Talk:Firefox/4.0 Windows Theme Mockups: Difference between revisions

= Tabs =

 

== Positioning ==

 

I myself use the tab sidebar extension which puts previews of the tabs on the side of the screen instead of their titles only (like Omniweb does). I see one small drawback though. Tab titles are not very close to the address bar, so it gets a little harder to relate them both. --[[User:Facildelembrar|Facildelembrar]] 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  

What happens when web designers start designing for wider screens? Wouldn't that just mean less space available for content? The tabs work well where they are right now, plus you get more tab space with a wider screen.Another good thing to note here is that most high resolution LCD computer displays are widescreen, and there aren't many places you can buy CRT monitors anymore. --[[User:Lopagof|Lopagof]] 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)  

I agree with changing the tabs to the side, Firefox needs to go past how other browsers go about organizing information. Window's Explorer and Mac's finder, go about navigation by using a side bar; therefore, tabs on the side wouldn't be a drastic change for users. [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511493.aspx Microsoft actually states] that if there's 8+ tabs, they should be vertical. — [http://is.gd/4Isnb Edson Ayllon] ^{[[http://twitter.com/EdsonAyllon twitter]]} 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)  

:The comparison to file browsers is flawed. Neither Windows Explorer nor Finder use tabs. Nautilus (the file explorer for Gnome), if I remember correctly, uses tabs on top. The links on the side of most file explorers are more analogous to bookmarks, which I think makes sense. (You can currently do that by hitting Ctrl+B, though.) I'm not arguing for or against tabs on the side, but you can't compare the "quick links" found in Explorer and Finder to tabs in Firefox; they are two completely different things. — [[User:Musicfreak|musicfreak]] ^{([[User talk:Musicfreak|talk]])} 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

:Ok, let me just clarify what I already said. It wasn't a direct comparison. I said file browsers ''go about '''navigation''''' through a sidebar, not that they use tabs. And about them being ''completely'' different, although what they use is not called tabs, they are still a means of navigation. In essence tabs are just quick links, they go to the information you want quickly, file browsers just keep all those links catched, and vice versa. I didn't say that their sidebar has tabs at all. Actually, my goal isn't really to keep tabs at all, it is to find a better system than tabs as they become harder to manage more are opened. So far this is the only solid system working. The comparison is more of a means of visualizing the experience, which I continued below this post with images, if you find a better simile, tell me.--— [[User:Spacr|Edson Ayllon]] ^{[[http://twitter.com/EdsonAyllon twitter]]} 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

==== Tabs on the side would be a great option  ====

 

 

:But Mozilla already does give users options, via add-ons. Making every popular feature request a built-in feature would just make Firefox bloated. There are at least 3 vertical tab add-ons available, why not simply install one? I would much rather have this functionality through Tree Style View than natively. — [[User:Musicfreak|musicfreak]] ^{([[User talk:Musicfreak|talk]])} 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)  

==== Mockups showing the usability and visual appeal of tabs on the side ====

[[Image:Untitled.png]]  

The basic metaphor would be the interface of a folder (Chrome) vs. the interface of a binder (Firefox)  

Tabs on the right are close to the scroll-bar, so there's less space there, so users with big screens don't have to move ridiculous lengths if they use a scroll bar. Since most mice allow users to scroll without a scrollbar, tabs on the left would be more efficient because they are closer to the back and forth buttons and are more widely seen at the left.  

[[Image:Firefox mac sidebar-tabs.png]]  

So, at least for full-screen or maximized mode, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law#Model the math] supports tabs-on-top. Given my personal frustration with Firefox's full-screen mode, this would be a great improvement!<br>--[[User:Joecan|Joecan]] 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)  

I'm sorry but you seem to be very confused.  

First, as long as the tabs are on '''any''' edge of the screen (this includes left and right edges!) you'll not overshoot them. For instance, if you try Opera 10, and put the tab bar on the sides of the screen, you'll get the "screen edge benefit" when the window is maximized (on Vista at least, I can't test on XP or Mac right now).  

Second, the distance that the mouse travels when switching '''between tabs''' is shorter when tabs are stacked vertically then when they are placed side by side. And this has nothing to do with screen edges. In this case, Fitts's Law says switching between vertical tabs are more efficient...  

--[[User:Facildelembrar|Facildelembrar]] 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)  

I like the idea of tabs on top, but I think it needs a few tweaks:  

-As others have suggested, the tabs should touch the top of the window, so that they are easier to grab.  

-This does bring up the problem of moving the windows versus moving the tabs. One idea: grabbing the active tab and moving it moves the whole window. Grabbing inactive tabs tabs allows you to re-arrange their position. For the active tab, a small button can be added which allows you to re-arrange it when grabbed.  

-Another solution to that problem, but probably more controversial: instead of wider tabs with text, as is the norm, what about going Windows 7 superbar-style? Each tab can be represented simply with an icon. This would allow for enough space to still have the title in a reserved space to the left of the tabs, even with a lot of them open, which could be used to grab and move the window. Mousing over a tab would reveal the title of that tab in the titlebar. The close tab button could be moved to the preview window, as in the Tab Scope add-on. Tabs could be re-arranged as now simply by grabbing and moving them.  

--[[User:Ringbearer852|Ringbearer852]] 21:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  

I agree with Joecan - tabs on top is much faster when maximized. [[User:Paulmcauley|Paulmcauley]] 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)  

[[Image:Firefox-windows-7-style.png]]  

Mousing over the other tabs will temporarily display their title in the title bar, like this:  

[[Image:Firefox-windows-7-style-mousover.png]]  

This style would be useful for power users who tend to have a lot of tabs open and don't want to have to scroll a lot. It would probably be best to still have an option for displaying titles in the actual tabs, for those who prefer that.  

--[[User:Ringbearer852|Ringbearer852]] 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)  

:Funny, I was just going to suggest something like this. I think it makes a lot of sense, because I usually just use the favicons to tell my tabs apart rather than the title. However, what do you do when multiple tabs are from the same website? Windows 7-like thumbnails? Or do you just have multiple tabs that look the same? — [[User:Musicfreak|musicfreak]] ^{([[User talk:Musicfreak|talk]])} 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am all for tabs on top and the google chrome interface in general. I also understand that many do not. I think that one of Firefox's strengths is its ability to be customized/configured to each persons taste. If reasonable, I would think that giving the user the choice would be best. If not, tabs on top all the way!!!  

I like tabs on top. I have noticed that people like my dad have a hard time understanding the relationship between the different tabs and the address bar. Putting the tabs above the address bar would help to reinforce the idea that each tab has its own unique address bar. [[User:Gmcfoley|Gmcfoley]] 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)  

I favour moving the address bar down, and hiding the menu entries but every mock-up I've seen has removed the title bar. Moving windows around I assume is left to a "hunt for a free-gap in the chrome and click there to move it" system. This seems very sub-optimal and doesn't follow that of other applications.  

 

Tabs above the address bar makes sense, but I really don't want them to be in the titlebar. In 99% of programs the titlebar is dead-space at the top of the screen which is the perfect place to put those little widgets and things that are useful (media remotes, clocks for other timezones, etc.). This makes Chrome really annoying, because if I have more than 4 tabs open they're blocked by the stuff I use. I seem to be in a minority on this, but I really hope that placement of the tabs isn't forced on users.  

==== Shorter Toolbars ====

On a similar note, the hybrid tab-and-title bar uses extra space above the tabs that is mostly unused. I understand why Chrome does that, but I suspect the benefits are not worth it. Instead, I propose making the tab bar into the new titlebar (like early versions of Safari 4, but done right, hopefully). The space above the tabs would be gone. To move a tab, one drags the tab. To move the window, one drags almost anywhere else on the toolbars. Finally, double-clicking on a tab or on the toolbars would have the same effect as double-clicking on the titlebar (usually maximize/unmaximize). I cannot know for sure that this will be good enough, but it’s worth trying out for the sake of minimizing chrome.  

—[[User:David Regev|David Regev]] 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  

I guess all those options need to stay options, or even possibilities so they can only be triggered by addons.  

--[[User:Passcod|Passcod]] 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)  

I disagree, I identify almost every single page by URL.--[[User:Jacobzcoool|Jacobzcoool]] 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  

Some mockups based on the Firefox 4 mockups: - Normal browsing = http://i29.tinypic.com/2yzif87.jpg - Hover over tab = http://i31.tinypic.com/14javwk.jpg --[[User:Jeex|Jeex]] 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)  

== Merged Bookmarks and Tab Bar ==

=== Collapsed Bookmarks Toolbar ===

''.toolbox-top:hover &gt; #PersonalToolbar {'' ''visibility: visible!important; '' ''}''  

== Home Tab ==

Once one can add bookmarks to the tab bar, it makes little sense to retain the traditional Home button. Instead, I propose a permanent Home tab, appearing as it does in the mock-ups (within the bookmarks area, which is really just a ‘permanent tabs’ area). This tab is always open, and is what you get when you close all other tabs (rendering moot the question of what to do when all tabs are closed). This tab would serve as a dashboard for the user’s information. It would contain the entire Places browser (which would no longer appear as a separate window), allowing quick access to non-tab bookmarks (preferably by tags, with folders fully deprecated and converted to tags), to history, and to downloads. It would also contain an area for displaying some bookmarks prominently. Unlike the bookmarks on the tab bar, these bookmarks are for ''non''-long-lived pages, where you don’t need to remain on the page for long periods of time. Of course, any link in the Home tab opens in a new tab. There could also be an area for consolidating notifications and displaying some useful information, such as a summary of one’s e-mails, appointments, etc. In short, this tab would preclude the need for a separate Bookmarks button.  

—[[User:David Regev|David Regev]] 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  

== Tab-bar quick-bookmarks 'Booktab' ==

Allowing bookmarks to be placed in the tab-bar would be useful to those who don't like waisting space on the bookmarks toolbar. When the tab is 'closed' it would iconify and look similar to the homepage button on the above images. When clicked it could expand into an active tab.  

== Close tab button hidden until hover ==

Hiding the close tab button until the tab is hovered over might free up some precious space while making tabs a little less control centric without hurting usability.  

Of course, it might not be as newcomer-friendly as the close button that is fixed to tabs, but experienced users might find it incredibly useful for the amount of tab spaces it gives them (the space on those little red close buttons really adds up over the span of 10 or so tabs).  

'''Suggestion''': As always, when there's... lets say 'conflicts of interest', there should be options so that both/all parties are satisfied. Don't you think? Now, as to what the default should be... perhaps anonymous statistics about menu/options usage should give the answer.  

== Style of "New Tab" functionality ==

Agree. I prefer the Chrome / Opera new tab '''button'''.--[[User:Facildelembrar|Facildelembrar]] 01:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)  

== Tab Progress In Throbbers ==

It has been suggested to add a progress bar to each tab. However, I fear that this would create information overload and be distracting. The user should be able to know a tab’s progress with a glance but also be free from distractions if that tab is not currently important. Thus, I propose to replace the throbber, which appears anyway when a tab is loading, with a pie graph that fills up as the page is loading. Thus, more information could be added to the interface without added complexity, and the throbber’s “this page is loading but I don’t know for how long” connotation would be replaced with something more useful. There is already [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=334697 a bug] requesting this behaviour.  

:+1 in favor of this. I've never been a fan of progress bars because they are too distracting, but the throbber doesn't actually show progress, so this is the perfect medium in my opinion. — [[User:Musicfreak|musicfreak]] ^{([[User talk:Musicfreak|talk]])} 01:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

:The progress bar is probably not going to be used. Instead, I'm guessing, the [http://design-noir.de/log/2009/09/introducing-the-pie-chart-throbber/ pie chart throbber] (a throbber that shows you the progress almost like a clock) from 3.6 is going to stay.--— [[User:Spacr|Edson Ayllon]] ^{[[http://twitter.com/EdsonAyllon twitter]]} 19:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

:Chao - your second tabs-on-top mockup is the best I've seen out of all the Firefox mockups so-far!!! One suggestion I'd make would be to move the page menu button to the right of the back/forward buttons. This is because it is more important for the back button to be beside the left screen edge - the button activated at the left screen edge is easiest to reach with the mouse when maximized (due to Fitt's law). [[User:Paulmcauley|Paulmcauley]]  

::Another suggestion I'd have would be to merge the page menu button with the button that is directly to the left of the URL. This gives more of a feeling that the page menu is directly related to the page that you are viewing. [[User:Paulmcauley|Paulmcauley]] 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 

The traditional menus on the top are a must. I need pretty much ''all'' of the the File menu (including Exit), Tools menu and Bookmarks menu (not toolbar), plus a few entries of the others. -- [[User:BenB|BenB]] 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)  

I agree. Menu bar and tool bar are a must, I feel myself lost without. Please retain them! At least, you could allow users to put them on the top of the window as an option! NK 2009/09/25  

Here's an idea to make everyone happy: Make the Firefox icon at the top left clickable. Clicking it toggles the menu bar on/off. When someone installs Firefox for the first time, have a pop up that explains you can toggle the menu bar on/off with the Firefox icon or the alt button, and also tell people that all of the menu bar commands are also available in either the page/tools menus or right-click context-based menus.  

--[[User:Ringbearer852|Ringbearer852]] 21:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  

== Menus × 3 ==

#'''Application menu''': Like is done on the Mac, Office 2007, Office 2010 Backstage View, and Windows 7, Firefox should have a prominent entry-point for an application menu. Its big advantage is that it enforces a rigid split between the application and the document, allowing a more document-centric experience. This menu would replace the near-useless window menu icon. See [[:Image:Firefox-4.0-Mockup.png|Chao’s mock-up]] above. Clicking on that button would present not a linear list of commands, but a richer two-dimensional pane with an organized view of all application commands. This would include: preferences/options, add-ons, about, open…, work offline, much of the current Tools menu, and commands that relate to all tabs/windows. The new Tools button would not be needed, freeing up more space.  

#'''Page menu''': The site identity icon in the location bar would be redesigned to provide not only identity information (which is mostly useless for most pages), but all other page-specific options, such as save, send, print, bookmark (maybe), and much of the current View menu. All of this would also appear in a rich pane. The separate Page button would not be needed, freeing up even more space. The drop-down in the identity button from the mock-ups would also not be needed, though it could be kept in order to increase discoverability.  

#'''Selection-specific menu''': Instead of duplicating functionality between the Edit menu and contextual menus, all commands that relate to a selection would now reside ''solely'' in the context menu. Thus, standard Edit menu items (cut, copy, paste, delete, etc.) would now appear only in the context menu. Not only would this reduce waste of space, but it would eliminate redundancy, as each command throughout the whole application would have one and only one location, and that location would be fairly logical and easy to predict. Note that, by ‘selection’, I mean not only selected text, but also “zero-width” selections: contextual menus for specific objects on a page (links, images, video, etc.) that don’t require being selected prior to acting upon them. Anything that is not selection-specific in current contextual menus would be moved to the Page or Application menu.

 

An example would be the [http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2009/09/01/microsoft-office-backstage-part-4-the-help-tab.aspx Office 2010 (beta) BackStage View Help Section] and the [http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2009/08/17/evolving-the-backstage-view.aspx Office 2010 (beta changes) Backstage View] which takes UI design a step further to consolidate and make things easily accessible and readily available for something like the entire help menu items are like a single panel in a larger UI based on panels (or tabs), rather than a drop down list to access additional UI.  

= Address and Search Bar =

However, I do think that switching search providers quickly and easily is important. Easy solution though: just put the search engine selector at the front of the superbar. Job done.  

"Having a separate bar for search and URL's just requires the user to stop and think about what they are wanting to do" I disagree with you. Having another bar will not make you think more, it will only be more user-friendly. --User: Jason twilight 4.20, 16th August 2009 (UTC)  

----

 

The accompanying text on the [[Firefox/4.0 Windows Theme Mockups]] page doesn't talk about it, but the pictures are clear, and the [[Firefox/Projects/Windows Theme Revamp#Long-Term_.28Firefox_4.0.29:|Windows Theme Revamp]] page says it out loud: ''Remove StatusBar; Relocate StatusBar Content''. This is the current plan for Firefox 4.0.

I don't want to lose the status bar. It contains important 'status' information from many extensions. It shows the URL of a mouse-hovered link. Where would that be visible? In a tooltip after hovering for 2 seconds? That's a waste of time.  

Also, I wonder what "Relocate StatusBar Content" will mean. Where does it go? Is that aesthetically better? Hard to judge if it's not in the mockup. Please keep the status bar. [[User:Jim Danner|Jim Danner]] 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

== Gray Screenshots  ==

To assess usability, you should not make colored mockups. Make them grayscale! Here are the images from the page:  

[[Image:Mockup-4-0-Vista-(TabsBottom)-gray.png]]  

[[Image:Mockup-4-0-Vista-(TabsTop)-(LocBarSearch)-gray.png]]  

[[Image:Mockup-4-0-Vista-(TabsBottom)-(LocBar)-gray.png]]  

And, for reference, what the current browser may look like (3.0.11):  

[[Image:Screenshot-example - Google Search - Mozilla Firefox-gray.png]]  

== Split Browser ==

What about having a split browser feature, there are a couple of extensions that attempt to do it but I've never been able to make them work to my satisfaction. I'm thinking of something like how MS's Visual Studio allows you to split its main panel so you can have 2 (or more) files open at the same time, and manipulate them independently ( edit, scroll, save etc), each sub pane gets its own tabs. A similar thing is to found in File System Manglers like xPlorer2.  

--[[User:TigerStreet|TigerStreet]] 12:29, 12 August 2009 (AEST)  

Windows 7 Aero snap pretty much accomplishes this with any software.--[[User:Facildelembrar|Facildelembrar]] 01:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)  

As Fission does, it takes less space as the line, looks nicer, and is currently not used in any latest version of other browsers. --[[User:Domthedude001|Domthedude001]] 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  

I agree with you, but Safari 4 does have this, and Opera has had it in 8, 9, and 10. [[User:Schmalpal|Schmalpal]] 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)  

I concur, I like the way Fission does it as well.--[[User:Sacr1fyce|Sacr1fyce]] 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)  

I use fission with a nice blue gradient and have a text shadow on my addressbar text (set via userchrome.css) and I think it would definetly work better than adding an extra 4px or so to the addressbar.  

To improve software there should always be a simple feedback mechanism which provides an easy feedback option for everybody. I do think of a link in the Help menu which points to a feedback page with a limited number of categories into which a user can add feedback without taking many hurdles. Categories could be Usability / Design / Functionality / Bugs&amp;Flaws  

-- [[User:Bluefang|Bluefang]] 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  

I also like the idea of combo stop/refresh/go buttons, but placing them to the right of the address bar isn't a practical position. I suggest integrating this feature with the site logo at the left of the address bar. If a user clicks the logo, it should refresh the page. While the user is typing, the logo should be the go button. While loading, the stop button. This places the refresh/go/stop buttons right next to the other navigation buttons, and also takes up less overall address bar space (by combining the multi-button with the site logo). -- [[User:Amd2800barton|amd2800barton]] 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)  

--[[User:Love Sun and Dreams]]  

So, this is what I think of the new interface. It is the ugliest GUI ever to be designed for a browser (including the limp-looking Opera). The old one was perfectly fine. Firefox is more popular than Safari and Chrome, and more popular than IE among those with enough brain cells to make a Decision. Therefore, it is stupid to mimic the aesthetic of those browsers. But they try anyway. And in this case, they fail. This makes IE8 look GOOD. Give this interface to Firefox 4, and I guarantee that it will actually persuade people to stay with IE. But does that matter to Mozilla? Not a jot. They'll carry on with it anyway, because it is Newer and therefore Better, and we, the ignorant and unwashed masses, must realise that it is All for Our Own Good. Mozilla, please, prove me wrong. [[User:(=Nemesis=)|(=Nemesis=)]] 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)  

- Page/Tool buttons are so IE/Chrome. Again&nbsp;: this is not a model, there are other ways to organize command. Think at it&nbsp;! --[[User:Antwan|Antwan]] 09:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  

And, the Page/Tool buttons are the most rubbishy-looking buttons there. [[User:(=Nemesis=)|(=Nemesis=)]] 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)  

No, no, no!&nbsp;:-) IMHO having the stop button on the RHS is a mistake. It's one of the most annoying things in IE7+8: maximising a browser on a large monitor means you have to travel 2000 pixels to the right to press stop, which is very annoying if you've just pressed Back or Forward. It may be pretty/efficient/clever, but it's a big step backwards for usability. [[User:Stevekgoodwin|Stevekgoodwin]] 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  

<br> The stop button should not be combined with the reload button. when they are combined, reload will not appear when the web page is loading. I believe it is important that the reload appears when the web page is loading. Because they will appear people to use the reload button to reload in this interface. Stop could combine with the go button, which seems more practical then with the reload button. Jason Twilight.  

I agree with all 8 of OP's points.--[[User:Jacobzcoool|Jacobzcoool]] 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  

I agree, for the most part, with all of the original points.&nbsp;;) --[[User:Sarnoc|Sarnoc]]  

I like this suggestion. I have a lot of toolbars auto-hidden, and it's a pain how making them pop up scrolls the page, sometimes causing the scrollbar to appear and thus resizing the page too. --[[User:Mazz0|Mazz0]] 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)  

Floating like Photoshop on Mac? Personally, we should be going the opposite direction and make all floating windows nested by default, namely downloads, customization, bookmarks editor, addons, etc. Having an option to make them float seems like an interesting idea, but not really something that's needed. --— [http://is.gd/4Isnb Edson Ayllon] ^{[[http://twitter.com/EdsonAyllon twitter]]} 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)  

== Merged Stop/Reload/Go Button ==

Currently, this state is displayed as a disabled Stop button, but that gives many people the impression that there’s something broken in Firefox. I would suggest rethinking the colours and presenting a slightly different metaphor, based on the colours of a traffic light. When the page is loading, the button is red. After the page has loaded, the button is yellow, indicating a short wait period. After that, the button is green. It would not be blue, since that would break the traffic light metaphor, and could be more confusing than helpful. When the location bar has been modified, a different kind of green button appears: a green [http://www.flickr.com/photos/msiebuhr/542782787/ ‘right-turn’] light—with a dark “off” green for most of the button except for the right arrow, which is the same bright green as the new Reload version of the button. The conceptual similarity between Reload and Go would be reinforced. (This is an idea I would like to try for [http://userstyles.org/styles/2131 Smart Stop/Reload/Go Button].)  

—[[User:David Regev|David Regev]] 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  

== Fewer Dropmarkers ==

—[[User:David Regev|David Regev]] 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)  

--[[User:Euchre|Euchre]]  

== Some ideas for a cleaner interface ==

*I really like the simplicity of Version B but i think the home button is not necessary there. Removing it would help to get a cleaner interface. In case a custom homepage is established it can appear a home button at the right instead, but never at the beginning.

*In this B example you can remove the firefox icon at the top left and leave space for a tab. Dissociation of firefox icon with the current content youre seeing i think may help to push further the web apps and prism concepts. You dont need to remember the person that its inside firefox.

*Im not sure about showing the Google logo twice. You may remove the default engine icon and show a default search icon instead. When you do not have anything opened yet (first instance of the window) the address bar say "Google" instead. Most people uses Google as default and we all love google but seing four basic colors that are there all the time do not fits with this clean interface concept.  

**In any other case, showing the full URL would be better than the page title. The Page title on the tab is full enough to repeat it even if you don't see it full at first. You don't use to get the full title, just the reference to know what it is. If you want to know more just click it or hover it for an alt text.

*Another suggestion that might help to get a cleaner interface is to show the rounded effect and background of ''Page'' and Tools ''buttons'' only when they are hovered.

*removes the "Page" and "Tools" buttons/menus, I find that those are a major change that i don't really like.  

*replaces the home button, which I don't ever really use and could be placed elsewhere, with a "master" button that leads to the traditional menu bar items.  

**(master button menu image: [[Media:FF4_toptab_menuopen.png]] )  

*removes the top left Firefox icon because it is on the master button.  

[[Image:FF4 bottomtab.png]]  

 

*demonstrates the ability to have options as to where the tabs go while keeping both options very similar in all other aspects  

*places "master" button to the left of the "back" button in a cool looking way  

*unactivated tab is (or is supposed to be) differentiated differently (notice the curves)  

*"add tab" button follows the curve of the unactivated tab  

*moves the four square thingy  

any suggestions?  

 

:The menu bar has become very old. We've been using it for over 20 years and now it's starting to become depreciated. The new interface is about: 1) embracing the aero GUI, and 2) replacing the menu bar with something better. In your example, you have simply moved the menu bar into a hard to access place which is very bad for the end user.&nbsp;:) --[[User:Mephiles|Mephiles]] 09:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

-nschubach  

I love the designs for the most part, but the "full screen" button in the top-right corner has to go. The group of minimize/maximize/close buttons is a standard; you can't break it. New users will be confused and lost by the new button, and most people will accidentally click it instead of maximize because they are used to the positions of the current buttons. But other than that, very nice job. — [[User:Musicfreak|musicfreak]] ^{([[User talk:Musicfreak|talk]])} 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)  

I do usability design work and notice a few problem areas with these mockups.

'''Combo button''' First and foremost: keep all page controls grouped. Please do not make the same mistake as IE and place the combo stop/go/refresh button away from other page control buttons. Moreover keep it down to stop and refresh, with the go button (if included at all) placed as a address bar control, not a page control. There are a few reasons for keeping it organized like that, some conceptual, others practical.  

Conceptually we want all related controls grouped in a logical way. Back, forward, stop, refresh is very logical. Practically it's hard to hit a button in the middle of the screen in a hurry (and you bet that someone will want to stop a page from displaying quickly...). You usually see core controls put near corners or at edges, not in the middle of the screen horizontally + 50px down. That area also moves more on resize or may disappear or shift lines, depending on configuration.  

Address bar + go button is also very logical as the go button is more of a control for the address bar than for what is already on the page.  

 

Firefox contains some default themes which show what as possible (some of the shown layouts) and each theme designer is possible to change the layout of his/her theme. The themes can use a simple script language (or something else) to do things like one button, multiple functions and so on.  

 

So it is possible to create themes that exactly copy chrome or opera or ...  

== Another mockup (office 2010 theme)  ==

Here my 2 cents (sorry for the crappy icons, I'm not really good at using an image editor). Its the same theme that's use by the office 2010 beta. It could have contextual tabs for downloads or when images or text are selected ... I was too lazy do do a mockup for the backstage view (when you hit the "file button"), but go see some screenchot of the office beta to get the idea.  

[[Image:MockupOffice2010.jpg]]<br>

By the way, if you think it take too much space, remenber thet the ribbon is collapsible (arrow icon on the right). When it is collapsed you can still use the button in the title bar. This + an "intelligent" blank tab (with a search/url field), and most of the time the ribbon could stay hidden.