3 ms·
Australis wasn't necessary at all, though. It broke my ability to keep tabs on the bottom, it forced the refresh button into my URL bar (the opposite end of my
by byuu 11y ago
Australis wasn't necessary at all, though. It broke my ability to keep tabs on the bottom, it forced the refresh button into my URL bar (the opposite end of my other navigation buttons ... making it much more annoying to use), it killed my stop button, it took the bookmark icon out of my URL bar, and it broke my ability to see full page titles.
None of this enhanced anyone's productivity: it was change for the sake of change. That sort of thing is fine, but you should always offer a simulation of the behavior people are used to when you have millions of users. And if you don't have the manpower, then maybe reconsider making unnecessary changes in the first place ... nobody was abandoning Firefox because its UI stayed the same. Microsoft understood this at least until Windows 7, which you could easily make look and feel very much like Windows 95. But sadly the new trend in tech is to constantly force superfluous UI redesigns on users all the time with no opt-out. You see it with Google Mail, Skype, Windows, iOS, Android, Firefox, Gnome 3, on and on.
It's not just people hating change: there are people with disabilities that learn how to use this software, and changing things because some designer decided the UI "needed a refresh" can really destroy someone's entire workflow.
It would have even been okay if they had made it a bit more flexible in configuration, but they didn't. We lost a lot of control over how the UI operates. And so now I have to use yet another extension (Classic Theme Restorer), which is a bit buggy and might be discontinued at any point in the future.
And thanks for the correction on the DRM. But I wouldn't say they lost, I'd say they caved in. They weren't forced to support it, they chose to for the sake of their market share.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brighteyes 11y agoIt's really a matter of taste. I understand that you feel it wasn't necessary, and so the change was annoying. But other people felt the look was dated, and well over-due for a refresh. I guess the Firefox developers were in that group.
- keithpeter 11y ago"But other people felt the look was dated, and well over-due for a refresh. I guess the Firefox developers were in that group." Is the UI of a piece of software actually a fashion statement? Should these decisions not be evidence based in some way? (I use Firefox 39 on Linux and have no strong opinions either way - just interested in the process)
- cyphax 11y agoI don't know if you're willing to consider it evidence, but I think Apple's success is in large part due to their software and their UI's. iOs in particular. Also, user interfaces might be closer to fashion than you would think! If you consider Windows XP's look. Imagine Windows 10 looking like that. Or consider Windows 8's different looks compared to Windows 7's. Or Google "material design" on Android Lollipop. Dang, this is exactly like fashion! :D
- keithpeter 11y agoBy evidence I meant something more along these lines... http://design.canonical.com/2013/08/usability-testing-how-do-we-design-effective-tasks/ http://design.canonical.com/2013/08/usability-testing-how-do...
- hueving 11y agocargo culting. Apple's software takes usability into account though and then polishes the look. Mozilla skipped the usability step.