This never ceases to aggrivate me. They take a very poor understanding of a concept, somehow manage to completely prevent any thought about the subject (what the hell does he think the word EXTENSIBLE means, anyway!?), and then go off and yap and spread their misinformation to more uninformed masses, transforming then into more MISinformed morons...

And Maximum Linux almost did it with their new issue. They talked about the lack of browsers for Linux, trashed the Netscape browser, and made no mention of Mozilla until the third page, which is squeezed under another article, and easy to miss. I think Mozilla is really getting a raw deal. the big sites (like ZDNet and such) just gloss over thewhole project...

I do think that Suck.com is right in criticizing Netscape for their new browser's appearance and UI design shortcomings.

As developers, we all know the virtues of Seamonkey, so they don't need to be repeated here. However, I disagree with Chris on the notion that Open Source software like Mozilla is immune to end-user criticism just because anyone can enhance it if need be. Cars can be tweaked, too, but that doesn't change the evaluation criteria.

Netscape has just released the first preview release of their next generation browser. Netscape hopes Communicator 6 will replace earlier versions on millions and millions of desktops, soon, so this is the final hour to voice opinions about the direction they're taking.

I, for one, hope that Netscape will direct significant amount of resources into making Navigator 6 the easiest and most efficient to use browser out there. If that is to happen, then pr1 is farther from the final than a Netscape preview release has ever been

While criticism of Mozilla is certainly okay, and even useful, the impression I got from the article was that Chris had an axe to grind with Object-Oriented Programming, and wasn't inclined to give an objective evaluation of an OO project.

the techies always defend skins by saying "well you can change it to suit your desires" but this is inane. the problem with skins is that it has burned countless brain cells and is arguably, completely useless. it's ridiculous how a menaingless feature such as skins can dominate the discussion pushing things like getting something launched in a reasonable amount of time to the back burner.

again, the problem with the mozilla project is the horrendous scope. it should not take 3 years to build the thing that everyone wants which is a high performing, standards-compliant, lean, stable rendering engine/browser. lose the skins. lose the editor, mail and news as well. they have no business burning up the super-limited developer resources.

When I use Mozila to surf the web I really dont notice the chrome. I almost never notice the chrome on any app (unless if the app is 80% chrome). Thats not where the work gets done.

This just goes to show the power of the Internet: any idiot can write any crap he wants to and have it read.

...was pretty much on.

I feel that as a user, I should at least get the option of a UI which is consistant with the native GUI. I like things to be consistant. I really don't need whiz-bang themes/chromes/skins, I want to be able to sit down use the app without having to think, "Okay, now is this a button or a menu? What happens if I click here?" And, quite frankly, it's more work for me to make things all look the same. Will I have to get a GTK skin for mozilla, or a mozilla skin for GTK?

When you say, "Skins allow the user to pick their interface. Packages allow them to extend it," You're completely ignoring that the average user doesn't really care how nifty XUL is, nor are they going to roll up their sleeves and extend it themselves. They have better things to do and they trust that the people who write the program that they use (in this case Netscape/Mozilla) will look and feel like what they're used to in other applications on that particular platform.

"[...] Greg Knauss, seems to feel that choice is bad, because there is the possibility for poorly designed or useless skins. That comes close to saying, 'there could be ugly pages on the Web, so shut it down.'" No, to me he seems to be saying (rather long windedly) that "Sometimes more is just *more*"

You see I really like Mozilla, and I think that themese are great, but they should be left down at the level of the toolkit.

My half-drunk $0.02, David

As a regular reader of suck.com I came away with the impression that most of the mo'zine readers treat suck as a place for tech commentary. Really, they're only job is to make fun of everyone. Especially Canadians. So don't worry, Mozilla is in good company as far as suck is concerned. You should see the vanity of skinning (and I guess it is sort of vain) as a part of the larger vanity of boredom-from-surplus that suck satirize for a living.

the irony is that the outside chrome such as aphrodite and sullivan look 10 times better than Netscape 6's and also looks much better than 4.x to boot. I still hope Netscape will go back to their senses and adopt one of these UI designs instead of trying to convince millions of people that off-centered grey is beautiful

I think one of the problem with the misunderstanding of XUL is that it is thought of as chrome and skin. In truth it is more than that. Rather than calling it chrome and skin, I'd prefer to call it an application (or package) with customizable interface.

Okay, back to more practical stuff. I heard that there were efforts to get CSS2 system colours working on certain platforms. Haven't heard anything about that in a while, anyone know what is going on on that end?

What about the CSS3 draft stuff? Not standard I know but XUL really needs the "UI for CSS3" section 4.3 (fonts) and 5.2 (Key equivalents)

FONTS

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-css3-userint-20000216.html#font

KEY EQUIV.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-css3-userint-20000216.html#key-equivalent

So, what is this project that is embedding the Mozilla renderer into a native Linux (I presume GTK+) application? Will it be scrapping the Editor/Mail/News/Other shite I don't use?

I am inclined to agree with some of these people who have their heads on strait as far the browser development is concerned in that I don't care if the entire UI of Mozilla/Netscape is hot pink so long as it will work without crashing every five minutes and will speed my web browsing. Yes, at present the Mozilla/Netscape effort has a ways to go as for as bug fixes but what I have seen so far is exceptional. No, it still isn't quite as stable or bug-free as earlier versions of Netscape, or even IE for that matter, but it is on the right track. I am so looking forward to the day when I can run my Windows based system without IE embeded in the system to screw things up and seems that Mozilla/Netscape will do just that.

There is (and will continue to be, until we come up with a new term) confusion as to what is a user. In this thread, the term is used to mean two different things. First, the person doing the browsing. In this case, I am of the opinion that skins are utterly useless. The average person will not want to take the time and effort to change the skin. In addition, the average person would probably not be able to do it anyway. Second, the person designing a user interface (AlphaNumerica for example). In this instance, skins can be invaluable. The sullivan skin is by far the best looking browser I've yet to see. As a developer currently working on the architecture for a web based client for our application, I am paying very close attention to these skins. Even though the powers that be wouldn't even consider such a project, when I show them our web pages in a browser that makes the whole window look like our app, I think they'll jump at it. In other words, it won't look like you're just browsing. It will look like a real application that just happens to have some of the same behavior as a web page. Both of the groups are users. We just need to be aware that some users are more equal than others.

Have a nice day!

Mozilla doesn't have skins as an optional feature. Skins are not some side project that is stealing time from other areas of development. Skins are an end user bonus byproduct that result from Mozilla's basic design. The fact that Mozilla lays itself out rather than relying on the OS makes the widgets easilly styled with css and images. Every app under the sun has a skin, Mozilla just makes it easy to alter that skin in a simple and standards compliant way using css and images. There is no siphoning off of core development hours that yields this functionality. This is functionality that comes from a well thought out approach to building a cross platform application with a consistent look and feel. (and don't forget the i18n and localization benefits, the english speaking world is not the only world)

Asa

is it to add a feature to skin design to use a native widgets? If it is not difficult (i.e. takes less than a 2-3 man months), then by all means, it should be done. For the sake of speed at least. Even for the sake of not having to deal with the negativity of articles such as the one at suck.com

The suck.com article wasn't misguided. I like XUL, largely because all previous versions of Netscape appear to have had the UI done by a demented crack-monkey. Still, the default skin shipped with Mozilla looks like an afterthought and it's probably one of the better skinned-apps I've seen - most skinned apps ship with defaults which are bad enough to warrant a permanent uninstall just from an aesthetic standpoint, let alone their crimes against usability.

What bothers me is that Mozilla is such a nice piece of code packed in an interface which is most charitably described as uninspired. It's like producing a sports-car that does 0-60 in 2 seconds while getting 200mpg and then making it look like a Yugo!

Mozilla should use the native widgets by default for three reasons: - Consistency - users expect controls to look AND BEHAVE the same as they do elsewhere on the system. This includes consistency with a user-selected colorscheme and any system-configurable behaviours. - Compatibility - I *HATE* Mozilla's lack of decent keyboard navigation, at least with the default skin - that is the single biggest problem with it currently, IMHO. Now consider how a blind person using a screen reader or some handicapped individual using the OS accessibility features will feel about an application that not only does not let them use the application comfortably but does not let them use it at all, for what appears to be a completely useless feature from their standpoint ("We thought pretty pictures were more important than you being able to use the program."). - Performance - Mozilla's default skin is really slow; switching to the Sullivan skin literally made it go from slug-crawling-through-molasses to perceptually the same speed as native controls.

Now, I appreciate that some new technologies (e.g. CSS) pose difficulties towards working with the system controls. Many of these problems could be alleviated by shipping a standard skin with each platform that uses either the standard controls or a close approximation and has been tuned for performance. Users would still be able to install custom skins but there'd be a lot less confusion among people who don't know/care about skins.

The handicapped issue probably can't be worked around in the default skin, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to provide some alternate skin/extension option in the installer to use the standard controls.

Sheesh, there's a simple solution sitting under all our noses and we're missing it.

It seems that each OS would really like to have a skin that looks and feels like that OS. And this is actually really simple to do.

Write the skins for each OS to work as that OS's users would expect. So you'll have a skin for Windows, a different one for MacOS (maybe even one for MacOS X) one for Linux (I'm happy with the current skin, but the 'Sullivan' skin looks quite nice too.), and you get the idea.

When you download a specific version of Mozilla you get the skin that looks and feels like the OS. If you download the source you get the default skin. If you wan't to change your skin you can, BUT everyone gets what they expect when they first use Mozilla and that seems to be the reason behind all these remarks.

And as a bonus, what a sales point. A product that works just the way you expect, but with all power to work the way you want it too!

mintSlice

I thought I heard the GTK people were thinking about making it fully skinnable in the CSS sense, so native widgets would make sense.

Does anyone know how far along this is?

You know, I read the suck article and I thought it was rather funny. It was SATIRE people. Didn't you figure that out? I mean when he starts saying people shouldn't even be able to decorate their houses? Come on! As for this argument about Chrome. I personally think that XUL is 100% the way to go. I think that the Mozilla developers should make some standard looking "skins" that match the OS that they are running on for defaults. Simple looking skins. Those of us who like the freedom to customize will do so. I for one say the more free software is, the more we'll see software whose user interface is customizable. Go XUL, Go Mozilla, Go Linux, and Go Open Source! Have a great day!

You have knowladge that I can only dream of. And you can sit here and argue over reasources, and if it's needed? Back up alittle and ask yourselves if Skins are what We The Poeple Want? I know that I do. I use IE because I cannot find a way to put my family photos on my tool bar. Hotbar lets me do that. But at the cost of being spyed on. Any and all browesers should have a way built in to add a toolbar skins. Most all of you have the ability to make that happen. But as I saw your all argueing over something that is totally irrelivent to the issue. I'm not as smart as most of you. But I see that Netscape and Mozilla are open source. We all have the right to make it what ever is needed. I'd really like to see Netscape 8.0 having the ability to add the photo of my grand child as the skin on the tool bar. It is the only reason that I use IE. And really to tell the truth I us Windows only be cause it is the only OS that anyone writes progams for almost. I don't care where you go you'll see that 90% of everything is made to run on it. The best software runs on windows. Give me an open sorce OS that well run windows programs. And I well be there and using it. Until then anyone that wants to try Linex is stuck with windows till you that has the knowladge can change it. We The Poeple Need YOU! Stop your fighting amonst eachother and work together to create what everyone needs. An opensorce OS that well run windows programs and not be pleaged by viruses. The virus creaters are after all after MicroSoft. Trying to drive them away from it. And MS is creating it to be vonerable to it also. On Purpus! I agree that MS has done wrong to free interprise. But most of us has not got the knowladge to chage it so we settle for what everyone tell us to. And one other thing that is needed is the ability to assign the swap drive to another drive. The internet browser swap as well as the OS swap. They fragment the OS drive more then anything else does. I have my win swap seperated now. But have not decovered the way to put IE's swap, ie temp on a seperate drive from windows. So this needs to be added into the OS as well as the browser. And any programs should be put on seprate drives or portitions also. I'm running win98. I have the swap on another drive. And it takes me about a half hour to defrag a 8 gig drive once every 2 weeks. And I never crash anymore unless someone gets through my firewall. But I also have everthing cloned on a seperate drive. So then I can just recopy it all to my C drive. Never do I have to warry about reloading drivers or nothing like setting up. Drivers are after all all thats loaded onto my OS's drive. Unless I change my drive configuration. Shortcuts you know. But I never have to argue with hardware, and software to get myself going now. What I'm saying is that all of this should be built into it all. And easy to set up for dummies like me. Screw the resources. Most everone that is buying new rigs are gitting more then a gig of memory. Well atleast for those of them that are buying 64 bit rigs.And I see no reason for even anyone to buy a 32 bit one with under 1gig of RAM. So the issue is not resorces. The issue is if your wanting to contribute to this cause. It's all up to you that have the knowage to help. For those of you that do want to help. Work together and make this happen. And above all stop your winning about it! Do something helpful for the world. Destroy companies like MS and get it done on thier turf. Thats whats gonna take them down. Not viruses. Just pure imagination. YOURS! Get about it we are all waiting and hoping for you all. Where is the new opensorce OS that well run anything thrown into it? Where's the Broweser that well let me dress it up as I want to? That well protect me while I'm on line? that well stop the spyware that is thrown at it, and viruses? You are the true defence that any of us has. Think about it.