Firefox 3 to go native in appearance
What do you get when you cross a Firefox with a chameleon?
An open-source Web browser whose user interface is adapted to the look of the operating system it's running on. One change planned for the upcoming Firefox version 3, code-named Gran Paradiso, is this more native appearance.
"The Web browser is an incredibly central piece of the user's operating system, and we don't want the user's initial reaction to be that they have modified their computer to add some type of strange, foreign application," said Mozilla interface designer Alex Faaborg in a blog posting last week. "Mozilla's user experience team literally wants to do a better job of visually integrating with Windows than IE, and a better job of visually integrating with OS X than Safari. I don't know if we will be able to pull that off, but that's the goal."
Firefox will have different looks for Windows XP and Windows Vista, but the much broader diversity of Linux interface options makes it more challenging. Red Hat, Suse and Ubuntu all look different, just to name three popular versions, and as a further complication, each is available with the KDE and GNOME graphical interfaces.
"We still aren't sure what the best way to visually integrate with Linux is, given the number of different distributions," Faaborg said. He also referred those interested in the issue to related posts by lead Firefox engineer Mike Connor and Firefox user experience leader Mike Beltzner, who detailed some of the problems.
The Firefox native-look approach goes counter to one trend.
There was a time when user interface guidelines for operating systems were rigorously set. Buttons and menus and scroll bars had to look and behave in a certain way so computer users would know what to expect and have an easier time figuring out how to accomplish what they wanted.
But user interfaces today are exploding in diversity. Years ago, software such as media players forsook a traditional appearance in favor of an interface that looks like a car radio. Followed suit are a profusion of smaller programs called widgets and gadgets such as clocks or weather monitors. And rich Internet applications, which run in Web browsers, are designed to look the same across operating systems.
Software that's adapted for multiple operating systems always faces something of an identity crisis. Should the software look the same from one operating system to the next, providing a familiar look regardless of where it's running, or should it fit in with the local system?
Faaborg said he believes people will imprint more on what Firefox can do than on how exactly it looks.
"I personally think Firefox has in the past established its identity through interactions as opposed to the visual design of the interface itself," he said, citing for example people's recognition of the tabbed browser windows in Firefox 1.0. And users similarly might identify in Firefox 3 with a feature that lets them navigate to a Web page by typing some part of its name in the location bar, with Firefox suggesting full links based on bookmarks and previous pages visited.
"When you think about the difference between Firefox 2 and 3, or the difference between Firefox and other Web browsers, I think it is streamlined interactions like this, or one-click bookmarking, that are likely to spring to mind, as opposed to the application's unique visual style," Faaborg said.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
more, hopefully this means I can switch to FF3 full time when it
comes out.
I just hope they don't tie it into the OS such that it begins to look like IE 7. I would simply abandon it altogether and go with Links.
I'm glad that FF's user interface is getting an update.
(I keep FF2 installed on my system as a backup browser.)
In Linux, FF2 looks just like any other app I have - the only difference is the icon graphics. On the Mac, it blends in well enough, and this is the one place where (Cocoa-like) native looks would be the most useful. In 'doze, it works just fine.
/P
Java started with native widgets (AWT) and then went non-native (Swing); quickly I gave up on Java and began moving to .NET. Eventually IBM built SWT which again offered native widgets with some success (Eclipse, Azureus, etc.) but was too late for me.
Netscape also started with native widgets and then went non-native (Mozilla); quickly I gave up and began moving to IE. Now native look&feel returns in Firefox 3. This time I may return, given it's easier to go from IE to Firefox than from .NET to Java.
Distancing from native only causes problems. My scroll-wheel stop working on Netscape6/Mozilla1; using the visual themes introduced with WindowsXP came almost for free to native applications, and was very costly mimicked by non-native apps. Firefox currently doesn't respect my preference "Hide keyboard navigation indicators until I use the Alt key" in the Display Properties. Context menus on text boxes in dialogs look strange, etc, etc, etc...
looks a lot better but I prefer Firefox' functionality but can't stand
Firefox's out dated generic interface.
Appearace is always secondary to functionality and performance.
From a development perspective it sure makes testing and R&D a lot easier when the GUI, function, and technology is identical across all of the operating systems I do work on.
So changing the GUI and user experience from OS to OS will just make it harder for me to do my job.
My humble opinion is that the they are more GUI designer (I want to make an impact and show I am worth something) is influencing this direction than the Usability Expert (I just want to make it easy for users to use) point of view.
In the end, if I can just change the theme back to FF2 I will be happy.
PS like others on here have posted, you can change the GUI of the browser by downloading a theme. Personally I find it not worth the trouble. But to each his/her own.
Peace.
Oh, you want or need something different?
Too bad.
I think having an OS-specific UI will cause more problems than benefits. It will make it less easy for me to walk my parents through a "how to" over the phone when they're using a Mac and I'm on a PC.
I don't know how much this is done with applications like the MS Office suite or Photoshop and Illustrator, but I'm fairly certain there are some differences which are probably intentionally done for the OS being used.
In an ideal world I'll be able to decide whether I want the new look or the old look, and if the new look is terrific I'll stick with it.
Ultimately I hope this isn't a waste of developer time that could be put to better use on other aspects of Firefox.
All this said, whatever happens, I'll be sticking with Firefox.
regular Joe User, but I like my laptops. I needed to respond
because the first thing I saw was some joker pointing out a fake
Ballmer website. Like your fight matters to me!
Like many people I have diversified monetary interests (I have
invested in multiple OS producing companies) and I have
completely diverse taste (I only buy one brand of computer and
OS.) But when an application comes up on my screen and it
looks rudimentary, as Firefox 2 does, I am suspect. It's the
same with a vessel that has a great engine with nothing to
sustain it (think Bayliner boats.)
I'm really happy for testers that think the UI should be the same
across operating systems, but I would give this advice, "You
have increased job security."
Get off your lazy computer driven ass and think about how
something looks for once! Unfortunately
and
OS.)"
I don't think the word "diverse" means what you think it does.
This is exactly what got MS in trouble with Neelie Kroes and the competition nazis in Europe.
Funny thing about the N version. Even those complaining about WMP hate the N version. Seems Real Player and the others actually USE Windows Media Player's DLLs and routines. Since the N version removed ALL traces of WMP, it also means you can't use Real Player or any other sound system that's dependent on WMP's files. So much for competition...
Now, I have used IE7 as primary browser and FF2 as secondary. But, who knows thing will change for FF3. FF3 seems good and promising from the feature so far. And if MS doesn't do anything to IE7, Firefox will bite more.
I think its a cool feature, but not a profound feature. It kind of sounds like dynamic skinning, and I'm not really sure why thats so interesting to anyone outside of the window-blinds or compiz crowd, sorry mac I don't know what kinds of skinning tools you guys use.
Anyway, I like to play with compiz, but I don't really see it as a workspace optimizer, its just a toy that is fun to play with.
Keep up the great work though Mozilla, Firefox is the best browser going in my opinion and I hope your around for a very long time.
I want my Firefox to look like my KDE...
- by itsmeleei May 27, 2008 12:33 AM PDT
- VERY BEAUTIFUL TWEAK FOR 100% VISTA GUI INTEGRATION. PLEASE LOOK AT http://20boi-lee.spaces.live.com/
- Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)