Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Firefox 2 Released

Firefox 2 Released (Page 2)
Thread Tools
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
An example of this:

I just discovered that in vBulletin you can make words bold with ctrl + B, italic words with ctrl + I, etc.

On the Mac, wouldn't it be more appropriate to make these controls something other than the control key? The control key is generally only used for triggering the contextual menu, and in other key combos. Well, tough titties, you are stuck with what the vBulletin authors designed, period, and no web browser will change that.
This is something that, interestingly enough, is truly cross-platform about vBulletin; these key combinations work the same on a Mac browser as on a Windows browser (and supposedly on ANY browser). Some things are NOT cross-platform with VB, though: entering nonstandard characters from a Windows keyboard involves the "ALT" key and an input from the numeric keypad (NOT the number keys at the top of the keyboard), which cannot be done with VB because the ALT combinations do something different like go to the browser's home page or open a new tab...

Aesthetics are a matter that seems to be quite contentious in the Mac world. However the intersection of aesthetics and functionality has always seemed to be the point of the Mac user interface, so why worry about how like OS X or UNLIKE OS X any given browser's user interface is? Firefox does things on Windows that go way beyond the hooks that Windows provides apps to use, and it is a "well behaved" Windows app. On OS X, FF2 is cleaner and smoother than FF1.5 was, but it's still just an app, not a religious affiliation, so why all the fuss?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
KP*
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
I must have missed a tick box somewhere, but command-W on the last tab open gives me a blank page but does not actually close the browser window completely.

Intentional?
I know what function this is supposed to provide on the PC, but I would love if a Mac person could write an extension to make it close the window when the last tab is Command-W'd. Has anyone heard of one yet?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What do you not understand about my points? I've made them just about as clear as I can.

Do you understand the distinction between web-based apps that run within a browser vs. the browser itself?
Are you having this "Web-based apps vs. the browser" conversation with yourself? Nobody else is talking about Web-based apps. This conversation appears to be about the browser itself — which, as you point out, is not exactly the same thing as Web-based apps.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you having this "Web-based apps vs. the browser" conversation with yourself? Nobody else is talking about Web-based apps. This conversation appears to be about the browser itself — which, as you point out, is not exactly the same thing as Web-based apps.

Well, that was exactly the point I brought up, because it was relevant to the discussion. Why not go back and read where I brought this up, and let me know if it was unclear why I did so.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This is something that, interestingly enough, is truly cross-platform about vBulletin; these key combinations work the same on a Mac browser as on a Windows browser (and supposedly on ANY browser). Some things are NOT cross-platform with VB, though: entering nonstandard characters from a Windows keyboard involves the "ALT" key and an input from the numeric keypad (NOT the number keys at the top of the keyboard), which cannot be done with VB because the ALT combinations do something different like go to the browser's home page or open a new tab...

Aesthetics are a matter that seems to be quite contentious in the Mac world. However the intersection of aesthetics and functionality has always seemed to be the point of the Mac user interface, so why worry about how like OS X or UNLIKE OS X any given browser's user interface is? Firefox does things on Windows that go way beyond the hooks that Windows provides apps to use, and it is a "well behaved" Windows app. On OS X, FF2 is cleaner and smoother than FF1.5 was, but it's still just an app, not a religious affiliation, so why all the fuss?

I agree with you, I guess I just get frustrated with non-Mac users thinking that we are all obsessed (and only obsessed) with aesthetics and eye candy, and many Mac users reinforcing this stereotype by being obsessed with aesthetics and eye candy.

Do you know many professionals that spend much time on their work machines changing their desktop pattern around, skinning their apps, keeping their Desktops in a lickable screenshotable state? I guess I've seen a few, but most are so immersed in working in an app that they don't seem to have time for these sorts of concerns.

To each their own, but there certainly is a legitimate target audience for a workhorse of a browser like Firefox. It doesn't suck, it just has a different set of goals and priorities in mind.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2006, 10:51 PM
 
All the pros I've seen using Macs used the machines to get A job done and then went on to do something else. The first computer in my mother's ad agency was a Mac used exclusively for typesetting. They did everything else by hand (and had done manual typesetting until it was obvious that the Mac would pay for itself in productivity in a few weeks).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2006, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
All the pros I've seen using Macs used the machines to get A job done and then went on to do something else. The first computer in my mother's ad agency was a Mac used exclusively for typesetting. They did everything else by hand (and had done manual typesetting until it was obvious that the Mac would pay for itself in productivity in a few weeks).



Yeah, I think most professionals are probably that way. I wonder if because I make my living working on computers that this has shaped the opinions of mine I've shared?
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2006, 02:00 AM
 
Interesting. Looked back at a 1.5 version of Firefox and command-W did close the window. I just took a peek at the menu bar and saw that the developers have remapped the keys to change functionality (command-w for close tab, shift-command-w for close window).

Originally Posted by KP* View Post
I know what function this is supposed to provide on the PC, but I would love if a Mac person could write an extension to make it close the window when the last tab is Command-W'd. Has anyone heard of one yet?
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
KP*
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2006, 10:51 AM
 
Eye candy is one of the things I enjoy about the Mac OS, but I think wanting a nice Mac-like appearance is about more than just how "pretty" an app looks. To me it's about having everything laid out in a way that is easy on the eyes and helps you know at a glance what you're looking at. I can't describe how a good GUI works, but I know it when I see it -- you don't have to search around the screen for what you want, it's presented in a way that you instinctively know where everything is and what each button does -- consistency with the OS is helpful for that reason -- you don't have to work so hard to train yourself to use it. For some reason Safari just "feels" better to me, even though I like FF's features more. I think it's because when I glance at Safari I can find everything and don't find my mouse wandering around looking for the button I want.
     
Spirit_VW
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2006, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you having this "Web-based apps vs. the browser" conversation with yourself? Nobody else is talking about Web-based apps. This conversation appears to be about the browser itself — which, as you point out, is not exactly the same thing as Web-based apps.
And here's an example.

Now, let me preface this by saying that obviously, this example is not exactly Earth-shattering. I know that. This was just a quick and easy example of the sort of thing that pervades the Firefox-for-Mac interface, the sort of thing people are talking about when they say Firefox doesn't "feel" like a Mac app should. This has nothing to do with Web content. I will say, though, that even through the browser is just a way to reach Web content, that doesn't mean it's unimportant for the browser *application* to look, feel, and act like its fellow *applications* on the host OS. (The also-discussed remapping of the close window/tab stuff is another example - the proper Mac way is for Command + W to close a window. That's all there is to it.)

As an example, here is the "Customize Toolbar" pane of Firefox 2.0:



For comparison, the "Customize Toolbar" pane of OmniWeb 5.5:



OmniWeb is, obviously, using the standardized OS X toolbar customize method. It looks and behaves exactly like all other good Mac apps behave when customizing their toolbars. Firefox's is similar, yes, but obviously non-standard. It also doesn't behave in the usual manner - for instance, there is no "Drag the default" option, just a button. Now, again, I know this isn't exactly major, but as I said, it's just an example of that which is found all over Firefox. The customize toolbar pane in Firefox doesn't behave like a Mac app in other ways, too:



Dragging an icon - "Bookmarks," in this case - results in an empty square, of an odd size, rather than a representation of the icon. In addition, the other toolbar icons do not make way for the new one to show what position the new icon will take. OmniWeb's, for comparison, during a drag of "Mark page":



Removing a toolbar item does not work in the usual Mac way in Firefox, either. Here, the Bookmarks icon is being dragged away, resulting in a completely different empty box representation, while the actual icon remains. In addition, and a bit more seriously, the icon cannot be simply dragged off the toolbar to "poof" away. It must be returned to the customize pane, where it then takes up a position at the bottom of the list of icons, rather than returning to its original location:



OmniWeb:



Here, you can simply drag the icon off the toolbar to remove it, rather than having to return it to the customize pane.

Now, yes, I'll be the first to admit that this is not really a huge deal on its own. I know some are thinking "OMG I can't believe he cares about the CUSTOMIZE TOOLBAR pane LOL" but that is not my point. It's the other little examples of stuff like this that add up. There's no huge one or two things I can point to that are wrong with the Firefox interface on OS X, but it's a case of "death by 1,000 cuts" instead. All the little niggling weird inconsistencies add up to create the hard-to-pin-down "un-Mac feel" that Firefox has, that bothers a lot of people (myself included). It makes the app feel like a rickety Windows port, rather than a proper Mac app. Don't misunderstand me - I think Firefox is a fantastic browser, and on a Windows box it's an easy choice. On a Mac, though, I prefer a browser that fits in with the OS and the rest of the apps. You might not, and that's cool, but I do (and many others on this thread do), and this is what we're talking about.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with making Web page buttons and drop-downs Aquafied. While I don't mind that, I see where some prefer letting the web site style the buttons, so I don't really care either way. (I do think that letting the Web page dictate the color/appearance of the scroll bars on the app is a little dumb, though, as that's part of the app and not the Web site.)
Kevin Buchanan
Fort Worthology
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2006, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spirit_VW View Post
(Ridiculous nitpicking)
Please explain how any of that impacts usability, except for the most anal of users.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2006, 09:14 AM
 
If the way the Firefox evangelists here describe Firefox and what Mac users want out of their browsers was accurate, then Firefox would be much more commonly used. Wouldn't it?

It seems pretty well known that most Mac users appreciate a certain attention to detail that Firefox builds don't provide. It may render fast and alot, but then again, so do any other two Macintosh browsers that leverage OS X more and better.
i look in your general direction
     
Spirit_VW
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2006, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by wataru View Post
Please explain how any of that impacts usability, except for the most anal of users.
Err, that's completely not the point:

"Now, let me preface this by saying that obviously, this example is not exactly Earth-shattering. I know that. This was just a quick and easy example of the sort of thing that pervades the Firefox-for-Mac interface, the sort of thing people are talking about when they say Firefox doesn't "feel" like a Mac app should."

And:

"Now, yes, I'll be the first to admit that this is not really a huge deal on its own. I know some are thinking "OMG I can't believe he cares about the CUSTOMIZE TOOLBAR pane LOL" but that is not my point. It's the other little examples of stuff like this that add up."

And:

"There's no huge one or two things I can point to that are wrong with the Firefox interface on OS X, but it's a case of "death by 1,000 cuts" instead. All the little niggling weird inconsistencies add up to create the hard-to-pin-down "un-Mac feel" that Firefox has, that bothers a lot of people (myself included)."

So no, I'm not claiming that the "ridiculous nitpicking" of the Customize Toolbar pane completely ruins Firefox or by itself negatively affects users. I'm saying that all the various examples of things *like* that add up to create that "un-Mac" feeling that some don't like, since some folks don't quite seem to get what people say when they say "un-Mac feel."

Look, if you like Firefox, that's just grand. It's a great browser. It's a no-brainer for me on a Windows box. But to some people, having an app look, feel, and behave like a proper Mac app is just as important as having a browser be fast and render well. Firefox just doesn't feel and behave as well as your typical quality Mac app. If that doesn't bother you, then great. If it does, there are sixty zillion other Mac browsers to use. It's just a bit ridiculous to claim that Firefox is the only Mac browser worth using.
( Last edited by Spirit_VW; Nov 4, 2006 at 12:50 PM. )
Kevin Buchanan
Fort Worthology
     
Buck_W
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2006, 05:42 PM
 
Well... here's my two cents. I've been using Firefox for quite some time, but I've had problems with version 2.0 - About 20-30% of the time I've had to use the "Force Quit" command, and each time the message says "Firefox not responding." Sometimes the app simply will not open and other times it acts "sluggish" and I am unable to quit (hence the need to use "Force Quit.")

Again, Firefox has been my primary browswer of choice, but this has been very disappointing.
17" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo | 320G HD | 8 GB RAM | 10.10.3
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2006, 10:07 AM
 
One of the problems I had with 2.0 also (I enjoy trying out various browsers) is freezing and on many java sites, crashing. Camino doesn't have the problem and it is gecko; I can't speak to the differences they may have as far as the engine/how they are using different branches of the "trunk".
i look in your general direction
     
iomatic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2006, 04:45 PM
 
Does anyone know if Greasemonkey works with it yet?

If you're a flickr admin, it sure helps. Only b1 works.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,