Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Developer Experimenting With Firefox UI In HTML

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    I'm well aware. XUL is a much smaller target than full HTML+CSS, therefore it's very likely to be lighter.
    It's not. It's full of legacy crap like XPCOM which is incredibly slow, and fixing that would take a lot of manpower and resources.

    Leave a comment:


  • alexvoda
    replied
    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
    Apart:
    - Close tabs button at end of tab bar. IE is per tab.
    - Hide tab bar when only one tab.
    - No status bar.

    Like:
    - paste and search
    - paste and go
    - removal of the things that set it apart
    My my, I think you are grasping at straws here. These are all only interface changes, nothing substantial.
    1. according to lifehacker the move to "close button/tab" instead of "close button at end of tab bar" happened way back in Firefox 2.0 in October 2006 and it has been like that ever since. At that time Microsoft was releasing the first version of Internet Explorer that had tabs.
    2. "hiding the tab bar when only one tab is visible" is still possible (it probably requires an extension). But this option makes a lot less sense when "tabs on top" is active because the tab bar is merged with the title bar.
    3. "no status bar" is a recent development (since Australis) and is the way it works now. I thought your point was Firefox (compared to earlier versions) is becoming more like IE, not less like IE.
    4. I can not find "paste and search" and "paste and go" in Internet Explorer. What version had them? If none, I though your point was that Firefox is becoming more like IE. However, 2 menu options in 2 of the least used menus are hardly note worthy for this discussion.
    5. removal of things is not an added feature. Also this is a useless point since it just refers to points 1, 2 and 3 without adding anything to the discussion.


    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post

    I don't really give a damn about paste-and-* except that in Mozilla forums their devs and PM-types claim these changes were to streamline the UI. I can paste a string then click Go or click Search - Go and Search have not been removed. Menu entries for same clutters the UI IMHO and strongly suggests some Moz devs playing dogma/power games (I know that is a strong statement, all I can offer to back it up is to go read the Moz dev forums. Moz has several devs who come on pretty sociopathic when defending these changes).
    Firstly, all sizable software project developer communities have this. Secondly what is meant by "streamlining" in that case is that instead of 1 click, 1 cursor move and another click, those actions can be performed with only one click, therefore the interface "gets out of the way" making it more "streamlined". Lastly, this was already mentioned in point 4, but this is a really minor change. If you really want to you can remove them using an extension.


    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
    Prior to approx FF 29 I could change the behaviour of the tab bar in about:config. Now I cannot. Moz says to use one of several plugins or extensions - but all of them are buggy or flakey to varying extents.

    Same for the status bar except it was removed circa FF 24 I think, and the extensions that Moz says replace it are all basically crap.

    Status bar was extremely valuable place to present info about the STATUS of the browser.

    I looked thru the code behind about:config once (some time ago). I don't think these things *had* to be moved out to extension-land. I think these UI changes were political/sophistic.
    Firefox 29 was the version that introduced Australis.
    A lot of people have complained about Australis (myself included).
    The common theme of the comments against Australis is that it makes Firefox more like Chrome. You are really the first person I read, who says it is more like Internet Explorer.
    This trend at Mozilla to follow Chrome(who began to eat some of their usage share) is really unfortunate and lamentable. I can only assume some management at Mozilla got scared after loosing Google funding and decided they must make Firefox more like Chrome to regain the users who switched to Chrome.

    However, there are some good parts about Australis. Due to heroic efforts by extension developers I can now achieve one of the most pleasing Firefox setups I've ever had. Thankfully the "Classic theme restorer" does bring back much of the lost functionality and maybe even makes it better than before. My custom setup is still a work in progress but I really like how it is shaping up. It is very space efficient and very feature full. And this is accomplished with less extensions than ever.


    All this however is not related to the article, and the developments mentioned in the article can only serve to improve the situation by facilitating flexibility and making extension development accessible to a lo
    To end this post, Mr./Ms. hoohoo. Since the arguments you have brought are at best insubstantial and at worst arguments against your point, I will henceforth consider you have trolling tendencies and ignore your posts in this and other threads.
    Have a nice trolling day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rallos Zek
    replied
    Originally posted by mark45 View Post
    Years of work for the UI of a browser? Seriously guys (devs), unless you work for the government get your shit together.
    Sigh! please read the quoted post below

    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
    Incidentally, keep in mind this isn't some major Mozilla project to replace the UI. It's a proof of concept with one or two developers behind it, an experiment to look at alternatives to the old XUL-based code that goes back fifteen years or more.


    .................................................. ....
    Last edited by Rallos Zek; 11 December 2014, 09:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
    It would not have the responsiveness of a sloth on barbiturates.

    Chrome is much faster than FF on my home PC (i7 3820/32GB/HD7970/25Mb inet).

    Chrome is much faster than FF on my phones (Samsung S4, Sony Xperia Z Ultra).

    I only use FF on PCs because AdBlock and Noscript work better on FF than Chrome.

    (And I do allow ads on Phoronix)
    Nightly is my main browser on android. It is faster than chrome/beta. Smoother scrolling and js execution (the later is a fairly new occurrence).
    It has some nice addons (bluehell firewall, SDC, ghostery (no longer updated unfortunately)).
    You might want to check out the nightlies on your PC as well. The scrolling will be slower (until they work out electrolysis, which your defaulted into with nightly, iirc), but js should be faster.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pajn
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    I'm well aware. XUL is a much smaller target than full HTML+CSS, therefore it's very likely to be lighter.
    Well, not really as they still have to load an HTML and CSS parser...

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
    They already use a markup language to define the UI, switching to HTML won't make it 'heavier'.
    I'm well aware. XUL is a much smaller target than full HTML+CSS, therefore it's very likely to be lighter.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by CrystalGamma View Post
    Yes, but even if they were, using only one code path for both would free resources for the HTML team, which could then be used to optimize that.
    That was kind of my point. Fast HTML and JS are essential to Mozilla with or without this new UI

    Leave a comment:


  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
    ... I only use FF on PCs because AdBlock and Noscript work better on FF than Chrome. ...
    There is Noscript for Chrome?

    Leave a comment:


  • CrystalGamma
    replied
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Well, assuming Mozilla's HTML renderer and JS interpreter aren't dog slow but if they are, that'd be a problem in its own right
    Yes, but even if they were, using only one code path for both would free resources for the HTML team, which could then be used to optimize that.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheOne
    replied
    Actually firefox is faster than chrome now. Firefox startup time is faster and rendering is much faster. I have tested on 3 computers and chrome just feels sluggish compared to firefox.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X