So.. can I disable australis somehow?
Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
61–70 of 72 posts
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people tell Mozilla that their recent UI changes are bad. Just read the comments of any blog post Mozilla makes about such changes. Mozilla never listens. Their current approach is always deemed the "correct" one, even if it's seen as totally wrong a mere 3 to 4 months later, and subsequently reworked in some significant way. These recent moves to imitate Chrome to an even greater extent are not welcomed, eve…
I love that the same thread has people complaining that Firefox is simultaneously not enough like Chrome and too much like Chrome. Mozilla literally cannot win here; no matter what they do people will just get angrier. They should just strip out the whole Firefox UI and make you run it from a terminal.
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider chrome's design to be the end-all of browser design. The difference is that chrome is pretty. Firefox (pre Australis, have yet to try that) was just down right hideous. Whether its usable or not is irrelevant if a user can't stand to look at it. The "chrome" on your application should not be off-putting, however functional you think it may be. It is a lot like furniture; functional is important, but none of that matters if its hideous to begin with.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
FXChrome solved the problem for me (chrome-like theme for firefox, its perfect). I am glad someone finally told them their last design iteration was horrendous. Honestly, who makes these decisions over there?
UX people and graphic designers, based on extensive user testing. Have you run any user tests lately? ;)
I've participated in them, and one thing you learn very quickly is that users don't know what they want. But users can tell if something is ugly--you should listen to them there.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#64There's still some stuff before I can consider switching from Chrome, most are OS X specific-ish:
- No swipe animation for going back/forward in history.
- Doesn't have that native feel for "over-scrolling". You know when you try to scroll beyond the page and see that grey linen stuff.
- No Keychain integration (yes I know there's an addon, but I would rather see this integrated).
- Even though there's been plenty of improvements, the dev tools in Chrome feels more polished and feature complete.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you at least tried it or are you simply change averse? I have done the move a few weeks back, and I don't regret my decision. The toolbar and my add-ons located there still work very well, also the new menu gives a quick access to useful features.
I got the Australis updates yesterday, tried it for half an hour. Never use the menu, want my tab real estate back, so I got the addon to fix it. The shiny gloss over everything is still annoying, and they made the RSS icon monochrome rather than the normal RSS icon when you can sub to feeds, but otherwise I can just get rid of the menu I'd never use and have my old UX back.
If by tab real estate, you mean the amount of tabs that can be shown at once, you only lose 1/8th of a tab http://i.imgur.com/uT0oHl3.png
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people tell Mozilla that their recent UI changes are bad. Just read the comments of any blog post Mozilla makes about such changes. Mozilla never listens. Their current approach is always deemed the "correct" one, even if it's seen as totally wrong a mere 3 to 4 months later, and subsequently reworked in some significant way. These recent moves to imitate Chrome to an even greater extent are not welcomed, eve…
I love that the same thread has people complaining that Firefox is simultaneously not enough like Chrome and too much like Chrome. Mozilla literally cannot win here; no matter what they do people will just get angrier. They should just strip out the whole Firefox UI and make you run it from a terminal.
Why is it surprising or notable that there are people who have different needs?
Sure, there are some people who make very minimal usage of a web browser. They can get by just fine with a dumbed down Chrome-style UI. They might even like that experience.
Not everybody falls into that camp, however. There are a lot of users who push web browsers much harder, and expect a different experience. They need a UI that exposes the functionality they need to constantly use.
Firefox used to be good at giving power users what they needed, while still being relatively lean, easy-to-use and useful for users who pushed it less intensively.
We've seen this change over the past few years, however, as they've stripped out useful UI functionality in their quest to imitate Chrome. Firefox is now a weaker, less-practical browser for many people. These people are burdened with trying to install numerous addons, just to restore Firefox to something reasonably close to its previous state of usability.
Firefox isn't alone, of course. Just look at the whole debacle that Opera has experienced with the new versions of their desktop browser. It's perhaps even worse in that case, given how they're building upon Blink and Chromium directly. The new versions of Opera are horrible compared to Opera 12 and earlier. It's just really unfortunate to see this happening to software products that were once pretty good.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, NoScript is not a "vital security add-on". The vast majority of exploits depend on JS being available, since (at the very least) it'll be used to unobfuscate/execute some attack code. Remember the Tor browser vulnerability that was exploited? That wouldn't have happened without JS. (Coincidentally, I find it amusing that not too long after, that Firefox made it even harder to disable JS, by removing the check…
That's almost like saying the vast majority of exploits depend on you using a Turing machine. Breaking most websites for the sake of slightly reducing the attack surface doesn't seem worth it.
You have never been in the Russian-speaking part of the Internet, have you?
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love that the same thread has people complaining that Firefox is simultaneously not enough like Chrome and too much like Chrome. Mozilla literally cannot win here; no matter what they do people will just get angrier. They should just strip out the whole Firefox UI and make you run it from a terminal.
"Ugh, the new newsfeed is terrible. I'm quitting facebook. For real this time, not like the last 4 times." I mostly like Australis. And I can see why Mozilla doesn't listen to most of the noise about it. As with everything else, nobody gets really loud about how much better it is.
People do "get loud" about stuff that's inherently an improvement. C++11 is a good example of this. It generally does improve C++ in significant ways, and there are a lot of people who are willing to express this.
The fact that we overwhelmingly hear silence or anger toward Mozilla's UI changes is indicative of them not being very good at all.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, NoScript is not a "vital security add-on". The vast majority of exploits depend on JS being available, since (at the very least) it'll be used to unobfuscate/execute some attack code. Remember the Tor browser vulnerability that was exploited? That wouldn't have happened without JS. (Coincidentally, I find it amusing that not too long after, that Firefox made it even harder to disable JS, by removing the check…
That's almost like saying the vast majority of exploits depend on you using a Turing machine. Breaking most websites for the sake of slightly reducing the attack surface doesn't seem worth it.
The definition of "most websites" varies between people; the majority of the Internet browsing I do (mostly reading content in the form of text or images) does not require JS. If I come across a site in a search that refuses to show content without JS (and Google's cache, text-only, doesn't give me what I want to see either), I'll just move on to the next search result.
It's far better for websites to break, than my machine. The tradeoff will be different for someone who regularly browses a different demographic of sites.
Re: Firefox 29 beta arrives with easy Sync tool....
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
FXChrome solved the problem for me (chrome-like theme for firefox, its perfect). I am glad someone finally told them their last design iteration was horrendous. Honestly, who makes these decisions over there?
UX people and graphic designers, based on extensive user testing. Have you run any user tests lately? ;)
The majority of the users being tested are not power users. In fact the power users are probably the ones who don't like the idea of their browser phoning home to report their usage habits, and so disable those sorts of things.