[selowitch]

OK, I'll start:

Is it possible to resize the address or Google search fields?
Also, is there a way to move from tab to tab by means of the keyboard (à la Safari)? [Edit: I just figured it out. It's Control-Page Up / Control-Page Down]

[nooon]

Why don't we all just ask our Mozilla Firefox Questions in the Mozilla Firefox Forums instead?

Seems more efficient to me..

[selowitch]

Originally posted by nooon:
Why don't we all just ask our Mozilla Firefox Questions in the Mozilla Firefox Forums instead?

Seems more efficient to me..

Sure, but it's not as friendly or as fun as MacNN. :-(

You could make that argument for virtually any software product, and yet ... here there is a Software Forum, right in front of us. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

As I'm fond of telling all the folks who write saying "I don't like your question because ..." I say, "Get over it. If you don't like it, don't answer it!"

[drainyoo]

I love FireFox but there are a few things it needs before I can use it as my default browser.

1. Native OSX widgets.
2. Native OSX menus.
3. System wide spell check.

Im pretty dissapointed that these very important features were never implemented from the beginning.

[wataru]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
I love FireFox but there are a few things it needs before I can use it as my default browser.

1. Native OSX widgets.
2. Native OSX menus.
3. System wide spell check.

Im pretty dissapointed that these very important features were never implemented from the beginning.

1 and 2 are never going to happen. Sorry.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by wataru:
1 and 2 are never going to happen. Sorry.

Thats not what I heard but if they dont happen it would be a waste a great browser.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
1. Native OSX widgets.

What's a "native OS X widget"? For that matter, what's a non-native OS X widget? Can you give examples of one or the other?

2. Native OSX menus.

What's that?

3. System wide spell check.

Well, if it were a Cocoa app, couldn't that be a Service?

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by selowitch:
What's a "native OS X widget"? For that matter, what's a non-native OS X widget? Can you give examples of one or the other?

What's that?

Well, if it were a Cocoa app, couldn't that be a Service?

A native OSX widget is for example a button. The normal native button is the round 3d looking one we are all familiar with. In FireFox they use their own which look more like windows buttons. Also the dropdowns, radio and check buttons are widgets as well.

The menus are the menus you get when you click on a folder bookmark in the bookmark area. FireFox renders their own instead of using the native ones.

I really dont know why the spellchecker is not part of the browser. Maybe it hasnt been implemented yet.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
A native OSX widget is for example a button. The normal native button is the round 3d looking one we are all familiar with. In FireFox they use their own which look more like windows buttons. Also the dropdowns, radio and check buttons are widgets as well.

The menus are the menus you get when you click on a folder bookmark in the bookmark area. FireFox renders their own instead of using the native ones.

I see. That makes sense. Thanks!

I'd have to say that I'd file those matters under "would be nice" -- but Firefox is still already my default browser. The main things that sold me were 1) that it works with my online bank (unlike Safari); and 2) the fact that (with an extension), I can auto-sort my bookmarks alphabetically.

[wataru]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Thats not what I heard but if they dont happen it would be a waste a great browser.

I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest reason to dislike a web browser I've ever heard.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by wataru:
I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest reason to dislike a web browser I've ever heard.

Whats so stupid about that? I cant stand those widows like widgets. I appreciate what Apple has done with their widgets and it keeps everything consistent. Why cant they just use the native ones? I just my personal preference. Dont get all bent out of shape for no reason. Im not telling you to not use FireFox so whats the problem?

[Synotic]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Whats so stupid about that? I cant stand those widows like widgets. I appreciate what Apple has done with their widgets and it keeps everything consistent. Why cant they just use the native ones? I just my personal preference. Dont get all bent out of shape for no reason. Im not telling you to not use FireFox so whats the problem?

The reason I'm guessing is because the app is cross platform but also it allows the buttons to resize and be modified and defined to look however a web designer wants.

Anyways, aren't the styles of the buttons defined using CSS? If so, has anyone actually tried modifying the CSS to make the buttons more Aqua like?

[Developer]

Originally posted by wataru:
I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest reason to dislike a web browser I've ever heard.

It's not stupid. Spell checking is a "killer feature" for me. Even though Firfox and Camino are nice, I will not seriously use browser as my main browser without spell checking.

[Developer]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
Why cant they just use the native ones?

The widgets in HTML need to support features that native widgets don't. For example they need to be able to be layered and native widget only support this in HIViews which means that Firefox would have to split the HTML view into multiple layered HIViews which it can't because it's not cross platform. The widgets can also be styled in CSS with arbitrary colours which native widgets can't. Native widgets only support blue and grey colour.

Mozilla (Firfox) are designed with maximum standards support in mind and this can not be delivered with native widgets.

[nooon]

Originally posted by wataru:
1 and 2 are never going to happen. Sorry.

then what is the 'Aquafication Release' listed in the Firefox 1.0 Roadmap?

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by Developer:
It's not stupid. Spell checking is a "killer feature" for me. Even though Firfox and Camino are nice, I will not seriously use browser as my main browser without spell checking.

Wataru was talking about points 1 and 2 in drainyoo's first post, not about spell checking (point 3).

Nooon - I believe the aquafication will be making the XUL widgets look like native OS X ones, but it will just be a skin rather than using the native widgets.

[nooon]

Originally posted by Black Book:
Wataru was talking about points 1 and 2 in drainyoo's first post, not about spell checking (point 3).

Nooon - I believe the aquafication will be making the XUL widgets look like native OS X ones, but it will just be a skin rather than using the native widgets.

you mean like in Camino?

[Millennium]

Great. So people drop it because it uses a superior widget set (for the Web, anyway; it is superior because it can be styled) and because it forces them to proofread their own work.

It's things like this that make me wonder about humanity sometimes. Always looking to not have to think.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Great. So people drop it because it uses a superior widget set (for the Web, anyway; it is superior because it can be styled) and because it forces them to proofread their own work.

It's things like this that make me wonder about humanity sometimes. Always looking to not have to think.

You might think its superior but I dont. First it has a windows feel and that bothers me. Second, its inconsisten with the rest ofthe OS. Doesnt Apple have some sort of GUI guidlines?

[Krypton]

Originally posted by drainyoo:
You might think its superior but I dont. First it has a windows feel and that bothers me. Second, its inconsisten with the rest ofthe OS. Doesnt Apple have some sort of GUI guidlines?

Safari 1.3 uses those 'ugly' buttons for <button>, so you better get used to the idea

Anyhow, it would fall under the W3C's guidelines, not Apple's, concerning the appearance of websites and their interfaces.

[Luca Rescigno]

I couldn't really care less about how the buttons look. They work, and that is what's important. Spell check would be nice though; in fact, that's the main thing holding me back. Popup blocking and ad blocking is better in Firefox than in Safari, but there are also a few other features I'd like in the Mac version. For example, in the PC version, middle-clicking on a link opens in a new tab (like the Mac version), while middle clicking on a tab closes it. Also, middle clicking on a page will let you scroll around by changing the position of the mouse (like in IE for Windows). Why aren't these features in the Mac version? They would be nice and might make up for the lack of a spell check.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Great. So people drop it because it uses a superior widget set (for the Web, anyway; it is superior because it can be styled) and because it forces them to proofread their own work.

It's things like this that make me wonder about humanity sometimes. Always looking to not have to think.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Also, middle clicking on a page will let you scroll around by changing the position of the mouse (like in IE for Windows). Why aren't these features in the Mac version?

Because that's not a feature of Firefox. If I recall correctly, that's a Windows thing.

[Synotic]

Originally posted by Krypton:
Safari 1.3 uses those 'ugly' buttons for <button>, so you better get used to the idea

Anyhow, it would fall under the W3C's guidelines, not Apple's, concerning the appearance of websites and their interfaces.

That's actually quite interesting, I never knew about the <button> tag. How does Safari render it now? For anyone wondering, it seems that the button tag allows much richer content within the actual button (as opposed to input), such as images styled text etc... By default it's an inline element but it can be changed to a block of course.

Anyone know how well used <button> is? If Safari 1.3 allows for custom buttons via <button> then that could be potentially very cool for web developers

[Developer]

Originally posted by Synotic:
That's actually quite interesting, I never knew about the <button> tag. How does Safari render it now?

http://www.icab.de/test.html

Scroll down to to bottom to see some example of buttons.

[drainyoo]

Originally posted by Krypton:
Safari 1.3 uses those 'ugly' buttons for <button>, so you better get used to the idea

Anyhow, it would fall under the W3C's guidelines, not Apple's, concerning the appearance of websites and their interfaces.

Yeah but it still uses the Apple button for the <input> correct?

[hotani]

I just installed the lastest iteration of Firefox for the purpose of being able to use the greatest feature offered by that browser: extensions. However, after installing some of them it killed my app and I had to uninstall the offending extensions.

I've been successfully using the "Bookmarks Syncronizer" to keep my home bookmarks synced with work, and the "web developer" extension seems to work ok, and Adblock which has become a necessity.

Problems I have with firefox are the dropdowns - I've run into situations where it drops down once, then it won't do it anymore till the page is reloaded - that's a little wonky.

And yes, compared to the rest of Mac OS X, the default web widgets are downright fugly. However, I do believe the app is coming along - this latest release is light years past what it was last time I looked a few months ago. Good work Mozilla!

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by Synotic:
That's actually quite interesting, I never knew about the <button> tag. How does Safari render it now? For anyone wondering, it seems that the button tag allows much richer content within the actual button (as opposed to input), such as images styled text etc... By default it's an inline element but it can be changed to a block of course.

Anyone know how well used <button> is? If Safari 1.3 allows for custom buttons via <button> then that could be potentially very cool for web developers

Oh dear. You are sooo last century

Edit (to be useful(ish)):
<button>'s are generally used where you want a button that's not part of a form that's going to be posted to a server (although, they come under the form spec). I think the <button> tag was introduced with HTML 4, with IE4 being the first major browser to use it (I say major because amaya had support for it).

[nooon]

I hope they release Safari 1.3 soon.. Camino is starting to bug up on me.

[nooon]

Firefox 0.9.3 is out btw!

Get it HERE