money is going to a reputable company that cares about users.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Sweevo posted:

It adds horizontally arranged elements to a menu designed for vertical elements. There was nothing wrong with how those menu items were before.
This.

People still use mice. The fat-thumb buttons dont need to be in the main desktop product.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

pipes! posted:

Touchscreen capable "desktops" are shipping with ever more frequency. In this case, where device capabilities can't be determined with ease, a comfortable touch target for common actions isn't too bad a thing to have.
Nobody uses vertical touchscreens for web navigation. (At least I have literally never once seen this happen.)

If this were an optional interface toggle that would be something at least. Theres no reason that giant desktop displays need to deal with design elements that are being lifted from phones.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Avenging Dentist posted:

So, remember how there was talk about adding ads to the new tab page? Apparently there are some new mockups: http://ytjbre.axshare.com/enhanced_view_-_concept_1.html :barf:
Thats going to be default gently caress-you behavior?

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting
Theres just too many decisions that are ... sub-optimal.

Something has to be going on behind the scenes.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Avenging Dentist posted:

It's not really "behind the scenes"; Mozilla's been pretty open that they want to "grow diversified revenues" (read: wean themselves from the teat of Mother Google). It's just too bad no one seems to have a better idea than ads.
Make friends with the DuckDuckGo dude. I bet he could use a pet browser.

(Flippant, before someone effortposts about it.)

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

xamphear posted:

If you can recommend a PC build (unlimited cost) where Firefox's UI never, ever, ever lags or hitches I'd love to hear it.

Is Mozilla now encouraging people to build machines around browsers like they were high end games or video editing boxes?

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

natlampe posted:

has a new muscle-memory breaking grid

natlampe posted:

changing UI stuff seemingly willy-nilly is (almost) user hostile.

And they continue to lose users. (And they continue to defend their dumb(?) UI decisions despite that.)



Snippets from support.mozilla.

quote:

Q: How do I roll back the Firefox 29 update? I hate it.

A: Hi netscaper, several years of research with users went into this redesign, but obviously you can't get everyone to agree on the same thing. ...

... As a small not-for-profit organization, Mozilla doesn't have the resources to do everything itself. Firefox has always had the philosophy of trying to keep the browser lean and allowing for customization through add-ons.

quote:

Q: new update hurts my eyes, how to roll back appearence?

A: Thank you for trying the new Firefox. I'm sorry that you’re unhappy with the new design. ...

... Or if you want to go back to a previous version, completely feel free to use the old, unsupported, and insecure versions of Firefox.

Poor small incapable not-for-profit. :qq: Only 300 million a year in handouts from Google.





LeftistMuslimObama posted:

Normal people won't install an update if there's no perceivable difference.
That makes no sense. Most "normal" people dont even know how to turn off auto-update.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

You can't, they're removing support for those.
With the predictable reason too.

quote:

We believe IBM852 and IBM850 not to be necessary for the Web, since Presto-Opera got away with not supporting them and Chrome continues to get away with not supporting them.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

Lum posted:

I'd like to have it so that when I hover over a link, the URL of that link is shown in the statusbar so that I know it's not goatse.cx or whatever.
This should be basic functionality.

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

wooger posted:

I can't understand why anyone wouldn't ...

... I'm an all-in Pentadactyl user. It's a extension inspired by vim
That probably doesnt reflect most of the worlds pattern of use.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FRINGE
May 23, 2003
title stolen for lf posting

jink posted:

The new search is in 34 BETA. It's part of the search restructuring Mozilla is doing; Google is out as the default search provider and Yahoo is in. Naturally this will freak people out, so they are building a UI that will show the other providers. I like it; it's a great way for people to discover other ways to use the browser.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-and-innovation-on-the-web/
The giant phone buttons do not belong on a desktop browser. It is a terrible design decision.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply