• 0 Posts
  • 372 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 26th, 2024

help-circle
  • Look, it’s not that I bash Mozilla because they did “something”. It’s because of what that something is. If it were a useful change, I’d welcome it.

    For example, I used to use chrome some 5+ years ago. Before that, I was on Firefox. What exactly made me switch back and forth exactly I don’t remember, but I know that now I plan on continuing to use Firefox, because it is the sensible choice as far as user rights go. Before, I wasn’t concerned with that as much, but I should’ve been.

    In any case, I don’t like the way Firefox does History. I’d be happy to see them copy Chrome in that regard. An entire webpage and not a sidebar, with groups, nicely laid out, etc.

    Bookmarks could also be way better. Bookmarks are even jankier. If they were to copy any sensible file manager (including but not limited to Windows Explorer pre-Windows 11), I’d be happy.

    Both of these would be big projects for designers and developers alike. Both of these would make a meaningful positive impact on Firefox. Making another redesign like Mozilla does - changing the exact same things every few years - lost its meaning after the 3rd time.

    I love the new on-device translation option. Sure, I’ve had a lot of laughs when it failed (and it did so spectacularily). Yet by now, it’s a polished feature, and I don’t rememberthem getting too bashed for the little hiccups they did have while it was still being polished.

    I support (the idea of) Mozilla. I just don’t the leadership, and the decisions. I feel both are terribly misguided.

    The way Mozilla does stuff, I feel it’s more of a “wrong clock twice right” type of situation with them than them striking off every once in a while. For every good and meaningful change, I can bet there were at least 5 bad (if not terrible) ones. But I didn’t do a quantitative analysis so I guess that takes away my right to complain.

    That being said, I feel this is something people often forget:

    When you complain, it’s an act of love. Okay, not always, but bear with me for a bit. If you support a cause (say, a free, open and independent browser), you’re gonna be sad to see it fail. And when you do, you’re gonna wanr to do something about it. Unfortunately for some, that something is only to complain. They know no true way of making meaningful change, so they shout the issues hoping someone takes care of them in their stead: not because you want it to fail, but because you don’t. You’ll shout from the top of your lungs why what you feel is wrong is wrong, and suggest what you thing should be done to make it right.

    And that’s what I am. Someone who doesn’t know what else to do.

    Now, as I don’t know anyone at Mozilla and as my few feature requests and bug reports seemingly went unnoticed (emphasis on “seemingly”), I’ve come to the conclusion that my time is better spent in discussions with fellow users.

    These discussions just might be read by someone who could trigger a change. But that’s only part of the equation.

    Speaking up myself, I also hope to push others into taking similar action themselves. If enough people parrot it, someone important enough is bound to hear it.

    It’s about building not community per se, but expectations. If we don’t have high expectations, stagnation soon follows. And from stagnation, rolling downhill. It’s a reality of human society itself.

    If you don’t have a clear vision, your company will fail. That’s what’s taught at an MBA. But turn your viewpoint just a bit - if we, users, set expectation, we can guide the decisionmakers. And they should also be aware of us (what with a bunch of them having done an MBA) and proactively do surveys, UI experiments, etc. but that takes money and time.

    Mozilla clearly has the resources, what with wasting resources on yet another (by now traditional) redesign. I just feel that these resources can (and threfore, should) be used (admittedly, a lot) more effectively than they currently are.

    And this makes me genuinely sad. And I genuinely want Mozilla to stop making (what I, and a bunch of their other users feel are) bad decisions. Because I (or we) like Firefox.

    I want Manifest v2 to stay. I like uBlock Origin. I support open-source. And I’d be extremely sad to see Firefox leave that equation (among other things). As do many others, for many other things. And the pessimist in me can clearly see a future where Firefox stopes being one of the grat stars of the Open source constellation. And I’d be very happy if such a future doesn’t ever come to fruition. Yet as things stand now, it could happen in a very imaginable single and swift U-turn.

    And I feel this is what Mozilla should strive to do. Not just “yet another (bad) redesign.”

    And after a while, you fall into the trap of cynicism (like me). It becomes personal, and you take harder and harder bashes at the percieved “evildoers”. Because, people can and do do evil with good intentions. And it’s sad to see it happen.

    There’s also the dimension of strawmanning people in hopes of making them see the strawman and avoid it - so, the point isn’t to make them look bad to others, but to themselves. Paint them as the big bad villain, so they loudly exclaim they’re nothing like the villain.


  • I know it’s not the designers’ fault (at least not completely).

    They’re part of the problem - mostly a symptom. The only real sin they’ve done is tried to keep their job - which I can’t really blame them for. But it is a shame it harms users as a consequence.

    But I see no problem in bashing bad design, because if no one does, Corporate is gonna continue doing what they do. People need to speak about their wishes. Sure, most won’t be heeded, but what other way do you suggest for me (and most others in the thread) to do? Like this we at least have our little echo chamber to shit in.

    It’s not about the sidebar, but what it represents. It’s a symptom of a larger problem - one you’ve correctly identified, yet do nothing about. I’m at least being a brat about it. Maybe if enough people complain, someone “in power” might get an idea as well.


  • Yeah, because for Windows, when you accidentally hover over the weather widget for 0.5 ms longer than some programmer decided will force you to connect to MSN.

    Mozilla is clearly immune to analytics and took a hard stance that didn’t and will never change, so pardon me for entertaining your thought.

    And there’s just no way the Sync icon becomes an auto-opening popup (possibly in the Sidebar), because the designers won’t come up with the brilliant idea.

    • Hey, how can we make the numbers seem like more people are using MSN (or Sync)?
    • Just open it whenever an unlucky soul hovers over it accidentally. They have 50ms to run across it if they really don’t want to use it!
    • Wow, what a great idea!

    This talk at M$ can never happen at Mozilla, from what we’ve seen in the past 5+ years.

    Given with Mozilla’s recent track record, it just might.


  • I wish we (therapists) at least had the option to order an MRI or recommend a doctor orders one in difficult cases (I can do the latter but they will just laugh at me).

    God, that’s awful. The most common sense thing to do there is is to use what’s availiable (fMRI) when it is, and if availability is the problem, fill the gaps with questionnaires - those who you’re sure about might not need an fMRI, but others might. Which you, as a person who’s supposed to sign off on the diagnosis, should be able to order.


  • Guarantee you can turn off the sidebar.

    You can. For now.

    They already have this and it can be disabled. Why not use it for three seconds?

    Because every now and again, it’s a new three seconds. First it was the password manager. Then Sync. Then Monitor. Then AI chatbot.Before all of that it was a bunch of other things. Then it was the side tabs. _You gotta check them out!* Now it’s this.

    For me as well, I need to use the firefox profile creator website to get rid of all these things. It takes a good few minutes to configure. But for someone who may not know about the website? At least half an hour to thoroughly go through Preferences, and most things aren’t even there!

    Dynamic colors are cute and fun.

    Sure!

    Until you try putting them on an old laptop. Because why would anyone be using an old laptop in 2025 2026? And then, how dare they expect to be able to browse the web? (Because static sites to download useful stuff apparently don’t exist, nor do people who’d like to do that which don’t know about curl).

    This isn’t just a Firefox problem, it’s a global one. Instead of functionality, what’s preferred is aesthetics. Instead of accessiblity, how accessible able people feel it is. Instead of performance, bloat.

    Most of these things could be optional, Firefox Approved First-party add-ons or integrations, but this isn’t the route this timeline has taken.





  • But the space isn’t wasted. Its used for greater legibility and generally improved accessibility and UX.

    Just looking at the photo you provided, OC’s words fall flat.

    I know people are expected to understand the one and only design language currently in use (with its bajillion little dialects).

    Even this is the same inherent lanuguage. “Home”, “Back”, “Forward”, “Address bar”, etc.

    It’s the same exact stuff, just displayed differently.

    But the space isn’t wasted. Its used for greater legibility and generally improved accessibility and UX.

    But whatexactly makes the Netscape UI “inaccessible”?

    The fact that it has large buttons? The fact that the buttons are realistic drawings, and not abstract lines? The fact that the buttons are labeled?

    If anything, the older UI is more accessible.

    Someone who doesn’t know how to use either UI is bound to prefer the second one. Because it is more accessible.

    There are two types of accessibility I can think of when dealing with UI: accessibility to stuff like screen readers, and accesibility to new (as in never used a computer before) users.

    The Netscape UI is better in both regards: it doesn’t have dropdowns (which are quite comolex to model for screen readers, and are usually full of jank). The old UI also has helpful captions for the actions. You know, the things the screen reader reads to the user. In the new Firefox, they may become “Left Arrow” if accessibility is an afterthought and generic alt text is used. Modern UI designers heading the project surely won’t bother with screen readers too much anyway.

    So let me ask again: Which of these is more accessible, and to whom?



  • My recommendations are Firefox, Okular, Inkscape and Draw, depending on usecase.

    Firefox is perfect for text-based markup (so higlighting, defacing with text, etc.)

    Okular is a bit worse on the text front (doesn’t support editing the markup - for most stuff your only option is to undo so you have to be strategic abput catching mistakes early), but it does more stuff (boxes, arrows, lines, transparency, custom colors).

    Draw is better if you actually want to make changes to many pages at once and don’t care if it messes up formatting a bit.

    Inkscape is ideal if you want to rearrange stuff on a few pages and change things like colors or stamp on some text. It doesn’t have a nice way for highlighting text, but highlighting stuff like drawings, etc. is easier (just draw a recrangle with 30% opacity). Unlike Okular, changes aren’t baked in and unlike Draw, it’s easier to play around with colors and opacity.


  • 2nd this. It is by no means a “PDF Editor”, but it works surprisingly better than most.

    Inkscape also could be a good option in OP’s case because it gives options about janking up text. It can either try to find the fonts from those on your system, or it can change every glyph into a path.

    That being said, I’ve treid both Inkscape and LO Draw, and I’ve had more luck with Inkscape in regards to keeping fonts similar. In 90% of cases (and I do have to fix up PDFs every now and then) the “Keep text” option doesn’t jank up text.