[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mozilla-ui
Subject:    Collected thoughts from Slashdot readers on M10 interface
From:       Matthew Thomas <mpt26 () student ! canterbury ! ac ! nz>
Date:       1999-10-19 4:32:42
[Download RAW message or body]

From http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99%2F10%2F18%2F0818246, the
edited highlights on Mozilla UI issues ...

Foogle wrote:
|
| The GTK interface is kludgy at best. I compiled it under OpenBSD with 
| Lesstif support and I was  suprised [sic] at how similar it was to
| Netscape. Stable too! I say the Mozilla team gives some careful
| thought to the GTK interface. Too many gadgets and gizmo-widgets
| spoils the application.

ToastyKen wrote:
|
| As a Mac user, I was concerned about the non-Mac-ness of Mozilla's
| interface. But some people argued the merits of using XUL for
| cross-platform-ness, making it easier to port and synchronize and so
| forth... 
|
| HOWEVER, isn't this precisely what happened with Word 6 on the Mac? In
| the interest of making the software identical across platforms, the
| Mac version lacked consistency with all other Mac applications, and 
| didn't function in the way a Mac application was supposed to behave. 
|
| Everyone was up in arms about this, even causing Microsoft to release 
| a (non-free) "downgrade" to Word 5.1. The people rejoiced when Word 98
| felt much more (though not enough, imho) like a standard Mac
| application. 
|
| Is not the same thing happening to Mozilla? After all, even if, a 
| skin is written to make it LOOK like Mac app, as long as it uses XML
| and not standard Mac toolbox controls, it simply will not FEEL like a
| Mac app. In M10, for instance, text-selection is a simple inverted
| white-on-black box, instead of using the standard Mac settings for
| text-selection coloring. Likewise, many controls do not function as
| they do on a Mac. This will not be changed with a mere skin. 
|
| I think interface consistency within an operating system and the apps
| written for it are incredibly important, and I'm afraid Mozilla will
| not achieve this goal, and remind us in many ways of Word 6's
| cross-platform interface fiasco.

Otter wrote:
|
| Between that and the fact that Mac users are much more finicky about
| interface design, I'm kind of pessimistic about Mozilla's popularity
| on the Mac. It's a shame -- I mean it's not as if any of the Mac
| hardcore want to use Microsoft but IE is rapidly becoming the only
| real choice.

garver wrote:
|
| My nitpick is that on initial load, it is ... well... damned ugly. If
| you are at the stage where you are looking for a large number of
| testers, pretty up that interface so that people can stomach using it
| on a daily basis. Also, people's initial impression of Mozilla will
| change with a prettier interface. Mozilla is a product in the latter
| stages of development, more things work than don't work. But to anyone
| not familiar with the details of the project, loading Mozilla for the
| first time makes it seem that you have just figured out how to make
| buttons. Its understandable, but not excusable, for a journalist to
| "check it out", run it for an hour or so, not be impressed, and write
| a bad review. They are used to dealing with a commercial software
| industry where the interface comes first (to wow the journalists,
| spread the FUD, etc.) and the backend comes later. 
|
| Bottom line, make it prettier and you will draw more testers and
| better press.

Yarn wrote:
|
| I really like moz, its quick and has a nifty interface, besides, no
| other decent graphical browsers work at all for me.

Finally, an Anonymous Coward wrote:
|
| When Mozilla finally is released, it's going to be a vindication for
| Software That Doesn't Suck. It will have been a long, slow journey,
| but it's going to have been worth it.

ttfn
-- 
Matthew `mpt' Thomas
http://critique.net.nz/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]