4 ms·

You mean like most major platforms do from time to time, even FOSS ones like Gnome? With most things, if you want to completely avoid eventual, inevitable UI c

You mean like most major platforms do from time to time, even FOSS ones like Gnome? With most things, if you want to completely avoid eventual, inevitable UI changes, you need to just never upgrade.

FiveOhThree 5y ago
The new "chunky" layout and UI elements are not really an improvement, and a lot of users have been unhappy with this. Despite plentiful feedback about this during beta testing Mozilla have basically opted to force it through anyway. UI changes in general are something to expect, but if you're just going to disregard user feedback then you can't claim to respect users.
- jamienicol 5y ago
  Equally a lot of users are happy with it. Should those users have been disregarded instead?
  - dandellion 5y ago
    If that many users are happy why does it keep losing market share? Personally every other release they remove features I like and make arbitrary UI changes. The only reason I'm still complaining and not using something else is because I don't like the alternatives either.
    - jamienicol 5y ago
      Its losing market share long predates recent UI changes. UI changes are completely and utterly irrelevant to that. I was just pointing out that the grandparent was conflating their opinion being ignored with all users' opinions being ignored
  - FiveOhThree 5y ago
    It's a good way to further push away a chunk of your userbase. They're moving towards a touch-friendly UI, but a lot of us just want a compact desktop app that doesn't waste screen space with excessive padding. The proper solution to this would be to have different modes if this is so critical. To their credit they did put in a "compact" mode after beta, but this is explicitly "unsupported" and even then still has more padding than "large" mode in the old UI.
    - jamienicol 5y ago
      So they did exactly what you describe as the "proper solution". > and even then still has more padding than "large" mode in the old UI. This is objectively false. Your hyperbole undermines your argument.
      - FiveOhThree 5y ago
        My mistake, there may have been more than two modes in the older builds. Perhaps it was called "Regular" or something, whatever the default was.
    - doubled112 5y ago
      Know what I can do in ESR that I can't in 89+? See my whole bookmarks menu without scrolling. Know what I can't do on any of my machines? Touch the screen.
      - jamienicol 5y ago
        Have you tried compact mode? Decreased UI density doesn't just help touchscreens.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
      Push where? At least you still can configure chrome padding and element sizes with CSS tweaks, unlike the main competitor and its wooden interface with absolutely zero customization possibilities. There's Vivaldi, and it too uses HTML for its interface, but the team doesn't seem to care about UI performance at all.
forgotpwd16 5y ago
>even FOSS ones like Gnome Not sure what your argument is supposed to be but not everyone liked GNOME's new UI. That's why you've gotten forks such as MATE.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> even FOSS ones like Gnome? This sounds like a counter-argument. What the Gnome team did (during the 2->3 transition) was a huge overhaul while completely ignoring the habits and wishes of their users. I understand they had to rewrite the old code, that's perfect. I also understand they wanted to "refresh the UI" at the same time. But you can't just change everything and think your users will be happy. If you act against the wishes of your users, who do you write your software for? It simply made no sense and that's why people turned to MATE.

You mean like most major platforms do from time to time, even FOSS ones like Gnome? With most things, if you want to completely avoid eventual, inevitable UI changes, you need to just never upgrade.

FiveOhThree 5y ago

The new "chunky" layout and UI elements are not really an improvement, and a lot of users have been unhappy with this. Despite plentiful feedback about this during beta testing Mozilla have basically opted to force it through anyway. UI changes in general are something to expect, but if you're just going to disregard user feedback then you can't claim to respect users.

jamienicol 5y ago
Equally a lot of users are happy with it. Should those users have been disregarded instead?
- dandellion 5y ago
  If that many users are happy why does it keep losing market share? Personally every other release they remove features I like and make arbitrary UI changes. The only reason I'm still complaining and not using something else is because I don't like the alternatives either.
  - jamienicol 5y ago
    Its losing market share long predates recent UI changes. UI changes are completely and utterly irrelevant to that. I was just pointing out that the grandparent was conflating their opinion being ignored with all users' opinions being ignored
- FiveOhThree 5y ago
  It's a good way to further push away a chunk of your userbase. They're moving towards a touch-friendly UI, but a lot of us just want a compact desktop app that doesn't waste screen space with excessive padding. The proper solution to this would be to have different modes if this is so critical. To their credit they did put in a "compact" mode after beta, but this is explicitly "unsupported" and even then still has more padding than "large" mode in the old UI.
  - jamienicol 5y ago
    So they did exactly what you describe as the "proper solution". > and even then still has more padding than "large" mode in the old UI. This is objectively false. Your hyperbole undermines your argument.
    - FiveOhThree 5y ago
      My mistake, there may have been more than two modes in the older builds. Perhaps it was called "Regular" or something, whatever the default was.
  - doubled112 5y ago
    Know what I can do in ESR that I can't in 89+? See my whole bookmarks menu without scrolling. Know what I can't do on any of my machines? Touch the screen.
    - jamienicol 5y ago
      Have you tried compact mode? Decreased UI density doesn't just help touchscreens.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Push where? At least you still can configure chrome padding and element sizes with CSS tweaks, unlike the main competitor and its wooden interface with absolutely zero customization possibilities. There's Vivaldi, and it too uses HTML for its interface, but the team doesn't seem to care about UI performance at all.

forgotpwd16 5y ago

>even FOSS ones like Gnome Not sure what your argument is supposed to be but not everyone liked GNOME's new UI. That's why you've gotten forks such as MATE.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

> even FOSS ones like Gnome? This sounds like a counter-argument. What the Gnome team did (during the 2->3 transition) was a huge overhaul while completely ignoring the habits and wishes of their users. I understand they had to rewrite the old code, that's perfect. I also understand they wanted to "refresh the UI" at the same time. But you can't just change everything and think your users will be happy. If you act against the wishes of your users, who do you write your software for? It simply made no sense and that's why people turned to MATE.