If FFox is "Different by Design" why does it keep migrating to the look and feel of Chrome?
The reason I use fireFox is I (used to) like the look and feel. As it changes more to the look and feel of other browsers, why use FFox and not the alternative?
Every time I upgrade, I have to spend an hour or more trying to figure out how to make my chosen browser look the way I want it too, then find I have to install yet more add-ons to do the stuff the browser should do natively.
Please STOP changing the look/feel so drastically and take to heart your own motto "Different By Design" -- 'cuz it ain't different no more! You're a middle-aged man (you've been around a long time) trying to act like the teen-age upstart (the new browser on the block). Be your age, that's what we want!
Modified by WaltP
All Replies (7)
The awesome thing about Firefox is that you can customize the look and feel, which you can't in any other browser ;) How to make the new Firefox look like the old Firefox can help you restore the UI to look like it looked a few months ago. Or try something entirely new and create your own Firefox look! :)
Different by design means more than just the superficial UI design, but also the values that Mozilla holds, the openness we embrace, and the community we are.
Then let's reverse the situation. Why should I restore the look and feel? Why not have links to "make FFox look like Chrome/Opera/IE/whatever" rather than make us restore the look? It's a waste of our time. Let those that want a Chrome look do the work, not us that want the Fox look.
Modified by WaltP
Your question makes no sense. Make Firefox look how you want it to look, like firefox 1, 3, 28, 32, chrome, IE, opera, or anything you want it to. that's the power of Firefox
It doesn't?
Let me rephrase then:
When I upgrade FFox to the next version, I would like it to look extremely similar to the previous version without spending hours installing new addons to get the previous look back. Leave the initial look alone. If I then want to make it look like Chrome or IE, allow it using addons and stuff.
On other words, let people upgrade with MINIMAL work, leaving the look alone, and let users that want to change that look do the work.
Does that make more sense?
@Tyler Downer
I believe he wants to keep his current settings/UI after updates without the need to every time revert the new defaults to his personal preferences,habits,workflow and security requirements.
Something I do second.
I hear you @WaltP.
I don't understand why there even has to be this constant fight Users vs Developer (the new,cool,hip,modern look someone dreamt up this time)
Many times I actually do like changes that are introduced (even in Australis). ... but of course not all of them...
It could be so simple: 1) When updating, simply give the USER a choice between: - keep the current customized look,layout etc. OR - embrace the "all new and overhauled shiny, better design"
2) Allow the USER to customize all aspects of the UI. (something FF was all about until the recent few updates where customization was taken away bit by bit)
This way even if the UI had to change, you still can revert to your old habits and workflow out of the box and WITHOUT the need for add-ons
...now in cases of significant changes so that functionalities require a new UI I understand the need for it. Still, the USER should be asked if they even want those functionalities. (switch them to dormant/disabled and wake them up whenever the USER wants them and is willing to take the UI change necessary for it)
Sadly most software vendors strip in this current mobile craze UI features away.
To the disadvantage of FF developers the browser (unlike many others) had so many customization options that we notice them being taken away so much more and miss them deeply, as those were a reason for us to use FF in the first place.
Thank you, DigitalBlade. That is exactly what I'm concerned about.
Walt,
You're using WInXP when you post here recently. You gotta face the facts that you are using an operating system [as I am, too] which is no longer supported by Microsoft - (it lasted what? 13 years?). You should be saying "thank you" to Mozilla for continuing to support WinXP and not "kicking us XP users to the curb".
That said, the new Australis UI that came in Firefox 29 wasn't designed to look like and feel like other browsers so much as to work better with mobile devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and "touch" devices that have a smaller screen than desktop / laptop devices. The mobile device market is expanding rapidly, while the number of desktop / laptop devices being used is holding or declining depending upon the statistics you read. Mozilla wisely chose to put their efforts to where the market is heading, rather than clinging to the past and becoming a less relevant force in the global market as the years go by.
And another prime design criteria was for Firefox to have one UI to be use across all versions of Firefox. One rather than two different UI's is what? - roughly half the cost for maintenance when security fixes are needed, new features are added, or "stuff" needs to be fixed?
If you want to live in the past with a web browser, there are other choices for web browsers which are based upon Firefox [and Gecko]. SeaMonkey is one which is sponsored and hosted by Mozilla, and the project is run by "community members" who preferred the old Mozilla Suite which is what Firefox was based on when the Phoenix project was started back in 2002. The UI appearance is a lot older than the Firefox 4 - 28 versions were, more like Firefox 0.9 or 1.0 dating to late 2004.
Another choice is PaleMoon, which is very much like what Firefox was in the Firefox 4 - 28. PaleMoon adds a few different features and tweaks, while keeping the look and feel that was Firefox in the past. PaleMoon is not going the Australis UI route, form what I have read. Looks like it's going to have a Firefox 24 era UI into the future.