|
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. 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.
|
# ¿ Sep 2, 2012 20:37 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 20:02 |
|
This stupid thing worked so (relatively stable anyway) well back in the version 3's.
|
# ¿ Sep 5, 2012 06:21 |
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:You know that tabs on top is objectively better, right? 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" quote:top-of-screen menus (e.g., Mac OS) are sometimes easier to acquire than top-of-window menus (e.g., Windows OS) 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. Aleksei Vasiliev posted:Have you actually used those versions recently, or are you just talking about the 'good old days'? 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.
|
# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 01:28 |
|
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 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. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 10, 2012 |
# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 02:11 |
|
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. I sort/remember the window information in a different way than you do.
|
# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 11:35 |
|
Lum posted:Reader has viable 3rd party replacements.
|
# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 19:53 |
|
Lum posted:Does foxit still bundle shovelware toolbars in the installer?
|
# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 20:05 |
|
Oracle has Ask packaged with the java update installer as well. (They have less of an excuse since they are buried in cash.)
|
# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 21:29 |
|
Aquila posted:I truly don't care what a ui expert
|
# ¿ Jul 7, 2013 19:30 |
|
This is a powerful feature and they should have PR'ed it instead of dropping it.
|
# ¿ Jul 7, 2013 22:48 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Jul 13, 2013 21:49 |
|
WastedJoker posted:4 tabs open and FF 25 is using 700mb of RAM My work pc only has 2 bloody GB of it and this is really hammering my multitasking ability.
|
# ¿ Nov 12, 2013 15:44 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 19, 2013 06:30 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 15, 2013 06:43 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Dec 15, 2013 07:05 |
|
Fangs404 posted:Dude, come on. Relearning a browser UI takes minutes. You're being a little dramatic here.
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 03:21 |
|
Ryokurin posted:Get in line of complaining though.
|
# ¿ Dec 16, 2013 04:42 |
|
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. Pretty much the same reason for every unneeded UI rearrangement.
|
# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 07:13 |
|
The Merkinman posted:By shoving you mean, "down your throat" because your way is the one true way to use a browser, right? 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 |
# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 15:22 |
|
The Merkinman posted:First off, you're asuming people are leaving Firefox due to UI change. Maybe they feel Chrome is faster, or prefer 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...
|
# ¿ Feb 8, 2014 01:41 |
|
Maybe Firefox can integrate with Myspace. Soon everyone the world over will be junior HTML coders!
|
# ¿ Mar 1, 2014 18:46 |
|
AlmightyBob posted:According to the firefox UX designer, I should just be using keyboard shortcuts
|
# ¿ Mar 21, 2014 06:37 |
|
Will firefox ever handle missing image placeholders correctly again?
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 04:20 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 09:01 |
|
Noscript belongs in the bottom right corner. No exceptions.
|
# ¿ May 1, 2014 16:30 |
|
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. Also you fear change why do you fear change?
|
# ¿ May 2, 2014 03:55 |
|
Desuwa posted:I have a stupid amount of tabs open because that's how I use a browser. I also have to have tabs below the url. I flip through tabs constantly. I type directly into the url bar much less often.
|
# ¿ May 3, 2014 05:02 |
|
nevermind We're not allowed to discuss it. Firefox is amazing. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 3, 2014 |
# ¿ May 3, 2014 21:15 |
|
The Dark One posted:Mozilla is going to pay Adobe to be able to plop a
|
# ¿ May 16, 2014 08:30 |
|
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. People still use mice. The fat-thumb buttons dont need to be in the main desktop product.
|
# ¿ Aug 3, 2014 01:24 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ¿ Aug 3, 2014 23:25 |
|
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
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2014 00:23 |
|
Theres just too many decisions that are ... sub-optimal. Something has to be going on behind the scenes.
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2014 02:57 |
|
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. (Flippant, before someone effortposts about it.)
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2014 08:51 |
|
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?
|
# ¿ Oct 12, 2014 23:44 |
|
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. quote:Q: new update hurts my eyes, how to roll back appearence? Poor small incapable not-for-profit. Only 300 million a year in handouts from Google. LeftistMuslimObama posted:Normal people won't install an update if there's no perceivable difference.
|
# ¿ Oct 18, 2014 23:20 |
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:You can't, they're removing support for those. 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.
|
# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 04:44 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 17:47 |
|
wooger posted:I can't understand why anyone wouldn't ...
|
# ¿ Nov 22, 2014 16:08 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 20:02 |
|
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.
|
# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 04:39 |