Say, how about a mozilla.themes.org?? Anyone??

WOW. COOL. LIKE the mozilla them with nightly build from 5/24. LIKE. Mozillazine m6 theme, very cool.

WHAT THE #@!% IS GOING ON????????

Please don't tell me that all this 'skin' nonsense is going to be the epicenter of the Mozilla UI.

hurry someone make an iMac skin

While Mozilla wastes time with stupid pluggable buttons, IE5 added real utility to its chrome-UI which focuses on adding functionality to the shell, not the look-and-feel.

I can just imagine all the kiddies at Mozilla giggling with glee... "isn't this so cool. Imagine how the Slashdot/Quake/Winamp crowd is going to love this."

Meanwhile, the other 30 million browser users could care less.

I wonder how much time was spent working on the XUL/Chrome stuff that could have been put into fixing bugs in CSS or some other useful activity?

Fine, XUL allows changing the UI quicker during development. However, it also makes Mozilla alot slower starting up.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

It's not "skins", it's a cross-platform application "chrome" creation mechanism that utilizes the nglayout rendering engine for its work. It's expandable in such a way that not only is the look definable, but the actions of buttons, as well. For example, we at MozillaZine are planning on redoing the "toolbar" aspect of out article administration in XUL (the XML-based chrome definition language). That way, we download the navigation once, and it's installed on our system - we don't have to bother with HTML navigation, and our article admin becomes more like an actual application.

It is, in fact, the entire backbone of the new user interface, and if you don't like it, you're pretty much out of luck, and you'll have to grab NeoPlanet (which, coincidentally, also has a customizable UI) or some other Gecko offshoot.

The simple fact is that creating a UI for 10 different Operating Systems is a waste of effort when you can code up one UI and have it work immediately on those 10 different platforms. That fact becomes even more important when you realize that the application you're creating generates zero revenue.

WasteOfTime,

Read my response above.

I wonder how much time could be wasted coding the UI for 10 different operating systems, instead of working up a solution where the UI only needs to be coded once?

The functionality of the Mozilla UI can *easily* be extended, modified, etc., much more so than in IE. And on top of that, Adam Lock has written an ActiveX control wrapper for Mozilla's rendering engine, so it will be usable in every situation where IE's rendering engine is usable (see apps like NeoPlanet and TopStyle).

mozineAdmin,

I strongly disagree about the 'waste of time' that your are referring to as far as platform specific UI's are concerned.

The Win32 Operating Systems account for 90%+ of the client side OS market. What *is* illogical is to sacrifice performance and native features to reach an additional *less than* 10%. The rendering engine code isn't cross platform (THANK GOD), why should the UI code be???

I want Mozilla to be an ass kicking success, not some thing for linux die hards to toy with. You *must* appeal to the Windows user regardless of any ill-sentiment towards Microsoft.

The end-user will determine the fate of Mozilla, not the Mozilla developer.

If Mozilla has already set their minds on following through with this XUL implemented UI, then today is a very disappointing day for me because my employees (who are mostly non-technical) will *never* be able to swallow it, and neither will I.

that person must be pretty big if they can talk for 30 million users!

the whole point of xul was to save money. Instead of xfe,winfe and macfe we have xul. Instead of UI designers waiting for the c++ guys, why...anyone with a little knowledge of web standards can change the UI. And this is good not just for multi-platforms but also localizations. It should be easier for the UI to be in Esperanto or Thai or swap between the two. You can have a beginner's UI or an advanced UI. You can have a UI that best matches your favorite website. This is pretty big stuff. But I still believe looks are also important...

I share the same feeling as WastOfTime, except I believe 30 million is an understatment.

This cross-platform skin crap has got to go.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

You wrote:

This cross-platform skin crap has got to go.

Well, you're about 7 months too late. The decision was made a long time ago. And it certainly isn't going to be trashed now.

And arielb is right, it was necessary for localization reasons, as well. I think the millions of browser users in other countries will appreciate it.

arielb,

I'm already aware of the advantages of XUL and agree with you entirely on such. What I am getting at here are the *disadvantages*, which I believe strongly outweigh the advantages.

Java has *lots* of advantages, however, for client-side applications these advantages are more than offset by the disadvantages.

The same rule applies here, in fact, it applies to just about anything in life: The easiest thing to do in the short-run is typically the worst thing in the long-run: It's easy right now to go the cross-platform UI route, in the long run it will be sheer suicide.

For Mozilla to be successful it needs to be 'better than' IE in the mind of the end user. Not 'just as good', but better. If this is not accomplished it will make absolutely no difference whether Mozilla is 100% standards compliant or not.

If, however, there is a 70%+ market share of Mozilla users, this will almost force MS to be in compliance, otherwise they can continue just doing whatever the hell they want..... leaving the '100% standards compliant' advantage practically worthless in the eyes of web developers, and even better, consumers.

the whole web is cross platform. I guess we should just throw it all out (html,xml,etc) and have a special web page format just for win32

arielb,

Cross-platform data is one thing, Cross-platform code is a horse of another color.

the whole web is cross platform. I guess we should just throw it all out (html,xml,etc) and have a special web page format just for win32

arielb, Cross-platform data is one thing, Cross-platform code is a horse of another color.

(whoops) xul is cross platform data. nglayout is doing all the work. And if it's slow right now, it's because of some very well-known bugs

(whoops) xul is cross platform data. nglayout is doing all the work. And if it's slow right now, it's because of some very well-known bugs

To wasteoftime and the other one,

You two have no concept what open source means. It allows power to those 'minorities' you say we should ignore, the power to create something that nobody has created yet. Since people like that are the ones building this program, I think they can make whatever they want.

We should be thankful they are not as closeminded as you and that they DO offer solutions for the other 90% of people as well.

This is not a capitalist group like Microsoft, Mozilla can not be squashed. As long as it is successful in the eyes of those working hard at it, and progress is made, then it will continue forward --- and there is a LOT of progress. Linux is a good example of what CAN happen.

Mozilla, being open source, means WHO cares if it is not as SUPER as IE for the first year or TWO even ... as long as the programmers keep plugging away, we WILL catch up, and with a more modular and open interface at that, allowing for quicker additions of entire proposals, (MathML, XML, CSS 1/2, etc... COMPLETE additions)

IE will not shrink in size any time soon, so as long as those Mozilla crack coders keep making it, with their eye on performance and size, soon there will be more than enough features to swamp IE.

Plus, you never know what will happen to Microsoft after it passes these court situations it keeps running up against.

I must state, i know that not all the programmers are on linux, hell, i'm not on linux ... but I do watch the development and LOVE the idea of a customizable modular browser.

And if you two do not appreciate what this will enable for the whole industry by the end of the year when there is some quality product released, then you can just go to Microsoft or maybe start your own browser with one interface that works on windows NT which crashes all the time and will not work for anyone, as people begin to switch to linux:)

XUL is an incredibly powerful and incredibly brilliant idea. Congrats Mozilla team on all your hard work!!

(sorry it's so long..)

To wasteoftime and the other one,

You two have no concept what open source means. It allows power to those 'minorities' you say we should ignore, the power to create something that nobody has created yet. Since people like that are the ones building this program, I think they can make whatever they want.

We should be thankful they are not as closeminded as you and that they DO offer solutions for the other 90% of people as well.

This is not a capitalist group like Microsoft, Mozilla can not be squashed. As long as it is successful in the eyes of those working hard at it, and progress is made, then it will continue forward --- and there is a LOT of progress. Linux is a good example of what CAN happen.

Mozilla, being open source, means WHO cares if it is not as SUPER as IE for the first year or TWO even ... as long as the programmers keep plugging away, we WILL catch up, and with a more modular and open interface at that, allowing for quicker additions of entire proposals, (MathML, XML, CSS 1/2, etc... COMPLETE additions)

IE will not shrink in size any time soon, so as long as those Mozilla crack coders keep making it, with their eye on performance and size, soon there will be more than enough features to swamp IE.

Plus, you never know what will happen to Microsoft after it passes these court situations it keeps running up against.

I must state, i know that not all the programmers are on linux, hell, i'm not on linux ... but I do watch the development and LOVE the idea of a customizable modular browser.

And if you two do not appreciate what this will enable for the whole industry by the end of the year when there is some quality product released, then you can just go to Microsoft or maybe start your own browser with one interface that works on windows NT which crashes all the time and will not work for anyone, as people begin to switch to linux:)

XUL is an incredibly powerful and incredibly brilliant idea. Congrats Mozilla team on all your hard work!!

(sorry it's so long..)

arielb,

You are correct: XUL is cross-platform data, and using cross-platform data as a means for rendering the UI is suicide.

Waste of Time - come back when you've got some experience in the computer industry. Nobody who competes with Microsoft on Windows survives. All a Win32-specific UI does is support Mozilla's biggest competitor.

Besides, it's stupid to say that the majority of the users on the web are Windows users as if it will always stay that way. Microsoft's got more than a fair bit of competition, particularly for the more technically aware markets. A fair percentage of windows users either aren't aware of or allowed to use other operating systems. Most the people who can't or won't upgrade their browsers also fit into this category. More literate groups tend to have a higher percentage of people using alternate platforms. There's also this fruit company that's been selling a couple computers a month that don't run Windows. Is your laziness worth ignoring the growing Mac market too?

On a different topic here: Why is everyone posting twice in a row???

Chris Adams,

I suggest you step outside of your home a moment, head to your city, enter all of the offices and make a count of what you see being used.

When you're finished, head over to as many computer/retail stores you can find and make a count of each type of computer sold.

When you're done with all that (BTW, you can stop off at McDonalds for a quick break and have a milkshake) proceed to as many homes as you can and make a count of the computer makes and models you encounter there as well.

When you're finally finished you will become shocked to realize that even if Mozilla obtained a 100% market share in the less than 10% client-side OS market.... it won't even make a dent in making M$ get off their asses and feel the heat of some competition.

Mozilla MUST penetrate the Windows market to make an impact.

Kidzi,

I'm not suggesting at all that other OS platforms suffer at the hands of utilizing a Win32 UI.

On the contrary, create a Mac UI that exposes the Mac for all it's worth, create a BeOS UI that exposes BeOS for all it's worth, etc.., etc..

Don't dish out to end users the common denominator of all OS's for the sake of simplicity. UI's are not difficult to create, in fact, they're quite easy given the development tools on the market today.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I see what you are saying, but there are two short term probs which XUL addresses, for one, it is something that non-coders can do and feel good about. That may sound kinda cheesy, but it allows those who can program to work their butts off on the core program and focus on making gecko feature complete by the time it is ready. I'm sure if XUL, as you say, turns out to suck, then when we have a version one out, we can begin to work on something else. But by then the core functionality for the program will be more/less ironed out and we will have a bunch of developers who can create something.

Plus, the benefits of that is that at the end, if, for shits and giggles, they decide to dump xul and make it all proprietory for the platform, they will HAVE the mockups, the exact layouts most popular with the users to work with. They will KNOW what they need, and they will also already have the hooks to implement this in no time. Whereas otherwise you go back and forth with the code to add a button here or there. The XUL allows them to 'prototype' the environment, or i should say, allows the USERS to prototype THEIR environment.

Now of course Mozilla probably won't dump XUL, but i hope you can see the benefits for it at this stage especially. If it does come down to a major performance degredation, then I hope they can make a compiled form of XUL perhaps, a way to natively read it in instead of parsing it, maybe in some sort of bytecode of .class type of format, as well as .xul to help the speed. Or they could have the program come compiled with an XUL builtin, and allow the user to easily override the default, at their own performance expense.

Kevin

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I don't think you understand the nature of XUL and the definable chrome. The mozilla group is enabling a cross-platform web application platform. The idea is this: Web-based applications are, by their nature, cross platform. They utilize HTML for their display and interaction with the user. However, the applications are always restricted by the notion that their user interface and content all must share the same content space. The major benefit of the new UI model is that web application developers can alter the interface of the browser itself.

Why is this useful? First, the web applications that run in the browser can actually perform behaviour modifications to their UI (instead of downloading the altered navbar every time, you only send the change down). For example, in the example of our article administration application, let's say we're displaying an article in our browser window. Instead of downloading the navbar with the addition of a "delete this article" button, we download an XUL fragment for the "delete" button, which pulls the images from the chrome cache and displays the button in our "chrome" toolbar. A few lines of text and no images to download (after their initial download), instead of an entire navbar specification and images (because, remember, images in the browser window may have expired from cache).

Second, through Mozilla's source, XUL makes it easier to develop whole new Internet-based, cross-platform and *localizable* applications. By providing the structure for localization and the cross-platform compatibility of a common UI interface, markets for applications open up considerably. Someone who would develop strictly for Windows now finds that it's just as easy to develop for multiple platforms at once.

MSNAK I'm currently posting this on M5 and see no reason why you are complaining. Although I would like to thanks you MSNAK for giving us something to think about and I nice argument.

I see where you are coming from.. but don't agree. Sure we need to get to the windows users (I am one). But does that mean a direct copy if E4 with standards? In that case we should drop Gecko and let MS have all the fun.

I really believe the XUL is creative and will be a blessing more that a curse.

It looks different, sure, and it should, this is a new generation browser. Also you state that each UI should be made for it's specific OS? What specific things can you think of that could be intergrated into the UI for Win, BEOS, Linux, etc.?

I'd like too see what you mean.

Anyhow, I'm here enjoying the awesome UI we have now and messing around over at ChromeZone.

Cheers

MSNAK I'm currently posting this on M5 and see no reason why you are complaining. Although I would like to thanks you MSNAK for giving us something to think about and I nice argument.

I see where you are coming from.. but don't agree. Sure we need to get to the windows users (I am one). But does that mean a direct copy if E4 with standards? In that case we should drop Gecko and let MS have all the fun.

I really believe the XUL is creative and will be a blessing more that a curse.

It looks different, sure, and it should, this is a new generation browser. Also you state that each UI should be made for it's specific OS? What specific things can you think of that could be intergrated into the UI for Win, BEOS, Linux, etc.?

I'd like too see what you mean.

Anyhow, I'm here enjoying the awesome UI we have now and messing around over at ChromeZone.

Cheers

To MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser, You say that we have the development tools to create proprietary UIs. Even if UIs were not that complicated to make (meaning a non-programmer could create one), does this individualized coding task for so-called aesthetic purposes only (as you stated) not take away valuable coders for debugging? Your logic continues to contradict itself.

Support for IE5 is mainly buttressed by the fact that AOL memebers use IE as a default browsing engine, and they constitute a great majority of web browser users. My guess would be that AOL will eventually replace the browsing engine or at least give their customers a choice. And the last time I checked, corporate support for Mozilla has been on the rise.

1. Personally, I'm not interested in customizing my browser by giving it different 'skins'. I'm not interested in customizing the 'look and feel' of my browser. BUT there are lots of real users who would. And we're not talking about individual people, but, for example, Yahoo, Excite, who would want to customize the browser UI for their markets. There are already skins for kids, for example. Mostly, these are just examples of what could happen, but the ideas are there.

2. The big idea behind XUL allows people to build an XP application to do whatever they want, with all the UI being handle with CSS and HTML instead of proprietry stuff. Most applications could be ported easily among ANY platform if it wasn't for UI. By allowing the UI problem to be solved simply, you achieve much better XP parity.

Take, for example, Mathematica (http://www.wolfram.com/). I used it at college a few years ago. The Windows front end had some customized UI which displayed equations, graphs, tables, etc.

Imagine what Mathematica 5 could be like with their toolbars written in XUL. The main app being just a gecko window. They could do everything they can today without writing ANY UI. And it would work XP.

Regarding the comment: The easiest thing to do in the short-run is typically the worst thing in the long-run: It's easy right now to go the cross-platform UI route, in the long run it will be sheer suicide.

-- This is bull. You have to remember that Netscape has 'been-there-done-that' and the FE code did not look pretty. The XUL implementation is not the easiest way to go, but the benfits in terms of maintainability and expandablity will be huge.

why is cross platform data suicide? I can write one chrome to many platforms and if you don't think it fits your platform you can take the XUL that someone else wrote.

Oh boy, give me a chance to catch up folks!

To Kidzi/Kevin: Well said, and yes, I do see the benefits of XUL. I just don't believe that such a UI implementation will fare well in the long run compared to a native UI.

To mozineAdmin: I do see the benefits of XUL and thank you for pointing them out. How practical is it to have a 'dynamic' UI? It will of course only work in Mozilla? Above all, is it worth giving up a solid, smooth, fast, and consistent UI? NeoPlane and Opera are two browsers that have both received a lot of hype yet who's total use is relatively small, and I don't beleive it's because of the way they render web documents but rather their ill-fated user interfaces.

To Jedbro: I don't why you brought up IE. IE has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Like I've said before, XUL has many benefits, but those benefits I do not believe outweigh it's costs. What can be integrated into a native UI? Native UI components/controls, of course. I respect your happiness with the current UI of Mozilla, I just hope the general browsing population will share the same enthusiasm. Personally, I doubt that will be the case.

To Jim Lee: I'm not sure why IE keeps coming into this, or AOL for that matter, and I don't see where I have contradicted myself, but under-estimating the significance of the UI is not a good thing. I don't know what, or where, you have been reading but the latest surveys show IE at a solid 60% plus in corporations, this is not good.

arielb,

I guess you're not getting what I am saying here. I agree 150% that using XUL is totally cool, totally righteous, totally awesome, neat, fantastic, spectacular, it's just oozing with coolness.

The problem is that that style of UI implementation *will not* be well received by the majority of Windows users, or Mac users for that matter, and it is the Windows market that Mozilla must penetrate in order for it's '100% standards compliance' to mean jack shit to web developers.

Well, what style do you have in mind? Do people really want their web browsers to look like word processors with grey toolbars and beige icons?

Windows is selling now. But how much longer do you think companies (OEMs) will pay well over $1000 for an NT server and four clients, plus having to pay Microsoft's customer supportless asses (30 days with Win 98! THIRTY DAYS!) to fix its buggy ass like DAILY, when they can use Linux, where they pay about $50-$60 for one copy of Linux and pay their OWN people to fix the thing, or pay IBM (yes, IBM is beginning to offer not only Linux machines but support for them, and so is Dell, and Gateway, and Compaq, and HP.

In June, Microsoft will be hit with FOUR simultaneous trials. Beautiful. Microsoft recently lost in their bid to postpone the other three trials pending outcome of the Justice trial, and it was ruled the prosecutions could also share evidence. Microsoft thankfully botched up round one badly (they admitted doctoring a videotape among other silly things), and are now going to try to prove that AOL is a threat to their operating system's monopoly stature. They may be right.

And THEN you count in the new Amiga coming out X-mas 99 with a real-time OS a fraction of the size and complexity of Windows )

It has no registry, and keeps the /System files seperate from application files (those stay WITH the application AWAY from system files, no browsers intertwined with completely unrelated library system files to fool those stupid court people), a DVD-ROM comes standard as the access device, all for like $500 (maybe $600). Wordperfect 2000 is supposed to be coming out with the NGAmiga (around the same time as the Linux version, and Corel's open source GUI for Linux, along with, I'm quite sure, versions of Netscape Communicator 5.0, since Mozilla is made to port. There will be an early x86 developer system (Q3 99) $1000 or so/AmigaSoft OE, and more all released with support from PC maker Gateway, Inc., of whom Amiga is now a subsidiary http://www.amiga.com and written on top of at least QNX's Neutrino 2.0 OS and Java2. 4MB kernel. Multimedia powerhouse--this X'mas. If iMac can do well at $1399 last Christmas, well we'll see. I won't be buying WIndows 98 second edition is all I can say.

And about Mozilla, well, it works and it works WELL, and it's a full two months from beta. Gecko brings up www.microsoft.com like INSTANTLY I mean, minus these bugs, this thing HOSES IE. Especially given that not only can these millions you guys are going on about who have never even heard the term CSS1 are going to care so long as their browser is FAST and TIGHT. IE is neither compared to Mozilla. And you can visit a site, preview its unique features -- not just new colors but new buttons, minus toolbars, different UI completely -- and then close your browser if it wigs out and it's gone, and you don't even have to reboot, just start up your browser again.

Kidzi -- that's what plug-ins are for. ;) The browser software should be generic and then platform specific plug-ins can take over the rest.

I mean not kidzi that other one with the way too long name

I mean not kidzi that other one with the way too long name

I'm sorry that sucked I guess we're pressing reload and accidentally posting form data again. damn, better watch that. credit card transactions could repost just as easy.

To arielb:

>"Do people really want their web browsers to look like word processors with grey toolbars and beige icons?"

You hit it pretty close to the mark on that one, plus or minus a few degrees.

To Kovu: I appreciate, and relate, to your intense dislike of Microsoft, however, I wouldn't be placing any bets that Windows is going to be displaced any time soon. And I sure as hell would not count on that as part of any 'marketing strategy'.

Really, though, this is off topic to what I'm talking about. Same goes for the rendering engine of Mozilla, which I think is top notch and coming along quite nicely.

AOL 5.0 comes out in September. I wonder if it will use Gecko. They won't want to talk about it if so until then, because they don't want to give MS any fire for their argument that AOL is a threat (IE loses 17 MILLION users when that happens, and that number is climbing) That puts Netscape at over 70% again, just by default. If I'm able to have a Disney gettup for my daughter, a Metallica one for my son, and good ol' classic Netscape wheel for myself (and preferably ISP integration, and on an NG Amiga! All this in the same year as a new Star Wars movie, I can die happy after 2001.)

Joy! :)

Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't think like you. They're afraid of Linux, and Java, not Amiga yet but we'll see. They've confessed it themselves in e-mails and tactics. Why did they take 10 people and tell them their job was to stop people from using Linux? Because it's not a threat to them? Windows is displacing itself, not sadly. I agree with Chris Adams above, Windows is NOT the best computers can be, Microsoft completely aside.

Look, whoever it is that is engaging in this debate. Lots of time and money has been lost searching out ways to beat IE. Realistically, the browser "war" doesn't matter, and it's a waste of effort. There is a trend in software: First of all, programs written the Right Way, with the Right Things somehow always beat those that don't. Second, if there is no right program, the program backed most with the most money "wins." These are somewhat of facts of life. For example, if Linux ever "wins" it will be because it is the Right Thing. Programmers, in general, have a sense of the Right Thing, and usually pursue it. XUL, in many people's opinion is the right thing. This cuts app development time for many features that come in late (such as l12n and i18n). It makes the web more universal. Also, it has an appeal to it that is not entirely describable. It just seems like the right way to go to me, and for a slightly "spiritual" reason, I agree with XUL and chrome. You may have your opinion. What I'm trying to do is give you a little insight into why it exists, no to defend it.

Secondly, I'd like to restate that the goal is no longer, and should have never been, to destroy microsoft. Despite that they may have bad software and be general assholes, attacking microsoft will never beat microsoft because microsoft is attacking mozilla with more force. The effort must be centered where it hurts, in the brain. Therefore, it should not be on our minds whether we are better than them, or good enough to defeat them, because with an attitude like this, we will never make anything good. It is somewhat like the martial arts training of punching through someone as opposed to at someone.

To anyone who pooh-poohs XUL and non-proprietary front-ends to Mozilla:

1) Originally, the FE to Communicator was proprietary. It's been said that just to add ONE BUTTON to, say, the preferences dialogue, that it would take an engineer one full day, for each platform (Unix, Mac, Windows). Now? About 15 minutes, giving time for look&feel and tweaking, probably less.

2) Why would a customisable UI not 'fly' with the Windows users? It seems to me it flys really well with Winamp, which has skins all the same as Mozilla has interfaces.

3) If Mozilla shipped with a UI pretty much the same as Communicator's, except defined as XUL, why would anyone care? Would Win32-heads look at the interface, scream "AAUGH! It's defined in XUL!" and not use it, if it acted and looked the same? I think not.

4) As has been pointed out to you, and you've accepted this, the benefits of XUL far outweigh the costs. Mozilla isn't optimised, debugged, and all-over isn't ready for prime time use yet; when it is, you can rest assured that speed of the toolbars, interface, etc, will be just as fast as you want it.

Really, I don't see what you've got against XUL. There's no reason whatsoever for it not to be as successful as the Communicator 4/IE interface, especially if the UI guys at Netscape and out in the community do some good work on the default UI that ships with Mozilla. Being against having the option of customising it is just as irrational as not driving a car because it's possible to kill someone, or cutting your meat with a spoon because knives have been known to hurt people. XUL is the way Mozilla is going, like it or not, so I suggest that if you *don't* like the way the UI looks, that you make your own - after all, that's kind of the point.

[ot] Please, don't tell me they're making Amiga's again? The Amiga is DEAD. With old technology and no software support, why do they bother?

I never said to attack Microsoft. Like I said, they may well be right, the trial may well be useless. People just won't have a reason to use IE, or Windows soon. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, they've extended into so many markets that's impossible and Windows will probably always be around, perhaps at a 33% share, as should be. With some competition they'll be forced to start innovating again, and Amiga will force them. IBM was in Microsoft's position once, they were sued, they backed off, they're still alive today and viable, and I'm sure it will be that way in the future. Microsoft has backed down in the last two years, they've admitted they backed off of forcing OEMs to add MSN to the Start menu because of Justice, and the behavior change alone might be all the market needs.

I don't say anything that is untrue, but I don't feel, and I don't think even Microsoft feels, that Windows will dominate to such a ridiculous degree much longer.

And I agree that the browser war is over. With the source code to the finest browsing engine, coupled with the single most customizeable web application ever, adding buttons for everything and anything.

Mozilla is the beginning, the base of future Internet based applications, and it's going to be a huge market. People here are saying that customizeable UIs don't matter to 30 million people, an understatement at that. The sad fact is that the few of the people who use browsers, really only those who create web pages or browsers and not many people, to be frank -- an insignificant amount of the browsing population right now has any clue what your standards mean. Most people SEE only. They'll see applications that they can run from a palm-top that has room for Netscape (Gecko) because the e-mail application doesn't need to run from a hard drive, for instance, it can run from the Web or over it from your computer's hard drive at home.

So you're talking a fast, customizable browser down to the buttons that can be specific to that site. And sorry, standards are NOT a mass-market selling point. You tell me how many people you saw outside of work today you think know what the hell 100% CSS1 and 80 % CSS2 means? But that Kid chrome alone would sell that browser to someone, and Star Wars, Tubbie Toy idiot things and the whole bit THAT will be, and is, Mozilla's selling point to everybody. It's all FREE, and a huge chunk of the hard work is almost done, and then it will be easy, almost effortless, to port it to anything (and particularly NGAmiga ;)

So now you have a fast, standards compliant browser -- one that can view pages designed for IE -- and one that anybody can (and will) customize the hell out of. That alone, not to mention standards, sells the hell out of itself -- and it's free for anyone to add to applications (like HotDog may do http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease762.html and a browser can suddenly become a corporate proprietary feature of every corporation with a Net prescence, no matter how small -- and yet they're all on the same, open, free standard and can all read each other perfectly, and therefore perpetuate one another.

Oh yeah and it can read that buggy-ass IE5 implementation, too. Let's see how long that crap takes to fade, since rewriting pages will take half the time of fixing the buggy ones now.

AOL was smart enough to let Mozilla alone because that was the only way it could and will take over. How long do you think until Microsoft makes a www.microsoft.com home theme? A year? Six months? They can have a huge MSN button, the whole bit, all that just as fast as they can fill in a few URLs at chromezone. That'll be 2000's IE, watch, or a copy of Mozilla. As it should be. Netscape and Microsoft nearly killed what was left of Mosaic (and its original free stature) fighting with proprietary code structures, and Netscape won by giving it up and throwing it back to the masses where Mosaic started. It WILL take over because programmers don't have to hack it to death to add one button they just hop over to the XUL tool and fill in blanks.

I only mention the other things like Amiga to fill in around the edges of my point. The point is competition drives innovation and with Gecko, finally, that is what we'll see.

hoserhead,

I don't have anything against XUL and please don't try to insinuate that. BTW, you misread my cost/benefit statement concerning XUL.

XUL will never, and can never, offer the same 'look and feel' as a native UI. Plain and simple.

You may love it, embrace it, and get excited about customizable skins the same way as *some* WinAmp users do. However, such a style of UI will not go well with the average user.

I hate to sound like I have some crystal ball or something, but just wait until Mozilla is released in final form with the XUL implementation. A lot of kids will use it, a lot of 'geeks' will use it, a lot of Unix users will use it..... but it will barely make a dent in the overall Windows arena and that is the market that counts.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I guess my only comments would be that 1) I haven't noticed any difference between the Mozilla-near-M6 UI and the Communicator UI as far as it's actual functionality is concerned (the buttons work the same), and 2) IE has also created a non-native widget set for use inside their browser window.

So, everyone's given their eloquent and well thought out opinions on this issue. So what? What's the use? No one is going to give serious consideration to claims of XUL's failure based on conjecture.

I'd love to know how you think we can make customizing UIs easier for the average joe windows user. That's why I wrote the xultool in the first place. I'd love to hear how you think we can make xul better, not why it's the wrong thing. It's way to late for that, honestly. Please give specifics, not opinions and rants - unless you just want this to degenerate into a slashdotcommentflamefest and scare everyone away. What can we do to make it *better*?

Daniel:

NG Amiga will not be Commodore's Amiga. Amiga is owned by Gateway, Inc. Gateway.com does huge amounts of business through its yourware.com. It sells a a AMD K7 450 mhz with a year's free Internet access, support, full Works or Wordperfect 8 suite, all that plus the ability to trade up for another PC in a year -- or an Amiga, maybe -- $1350. Gateway can push Amiga -- Gateway and Dell own that market. NGAmiga is an entirely new product, and will be the first fully real-time mass market operating system (not Windows), Internet ready, with a DVD-ROM to start, built-in monitor, the whole bit, for $500 (just the lower-end home computers. If iMac, which features no DVD-ROM, blue coloring and a lousy mouse shaped horribly wrong with one button AS ITS MOST TOUTED FEATURES at more than DOUBLE the cost (X-mas 98 it was $1299 and $1399) of Amiga, with iMac commercials even stating like 80% of Americans still haven't bought a computer yet, you haven't seen anything yet.

If people will pay $1299 for yesterday's computer last Christmas (sorry, iMac is just a Mac and I like Windows better), they'll pay $500 for tomorrow's computer this X-mas. Intense 3-D capabilities, fast, RELIABLE performance.

Just like Mozilla, Amiga needed to spend the time and reinvent the wheel, and with QNX (modular enough to run credit card machines everywhere with the same OS and the same game on two computers in real-time (no delay)), Java2, minus a registry and all such useless, complicated crap (Microsoft even mentioned it might make it's connectivity open-source because it was so complicated.) and system files that don't get corrupted by programs. Imagine never having to reboot when you install a new program, or OS? Like 4 times as fast as Windows 98? Windows 2000 was at last count like 60,000 lines of code, and it's still a 32-bit system. Can something that big ever work properly? Something better is coming. You'll dig it.

Trust me.

;)

And that's just the lower-end system, there'll be bigger ones, and Gateway will sell them over the Internet, right alongside their PCs, with financing even. Right around the time of M9 (July 23-24 World of Amiga show in London) Amiga has promised to end its silent mode and start talking. That's when you'll start hearing about it. Gateway is not small. I'll bet they'll include Amiga in they're trade up policy. It's on, it just hasn't been broadcasted yet. Must keep quiet you know.

You are comparing the few thousand people in the world that A)own Winamp and B) know or care about its skins enough to download and C) know how to install them (and to what directory all that complicated crap) to over 70% of the browsing market that will use Netscape once AOL switches, maybe in September maybe later, and God knows how many more if Netcenter becomes an ISP.

Hell, Desktop themes are popular, and those are a complete pain in the ass for the average person, beyond most of them actually.

With XUL links on sites all you'll have to click one hyperlink to change your UI, two if you preview it first. You'll see an XUL link next to every FAQ site within a month or two of its commercial release, maybe after beta release.

And that Kid browser already DOES have the look and feel of a native UI, and it will be further perfected in the next two months. Mozillazine looks horrible with standard gray as compared to its matching black and green. The only way to get those colors outside of a desktop theme in Windows now is to go to change your Appearance settings and mess with all that crap, and then tweak with your browser UI preferences to match and, honestly, no one messes with that! Then you compare that to clicking one, maybe two hyperlinks to preview, or not bother, any site's customizeable buttons and online functions and goodies. Surfing kind of sucks now because your UI kind of just lays there mostly ignored, where it could be really helping you surf that site. You'll go to real, click one or two hyperlinks, and have multiple radio stations, with buttons with your flash panel capabilities notifying you of and status and upcoming songs. That, plus the convenience of dealing with what is basically another Cache, , so the system is constantly purging itself like the cache and runs invisibly in the background, like the cache.

Will fonts be shareable as well? Can you finally use a font and then safely assume people will have access to them by inputing them in a theme? I know that more features are being added all the time.

We'll see what gateway does. We'll also see what Sony does. You see, they have their own OS: Aperios which may be in the psx2. I'm sure many people-even those with pc's-will buy a playstation 2. Wouldn't it be neat if mozilla was ported to it? You'd use the same browser on the pc as you'd use on the psx.

Playstation 2 is using Linux, I heard a few months back. Dreamcast is using Windows CE, poor thing. You'll see Mozilla imbedded on all sorts of things. Nintendo will have its own architecture http://www.nintendo.com/home/features/e3_99/press.html or actually IBM's copper-something PowerPC chip.

Kovu, I must admit, I get a real kick out of you. :)

To everyone else about the XUL thing, I hope I'm dead wrong about everything that I've said.

I am tired and I'm going to bed.

Goodnight all.

-Bruce Jensen (aka MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser)

Bruce, you suck ;)

Bruce:

I don't understand how you can say that XUL can't offer the same look and feel as a native UI.

Have a look at this screenshot:

http://jpaulett.home.mindspring.com/wordbuttons.gif

This took about 15 minutes and 10 lines of XUL, and I'm no expert with graphics or XUL. Despite that, it looks and feels just like Word or any other Windows native UI.

to kovu regarding the amiga:

what hardware will this thing run on, 'cos if it needs special hardware then it wont sell.

and if it has no games or generel app support it wont sell.

remember one thing, Gateway may be pushing it in the US, but they arent gonna push it world wide at first. my guess is we will se the first couple of machines here in denmark in 2001. at which we will all be sitting with 1500 mhz K7's

and the reason linux hasn't won yet: non existent userfriendlyness. luckily this is not the problem of mozilla.

on a side note:

when is M6 going to be released ?

on bugzilla there are 18 bugs left with the m6 target, so i'm guessing they are waiting for close to clear

Personally, I like being able to pick and choose the "skin" of my WinAmp player - The spyamp skin being particularly cool. I think that a lot of the casual surfers out there will see XUL as a plus. Look at the number of skins in winamp...

I give it 3 months from the release of mozilla to MS implementing skins in IE.

Obviously you people haven't been dabbling in the Linux world much lately....customizing interfaces down to the pixel is all the rage here. It HAS produced a lot of fluff, but it also has produced some really nice stuff. The ability to customize the interface ("chrome" in Mozilla-land) is very useful. I could make Mozilla blend in with my KDE or Gnome desktop (as opposed to Netscape's Motif interface which sticks out like a sore thumb).

Like it or not, themes and customization are becoming more the rage. I used to hate it too, but think about it this way: it gives the user the ultimate control to decide what he sees, as opposed to being forced into one interface or another. Personally I like how the chrome spec gives me better control over how the UI looks than dabbling with .Xresources files and the like.

I don't think Mozilla's functionality should be compromised to produce this chrome, but I do think it is important. Think about the 'oh wow!' value as well...people are going to SEE how Mozilla can be changed to their liking and they are going to be impressed. Yes it's fluff, but it is important fluff.

Okay, here's some feedback on the chrome, not the idea of chrome.

The simple chrome would not do anything other than freeze my Mac copy of M5. Didn't matter if Iclicked "download", "preview" or "set as default skin". May be a coincidence, but it didn't have that problem with the others.

Mozillazine M6 chrome. I hate the "back" and "forward" buttons. Why is the text on these two buttons, and only these two buttons, drop shadowed? The result is I can't easily read the text on either button!

I'll take some time someday to learn this XUL and make my own chrome, but frankly I'm not impressed with what exists. I know it is an Alpha and is still in development. And I'm sure somebody will challenge me personally to make one! :)

I just hope some good interface designers jump on this oportunity. I would hate to see 4 horrible/unuseable chromes for every one good/adequate one (like Linux themes, Winamp schemes, and Kaleidoscope schemes).

Anything that makes the browsing experience better has my support.

Actually, IE already has a kind of skin. One of Microsofts new features in it's Internet Accessories pack is button bar wallpaper for IE. I don't like it all that much because all it is is fluff. There is no added functionallity. I do like the promise of XUL adding usability features to Mozilla and look forward to seeing what happens.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that I never heard the argument, in favor of XUL, that the growth of high speed connections coupled with PII+ class PC's more than offset any 'perceived' performance degradation in a XUL implemented UI.

Oh well! :)

Henrik: Gateway intends to release Amiga worldwide in time for this X-mas season. The developer system will be x86-based, they haven't finalized the new architecture but it will be open-standard and the Amiga will support industry standard APIs, whatever that means. Corel is supposed to have Wordperfect Office 2000 ready for its release, as well as their open-source GUI for Linux.

Amiga says, cryptically: "There are Amigans in all major technology companies and they are eager to support us in driving a new computer revolution."

They'll start talking final specs and partners July 23 at World of Amiga show, London.

One point that I haven't seen mentioned is the incredible win that Customizable Chrome and functionality of that chrome, and *especially* downloadable chrome is for corporate situations (include ISP situations here too).

Imagine a corporation that on their standard desktop includes as the startup of mozilla as: apprunner -url http://intranetserver/chrome.xul or whatever. Then, when the corporation wants to add a new button and new funtionality to their corporate desktops, what do they do? Go and edit a text file on their web server...with the current setup, within two weeks, the whole corporation will see this button or whatever start appearing on their desktop. This is a *HUGE* win for corporate america which has been tangling with manageability of distributed systems for quite some time now.

A similar situation works for ISPs. Many ISPs (I work for one) want to use a customizable browser for their members. With downloadable chrome, not only could a customizable browser be distributed, but it could be updated on the fly! Say an ISP implements a new network status page...edit a text file on their web server, and within two weeks all the members have a new button appearing in their web browser toolbar that takes them straight to the network status page to find out if there are any network problems.

I don't think this type of benefit can possibly be overstated.

Jeff

I tried apprunner in win98 a couple of weeks ago, and my first impression was that the new interface is really, really slow. Personally, I like the idea of having skins for the browser, but if having them means slowing my browser down to a crawl, I'd rather be without them and keep the interface from Netscape 4 (or 3). Does anyone know how the speed of the XP interface will be in the finished mozilla compared to Netscape 4 or IE?

Will you stop with the moronic Amiga already? Have respect for the dead.

If they weren't, winamp would not make skinz, (which was made after people replaces bitmaps in the exectuables) nor themes.org would exist.

Neoplanet is a good example that people like customization. they are no robots. you can buy yellow cars, and back cars, and even paint them, people do like different "look and feel"s from time to time.

Ok, we've seen XUL be able to change the toolbars on Mozilla, and to wire up menus, but how much can it *really* do, compared to a C++ or Java interface.

1) Can it support drag and drop? 2) can it do anything besides roll-over buttons using gifs? What if I wanted a progress bar? 3) Is it really that dynamic? Could I add a splitpane with an text widget to my toolbar, and use it to sent instant messages? Can I add a button that drops down a popup menu when you click it?

See, the question is, how much API is really exposed?

I would love to be able to wire up an ICQ or Java applet to a text widget at the bottom of my Mozilla window.

Can XUL do this? IE5 can.

Otherwise, XUL *is* equal to skins. If all XUL can be used to do is add menu items to call existing Mozilla functioanlity, or add stupid rollover gif buttons like a gazilion other web pages have, then count me out.

I don't mind having a boring looking grey toolbar as long as it *stays the same* and doesn't change all the time. If all XUL can do is change the look of the buttons or to add shortcuts, then it is a toy.

I think it is a real shame that Mozilla doesn't try to take the best advantage of each platform by integrating with it. Mozilla should support ActiveX/COM via the OBJECT tag, IE supports Netscape plugins after all.

If you're imagining Sony and Gateway using Gecko, imagine the trouble they'd have to go through to have Gecko talk to their other widgets if it can't speak COM.

Mozilla should be able to speak COM, CORBA, OpenDoc, and any other native platform scripting language (Frontier) so people can use it for everything.

Imagine being able to drop a Word viewer widget into Mozilla, and being able to add XUL buttons that can call OLE scripting routines on the Word widget to extract data and place it into the DOM tree. You could use Gecko to write an editor that converts Word files to XML, or to clip data from Word files and place them into your homepage.

Integration is very valuable, and all these "not invented here, MS sucks, Linux rulez" people should realize that if you are going to replace windows, you have to provide a smooth transition path and can't expect people to go cold turkey.

Here's a little comparison for those running apprunner. It's a little scheme that 'attempts' to mimic the Netscape UI.

Download this little scheme here:

http://www.silverlink.net/~jensenba/registry.rdf

and place that file in your bin\chrome directory. Be sure to back up the original registry.rdf file to save your current scheme. Then run apprunner.

Compare the new UI 'look & feel' to the default UI of Netscape Communicator...

Unless you're a Linux user, you will notice quite a difference. I say this because the X-Window system in Linux is cheesy to begin with and the default Netscape UI looks/behaves like hell anyways.

I'm running it now from a PII-400 and can only imagine what it would be like on a P200.

Excuse the slang, but XUL just ain't what it's hyped up to be.

It's slow. get over it. The optimizations haven't even started yet on it.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

Well, I checked it out. What's the big difference? The buttons behave like buttons. Maybe the look of them is a little different, but so what? Who in the world would be confused because the button has a different border color?

The speed of the UI once loaded is equivalent to what we have in Communicator. It does take a while for the initial button bar to come up, but that's what optimization is for.

rgelb: Give it six months and you'll be eating your 1's and 0's.

;)

yes, before we start bashing an unfinished product, try to remember it isn't finished yet. One night it's slow, the next it's faster. Things change every night and until the code is set they can't start cleaning it up.

mozineAdmin: I figured as much. This 'little' difference as you put it will be the difference between broad acceptance vs. a teenage fad.

Kovu: I'm not bashing an unfinished product. You guys just don't seem to get that 'look & feel' is everything when it comes to mass acceptance or not. In this particular case, you may throw out speed differences all together and focus solely on 'look & feel'

Many good products out there have flat out failed simply because the UI was designed haphazardly... even though the 'meat' of the application was top notch.

Netscape is working on the Netscape branded UI, and it will be quite similar, I'm sure, to the current one. They won't just bash it together, they have design people that work on those completely seperate from coders. Most users may well go for awhile without knowing they can change their browser UI, and stick with the Netscape one.

But Netscape will be only one of thousands of available custom browsers, and come to think of it the branded Netscape will lose most of its share (and so will IE lose its) to the Doczillas, Realplayer UI, Disney UIs, and all that. This means the browser war really is over, and that all the current players lose, but we get a standard that works, and Web browsing is forever free from proprietary clutches -- Netscape's, Microsoft's or otherwise. I think it's beautiful, and XUL will sell it.

BTW, I'm not bashing Winamp, I'm just saying that the skins are much more difficult to deal with than these "link UIs", and that comparing Winamp, a product not very many people have as compared to Netscape, and Winamp's skins to a browser, which EVERYBODY has, is not a good comparison. If people can change their look and feel with one single click they'll probably do it as often as they change web pages, especially since it will help navigate particular sites. How much easier would this site be to deal with if you had a "mozzillazine home" button and a "chromezone" button and all that as buttons on your browser? how many less times would people double send messages? It just makes sense.

"This 'little' difference as you put it will be the difference between broad acceptance vs. a teenage fad. "

Now, since this ChromeZone (fancy-shmancy bells & whistles) news item here suddenly generated 77+ messages in three days versus the original MathML (actual, specification approved functionality) item that generated 3 responces in almost 2 weeks; it looks like Chromes will be a little more than "a teenage fad" (granted, you could pull 20 messages out of here due to double postings, but still) face it, this stuff is here to stay.

"Many good products out there have flat out failed simply because the UI was designed haphazardly... "

See, now thats where the beauty of XUL comes in... by the time mozilla goes bata, we'll have created, and tweeked, various skins to be designed quite intuitively. And if you think that people won't use something, or corperations won't buy it, because its got a clunky interface, please explain Lotus Notes to me then....

BTW MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser, are you going to submit your "N4Classic" scheme to ChromeZone?

In any event, thanks to Adam Lock and his ActiveX Control, a formidable high-peformance UI will emerge that will host Mozilla.

And I'm in *no way* referring to NeoPlanet...

What's Lotus Notes? :)

Uh huh...

I leave for 16 hours and this article comes up with 75+ more posts.

Customizable UI, ok, it's a nice feature. If it uses the rendering engine (and since the XUL and RDF standard have been pretty much written), WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?

As long as Mozilla ends up fast (on my 200MMX apprunner is dead slow, but viewer is quite the IE-ass-kicker), any feature, as long it can be disabled and does not directly deter from the main project (since chrome uses the rendering engine, er, so?), is worth including.

My BS (for Win32).

Almost forgot, 82+ posts and no flames... that's pretty good.

nope, no flames. That Amiga and respect for dead comment tested me though. ;)

supersamat,

I heard you the first time. :)

"WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?"

EVERYTHING!

OK, so I've read almost every post here, many have good points, some don't. I made the MZ skin, and I think I can navigate around XUL fairly well now, so I guess I will comment.

WhatCanXULDo, this is my responce to your post...

>1) Can it support drag and drop?

Yes! Its not part of the builds yet, as its buggy, but support is there, and is being perfected.

>2) Can it do anything besides roll-over buttons using gifs? What if I wanted a progress bar?

Check the bottom, that progress bar is XUL when the page is loading. You can do what you want with it.

>3) Is it really that dynamic? Could I add a splitpane with an text widget to my toolbar, and use it to sent instant messages?

Check the sidebar/aurora/flash panel. Support of AOLIM seems to be coming, along with many other services.

>4) Can I add a button that drops down a popup menu when you click it?

It's also coming. The Services bar along the bottom has the buttons, but the popups are not yet implemented.

>5) I would love to be able to wire up an ICQ or Java applet to a text widget at the bottom of my Mozilla window. Can XUL do this? IE5 can.

Someone said they were wiring up a game to play inline while pages were loading, so I think your answer is yes. You can put anything you put into a webpage on a toolbar, and more. IE5 can do this!?! I'd love to see that.

--

Secondly, these are NOT SKINS. Skins are pictures that cover the existing program with a bitmap. XUL is a complete interface. Not only does it tell you what color the buttons are going to be, like a skin, but unlike a skin, it tells the program where the buttons go, and what buttons to use when. For those of you who think XUL is just a fun coloring tool for toolbars, you are dead wrong. When you load apprunner, XUL defines everything you see, from the window size right down to what to colors appear on the status bar widget.

Give our skin a try. It will hopefully show you that while you can change the colors, you can do so much more. We have added all kinds of toolbar buttons, that people have asked for for ages. Don't want the security button? Delete it. Want a button that goes right to your prefs? Make one. Want to have a scrolling JS/Java Stockticker, sportsticker, newsticker RIGHT ON YOUR TOOLBAR? Then put one in! You have to look at the big picture.

Apprunners interface is not the one that will used when finished. I'm sure it will be an option, but not the default. All I ask is that you give it a chance. If you don't like it, MAKE YOUR OWN!

Jason Kersey/kerz/MozAdmin2

SUpersmat!!!!! hit the BACK button before you press reload again!!!!! your reposting that same lame message over and over!!!!

sorry... lost it for a second.

Also, BTW, we have set up a page to track the changes to the MZ chrome. Find it here - http://www.mozillazine.org/toolbar/ . It will track any changes made to our Chrome, along with some of the default changes. Be sure to check it out, as it has the links to our latest chrome.

Jason/MozAdmin2

While I agree that XUL is very cool, if it cannot provide the performance necessary for the Win32 platform then we need to create a seperate UI just for win32. I find that XUL seems to be quite slow right now on my Linux and NT box, but this could be due to XUL bugs that can be fixed. If the slowness cannot be fixed, then this is a serious issue, cross-platform or not. And trust me, I am a dedicated Java coder who is seriously into cross-platform, but I know the advantages and disadvantages of cross-platform. <b>So the big question is: Is XUL's slowness due to its interpreted and run-time nature, and therefore it can't be fixed, or is it due to bugs which _can_ be fixed?</b>

Brad Neuberg

" a formidable high-peformance UI will emerge that will host Mozilla. "

You could always just browse with the "Test Page" pane in TopStyle...

just a thought

SomeSmartAss,

As far as the N4Classic scheme goes, none of the graphics were created by me. I didn't really do anything other than rip resources from NS4 and do a little image manipulation. I'm not sure if that would qualify as a 'custom' skin for MozillaZine.

SomeSmartAss,

"You could always just browse with the "Test Page" pane in TopStyle... "

Very Funny!! :)

Thank you, Thank you,

You're a wonderful audience....

I'll be open for Neil Sedaka all week at the Dunes!

Good question Brad, my thoughts are that it's the interpretive nature of XUL that spoils the 'look & feel'

UI design is an art and a science. M$ spends millions of dollars researching how 'average' people interact with software... They do this because they damn well know that despite what our parents may have taught us: Looks count.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

You still haven't stated how your sample UI differs from Netscape's. I didn't notice any difference other than the border around the buttons. The UI is just as responsive on my machine.

My, we are a feisty bunch! We'll break a hundred any moment now!

"M$ spends millions of dollars researching how 'average' people interact with software... They do this because they damn well know that despite what our parents may have taught us: Looks count."

And look what all that research brought us: MS Word! About as nice an interface as ICQ.

There are by far most benefits than disadvantages to XUL. Several Reasons:

First of XUL or should I say the idea of XUL is not Netscape only. The language is Netscape only so far, but another language a lot like it is around. At the WWW8 conference a few days ago Sun introduce UIML, extensible User Interface Mark-up Language. Basically, it does the exact same thing as XUL except for Java applications. So the idea is being adopted just not the language which is good because XUL only really deals with Netscape like interfaces.

Second the speed of XUL now does not mean the final release will be as speedy as it is today. I don't think people take into consideration that this is still an Alpha build. Its an excuse, but a darn good one for now anyway. On my computer it is sometimes faster and sometimes slower than Navigator 4.6.

Third XUL can do a lot more than the current UI if people program for it. Right now its an Alpha so a lot of programmers don't want to spend too much time programming neat features that maybe broken in the final release. Currently, we've only seen what can only be categorized as glorified skins. Some things are rendered natively: the main menubar, you know file edit view ..., and pop-ups, which are currently not implemented. The menubar is write on-the-fly using content from the XUL. Likewise, pop-up menus are written in the native OS with XUL providing the content.

Fourth, the interface hasn't really been finalize yet. The developers don't quite know what the final interface should be for quite a few navigator apps, messenger is a prime example. XUL allows them to change all of the interfaces across all platforms, a major time saver.

ummm... off topic, but in the last ten minutes or so, the number of entries posted on the front page went from 96, to 94, then to 97???? what gives... are you pruning multiple messages MozAdmin?

Looks count, eh! IE is PLAIN! It's BORING! Netscape has image all OVER IE, IE is gray! And in IE 5 they actually took out the throbber in favor of NOTHING! A static Windows icon, and that's like the most obvious difference! Looks count, yes, that is what we are talking about, and customizing the look of current browsers is a developer's NIGHTMARE!

yep. I pruned some duplicates

100! Score! I actually wish Mozilladmin would clean up some of those double postings. I really wish we had a hierarchal structure that allowed you to only load whatever messages you hadn't read yet. It would save bandwidth on these "lively debates."

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. People are concerned because XUL won't be exactly like the Win32 API look and feel, except for it can be, once a) it's finished and b) someone takes some time to make it so. Speed isn't a concern yet - if it's still slow once a beta or two are released, THEN you can start getting concerned.

The simple fact is XUL makes things easier, faster, and more flexible, and what's more, it's not going away. Proclaim your gloom and doom on Mozilla if XUL is used as the building blocks of the interface, but you'll simply put, be wrong. If Mozilla fails (and that is unbelievably unlikely), it will be because .. well, actually I can't come up with a reason. Suffice it to say Mozilla will not fail, regardless of what you might say/think.

mozineAdmin,

I'm surprised that you would compare the interface of ICQ with that of MS Word.

If you can not tell the difference between a XUL implemented UI and a native UI then I HUMBLY suggest that UI Design is not one of your strong points... and PLEASE do not take that in a negative way... because it is not meant as such.

Just to be on the safe side, though, you're not performing this comparison from Linux are you?

--It would save bandwidth on these "lively debates."

Or at least let us only view the mesages posted in the last, say, 30 seconds...

(like this posting is going to help matters)

I'm thinking of installing an "overspill" function like on Slashdot, for times when the message count gets over 100. We'd then default to just headers and respondent names. Threading? I don't think so. Not yet, at least.

BTW, thanks everyone for the lively discussion, and thanks even more so for the lack of flames. It's really appreciated, and it shows that some forums in the Internet can actually be civil.

"If you can not tell the difference between a XUL implemented UI and a native UI then I HUMBLY suggest that UI Design is not one of your strong points"

Perhaps that little comment just proved MozAdmins point to a tee. Assuming one isn't Anal Retentive about UI design, XUL works just Jim Dandy!!

Of course I mean "Anal Retentive" in the most positive of ways ;)

I have to admit that the grey look of IE is one of the major reasons why I simply don't bother with it. MSIE on the mac is a different story but I don't have a mac. (the other reason is I can't stand how it handles bookmarks/favorites. this whole horizontal scrolling nonsense has to go and it's a problem that affects all of windows)

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

You stated, "If you can not tell the difference between a XUL implemented UI and a native UI then I HUMBLY suggest that UI Design is not one of your strong points"

No, I'm saying that the UI, once instantiated works essentially just like the toolbars in 4.5. There are some issues with upstates/downstates, but they aren't finalized yet. Work is still being done.

Also, yes - I compared Word to ICQ. Both interfaces are cluttered. In Word's case, I brought it up because so much of the functionality of Word is hidden in obscure, obscenely silly ways. In my experience with it, it was difficult to find out how to accomplish a task even after consulting the help files. Both are bad interfaces, but for different reasons. If you don't agree, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think the ultimate demonstration would be to compare a Win32 UI for Mozilla to that of a XUL implemented UI for Mozilla.

It will be become quite clear how XUL stands up to a native UI.

Word is a nightmare (it has many cool functions hidden in the most obscure places), and so is bloated-ass ICQ (which is getting its own free e-mail client, did y'hear?). Even Netscape needs has some issues to deal with, putting History in an obscure third level menu bar, for instance. I just think people complaining are wasting their time. Would you rather the developers kept all of the good stuff behind closed doors until it was done and worked completely, so that none of us could play with it and have any input into it? If you can't see it for the potential it has, come back in two months and see it when it's done, and then you will.

Those of you who are complaining about XUL's speed and using the current builds as an example could use a basic lesson in the realities of software development.

XUL is an unoptimized content model being built on top of an unoptimized layout engine. There are many obvious known performance problems that will be addressed, but right now the focus is on features and not on performance and polish. It is too early in XUL's development cycle to be worrying about full-blown optimizations or making the UI look just right.

Gecko has now reached the point where they are focusing on optimizations and performance, namely incremental reflow, and you're going to see a lot of XUL speed increases as they fine-tune the layout engine.

Eventually XUL will get far enough along that we won't be overloaded designing features, and then we'll be able to work on optimizing the RDF-based content model that XUL is using. Some of this work is already taking place (we're able to at least grab for the low-hanging fruit as we continue to work on features).

If you need specific examples of obvious performance optimizations that will happen before we ship, I can give them to you now.

(1) The front end frames (the visual objects that correspond to nodes in the content model) aren't hashed, and so any time the content model changes and the frame tree needs to be updated, Gecko does a depth-first search of the frame tree looking for the frame that corresponds to the content node.

A hash table in this function (GetPrimaryFrameFor) will bring a big speed increase.

(2) Gecko's incremental reflow has no notion of batching, so an individual reflow command is generated for every individual change to the content model. This results in many more repaints/reflows than are necessary.

(3) Incremental reflow currently causes a repaint of the entire window.

The UI is perceived as sluggish because too many repaints are currently happening. At one point early on, we cheated and hacked in something to prevent the repaint of the whole window, and the UI became fast and responsive.

This will be fixed.

(4) The RDF/XUL content model is notifying the front end way too many times when it builds nodes (causing the front end to do a lot more thrashing than necessary). We're sending out notifications even before we've added the nodes into the content tree.

(5) The tree widget has been accused of being ugly and slow. Of course it is. Nobody is worrying about making it pretty yet. That can come later. As for it being slow, there are also many obvious huge improvements that can be made to the tree's speed. Right now, the priority is on making the tree widget WORK. Then, once its basic functionality is in place, we can worry about honing its speed. This is true of many of the other widgets in XUL as well.

I could keep going for pages and pages. Just remember that you're looking at a pre-alpha product, one that has not been optimized at all, and you should not be making the assumption that "an XML-based UI" is slow simply based on what you're seeing in a pre-alpha milestone build.

The visual look you're seeing in apprunner also isn't the final or real UI design for the Netscape product. It's just a toy that enables us to see what we're doing as we develop. There are plenty of talented UI designers that can take XUL and make beautiful and elegant UIs, and rest assured that they will. We don't have the time or luxury to be worrying about that right now in apprunner though.

Feature work first. Polish later. It will come together. You just have to have a little faith.

SomeSmartAss,

"Of course I mean "Anal Retentive" in the most positive of ways ;)"

Of course you do! :)

Uhh, mozadmin just did compare the two. He said the only difference was the borders to the buttons, and this is XUL in infant stage.

Thank you David! Voice of reason! But there's that pre-alpha thing again. So okay, I ask again, if M9 is beta, and M6 is still pre-alpha, when is ALPHA?

BTW, for those of you who don't know it, David Hyatt (from the post above) is one of the developers actively involved in the XUL development for Mozilla.

David,

I'm not really addressing the XUL implementation as it is now so much as I am the 'idea' of using XUL all together in place of a native UI.

Irregardless, I'll keep my fingers crossed! :)

Microsoft *has* spent millions on user-interface research. One of these days they might even use this research in a product...

Anyone who thinks Microsoft has the slightest semblence of a clue about user interfaces should listen to someone who does tech support. Their interfaces just annoy techies but they really confuse the average user.

Lastly, in answer to earlier comments, yes, Microsoft does have the majority share of the market right now. However, there's a lot of signs this is changing (e.g. Apple's resurgence) and once you subtract people who have IE because they're forced to (corporate standard or Win98 users) the numbers aren't nearly so uneven for Netscape.

MozillaSupporterNotAssKisser:

You still haven't made clear *exactly* why you think XUL is such a bad idea. If it's the "look and feel", that doesn't make any sense, because it can look like whatever you want it to. If it's the current sluggishness, David Hyatt just explained that quite nicely. So what, exactly, is the problem?

Like I said, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

As far as making myself clear, read my posts further up the chain. I believe I made my points/concerns quite clear.

Well, my next question would be, if XUL is going to be improved by caching results of tree traversals in Hashtables, what is the predicted increase in memory usage predicted to me? TANSTAAFL.

I guess it is no higher than the memory hogged by viewing a web page (building DOM, build flow objects, ...)

Still, there is the cost of STARTUP time. I'm a Java programmer, and this is a big deal. I think the major reason people don't like Java apps is that they take *way too long* to load, and JIT's make it worse.

So the question is, what is being done to optimize XUL's startup cost?

Where is the bottleneck? is it opening up all those gif files?

Is there any chance that after the first time a new chrome is encounted, some state is saved so that launching the same chrome against doesn't take as long? Kinda like saving the output of a JIT?

My beef with XUL right now isn't the sluggish UI, just that it takes Mozilla longer to launch.

MozillaSupporterNOTAsKisser,

Your points were clear above, and as jawbone elegantly noted, you have been shot down for both of your major points.

1) speed... 2) functionality... 3) look/feel...

All of these are addressed in the 100+ posts above, and each say that you should more/less wait until M8 or later before bringing this up again, because for now, it is a moot point.

kevin

MemoryHog,

I think a lot of the startup time is lost in redraws of the toolbars as the app starts up. I think they had a plan for dealing with this, as well.

For all the missed it: Amiga is dead. And it is not coming back.

And I happen to like Word97 - the interface is clean. Have you ever tried to use WordPerfect 8 - that is comparable to ICQ, not Word.

In case you've already forgotten, Amiga is dead.

For all the missed it: Amiga is dead. And it is not coming back.

And I happen to like Word97 - the interface is clean. Have you ever tried to use WordPerfect 8 - that is comparable to ICQ, not Word.

In case you've already forgotten, Amiga is dead.

that's not what Amiga Inc says. We'll see

Kidzi,

I haven't been 'shot down' by anybody. My position still stands whether you agree with it or not.

A XUL implemented UI *will not* appeal to the majority of Windows users. I don't care how many hash tables, graphs, trees, etc... are implemented in order to 'increase' performance.

Time will tell...

I was checking WRQ's Reflection Software that we use at work.. Damm thing can customize everything.. every menu there is how its look contex maneus etc etc. kind of like the way mozilla is going but much easier!!

Reflection is a good program! www.wrq.com

I have my doubts about XUL as well. Microsoft was toying around with a similar idea for Internet Explorer 5.0. It wasn't XUL, of course, but rather HTML. The idea was eventually botched because preliminary user testing turned out poor results. Before you ask, no, I don't work at Microsoft, a good friend of mine does who works closely with the IE group. I suppose you could call it heresay, but he's a good friend of mine and I have no reason not to trust what he says.

"A XUL implemented UI *will not* appeal to the majority of Windows users"

How can you objectively say that, until you see the final XUL implementation? It's all guesswork up to that point.

bruce you really have to be specific. I've followed the whole discussion and I still have no idea what's wrong with the UI except for that the fact that it's buggy right now

Cross-platform UIs have always had problems, but there are reasons why they may not apply to Mozilla.

1) Bloat. The XP layer makes the application bigger than a version using the native UI. Mozilla already has to have a layout/rendering engine, XML parser, etc just to view Web documents, so if most of the new UI infrastructure reuses that (which it does), the footprint impact may not be huge.

2) Speed. The XP layer makes the application slower than a version using the native UI. Mozilla's layout/rendering engine already needs to be really fast to run the Web well. If it makes Web browsing swift and smooth, it can make the UI swift and smooth.

3) Complexity. Although XP layers are often simpler to program than the native UI, they are unfamiliar to most programmers and thus harder to work with. Mozilla tries to get around this by using XML, CSS, large chunks of HTML and other Web standards to describe the interface.

4) Style. XP layers don't look and feel like the native UI. They don't track changes in the native UI (either as the platform evolves or as the user changes system preferences). My feeling is that XUL is about evenly good/bad on this one. Some work is being done to make system-level preferences (e.g. colours) applicable to XUL UIs. Also, a lot of native applications don't track evolving platform UI, and it doesn't seem to matter that much. MS doesn't seem to have problems tweaking the look and feel with every Office release (new menus, new toolbars, new fonts, etc). Being able to push out new chrome on the fly could even be an advantage over native UI in this area. There's another argument that platform look and feel doesn't matter in the brave new world of Web-based applications, but I don't necessarily believe that.

5) Platform integration. Applications using XP layers don't integrate well with other applications on the same platform. This has been a problem in the past when apps interoperated in significantly different ways on different platforms, e.g. when some platforms had drag and drop and others didn't. These days things have settled down quite a lot; most of the variance revolves around COM. It remains to be seen how well Mozilla's XP-COM will interoperate with COM, but this is getting some attention so there is hope. Also, the drive to Web standards has created standard file formats and ways of thinking that let applications interoperate the same way on different platforms (e.g. XML).

6) Lowest common denominator. Applications that use XP layers are forced to use only UI features that are available on all platforms. Again, in recent history platforms have been converging, partly due to the drive to Web standards. Some of this is just that other platforms have made sure to have all the features of Windows that make sense... Furthermore, the more declarative style of UI programming that's fostered by XUL and CSS is more amenable to fallback in cases where the underlying platform doesn't support some functionality. In some cases, Mozilla people have worked hard to implement XP solutions that cover up possible shortcomings in the underlying platform (e.g. the tree widget).

Mozilla XUL may still fail, but it'll be really interesting to see how things work out.

Rob

Someone also should have mentioned that in many ways XUL has a lot more functionality than native UI --- for example, the ability to put arbitrary HTML in a toolbar, or in a tree widget item.

Rob

okay, so this computer comes out that's built real-time from the ground up, see rant above, standard DVD, Hi-Res, superior graphics, full software support at launch. You have a computer that does twice as much as Windows 98, much better, at a fraction the hard drive space, tiny board, open architecture (anyone can clone it), four times as fast. $599 (maybe $499).

For about $999, the same price as one iMac or a tolerable PC, you can have an Amiga home computer and an Amiga set-top deviced that comes inherently networked to your home computer.

Or, for the same rough price you can have an Amiga palm top (or notebook) that is also inherently networked to your computer. For about the same price as you pay for a nice computer now, $1500 or so, you can have an Amiga, a palm-top, and a set-top -- all networked together by the same OE (OS + GUI + see www.amiga.com). Try getting Windows CE to talk to Windows NT to talk to 2000 to talk to 98? HAVE FUN. Windows in real-time -- ever?

But the Amiga developer system, out about the same time as M11 will be an x86 machine, and mine might work nicely.

The weak-ass iMac kind of tore up the computer market last X-mas for $1399. I think Amiga and Gateway can sell an Amiga for $599. Like 80% of this country has yet to buy a PC, or be dependent on Windows, or even Mac.

Well folks, it's din din time and I'm outta here.

Here's hoping that the XUL implementation will be welcomed with open arms by the majority of windows users!

In any event, I will use it! ;)

Mozawhateveryournameis I can speak for a majority of Windows users just as easily as anybody. My majority says (poo doo!) that clicking a hyperlink and waiting 10 seconds beats the piss out of d/ling a file, save it to the right folder, etc. etc. to change your browser UI which, with IE as far as I know, you have to download the whole damn browser! Even were patches to come along, It's a PAIN compared to clicking a hyperlink and waiting a few seconds (less and less as higher bandwidth takes over in the next couple years). Companies want the technology, they have seen it, it has begun.

To rgelb, You didn't insult WordPerfect 8. Granted I don't think Word is as bad as ICQ, can anything be that bad. I used Word for several years and the switch to WordPerfect was painless and I was glad to do it.

I think most people know what Word looks like. Take a look at WP8, minimal mods (2 extra buttons and I moved a toolbar to the side). Here it is http://members.xoom.com/Tekhir/Images/Image1.gif

And now back to Mozilla. A Large portion of the debate is centered on Win32 users and their UI. But there are several minor UIs for Windows. Win 3.x style not used much. Orginial Win95 style. IE4+/Win98 style. All have slight and sometime ugly changes. One of them being the draggable toolbars that don't expand to take up the entire screen, I find that ugly.

I guess we are not here to discuss Word vs WordPerfect and whether Amiga is dead or not. XUL is cool - end of story.

Wordperfect 9 just came out, and it hoses Word.

We now have an overflow mode, for news items with more than 75 responses. Give it a spin, and report any bugs to me.

--mozadmin

Wouldn't it make sense to display the messages first to last as opposed to last to first???

Just a thought...

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I like the way he set it up ... this way you can read the articles in the order they were posted, you're not reading people's replies to snippets of messages which you are lost on.

Well, the problem is that the last messages are typically off topic.

If I were to go in as a new reader to this thread I would have no clue as to what was going on.

I suppose I would think that this thread was about WordPerfect or Amiga...

Oh well...

:) sorry, someone starts singing NGAmiga's deathknell and I am going to come back and prove otherwise if I can. At least I tried to do it in as few words as possible with no flames. :)

BTW, isn't the intro there specifically so people can always find out what the thread is about just by looking to the top of the page?

Don't take that the wrong way, Kovu.

Long discussion threads tend to drift off topic no matter what. Quite frankly, I find it interesting to hear what's up with Amiga.

So I guess I'll restate my concerns:

The XUL implemented UI in Mozilla will not fare well in the Windows culture.

You so funny. :) Windows people will love it, dammit. These UIs are ridiculously easy to implement and don't take any longer to load than a Web page. The images reside in their own cache where you never have to download or deal with them at all, and all you need to see them is click one hyperlink. I just don't see your point.

You just made a good point, Kovu.

The majority of Windows users won't appreciate their application UI loading like a web page... or looking like a web page... or behaving like a scripted web page.

Mozilla will be released when Win98 is 1 1/2+ years into market, Office2K will have out for over 6 months and Win2K will probably alreaady have been released.

Microsoft is aiming at a common and consistent 'look & feel' across all of it's applications. Windows users won't accept the radical change in UI design that Mozilla will sport.

For Mozilla making a difference, it's not about current Netscape users migrating to the 5.0 version. It's about giving IE users a reason to switch.

This 'customizable'/'skinnable' metaphor has already gone through the ringer with the Windows crowd... it's a no go. You will be hard pressed to find any major Win32 application that sports this skinnable interface... at least, not one that is sold for a profit.

Umm, I haven't realy looked into the XUL (or XML) definition much, but I'm assuming that you must include it's primary widget definition to use it...

is it posible to "Extend" a widget definition to create new widgets? (i.e. "wackyButton extends class button" kinda stuff, like in Java)

if so, combined with signed/secure .JARs that allow access to client machine file access, and such, one could, **consievably** create a very thin, networkable, MozillaOS based on the XUL,XML the Gecko engine and Necko.

"Apps" could be XUL wrappers downloaded into css defined layers, that for all entents and purposes would act like windows.

realy heavy-duty, and frequently used stuff, would be stored in the cashe and stored locally for quick access, but most of it could reside out on the Internet, available for quick/instant update....

I know that Sun/IBM/Oracle are trying to do the same thing with Java, but it is still a pretty nifty ID.

imagine an Office Suite floating around on the net, free to use by anyone...

"This 'customizable'/'skinnable' metaphor has already gone through the ringer with the Windows crowd... it's a no go."

how so? with every new WinOS release, they advance the amount of costomization of the GUI (changing fonts used in window titles, command button size, background colors etc) and even sell a "Plus" product that allows even more functionality, or at least groups it into easy to manipulte groups.

All their office and development apps are extremely user customizable (move/edit/create toolbars and such)

It is being sold, quite well, and by Microsoft. this XUL is the ultimate extention to that.

Windows app skins are a PAIN to deal with. That is the difference here. And your argument assumes that Windows users prefer that sorry "standard look and feel." As far as looking or behaving like a Web page, the only similarity is that the original files load from the Web and not your hard drive. After they've loaded the UI looks and acts EXACTLY like Microspew's native horsedung only the only thing you need to do to change it is to click one hyperlink, not download another entire browser. You are comparing apples to oranges. Winamp is a lousy example, and so are IE5's "customized" versions. Users hated those because TUCOWS added a hotbot button to theirs, but to get rid of the damn thing you had to, you guessed it, download another whole browser.

There will be lists and lists of these things and unlike desktop themes, all you'll have to do is click once to try on each one, and then click again to confirm default.

With all due respect, Kovu. You are a far cry from the average Windows user.

And the same goes for just about everyone on this board.

"You are a far cry from the average Windows user."

Hey! how'd you know I'm not smack dab in the middle of that Bell Curve (or a little to the left even)...

Besides, I've shown Mozilla to a few "Average Windows Users" (My girlfriend & her neice, some 'theatre' people I hang with some times, a few people from the sales + proposal department at work) and they all seemed to a) like the default apprunner look b) see no real difference usability c) LOVE the downloadable Chrome thing thing.

Bruce,

Microsoft changes/adds functionality to their products' user-interface constantly. For example, in Win98, if you hold down the mouse button while moving around the start menu, you end up *dragging* items in the menu, instead of just passing over them, as was the case in Win95. This is a horrible breach as far as usability goes.

The only thing that Windows users have in common is a desire for their operating system to stay up long enough to get even the simplest tasks done.

MS keeps pulling the rug out from under their users, when it comes to user interface concerns. I have no worries that people will "get" Mozilla's new interface. Except for its load time - which I believe will be a moot point at release time, the XUL interface behaves just like the current Communicator interface, only it will be customizable to a much greater extent.

What problems *exactly* would you think people will have? And you can't say "load time" or "slowness" because, again, we have no idea what the finished product will be like.

Okay, but who is the average Windows user? Since like 9 or every 10 computers run Windows, you have to average out 90% of computer users in general to get "average."

Anyhow, by your own admission anyone on this board doesn't count as "average", including yourself, so how can you possibly be speak for the "average" Windows users any more than I?

You guy's,

If, after all this, you are still clueless as to what I'm saying then all I can really say is wait and see or yourself.

If the XUL implemented UI turns out being a big success... then I will be the first to admit that I was wrong.

My position still stands, however, that XUL will not succeed in the Windows market.

MSNAK:

Humor us. Please, just summarize specifically why you think XUL will not succeed in the Windows market.

"If, after all this, you are still clueless as to what I'm saying ..."

The way I see this discussion is as follows (**heavily** para-phrased)

Your first complaint was- "Its too slow and clunky"

Our rebutal- "Its still [pre-]alpha software, wait till release time, and if its still slow, then you can bitch."

Your Second Complaint- "It doesn't react the same way as Native Win UI"

Our Rebutal - "Huh?, what are you're talking about?"

Your Reply to this - "Ok Fine, look at my mock-up"

Our Rebutal - "Huh?, still can't see what you're talking about?"

Your Reply to that - "Obviously, you don't know UI design then"

Our rebutal - "If we can't see the problem then..."

Your Reply - "ok, well, the current UI not all that intuitive"

our Reputal - "remember the pre-alpha stuff, besides, windows software ain't that great either"

Your Reply - "MS spends bilions on UI development"

our Rebutal - " which makes the fact that MS UI sucks all that more frustrating"

Your Reply - "well, uh.. average Windows users won't like it"

Our rebutal - "Why not?"

Your Reply - "well, uh.. average Windows users won't like it"

Our Rebutal - "look this technology is realy cool, and can do everything the Native UI can, minus some known, pre-alpha speed issues.. plus its completely customizable"

Your Reply - "Oh yaaa! super cool! But average Windows users won't like it"

our rebutal - "why won't they? and who are you to talk for average windows users?"

Your Reply - "If, after all this, you are still clueless as to what I'm saying ..."

Darn right we're clueless, you haven't said a damn thing...

jawbone,

Humor you?

I believe SomeSmartAss just did.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser wrote, "My position still stands, however, that XUL will not succeed in the Windows market."

Well, from what I've been able to tell, that's pretty much all there is to your position.

Christopher,

Yes, it's quite obvious that that is all you've been able to tell.

Maybe, "My position still kneels" or "my position's head is rolling off."

SomeSmartAss, that was the funniest damn thing I've seen today.

Sorry, Bruce, XUL rocks. :)

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

Your trolls have become tedious.

Trolls? I don't see any trolls here.

I find it rather interesting that would suggest such a thing.

a troll is someone who bashes something without using logic, examples or proof. You're basically saying "xul sucks because I think the average windows user says so" XUL isn't finished yet and the average windows user never heard of xul so I don't know what your reasoning is. Is it because keyboard shortcuts haven't been implemented yet? Is it because the grippy panes don't work yet?

Well, I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm saying XUL sucks. I just don't believe that that kind of UI is going to appeal to current IE users. I personally view this as important because Mozilla will really need to gain dominance in the Windows market, above all others, in order for it's '100% standards compliance' to mean anything to web developers.

It doesn't matter if it's XUL, HTML, etc... Using a runtime interpreted UI is not a good thing. I don't need to wait for a final release of Mozilla to know this.

because...?

"I just don't believe that that kind of UI is going to appeal to current IE users."

Well, let's build an "IEClassic", and/or "IE5" Chrome as an option in the setup.

Because?

Because a runtime interpreted UI can't achieve the performance, smoothness, solidity, and over all 'look & feel' that IE users are used to with a native UI.

'Look & Feel' is difficult to describe in a message. If you have Linux, run an X session and observe the UI... compare that with the Win32 UI. How do you describe this difference in a message? It's difficult, for me at least. I'm not suggesting the quality of a XUL implemented UI will be as bad as an X session in Linux, but there will be a notable difference and it won't be in favor of the XUL implementation.

It's simply a matter of following the UI guidelines to the pixel. I'm not familiar with Microsoft's approach but Apple does a good job in specifying what a UI should be like (down to the pixel in many cases): http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/HIGuidelines/HIGuidelines-2.html

Yes, arielb, Mac has an excellent UI... BeOS sports a solid UI as well.

arielb,

Good link by the way... :)

now if I only had a link to Microsoft's guidelines. I don't think they even exist but I'm thinking about redoing the mozilla menu system so that it's more windowish. For example, preferences should be called options and under the view menu not edit. All that stuff in the go menu should be in the file menu. There are several other examples.

www.iarchitect.com proved to me that they really don't exist :)

You may find more info on MS UI stuff here as well:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/developer/userexperience/default.asp

The Neoplanet version of mozzilla will use mozilla through activex and therefore it will use native UI crap. Im sure that people will make an IE like UI out of chrome or for neoplanet. Stuff like this doesnt matter, its performance and stability that we need to work on

NeoPlanet is a poor example of the benefits of a native UI.

Ironically, NeoPlanet is a good example of how 'on-the-fly' UI rendering adversly effects performance.

Maybe I'm missing the gist of the discussion here, but one of you doesn't think XUL/Chrome will fly with the "average" Windows user because they are used to the Microsoft interface style. For Mozilla to compete with IE succesfuly it must adopt an MS standard look.

I really don't think having a non-MS look is going to affect it's for the better or worse. The real problem with the "average" user is that they are almost fearful of the computer. They don't understand it and are worried that they'll break something.

Since IE is right there in their face, and is made by the same people who make Windows, they will use it and not be inclined to change.

However, if someone more knowledegable comes along and shows them Mozilla and it's cool customizable interface there is a very good chance they will like it. People like choice and the ability to express themselves.

If you give them a floppy disk with Mozilla on it or show/tell them how simple it is to install/use, they will use it. This is of course assuming it is as good a product overall as what they are using, IE most likley.

If Mozilla is fast and stable then it's chrome feautres will give it that "cool" factor.

if Mozilla turns out to be slow and buggy then chrome is nothing more than a hokey gimmick to make up for it's flaws.

I'm confident in the former.

I'm not an average user but I'm no programmer either. I use mutiple platforms and give lessons to "average" users on occasion.

The 'gist' is a XUL implemented UI vs. a Native UI... It has nothing to do with having a 'Microsoft look'

The engine in IE is fast, the engine in Opera is fast, and the engine in Mozilla is fast... what differentiates the three to end users is the UI.

I've just went through and read all the responces here (it took a LONG time, last I was here, there were 3!) and figured it was time to give my input... I'm all for the on the fly XUL rendering of the UI (assuming it can be made fast [common request/requirment (already addressed)]). I'm using IE 4 right now (don't use it often, but it's all that's available were I'm currently at) and just noticed the the Microsoft retards moved the print button on the toolbar to the far right (instead if about 3 or 4 from the left)... so much for a standard UI with MS. The big advantage of Mozilla with the XUL UI is that I could move it if they did something dumb like that in the standard UI... then I wouldn't have to spend an extra 30 seconds looking for it each time I wanted to use it. It is also possible to get rid of the buttons you never use (like Channels and Fullscreen???) and place more useful ones in their place (or even those wonderful IM programs we all use so much, if I understand this all correctly). As far as the "average user" is concerned, they won't even know that the UI is XUL (in fact, they probably don't even know what XUL or the UI is!!!) (that's of course assuming they even bother to d/l ANOTHER browser). Of course if AOL decides to use Mozilla, then there would be lots of ppl using it who are classified as "average users" not even realizing that the UI wasn't native to their OS (maybe not even knowing they have an OS, the way some AOL users are).

OK, I think I've said enough for now... back to the reading...

Jacob,

You're right about MS's interface, i think it more/less kinda sucks in a few ways.

Although -- it IS fast and i can stick the URL and the 5 icons i use a lot on one line, which i like the most.

I would rather the customize for the buttons be more word/excel/office like -- where you have all of the IE functionality and you can just pick which one you want and drag it to the toolbar. I may be in a minority, but i LOVE this. It is soo quick/easy for me to add a Squared button, or a double space button in Word. Although word has a ton of extra shit you can't find otherwise:P .. I think IE would be cool to have a way to tap into all the functions and make them a click away on the toolbar if desired.

Now.. that's IE though in the microsoft model...

XUL in the Mozilla model takes it one more step and I love it a ton more. I think it will be 10x more beneficial when there is a mozilla level editing of the XUL interface. Like a rightclick to get to the customize, and have an editor pop up to 'drag' default buttons wherever the user wants and change the image. Professionals can tailor all they like, but i think a generic NATIVE xul editing feature would make the customization so much easier for the end user who just wants to browse, and not fart around with XUL pages....

maybe i should add this to the wishlist...

k

"The engine in IE is fast, the engine in Opera is fast, and the engine in Mozilla is fast... "

The biggest complaint about IE is its bloat.

The biggest complaint about Opera is its butt ugly (and not free)

The biggest complaint about Mozilla is that its not in production yet.

Besides, if you want to talk native UI, that whole Active desktop and Direcories as web-page crapolla (which is being rammed down our throats by MS as Native UI) is slower than mollases on anything but the most powerful desktop machines, and even then its still not perfect. MS is already moving to a runtime interpreted UI as part of the Native UI, and its not all that speedy. Right now, the UI in Mozilla is at least as fast as the Active Desktop nonsense, by the time we go production, or even beta, it'll be a heck of a lot faster. I think you'll find most IE users will PREFER the XUL aproach.

SomeSmartAss,

You just made some good points.

The 'Desktop as a web page' metaphor was a total flop. The problem with Opera is it's UI. As fars as XUL, yes, keep praying.

As far as MS moving to a runtime interpreted UI... nothing could be further from the truth.

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

Since you seem to have some expert knowledge on what Microsoft's UI future is, perhaps you could enlighten us.

I personally do not think MS is easy to guess. I have no inside clue, but I would hazard a guess that they plan multiple fronts at once -- for example this whole IE for Linux thing. They say they're not going to worry about it, yet they're working on a port supposedly. They have a lot of long-term projects in the making and I would NOT be too surprised to see IE 6.0 UI based entirely on XML or some sort of subset of XUL (but microsoft's own format, of course). Look at MS Office 2000 -- they used to use their own file formats for the LONGEST time. Now they're going to a standard (MS standard that is) XML based format. Wow.. that's a switch. As we develop more nad more functionality into the newer web standards, XML, XUL, CSS level 1/2, etc.... I believe you will see MORE and MORE cross platform environments begin.

Kevin

"You just made some good points."

I ate my wheaties today, thankyouverymuch ;)

"As far as MS moving to a runtime interpreted UI... nothing could be further from the truth."

From what little I've seen of Win98, the damn thing is way slower than Win95.. It enforces the "active Desktop" windows explorer on you (which, I *think*, uses the IE engine to render the display) It allows for customizable taskbar menues, which must be stored in a configuration file (or the registry) somewhere and loaded "on the fly". Their Office and Development products all have customizable toolbars, menus, hotkeys, ans so on. Also stored, also compiled and rendered at runtime. I think that MS is running full tilt towards runtime interpreted UI.

I also can't stand that menu animation crap, that does nothing but slow down the proccess of selecting options.

Kevin,

I agree that more and more cross platform environments will emerge... just don't count on them coming from Microsoft.

SomeSmartAss,

You are right. The Win98/IE desktop is rather clutzy compared to a purely native implementation. Maybe give 98Lite a try: http://www.98lite.net

Then if your really want IE nuked, try Revenge of Mozilla on top of 98Lite: http://www.silverlink.net/~jensenba/

The whole Web view bologna was nothing but a lame ploy by MS to further the 'illusion' that the Web Browser and OS are one. Early betas of Win98 had the ActiveDesktop enabled by default... but they realized that that was not in their best interest to do so.

Anyhow, you'll find no disagreement on my part that the UI in Win98 is 'far from on target'.

I'm going to take a stab at MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser's position. I think he's saying that the UI wont have the 'feel' of the MS applications' interfaces. I think by 'feel' he means something independent of speed and appearance. That something is hard to describe so MS lables it with the all encompasing and completely ambiguous title of "user experiance". I happen to think that this 'feel' is simply a product of speed and appearance where I think that MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser thinks its something distinct, a certain flavor (flavah, as I like to say it) that is derived the combining of an application with native OS widgets rendered by the OS. If this is the case the the only thing that can be done to satisfy MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser is to make sure that all the UI elements that exist outside of the basi toolbars (pop ups, dialogs, etc.)should look, feel, behave and render like native widgets. If there's more to MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser's position I'm not seeing it.

I'm going to take a stab at MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser's position. I think he's saying that the UI wont have the 'feel' of the MS applications' interfaces. I think by 'feel' he means something independent of speed and appearance. That something is hard to describe so MS lables it with the all encompasing and completely ambiguous title of "user experiance". I happen to think that this 'feel' is simply a product of speed and appearance where I think that MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser thinks its something distinct, a certain flavor (flavah, as I like to say it) that is derived the combining of an application with native OS widgets rendered by the OS. If this is the case the the only thing that can be done to satisfy MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser is to make sure that all the UI elements that exist outside of the basi toolbars (pop ups, dialogs, etc.)should look, feel, behave and render like native widgets. If there's more to MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser's position I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, did you see their "Neptune" x-face project at ZDNET awhile back? Neptune was/is their code-name for their first post-Win9x consumer OS. The entire UI is integrated into a Web page, I'm afraid. No more choice in the matter. The desktop looked like a plain MS portal. Believe, me, they plan this active desktop shit fully integrated next time, no last minute tacking it onto what was a decent OS, no. I don't know that their plans mean much anyhow. This is going to be an ugly summer for MS in court. PRE Ugly. :) :) :)

"make sure that all the UI elements that exist outside of the basi toolbars (pop ups, dialogs, etc.) should look, feel, behave and render like native widgets."

Unfortunatley, XUL won't accomplish this.

Also, I'm not getting at a MS 'look & feel'... but rather a native UI 'look & feel'.

Netscape Communicator has a decent native UI... set aside it's security dialogs, smartupdate dialogs, etc... Corel WordPerfect Suite has a well crafted native UI as well... as do many other Win32 applications.

"make sure that all the UI elements that exist outside of the basi[c] toolbars (pop ups, dialogs, etc.)should look, feel, behave and render like native widgets."

The whole point of the "new" widgets wat to have a cross platform look and feel that was exactly the same whether it was on Win9x, Linux, Mac, OS/2, Amiga or what-ever. And if thats what MSNAK is looking for, I don't see why? People aren't so dense that they can't figure out what a button is simply because it doesn't have the same colour border as the native buttons. A button is a button is a button. Everybody I know uses WinZip, and its got a wack interface compaired to anything else. (big super colorful buttons) They all seem to figure out what's what.

Besides, Windows has been playing with their UI look and feel for some time now. First (win3.1) it was flat, then it was 3D (win95) now its flat again, but jumps out at you when you go over it with a mouse. and menus can have pictures now... And the gradiant title bar effect going on now. What MS seems to do, is wait for some third party vendor to come along and tweek the UI, then they use it in the next Office release. Betcha IE 2001 will have XUL (or XUL++, which they claim will be better and more intuitive...)

...and Windows dependent. :) Netscape has a fine native UI, and so will 5.0. If people want to change it they will. It may take a month or so to catch on, it may not. Bottom line, XUL won't hurt 5.0 in any way, and it can only increase its popularity. If it slows it down, that's different. Y'know I just read that MS and IBM co-developed OS/2 until MS backed out? Interesting tidbit.

Yep, Have a friend who works for Big Blue wh has a "Microsoft OS/2" mug floating around.

"The whole point of the "new" widgets wat to have a cross platform look and feel"

A XP 'look & feel' means diddly squat to most Windows users. All it signifies is 'less than it could have been'

"Betcha IE 2001 will have XUL..."

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Although I share no love for MS, I can't blame them for getting out of the OS/2 arena. IBM didn't, and still doesn't, have the foggiest concept of the end user.

I remember when IBM thought it was a divine achievment that it's OS/2 booted in three minutes. Their 'minds' were still in mainframes, so three minutes was fast compared to a 15 minute boot of VMS.

"All it signifies is 'less than it could have been'"

What exactly does the Windows Native UI do that XUL doesn't, or won't when the preposed functionality comes into play?

And don't say "data-binding" cause that little "feature" isn't used in most MS apps, and doesn't apply here anywhoo...

I think its been pretty obvious that the thrust of Mozilla development has been "Windows First, other OS's later" and in that respect, They will probably bring more functionality down the pipe to the Less common OS's than "Dumbing down" to their level.

"What exactly does the Windows Native UI do that XUL doesn't, or won't when the preposed functionality comes into play?"

I'll try to answer this one, yet again, in a much simpler way: Just about everything.

"I think its been pretty obvious that the thrust of Mozilla development has been "Windows First, other OS's later""

This is a rather interesting remark. Please elaborate.

an XP look and feel is important for most web users because there is no consistent UI on the web. Every website has its own way of doing things. It would be nice if I had a tree control for my website. I guess I could try to make my own but it would even nicer if I used the same one Netscape would use for Netcenter. Or if I needed a progress meter I'd use Netscape's and everyone would know what it was. We can't use native controls on websites which means that either everyone does his/her own thing or we standardize on a set of web controls. But we can't have standardized web controls unless Netscape uses them throughout the app and Netcenter. Once that happens the web as a whole -not just the browser- becomes easier to use.

Just about everything like . . . please elaborate.

"Just about everything like . . . please elaborate."

Please elaborate...

Don't mean to sound like a smartass, Kovu, but I do find it mildly irritating when someone asks me to repeat myself.

Why doesn't mozilla.org just make a native UI for windows too?

Gecko's TreeControl is an attempt to standardize a non-standard widget. Did they submit it to the W3C? Their whole use of RDF and the XP widgets is non-standard (that is, hasn't been submitted to a standards body)

Gecko only applications and websites will be just as terrible as IE only websites. This whole XP widget/XUL/RDF thing is going to encourage, in the worst case, web sites being Gecko only.

For all these years, we've been trying to get browsers to standardize on HTML4.0, XML, CSS, ECMAScript, and DOM. Now we have Gecko introducing extra non-standard UI ability that web pages authors *will* take advantage of.

I think non-standard extension language/protocol extensions that make the client non-interchangeable suck, whether they are open-source or not.

Plus, Gecko XP widgets look weird on other OS's like the Mac, or CDE/Motif. They don't have the native look, or keyboard policy of the platform they are running on.

To XULisDangerous, The TreeControl widget isn't a non-standard item. Its XML define item which the browser interprets into DHTML. RDF is a standard and has been a standard for a while.

Mozilla does all the standards you mention. Netscape is free to add any extra things. It hasen'tt cause rewriting a standard into a proprietary thinge. Thats part of the reason why XML was invented. XUL is just XML with CSS2 and a specific DTD. A XUL toolbar can be written in HTML and CSS2 there is nothing unstandard about that.

I'm not even sure the XP widgets for buttons and everything are even going to be used. They first draft of what they might look like was released in January. I think we would have seen something now if they were going to be used. But I do feel some of them are ugly.

where is there some good information on XUL. I wanna add a button to the toolbar that brings up a custom dialogbox and when I click OK in that box a certain URL is fired on the basis of some textfields in the dialogbox

help!!

"Plus, Gecko XP widgets look weird on other OS's like the Mac, or CDE/Motif. They don't have the native look, or keyboard policy of the platform they are running on. "

That's true, kinda goes with what MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser was saying about breaking the UI flow in an OS. Hopefully though, there will be numerous different types of Chrome, and who knows, we may be able to make one for each platform -- and then just distribute them with the corresponding release as the default. I'd think there would be a chrome manager in mozilla, and then they also have the option (if they're using windows but prefer linux) to swap the chrome to what they're warm/fuzzy with.

So all-in-all, this will give MORE flexibility. Just because someone is using windows, does NOT mean they prefer the platform interface. Nowadays, where every platform has benefits and negatives, it's hard to find one "best fit OS".

In addition, the development time for each of these chrome interfaces can be made by non-programmers ... and who knows, i think it would be VERY interesting to see a chrome for each distribution by default, that blends in.

But, we'll just hafta wait till release to see these things happen.

XUL DOCS

http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xptoolkit/

http://204.107.76.15/DOCS/

Gecko's TreeControl is an attempt to standardize a non-standard widget. Did they submit it to the W3C? Their whole use of RDF and the XP widgets is non-standard (that is, hasn't been submitted to a standards body)

I think it is XUL currently a recommendation. It is a new innovative technology being developed as we speak based entirely on existing standards.

Gecko only applications and websites will be just as terrible as IE only websites. This whole XP widget/XUL/RDF thing is going to encourage, in the worst case, web sites being Gecko only.

It will make it easier for web developers like us to write cross platform apps than it is right now. This is a far better alternative than writing a web app in native code, porting it to all other platforms, debugging it and then releasing it for public use rapidly and cost effectively(impossible). Netscape has already don this for us. Now we are not limited to building entire apps in a web page. I personally am moist with anticipation :-)

For all these years, we've been trying to get browsers to standardize on HTML4.0, XML, CSS, ECMAScript, and DOM. Now we have Gecko introducing extra non-standard UI ability that web pages authors *will* take advantage of.

Funny, xul IS html4 an application of xml that uses css for layout and ECMAScript in a DOM based AOM(application object model) that uses gifs and jpgs to create your very own widget - what part of "standard" are we missing??

I think non-standard extension language/protocol extensions that make the client non-interchangeable suck, whether they are open-source or not.

???? The client is entirely interchangeable. You now can code your own UI with XUL.

Plus, Gecko XP widgets look weird on other OS's like the Mac, or CDE/Motif. They don't have the native look, or keyboard policy of the platform they are running on.

In my opinion there currently is no cross platform "native look". The web being a combination of multiple platforms, in multiple environments using multiple protocols is a far cry from having any such "native look". Web browses are the main front end to this type of environment. XUL lets you write whatever UI you want. That's the beauty of it. This is the goal that is trying to be accomplished.

Pete Collins

And it's a damn shame that such a UI implementation won't be well received in the Windows market.

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself you said "Just about everything" but that doesn't cut it. Name SPECIFIC examples of what won't work so that we can bash them down, or not, or you can drop it.

You say the UI looks weak, but it's not done yet. Likely they may either develop different versions of UIs for certain user or platform preferences, or have a plug-in that interprets incoming UIs to match your OS look, should you wish it.

If you think people are going to give up having a Wookie head as their back button just because the underlying code is in XUL, which they've probably never heard of, I think you're wrong.

By the way, check my link out, you'll get a kick out of this: http://home.att.net/~Amiga401/amiganation2.htm

Kovu,

I think maybe this default 'view by last 5' nonsense facilitates in repetitive questioning.

Doesn't matter than XUL isn't finalized yet... it's a whole new level of abstraction that can't compare to a native implementation.

Go to Netscape DevEdge in Communicator or MSDN in IE... compare this 'scripted' runtime interpreted UI to it's native counterpart. There's no comparison.

They can 'optimize' XUL to their hearts content in an attempt to minimize this most unfortunate circumstance. It will make no difference.

I have no doubts, though, that you and others will bask in this form of UI... as the alternative is too unbearable for you... MSIE.

Amusing link... make it yourself?

NOTAsskisser >Go to Netscape DevEdge in >Communicator or MSDN in IE... >compare this 'scripted' runtime >interpreted UI to it's native >counterpart. There's no >comparison.

I think you are forgetting the reality of things here. We are talking about the web and web applications not native apps. Right now web developers have to build their UI in a web page. This is awfully restricting.

Nothing is changing here. If I build a database driven web app say with php for example my whole front end is virtually inacessable to me. I have to jam up a web page with buttons, text inputs and other UI types of widgets. That is downloaded by the client over the internet.

In reality what we really need is a UI that is rendered by the same engine as a web page that uses web standards to build the cross platform UI I need to make my app work the way I need it to work.

This is what web developers are looking for.

This is what XUL does.

Be happy

:-)

yes, I did. click on the Beetles and they get bigger. I just reserved www.amiganation.com for 2years, and I'll have Zine going up there quite soon. That Moo! link is the placeholder.

Why would you use IE? Standards alone make that silly. Couldn't you, if you were that worried about it, just make your own browser from Mozilla with whatever "native" UI you want, then allow people to preview it on your site with XUL and download your browser if they want like the preview?

Pete,

I'm fully aware of the 'benefits' of XUL. The problem is that Mozilla will be emerging in an IE saturated marketplace with a UI that will be unacceptable to most Windows users. Another 'bad thing' is Microsoft will never support XUL. XUL will be just another 'feature' that only works in a specific browser... which any web designer, who's goal is to reach the widest audience, will completely ignore lest they redesign a duplicate web document solely for Mozilla... which nullifies the benefits of standards to begin with.

Kovu,

I use IE, Netscape, and Opera... they each have their strong points and weak points.

As far as a 'preview' goes... I understand what you are saying... but that's a far cry from justifying the use of XUL for an applications 'chrome'

Pete,

I'm fully aware of the 'benefits' of XUL. The problem is that Mozilla will be emerging in an IE saturated marketplace with a UI that will be unacceptable to most Windows users. Another 'bad thing' is Microsoft will never support XUL. XUL will be just another 'feature' that only works in a specific browser... which any web designer, who's goal is to reach the widest audience, will completely ignore lest they redesign a duplicate web document solely for Mozilla... which nullifies the benefits of standards to begin with.

Kovu,

I use IE, Netscape, and Opera... they each have their strong points and weak points.

As far as a 'preview' goes... I understand what you are saying... but that's a far cry from justifying the use of XUL for an applications 'chrome'

"which any web designer, who's goal is to reach the widest audience, will completely ignore lest they redesign a duplicate web document solely for Mozilla... which nullifies the benefits of standards to begin with."

Since XUL can be controlled via Javascript, it'll be trivial to do a useragent check, and supply different choices to the user. We plan to use it internally, for site administration, with a default of in-the-webpage UI for when I'm at a different machine. The whole thing, from what I've seen so far, will be pretty trivial. And since I'm using PHP3, I can do all the page creation server-side, and dish out different nav configurations with a simple if{} statement. To say that web designers will have to redesign a whole site for Mozilla is wrong. However, you sorta put your finger on it - application developers want to reach the widest audience. And that may just very well mean supporting XUL - especially when the consumers - web application users - see the benefits of it.

If you design strictly to w3c standards, your website won't look good in IE anyway (see the box acid test) therefore w3c compliance is "just another feature that only works in a specific browser". Opera won't do it either (and that's just css let alone DOM and decent javascript support). So what are standards good for if nobody else follows them? 1) if the browser follows standards then we know if it's working properly by checking standards support. 2) web designers can focus on features and better layout instead of working around browser bugs. Because mozilla is open source we can also expect a proliferation of non-Netscape browsers that can render the same content. I have to go. Star Wars awaits me

You guys missed my point.

If I go to some website, and they use downloadable chrome as part of the web site's "application", how will I support IE users, WebTV, handheld units, Opera, Konqueror and every other browser.

As a web developer, I don't want to have to deal with the extra hassle. I want to write pure HTML4.0, JavaScript, XML, CSS, and DOM, and have it work *everywhere* whether or not people are using Gecko.

You people are presupposing that somehow, Gecko "wins" and has monopolized the market. That people are shipping HTML applications around on CD-ROMs using Gecko. (a pipedream, trying to code up something like MSWord using Gecko/XUL would be ungodly slow and make Java look like C++ on steroids)

Even if it does Gecko dominates, it is just as bad as Microsoft. I don't care if its open-source or not. I care about standards. To me, what matters is that the file format is supported everywhere, and that the market targets this file format when exchanging data.

To me, if hackers keep adding non-standard features to gecko every release, and web sites actually take advantage of them, that this is just as horrible as Microsoft "embracing and extending" and convincing others to use their extensions.

Some of you people don't even understand how XML works. it doesn't matter if XUL is based on XML, CSS layout, and JavaScript. It still depends on non-standard native code support for it to work.

The acid test is if a XUL file loaded into a XML/CSS/DOM/EcmaScript enabled browser will produce "chrome" on a non-Gecko platform that looks and feels the same. The fact is, it won't.

XML isn't magic. Any application specific DTDs like MathML, or XUL, or SVG still require native C/C++ extensions to work.

Open-source Gecko is just as dangerous as closed-source IE, because developers will have a tendency to slap in lots of featuritis without working with the IETF or W3C first, because they will be "too slow" for their tastes.

Netscape did this in the past by introducing TONs of non-standard tags, including TABLEs, BLINK, MULTICOL, LAYER, etc.

Any introduction of new tags, css properties, or non-standard javascript accessible fields is an abomination. It means some hacks will be tempted to use them, which means we are back to square one of having to supprt multiple versions of our websites.

If Gecko is the only browser that works properly then it should be the standard, because Gecko's standard is W3C standard and this reinforces that there is, in fact, SOME standard. It is not in existence to lenthen any one company's dominance of any particular industry(s).

As for IE, who would use a faulty browser knowingly? Now sure, before Navigator 5.0, but after, why? If Gecko is nothing else it is faster than IE and supports standards, and fits on a floppy. Once Mozilla is released there will soon be no place for non-standards compliant browsers in the market. IE will support standards or sink. That's like saying color TV just really wasn't going anywhere.

Am I wrong or does this thing simply allow you to downloaded customized UIs? If you don't want to make one for your site, don't. If you can think of a better way to accomplish the purpose, do. I don't see how that requires you to have multiple versions of your Web site.

And I don't think you get the purpose of XUL, or the uses we're describing. You state: "If I go to some website, and they use downloadable chrome as part of the web site's 'application', how will I support IE users, WebTV, handheld units, Opera, Konqueror and every other browser."

By "web application", we're not talking about something that you get when you visit a website. We're not talking about ecommerce websites. We're talking about the kinds of applications that are utilized in backend services. For example, applications that access databases and administer a website. These applications aren't used by a website visitor, they're used by administrators. And, as I stated, altering an administration application to make it XUL compatible (while at the same time allowing it to work in a standard browser format) is a trivial feat. And it doesn't in any way affect what visitors to a website see.

The XUL use that will be popular among consumers is of a different sort - it will (almost certainly) only be visual differences to their user interface (possibly with buttons added to lead to specific parts of a company's website (as we did with our mozillaZine skin). It certainly wouldn't be used in e-commerce situations or other web-applications. Even if it was, it would only be an adjunct to a standard-browser service, not a replacement.

You continue: "As a web developer, I don't want to have to deal with the extra hassle. I want to write pure HTML4.0, JavaScript, XML, CSS, and DOM, and have it work *everywhere* whether or not people are using Gecko."

XUL in no way affects the way you develop websites for the public. Web standards compliance should be your concern.

"You people are presupposing that somehow, Gecko 'wins' and has monopolized the market. That people are shipping HTML applications around on CD-ROMs using Gecko."

No such thing. XUL will be useful in web application development, like remote database access and such. Applications in which most of the data is passed via HTML and XML to a browser window. For interaction with an adminstrator (or a customer service agent, for example).

"The acid test is if a XUL file loaded into a XML/CSS/DOM/EcmaScript enabled browser will produce 'chrome' on a non-Gecko platform that looks and feels the same. The fact is, it won't."

No, it's not, for the reasons I stated above. XUL is not something that will affect the usage of websites. And, let's face it, the true thing that will be affecting website development is standards compliance, and in that way, Mozilla will not be to blame after the release of v1.

It seems that you're conflating various purposes of XUL, and assuming a usage for it that will not occur, because, as you said, that kind of usage will not be supported by companies like Microsoft, and will not become standardized. However, when used as I mentioned above, it allows web application developers to create administration tools that work in standard browsers and at the same time take advantage of XUL functionality to bring value-added features to Mozilla users.

"Since XUL can be controlled via Javascript, it'll be trivial to do a useragent check, and supply different choices to the user"

A useragent check is trivial... designing both a non-XUL and XUL site vs. a non-XUL site is not.

"application developers want to reach the widest audience. And that may just very well mean supporting XUL"

Just the opposite. If I want to reach the widest audience... XUL is something I won't author for.

"If you design strictly to W3C standards, your website won't look good in IE anyway"

It wouldn't look good in Opera or Netscape, either. I've been hoping that Mozilla would change this, but after realizing that this XUL interface is set in stone... my hopes have dwindled.

"As for IE, who would use a faulty browser knowingly?"

Kovu, in all honesty, you really need to realize that everyone doesn't share your view that Microsoft is a big, bad, evil corporation that's hell bent on destroying the world and taking over your land. Don't take that the wrong way though... I got a good chuckle on that one. :)

So some people seem to think that creating UI chrome on the fly from data is "suicide" and "unacceptable to most users". Did you know that the "chrome" part of most MS Windows and Macintosh applications, i.e. the menus, toolbars, dialogs, etc, is created on the fly from data called "resources"? Resources are put directly into the executable and are not designed to be cross platform, but the essential principle is the same. In fact, there are programs called "resource editors" which allow you to change a program's resources and in effect create a whole new UI. All that XUL is doing is taking the mainstream approach to creating GUIs, i.e. generating them from data, and making it cross-platform, just as XPCOM takes the mainstream approach to software components and makes it cross-platform.

Maciej,

There's a much bigger difference than you let on. The 'essential principle' as you put it is the same, however, the implementation is quite different. Additional layers of abstraction are introduced in rendering XUL, layers that are not present in a native implementation, resulting in performance and 'look & feel' deficiencies compared with what Windows users are used to with a native UI.

As an exaggerated example, look at Java: The JVM 'acts' like a purely cross-platform machine. It is because of these additional 'layers of abstraction' that make Java applications so slow relative to their native counterparts.

Java doesn't bid well with Windows users. Although a XUL based UI does perform better than Java... it still won't appeal to Windows users .

I'm out of my league here so pardon me if this makes no sense. So that I may increase my knowedge I'd appreciate it if you could point out my mistakes.

With that said:

I don't see why supporitng XUL would force you to design 2 versions of a site.

You design a site using standards. Mozilla supports standards and you'd expect everyone else to as well since that is the very definition of a standard.

Should you decide to create a custom interface in support of XUL than it's just an added bonus for Mozilla users. I don't see how not using XUL would cause any difficulties as Mozilla would use whatever chrome is being used and operate as any normal browser would.

It seems that you'd be going out of your way to design a custom site for browsers like IE which don't support standards. In doing so the site would look wrong in the browser that supports standards.

Until everyone supports the standards, or settles on one browser, you'll be doing extra work anyways. How much depends on how many non standard features you choose to support.

A work around would be something similar to what the Mac browser iCab does. It claims to be standards compliant. There is an option to disrespect standards so that sites that take advantage of non-standard tags render as they were intended.

Perhaps the browser could automaticly toggle to the correct rendering model depending on the HTML being used?

I think I may have just realized your point, designing a XUL based interface would make the browser act like an app running off of a server with custom button and menus rather than using a traditional web based frontend. This would indeed force two sites. Is this correct?

Mike,

"I don't see why supporitng XUL would force you to design 2 versions of a site."

XUL would be a 'Mozilla Only' feature that would still require the web designer to develop for the non-XUL browsers as well. IE won't use XUL and IE isn't going away. XUL will just be another specific 'browserism' just like any other feature specific to a particular browser.

Irregardless of all that, a XUL rendered UI won't appeal to most Windows users so you're basically going to end up with a market composed of around, luckily, 20% Mozilla users. This won't be enough to light the fire under Microsoft's ass to get IE 100% standards compliant. That's a damn shame because I can't see MS ever putting a whole hearted effort into complying with the W3C unless market pressures force them to do so.

MSNAK, luckily the U.S. Department of Justice agrees with me, not you. :) Seriously, MS has already lost the case and Justice gets a little more time to chop them up over the summer. Sorry, MS is on a head-on collision with some really painful consequences, and I'm going to enjoy it.

My advice people? Sell MS buy AOL. :)

MSNAssKisser...maybe you should start a non-xul mozilla browser project? I'm sure there are quite a few people who'd be interested in making a more Windows friendly browser.

Well, I don't really have any first hand experience with these editable toolbar things, since I can't get mozilla to run on my computer, but... I'd like to point out a few things from a 16 year old's point of view... 1. I don't mind waiting for a program to start up... and neither do most people... it's a fact of life that most programs don't start in under 15 or 20 seconds on my computer, and if this makes it 30 seconds, oh well. 2. Having toolbars that don't look 'normal' is not a problem... I know that I for one would like to make my own toolbar, and that just about every person I know at school would want their own too. This may seem silly to some of you, but you don't realize that a lot of high school people spend more time on the internet now than watching TV. 3. While there aren't a whole lot of "Microsoft Haters" around, no one I know has downloaded IE5 because it is too big, and besides, no one likes the 'windows explorer' in win98... 4. If AOL puts it in AOL 5.0, there will be much rejoicing... there would also be even more rejoicing if they would put in more 56k numbers... :)

Anyway, I know I got off the subject, but I'd have to say the average user under age 18 would probably download it just so they could change the buttons, colors, etc. Yes, I know a little more about computer stuff than some people, but I'm no wizard or anything....

GO MOZILLA!

;)

Scott

argh there are no MS guidelines! For example, in Windows Explorer Find is in the Tools menu. In Internet Explorer it's in the Edit menu. In MS Notepad it's in the Search menu. In wordpad there's Exit in the File menu but no Close. In Explorer there's Close but no Exit. In IE, options are in the view menu. Not so Netmeeting- options are in the tools menu.

I think once the industry sees what can be done with XUL they are going to scramble to name brand thier sites. Get the "edge" on compitition, especially in intra and extranets. Search engines would especially take advantage, you know AOL is going to take advantage(i think they hold a piece of the market). But right now everyone has forgotton about Netscape. It is human nature to think only in the present. But after it is released WHAM everyone will jump on the band wagon.

As far as UI speed goes this at worst will be a minor issue in the first release, but my guess is because mozilla is open source more developers will consider this unacceptable and move to correct it. It will not prevent people from using the UI. Does javascript image mouseovers prevent people from using a web site? This will be trivial to most users.

Anything can be done. You just need a place to start.

Mozilla in my opinion got the ball rolling. Where that ball goes is entirely up to us developers.

pete

"I don't mind waiting for a program to start up... and neither do most people..."

I'm afraid that's not true.

"But after it is released WHAM everyone will jump on the band wagon"

In America, we call this 'wishful thinking'.

"As far as UI speed goes this at worst will be a minor issue in the first release"

On the contrary, it *will* be the deciding factor.

"my guess is because mozilla is open source more developers will consider this unacceptable and move to correct it"

Hopefully, they will come to this realization *before* the final release.

"Does javascript image mouseovers prevent people from using a web site? This will be trivial to most users"

As web content? No. As the application's chrome? You bet ya. The difference will be far from trivial.

"no one likes the 'windows explorer' in win98..."

No argument there... ever wonder why?

Test.

test

test

Final test.

This is a 'test' of my previous post.

"I don't mind waiting for a program to start up... and neither do most people..."

I'm afraid that's not true.

"But after it is released WHAM everyone will jump on the band wagon"

In America, we call this 'wishful thinking'.

"As far as UI speed goes this at worst will be a minor issue in the first release"

On the contrary, it *will* be the deciding factor.

"my guess is because mozilla is open source more developers will consider this unacceptable and move to correct it"

Hopefully, they will come to this realization *before* the final release.

"Does javascript image mouseovers prevent people from using a web site? This will be trivial to most users"

As web content? No. As the application's chrome? You bet ya. The difference will be far from trivial.

"no one likes the 'windows explorer' in win98..."

No argument there... ever wonder why?

"I don't mind waiting for a program to start up... and neither do most people..."

""I'm afraid that's not true.""

Oh but I'm afraid it is. And to those with fast computers the difference is only a second or two. In any case if I remember the stuff stays in your cache and only has to downloaded the first time you choose it or it if it expires from your cache, right?

"But after it is released WHAM everyone will jump on the band wagon"

""In America, we call this 'wishful thinking'.""

Ummm, not this American! In Redmond perhaps.

"As far as UI speed goes this at worst will be a minor issue in the first release"

""On the contrary, it *will* be the deciding factor.""

Deciding factor on what? You think people aren't going to use Netscape because you allow them to change the UI if they want to? If this was the case Mosaic wouldn't have gone anywhere. You can't tell me it was fast.

"my guess is because mozilla is open source more developers will consider this unacceptable and move to correct it"

""Hopefully, they will come to this realization *before* the final release.""

You don't even know that the speed is going to be a factor in the final release. You certainly haven't proved it in any case.

"Does javascript image mouseovers prevent people from using a web site? This will be trivial to most users"

""As web content? No. As the application's chrome? You bet ya. The difference will be far from trivial.""

Umm, why? Sites will have to be developed without the custom UI assumed, so they will be made to enhance the control and navigation of Web sites, not to replace it.

"no one likes the 'windows explorer' in win98..."

""No argument there... ever wonder why?""

Okay unnecessarily CRYPTIC. You have this thing with saying things are a certain way but not WHY. It's like you're repeating, "Because I say so," "Because I say so" over and over again. Use logic to prove your argument or you won't prove it.

Whatever the case of Mozilla v 1., it'll beat the crap out of IE in every way. Sorry, sad but true! And with AOL's 5.0 coming out in September, assuming it uses Mozilla, wonderful IE goes under a 30 share. So much for your hordes of IE users.

Kovu,

You weren't by chance involved with the development of CorelCentral 8.0 were you?

If your the least bit confused as to the what's, why's, and hows... I suggest you read my posts and listen to them instead of concentrating on how you are going to respond.

I am curious, though, how will AOL 5.0 in September use Mozilla when it won't even be finished yet? Or will Mozilla be completed in September???

well UI speed is a bit hard to benchmark -even if it isn't I never heard of any browser maker using it as an advantage. That doesn't mean I won't call for profiling to death of mozilla code but it's not something you'll see in marketing one way or the other. Remember that people are slower than computers so that sometimes the fastest UI is the easiest and simplest-not the most optimised. Therefore anything on Windows will be slow :)

I see the light now! MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser is right.

A UI that is a fraction of a millisecond slower that a native coded UI is completely useless to us all.

I think i am going to stop using FreeBSD, stop using X-windows and netscape, not consider any other platforms and OS's because if hey everyone used Microsoft and MS solutions all our problems would be solved.

Why didn't I think of that. I mean most of the market uses M. Why not everyone? Then there will be one standard. M world.

Can't we all just get along in an M utopia and stare at blue screens, I mean blue skies together?

:-}

pete

I do listen and read to your posts. You consistently say things that are unsubstantiated. Also, just as we quote other messages to show what we're referring to, you can't assume that readers have gone back and pored over every message, or committed them all to memory. If I missed a crucial point, quote it to me. Your arguments should hold logic enough to stand on their own. You were shooting down this kid with no bullets. What's the use?

BTW, make sure you notice I said "assuming" AOL 5.0 uses Mozilla. And yes, if beta for Netscape is August I see no reason that by then AOL can take the necessary elements of Mozilla and blend them into AOL 5.0 by September. Funny thing, too, the trial is over by then.

AOL REALLY, REALLY wants the flash panel functionality--I guaruntee you. If they can get it in 5.0 they will, I'm sure. You would think they would want AOL 5.0 and Netscape 5.0 to hit at the same time.

OK, I've got to say that MSNAK makes some very good points and that alot of the argument against him is poorly thought out and based purely on speculation.

I've also gotta say that some of MSNAK's opponants make good points and the logic of his comments in sometimes hard to follow.

That being said, this really does seem to be a lop sided argument. MSNAK's main concern seems to be that the XUL rendered interface won't be readily accepted by Windows Users and I can see this being a problem. Not because of any shortcomings in the code. Not because they're gonna say "Oh, no... not XUL!!!" The problem will be that it's not Windows interface. Some ppl actually like the shell inhancements MS made in IE 4 and Win98 (I have to admit to liking some of them, but now that I'm using NT, I'll live w/out them). Some ppl like the fact that the UI is constant (tho I can't understand why). I myself happen to like to customize my Apps whenever possible (to a certain degree... if it takes too long, forget it).

I actually have a concern of my own with this method. After going to ChromeZone with one of the nightly builds, I noticed how easy it was to change the entire UI. Too easy, in fact. As a home user, I don't like the idea that just by clicking on the wrong link, my entire UI is changed... I'd like to have a warning so I can cancel it if neccesary. As a corporate user, I'd like to be able to have everybody on the same UI and be able to update it (without recieving 100 calls of "I got this message box, what do I do????"). I'd also like my users protected from having their UI changed (maybe even forbidden). Being that this is a concern that I haven't seen mentioned in the 243 messages to this point, I thought I'd address it here.

Jacob Steenhagen

The problem with pigeonholing Windows users is that there are so many different kinds. And it's about to get worse. They are so far up and down the spectrum of computer users, you can't possibly predict but small branches of them, there are too many variables. You can say "I don't think business users will like it" or "I think people who would ordinarily use AOL would dig it." but even those are huge generalities. Trying to predict how a Windows user will react is the same as trying to predict how a random person in society would react.

As far as native UIs go, they are nice, but static. I can't say it'll beat sliced bread but, until someone comes up with an easier way to accomplish the same task (without putting one engineer in a room all day to add one button) in a better way, some users are going to go with it, anyway. It has to happen some time, because the powers at be want access to that real estate, big time. It has to happen somehow.

It will not be that easy to change the skin/content of the chrome. The low-level functionality that is currently being exposed (and used by the ChromeZone) will in fact be disallowed once the higher-level API comes online.

This higher-level API will allow for undoing chrome changes, previewing of changes, etc. etc., and it will prompt the user before applying any new chrome.

This is currently scheduled for M9.

Rock on. BTW, off-topic, but the Netcenter ISP would allow you to turn OFF the advertising just like AOL does. That's why I want it, because I use Netcenter and all that, I'd like to pay for the "Gold" service that contains "marketing preferences", which Netscape does not currently have 4.6. My native UI with 4.6 is, by the way, a bit wacky. My button faces disappear seemingly at will--enmasse.

Ok folks,

Just remember that if Mozilla doesn't make this 'sweeping' comeback... it had nothing to do with the rendering engine... it was because of it's XUL implemented UI.

:) Sure thing. See you on the other side of a new power supply fan. :(

Correction in order...

Just remember that *when* Mozilla doesn't make this 'sweeping' comeback... it had nothing to do with the rendering engine... it was because of it's XUL implemented UI.

*IF* suggests uncertainty.

I think it's worth noting that Netscape 1.0 (and 2.0) had alien UIs to most users... of course the whole concept of a "web browser" was alien to most, but it didn't look *native* at all.

ps: is anyone trying to hook up the composer/mailer spell-checker to work with text areas in the browser? this would rock for web-based email, etc... is this one of the non NPL'ed components?

On the contrary, NS 1.0 and 2.0 both implemented native UI's.

I think you may have confused term 'native' with 'standard'...

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I know very well that they were implemented natively, but they did not look it: the throbber? the big (ugly, IMO) buttons? And of course, there is the entire paradigm of the hyperlink, which is (was) not native to any OS on an application level at the time.

The point is is that just because something doesn't look like Word or Notes, it doesn't mean that it won't be embraced by the users. Netscape 2.0 turned the software world upside-down, even with its non-win 3.1 look. The bottom line is that it was very useful, and I think to a lot of users, "cool". (It sure beat CompuServe and AOL)

MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser,

I know very well that they were implemented natively, but they did not look it: the throbber? the big (ugly, IMO) buttons? And of course, there is the entire paradigm of the hyperlink, which is (was) not native to any OS on an application level at the time.

The point is is that just because something doesn't look like Word or Notes, it doesn't mean that it won't be embraced by the users. Netscape 2.0 turned the software world upside-down, even with its non-win 3.1 look. The bottom line is that it was very useful, and I think to a lot of users, "cool". (It sure beat CompuServe and AOL)

I agree with you N Cronin, but were still talking native here.

The size of a button, nor it's glyph, is not what makes a UI native or not.

Then back to the question of performance, which has yet to be answered...

The worst-case for the XUL implementation is the prediction that it will take too long to load and too long to use. I think that the success of NN 2.0 (I'm sure you've used it recently, it's slower than Black Sabbath!) at the very least begs the question:

Aren't the advantages worth the (as-yet-un-metric'ed, but certainly there) sacrifices?

MSNAsskisser-stop whining and do something about it

N Cronin:

It's not so much the loading time, although it certainly won't help matters, as much as it is the 'look & feel' deficiencies that Windows users are accustomed to with IE... or other Win32 applications.

XUL has definite benefits and advantages that many here have pointed out... none of which I dispute. Unfortunatley, they don't outweigh the penalty incurred on user perception.

As far as NN2... or NN1 for that matter... Netscape never really had any competition until IE 3.0.

Oops! Let me rephrase the first part:

It's not so much the loading time, although it certainly won't help matters, as much as it is the 'look & feel' deficiencies compared with what Windows users are accustomed to with IE... or other Win32 applications.

What deficiencies are you referring to?

Look at our 4.x Windows product. It doesn't use built-in Windows controls for either the toolbars, the toolbar buttons, or the tree widget. It does use native menus.

Now look at SeaMonkey. It uses XUL-based toolbars, buttons and trees that can be made to look and feel like the 4.x UI. We are still using native menus even with XUL, so there's no difference there.

I just don't understand what you're driving at. We can rebuild the 4.x UI and (once speed issues are resolved) we can mimic it with XUL.

Note that we can even get native system colors and fonts using CSS2.

If you're claiming that because we're not completely using Win32 controls that people won't accept 5.0, then the obvious simple counter is the current released version of Netscape itself.

Look at NS3 and NS4. They didn't use the standard Windows controls for the toolbars or trees, and they were accepted by millions of users.

Let me give you another example: AOL 4.0. It has custom toolbars, a custom bookmarks system, etc. etc. etc. Is it accepted? Again, yes, by millions of users.

There are plenty of other apps that have their own home-grown UI and that are accepted by Windows users (Winamp, Neoplanet and ICQ come to mind).

Cite some specific concerns and make your argument constructive. You might find that we're addressing some of your concerns in XUL, or we might find that there's something we could do to improve the user experience.

David,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

There's a big difference between the Netscape Communicator UI that's resolved at compile time vs the Mozilla UI which is resolved at runtime.

Now since you brought it up... If I were you, I wouldn't consider NeoPlanet to be a success story on customizable UI's. It's use is but a mere fraction of the market, it's sluggish as hell, and more a less a novelty for kids.

As far as AOL and WinAMP goes... that's not what Mozilla will be competing against... it will be competing against IE.

In order for Mozilla to regain dominance in the browser market it can't be 'almost' as good as IE... or even just as good... it has to be better.

By now you're thinking 'it *will* be better than IE... it will fully support CSS1/2, DOM, ECMAScript, etc...' Unfortunatley, those attributes won't mean diddly to the average Windows user.

What is the average Windows user? I shall start by saying who it isn't. It's nobody in this forum and it's nobody that gives regular feedback to Mozilla.org. The average Windows user, ironically, is the one who's life doesn't revolve around computers and it's the one who could care less about Microsoft or Netscape... or any other software company for that matter.

So, Mozilla will be released in a 70%+ IE market when Win98 is 1 1/2+ years into release. Office2K will have been out for at least 6 months and more than likely Win2K will have been released.

Make no mistake that it will be a tough battle for Mozilla regardless of it's UI implementation. However, What would possibly compel the average Windows user to switch?

Performance and the user-interface.

A XUL implemented UI will *not* outperform it's native counterpart. What I would like to know is, since I assume you're a developer, how could you possibly think otherwise?

I suggest that a native UI be developed for Mozilla as well... if anything for a test bed to compare against the XUL implementation prior to releasing the final version. Considering what's at stake, I think it would be a wise thing to do.

MSNAssKisser,

You said, "There's a big difference between the Netscape Communicator UI that's resolved at compile time vs the Mozilla UI which is resolved at runtime."

And yet, again, you refuse to explain what those differences are. And why is that? Because there's no way you can - there is no final implementation of XPFE to compare against a native UI, therefore your argument has no basis in fact, and no method to verify your claim. But still you persist in making it.

"A XUL implemented UI will *not* outperform it's native counterpart. What I would like to know is, since I assume you're a developer, how could you possibly think otherwise?"

If you had been paying attention, Dave Hyatt is one of *the* guys at Netscape programming the XPFE. He wrote most of the new XPFE docs that are available now.

And, from his post, part of your argument is moot - the XUL interface has to be as responsive as the non-native interfaces of NN4, not as a native UI - simply because the UI of NN4.x has not led people to choose IE. And Dave seems to think that that's completely possible that Mozilla's UI will be that responsive - and he should be the one to know.

You, however, have based your entire theory entirely around the "possibility" that Mozilla's XPFE will be slower than a native UI. And you persist in that argument, even though you have no data to back you up, except the performance of a pre-alpha browser.

"So, Mozilla will be released in a 70%+ IE market when Win98 is 1 1/2+ years into release. Office2K will have been out for at least 6 months and more than likely Win2K will have been released."

Interesting. You argue that Mozilla needs to compete in a situation in which the cards are stacked against it by MS's blatantly anticompetitive practices. I believe that if Mozilla fails, it is going to be more a result of MS's anticompetitive practices than anything. And that argument will be much easier to verify than your "slower interface" argument.

mozineAdmin,

With all due respect, I was addressing David... not you.

I've already heard your fluff and am not interested in what you think nor am I interested in the games that you play.

A developer should already know the difference between a UI that's resolved at compile time versus runtime with no need for further explanation... obviously, that tells me more about you.

Also, I don't appreciate your 'attacking' posts... especially since you are the administrator here.

If you want to say something personally, then email me... but don't try to play me in this forum.

David,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

There's a big difference between the Netscape Communicator UI that's resolved at compile time vs the Mozilla UI which is resolved at runtime.

Now since you brought it up... If I were you, I wouldn't consider NeoPlanet to be a success story on customizable UI's. It's use is but a mere fraction of the market, it's sluggish as hell, and more a less a novelty for kids.

As far as AOL and WinAMP goes... that's not what Mozilla will be competing against... it will be competing against IE.

In order for Mozilla to regain dominance in the browser market it can't be 'almost' as good as IE... or even just as good... it has to be better.

By now you're thinking 'it *will* be better than IE... it will fully support CSS1/2, DOM, ECMAScript, etc...' Unfortunatley, those attributes won't mean diddly to the average Windows user.

What is the average Windows user? I shall start by saying who it isn't. It's nobody in this forum and it's nobody that gives regular feedback to Mozilla.org. The average Windows user, ironically, is the one who's life doesn't revolve around computers and it's the one who could care less about Microsoft or Netscape... or any other software company for that matter.

So, Mozilla will be released in a 70%+ IE market when Win98 is 1 1/2+ years into release. Office2K will have been out for at least 6 months and more than likely Win2K will have been released.

Make no mistake that it will be a tough battle for Mozilla regardless of it's UI implementation. However, What would possibly compel the average Windows user to switch?

Performance and the user-interface.

A XUL implemented UI will *not* outperform it's native counterpart. What I would like to know is, since I assume you're a developer, how could you possibly think otherwise?

I suggest that a native UI be developed for Mozilla as well... if anything for a test bed to compare against the XUL implementation prior to releasing the final version. Considering what's at stake, I think it would be a wise thing to do.

IE does not have a 70 share. It has less than 50 actually, about 47, and NS has about 43.

MSNAssKisser,

My posts abide by the rules I set down, which is that I do not attack with namecalling, and my posts are not void of content. These are not games, and I do not attack you personally, I attack your comments - which are utterly lacking any supporting facts. Everyone's comments are fair game in this forum. And I'm not opting out of responding in these forums simply because you don't like what I have to say.

You attempt "with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about" posts even with the likes of Dave Hyatt, who is one of Netscape's major developers in charge of the cross-platform front-end. And yet, even when attacking my post for being an "attack", you brush off my supposed lack of knowledge by saying "A developer should already know the difference between a UI that's resolved at compile time versus runtime with no need for further explanation... obviously, that tells me more about you."

If that's not a scurrilous remark, I don't know what is.

You also do exactly what I mentioned in my previous post - refuse to back up any of your assertions.

I'm not trying to play you - I'm just tired of you essentially calling people know-nothings and then refusing to back up your comments with *any* facts whatsoever. The ball's in your court. I stand by what I said.

Come on everyone.

The solution is to use windows and IE.

There will be plenty of time to hold hands when we do our weekly M reinstalls.

:-)

This forum keeps growing and growing... and it's all repeatitive. "XUL won't be accepted, yes it will, no it won't, yes it will." There's really only one way to find out for sure, and that's wait.

Personally, I think it will do just fine. The average user (not me, not you [you're reading news about a product 6 months away from realease, you're not average]) will not know the difference between a native UI and an UXL UI (MSNAK, you said it yourself, only a devoloper truely knows the difference), they'll only know if it's "sluggish" or "it works" (believe me, I'm a Network admin/help desk person, I hear those kind of comments all the time). If Mozilla devolpers can make it so "it works", then it will be accepted (even tho most ppl won't know they've accepted anything new). If it's sluggish, then only ppl with fast computers will use it (irregardless of what OS they're running).

MSNAK, you also stated "Performance and the user-interface" would cause the average user to switch, and ya know what, you're exactly right. I'm sure that once the XUL UI is done, it will be just as fast as a native UI (see about 100 of the previous posts for this info... :O) So Mozilla has to do a little better than IE (at least that's what you said). What's better? Customization. And what's even better than that? Fast customization. What's XUL? Fast customiztion. If this is done correctly, it just might be the insentive to get the average user to use this software instead of IE. (After all, standards complience on it's own won't do it, right?)

MSNAK, I do not claim that the XUL-based UI will outpeform a native UI. Obviously if I sat down and wrote native Win32 toolbars and a native Win32 tree widget, they would outperform their XUL counterparts.

However, at some point the UI becomes fast enough, and my belief is that a XUL-based UI will not be sluggish or unresponsive once we've nailed down more of the speed and performance issues.

I understand your concern, but I do think that - once we start optimizing for performance - the XUL-based UI will do just fine.

(Remember, these XUL files aren't large. They're tiny, and there's no reason why they should be taking such a long time to load and lay out.)

With all due respect, MSNAK, When I read your posts I feel like I am reading Weekly World News with an article claiming a big ole fireball is coming to the earth and that we are all going to die .... all talk, no substance.

I'm sure you are aware that your arguments have no merit and have been addressed, and at this point you must be making your comments to try to save face. Just let it lie. With all of this banter, you might have been able to construct a more native looking xul interface with the time you've put into defending your arguments with more arguments.

Going to a native code bloated interface is crap and the old way. As things open up and people get smarter and smarter with their computers, times will change.

There will be some people who do NOT switch, and you know, after reading all of those posts, i could care less for them. If they are happy, then so be it. All I know is that *I* want a browser that functions and is customizable. And guess what, I'm NOT alone.

Listening to your groundless comments over and over could give someone a headache.

To MozAdmin, i'm sorry I've been lacking content in this post, because EVERYTHING i just said has been mentioned 50+ times already. I think if you were to enforce that rule, then there MIGHT be 15-20 posts in this area :P I just wanted to say this again though...

mozineAdmin,

What I find amusing is that your arguments, or anyone else's for that matter, to the contrary are utterly lacking any supporting facts.

I've stated what I believe and why. Whether you agree or disagree with me, or whether you understand or not, is not my responsibility.

I having nothing less than complete respect for Dave Hyatt, however, I will not blindly agree/disagree with someone based solely on who or what they are.

Likewise, why don't you give Dave Hyatt the respect to answer my post without you doing it for him.

No posts made here are "to" anyone - they're to the forum, and because of that, anyone can respond to any comments made here. That's the way it's been, that's the way it stays.

This has become a completely one-sided argument. The point in debating is to circulate ideas and sort through the crap to get to the good ones, not to bash good facts up against a brick wall.

XUL is the future of Mozilla, and customization is the future of browsing, and computing in general. If anyone can think of a better way, now's the time.

Its really time to stop even dignifying MSNAKs arguments with an answer. His arguments are repetitive and circular, he contradicts himself oscillating between the position that the speed will kill the UI and the non-native look feel will kill the UI depending on which argument is shot down. His arguments can be simply responded to: Non-native look/feel will kill the product: NN3/NN4. Successful products, nuff said. Speed Issues: Wont be any noticable to 95+% of your end users. I cant tell a difference right now on my Win32 box. Inability to integrate with OS, namely windows: Yes, this will be harder, yes mozilla will be behind IE in this regard. The answer here is that we gain, XP ability, localization, internationalization, personalization, cool factor, added functionality possibilities(i.e. web apps), reduced UI development costs Conclusion: XUL, if it meets the performance expectations (which we have every reason to believe it will and none to believe it wont) will have only one disadvantage to IE on only one platform. This disadvantage is for now almost trivial. In exchange we get a huge amount of flexibility with the UI and ease of development. Also, my own thought on this is that as time goes on the network (i.e. the internet) will become even more the most important part of people's computers and the OS specific integration will become less important than integration with the important parts of the network which XUL could hardly be better for. p.s. give me a break on the "browserism" browser specific argument, remember, the XUL is the UI and it won't affect the web page contents, it can only be an add on.

"Inability to integrate with OS, namely windows:"

It does have an ActiveX based rendering engine (at least the Win32 version) which, essentially mimicks the back-end interface of IE. Its only missing the elements that are IE specific (VBScript, the ability to render MS specific file types, and protocols) With a bit of work (granted, a fair bit, and by someone much more adept at coding than I) It should be possible to replace the EI engine as the default rendering engine for MS products.

The VBScript thing would be difficult (read proprietary), but Corel has licenced it... maybe they'll integrate it into a CorelZilla...

Don't get me wrong here, Standards compliance First and foremost; but you can almost imagine the "burns Redmond's ass" potential of replaicing their massive, buggy rendering engine with Gecko with in the OS itself (or at least the parts they're telling us is part of the OS).

Heck, with enough hacking around, you might even be able to replace explorer.exe and most of the GUI.

"WinZilla 98"

"you might even be able to replace explorer.exe and most of the GUI."

Don't say things like that! If you can do all of that just by changing your browser UI, yeesh! I like the idea of WinZilla or IEZilla, though. It would be something else to have 5MB program that did everything Mozilla and IE do better. Wow. Then we could patent it and trade MS for their patent on Stylesheets. :)

Let me clarify, "everything Mozilla does, plus everything IE does, only better (i.e. without poisoning your OS and adding 40MB.)

Dave Hyatt,

Thank you for your reply.

It's comforting to know that someone of significance with regards to Mozilla understands my concerns.

Keep up the good work.

Hey MSNAK, I just happen to agree with what you've been saying so don't let any slams by some of the MZ regs get to you.

Thats coming from a guy who's of significance to Moz: a user! 8)

mozilla was slammed since day one. About time mozilla got a fair break especially since the mozillers are working really hard on it

I don't like seeing Moz slammed either but I don't think that's what MSNAK was doing. I've had the same convictions regarding XUL before this article even existed.

Then please, back them up.

XUL-defined interface works fine (fast and smooth) on my WindOwS P90 with 32MB RAM. It also looks good on my WinNT4 PII350 with 64MB RAM. I like it.

Sure, M$ already experimented with these kinds of ui's with both html and chromeffects. html was the more or less XP method and chromeffects was platform specific utilizing directx, dxtransforms, etc. Despite the programmers enthusiasm with the 'coolness' of it all, especially chromeffects, both methods bombed in usability tests.

In addition, my own experience in the industry leads me to believe that XUL won't be as big of a hit as some may hope.

Do I work for M$? I did for a while under contract but don't even try to mark me as an anti-Moz/pro-M$ freak. I've been behind Netscape since day one and nothing will change that.

Someone who hates XUL (e.g. MSNAK) please give a principled reason why XUL-based chrome must intrincally be slower, regardless of how it's implemented, than a "native" UI created out of Windows resources. Note: "extra layers of abstraction" will not cut it as a catch-all excuse. Resources are an extra layer of abstraction, but _everyone_ uses them on windows. Almost no one creates windows dialogs directly, one control at a time. And XUL manages to bypass the resource layer entirely, leaving no intrinsic reason why there must necessarily be more layers of abstraction.

As for Windows users refusing to accept any UI inconsistency, please compare the Internet Explorer toolbar to the toolbar of any other Windows app.

Regarding the JVM comment, I've found that modern JVMs have perfectly adequate GUI performance for relatively simple sets of widgets, on the level of complexity of the typical web broweser chrome.

What they _are_ really slow at is computationally intensive or file IO intensive applications.

Anthony,

Thanks. Slams don't get to me, though... they amuse me. Slams represent when the mind has entered an irrational state and no longer has anything intelligent to say.

Maciej,

The 'layers of abstraction' metaphor was simply a way to explain things to those who aren't 'programming savvy'

I can see from your post that you took the 'layers of abstraction' analogy out of context.

If you don't understand what I was saying... that's ok... join the club.

This must be the longest article thread in the history of mozillazine. Here's my two cents.

In the future I hope mozillazine will handle constructive criticism with a bit more maturity and tact than what was demonstrated here. Some valid issues were brought to light only to be mocked by a majority peer groups unwillingness to be open-minded.

"Jason Worry" doesn't exist, at least not at that email address. I wonder who it is...

Jason,

Well said.

It looks like 'none' just reenforced your assertion.

(from the start I'd hoped that MozillaSupporterNOTAssKisser would get the last word. let's make it happen now...)

no he won't :)

N Cronan,

Now why would you say something like that?

Actually, you don't need to answer that.

For what it's worth, since Dave Hyatt's last post to me and seeing that XUL is what they're going to stick with... I'm not going to say anything more about it other than support it.

Just give me a break and not key me in as some sort of MS-Lover/Troll/etc... if, in the future, I happen to disagree with something that Mozilla is doing.

if you dont hate microsloth then you dont belong here

MSNAK, what did you expect? If you have concerns about the game plan of Moz then you take it to Moz, not the Moz fans at MZ. Did it ever occur to you that one of the only people here that understood you, besides myself, was a developer from Moz? Take these kinds of things to the Moz Dev newsgroups because the fans are either incapable of understanding you or they simply don't want to. MZ is a hip-hip-hooray news forum for Moz and should not be confused with mozilla.org itself.

There are plenty of people involved in this forum who are savvy enough to understand programming concepts. Please, continue to insult the intelligence of the rest of the respondents in this forum. I'm sure we all want to hear more of your patronizing comments.

Regarding your comment "MZ is a hip-hip-hooray news forum for Moz", all I can say is that we demand just as high a level of credibility as any other forum. If all you can do is spout out insults, trolls and baseless arguments, maybe you *should* find a different forum, because as you can see, no one is willing to put up with it.

Wow I can't beleive This thread is still pounding away.

I wish we could change the subject to something like:

Did anyone get libjpeg.so and libpng.so to link up in apprunner yet on their freeBSD mozilla buid?

This one has stumped about 3 other developers and some netscape developers as well.

A forum is a good thing, but hacking speaks better than words.

Pete

Really? From where I sit, you deem someones arguments as invalid, simply because you don't understand what they are saying! That level of narrow mindedness is not only arrogant, it's downright juvenile.

As for your other accusations, I could really care less how you interpret my posts. I suggest that you step off of your soap box, get your act together, and start taking your responsibilities as an administrator more seriously. If not for your sake, then for Mozilla's.

Really? From where I sit, you deem someones arguments as invalid, simply because you don't understand what they are saying! That level of narrow mindedness is not only arrogant, it's downright juvenile.

As for your other accusations, I could really care less how you interpret my posts. I suggest that you step off of your soap box, get your act together, and start taking your responsibilities as an administrator more seriously. If not for your sake, then for Mozilla's.

"a hip-hip-hooray news forum for Moz".... I like the sound of that, unfortunatly, it isn't completely true.

"one of the only people here that understood you, besides myself, was a developer from Moz?"... again, not true.... I (and I'm sure many others here) understood MSNAK's concern just fine. I just didn't think it would be that big of an issue, and may even be enough of a plus to warrent just a hair of sacrafice. No, I'm not a devolper... in fact, I'm not even a programer... I'm a network admin, but it's me feeling (as somebody who constantly deals w/"the average user") that Mozilla needs to do something a little more special than just standards compliant to get ppl to d/l the browser. One of those extra's is the speed of Gecko. Another is the flexibilty of an XUL UI.

As another plus, the XUL is a completely different UI wich better defines a new version (something not needed, but helpful).

Last, but not least, from where I sit, few of the respondants have down right deemed anybody's concern as invalid. Yes this one was deemed to not be of monumental proportions, but there were valid concerns that I feel were addressed. Being this late in the devolopment, it's not really practicle to throw away anthing that has taken so much time unless there are problems of an epic proportion.

Anthony,

I was unclear when I shouldn't have been. When I said "If all you can do is spout out insults, trolls and baseless arguments, maybe you *should* find a different forum, because as you can see, no one is willing to put up with it", I wasn't referring to you, although it could have easily been interpreted as such. I meant "you" as a collective, anonymous "you". As in "you who are reading this, if you cannot abide by courtesy rules and general rules of conduct, please feel free to find another forum".

I did not mean for this statement to apply to you personally, and since you obviously felt it was directed at you, the error is mine, and I apologize for that.

--mozineAdmin

I have a question for you, mozineAdmin:

Were you implying that I was "spouting out insults, trolls and baseless arguments"???

By the way, Anthony... thanks for the support! :)

Almost forgot.

Jake,

"I (and I'm sure many others here) understood MSNAK's concern just fine. I just didn't think it would be that big of an issue"

That right there says you didn't understand my concern at all.

"One of those extra's is the speed of Gecko. Another is the flexibilty of an XUL UI"

Your feeling on the first is correct... the second is a no go.

"Last, but not least, from where I sit, few of the respondants have down right deemed anybody's concern as invalid"

I believe he was addressing mozineAdmin directly.

Sorry I missed ya the last time. :)

mozineAdmin,

I don't know how I could have read that any other way, but no problem, apology accepted! 8)

Anthony

Jake,

That's the problem Jake, it *IS* a big issue. Microsoft did extensive user testing on *two* different methods of customizable chrome implementations for Internet Explorer. The first method utilized an XML (I think I stated HTML in an earlier post, but it was XML) style markup similar to XUL. The second method utilized ChromeEffects, a Win32 technology tied to DirectX, DXTransforms, etc.

Despite the enthusiasm of the developers and support staff, both methods of the customizable UI's bombed after extensive user testing in favor of the standard IE UI.

I see the same thing going on here, the same excitement and enthusiasm those from the MS camp had. Everybody will think it will be so great and so cool. And it *is* cool. Unfortunatley, the mind of an end user can be somewhat surprising when all is said and done.

Despite the number of people here that disagree, XUL is not a good idea for Mozilla if it wants to retake the lead in the 'browser wars'. I have no reason in the world not to believe this, in fact, believing anything else would be nothing but raw speculation.

In case you're wondering, Jake, I have worked for MS before under contract through Volt. I was working at the redmond campus at the time all of this was going on. Like I stated in an earlier post, though, my heart has always been and always will be with Netscape & Co.

Anthony

MSNAK,

No sweat! 8)

Anthony

Anon,

I think everyone is missing the whole point of XUL.

The default UI will be very standard, and speed will not be a problem.

The idea is that a web developer, who writes a web app, say a search engine, a script editor, spread shed, whatever, will have access to the UI. The idea being, if you are going to write an app and are cut off from the UI then this is a big problem.

Thus, this is where we currently stand with the state of web apps.

So say I write an database driven web app for a client using XUL and say PHP on the server side. The end result is an Icon the user will keep on their desktop (and yes we can create our own icons) that will open the remote web app as an application not as a browser. This is a separate entity. Their default UI has nothing to do with this new app. The user is now using a web application and not a web browser.

This is where XUL will be primarily utilized.

So you might say well what good is it if you have to force the user to use mozilla and they can't use IE instead.

Well first of all the user will probably be a client that has come to you for some kind of web based solution or migration. They are asking you to "build an app that will need to be accessible to their employees, 20 are using NT, 10 mac, 40 win 95 and 5 are unix admins. We need this to be able to work on on all of these platforms be developed quickly and cost efficiently." The answer is simple, I would write it in XUL, javascript, and PHP.

Have a look at all the apps you use. You had to first buy the version that will run on your platform (if there is one) install it on your local drive where it takes up space, has its own Icon and UI environment.

Where with a XUL based app very little space is taken up. The Icon is just a link to the file. Think about how easy it is to upgrade the app. The next time they open the link it could be a new version. An new developing environment that is extremely malleable.

I think this can revolutionize web development.

Something to think about.

Pete

Hi Pete,

I guess the XUL issue is being looked at from two different perspectives. One from the end users standpoint and the other from the developers standpoint.

M$'s XML implementation of the IE wrapper boasted many of the advantages that you are describing with XUL. It was anything but slow, yet there was something about it's appearance/feel that didn't seem to jive well with end users.

ChromeEffects, on the otherhand, was extremly resource intensive and only performed well on systems with a PII-300 or higher processor and high-end DirectX graphics boards. Last I heard, a group at M$ proposed a Chrome2 specification and not too shortly afterwards, that group was dissolved.

Since Moz has committed itself to XUL, the best thing I can do is fully support it and offer Moz all the feedback they want/need on it. I agreed with Hyatts comments regarding XUL breaking the threshold of user perception after optimization. Coincidentally, I read a UI study at DevEdge written by Netscape engineers regarding timings, thresholds, and user perceptions. The more I think about it, given the average processor speed of todays computers, I think it would be a fair assumption to say that XUL will meet or exceed the necessary thresholds of user perception.

Speaking of XUL, Bruce(MSNAK) and I are working on a native WYSIWYG XUL tool with C++ Builder that should make deploying XUL based UI's faster, and hopefully, funner! 8)

Anthony

Anthony, you raise some interesting points with MS looking into using XML as an interface and being rejected... interesting enough to make me concerned. Especially when you take into consideration that MS is a VERY large company who would do anything to put NS under. Unfortunatly, the only thing we (at least me, being a non programer) is wait and hope.

Just out of curiosity, let's say that XUL does flop in the main reslease (or even the Beta), how long would it take to scrap it and start making native UI's for all the OS's it runs on?

In a question completely unrealated, does/will Mozilla have support for multiple profiles based on the user logged in (for systems such as Linux or WinNT [or oven Win9x that has multiple user profiles]) so that settings and mail is protected by the OS password?

Hi Jake,

"how long would it take to scrap it and start making native UI's for all the OS's it runs on?"

Wouldn't take long at all... especially if Mozilla modeled the native version after the default XUL implementation. Plus, assuming they have specific developers for specific platforms... they could all work concurrently, rather than consecutively.

I don't have an answer for you on the second question.

Cheers,

-Bruce

Jake,

In reference to your first question, Bruce pretty much hit the mark on that one. Although, I would add to that: If Mozilla detected poor acceptance of the XP UI during the beta phase, I'd bet money that they would still be able to deliver native implementations right on schedule, with no delays in release dates. Keep in mind, too, that Moz developers may not even have to redo the UI of the Unix version of Mozilla. You'll see my point on that later.

With that said, I wouldn't expect much in the way of protest during the beta phase. The majority of beta users, I believe, will still be of the 'techie' mindset and I don't forsee this group as having a problem with an XP UI at all. In fact, I don't see the entire Unix market as having any problems with an XP UI, either. Unix users are typically, in and of themselves, technically minded. If there are problems with an XP UI, I see it coming from end-users of the Windows and, more than likely, Macintosh markets. Unfortunately, getting a good idea of acceptance from the 'end-users' of Windows and Mac markets isn't likely to occur until well after the final release of Mozilla.

As for your second question, your guess is as good as, or probably better, than mine.

mozineAdmin,

If you're grabbing any of this I'd like to apologize to you as well for calling this forum 'hip-hip-hooray'. I noticed, upon a second glance, that didn't sound as I had intended.

Anthony

MS couldn't get a complete CSS1 implementation in IE5 either. Why should you be concerned about what MS failed to do?

Anyway, yes of course I know what an abstraction is. What I'd like to see is the argument using specific examples and data. There is the theoretical argument (XUL will be slow because it's runtime vs native) and the practical response (XUL ends up being faster or at least 'acceptable' because more effort was spent on optimization, UI speed is not as critical because people are slower than computers anyway, etc). In any event, I found this interesting quote from S. Houston concerning the UI:

"Another trick is to set border:1px and padding:1px on the default. Then, when :hover is appled, just change the color and style of the border, and leave the padding the same. This is a huge speed increase--for me, it makes the mouseover behavior of Mozilla on par with that of IE's. If you want to have a background show through when the titledbutton is borderless, just make the border color be transparent."

I'm sure people from all over will come up with ingenious tricks that will refute the long-held theories. This happens everywhere. MS big bucks doesn't always guarantee bug-free CSS1 support and a XUL based UI doesn't always mean it will be slow and ugly.

Now I think the this forum has taken a more productive tone.

Instead of flames and frustration, there is now a sharing of many different perspectives, ideas, knowledge and experience meeting together, taking action in a productive way to improve and optimize acknowledged possible weaknesses and pitfalls for a very important piece of software that I think everyone here really wants to see succeed.

This seems to me to be a classic example of open source 101 in action.

You don't get good solid stable and exceptional software by everyone agreeing, you get it by disagreeing and then finding some real solutions.

I better stop before I get all teary eyed and stuff.

8-}

pete

Hey Pete,

Well said! I think you may be too late, though, I already shed a tear! hehe! :)

Arielb,

The theoretical argument is that XUL will not perform/look/feel the same as a native UI. The practical argument is that these 'differences' will not be discernable to the user. In either case, the XP UI *will* be 'slower' whether it's discernable to the human eye or not.

Anthony and I both stated that since Mozilla was committed to the XP UI approach that we would support it from here on out with the assumpton that there will be 'no practial difference'. Our objections to the XP UI were coming from valid concerns based on real world data... Not FUD, slams, etc...

As for examples, I'd be happy to show you example(s) that illustrate the differences between native, custom, standard, and XP widgets/controls. It's 2:54pm PST on my clock... I can dig some stuff up that I was working on from last November that I'd be happy to share with you. Let me know.

Plus, if you weren't aware, Anthony and I are starting work on a XUL Tool... it should be pretty slick when all is said and done! :)

Referring to arielb's remark a few posts back->

"MS couldn't get a complete CSS1 implementation in IE5 either. Why should you be concerned about what MS failed to do?"

I guess I don't understand what that means or what that has to do with what I was discussing earlier.

Since you brought up MS and CSS, though, I will point out that their lack of compliance wasn't a failure (in their minds), it was fully intentional.

M$'s IE will never fully adhere to the W3C unless they are forced to by the dominant presence of another fully W3C compliant web browser.

Proprietarism is M$'s last card in their anti-competitive bag of tricks.

Forget the XUL Tool project that I mentioned earlier. Until XUL is finalized, it would be useless at best... not to mention a complete nightmare by rewriting code over and over again in response to changes in the XUL implementation. Argh!!!

According to Eric Krock: "IF YOU DEVELOP AN APPLICATION NOW USING XUL, ASSUME YOU WILL REWRITE EVERY LINE OF XUL MULTIPLE TIMES BETWEEN NOW AND THE FINAL RELEASE OF NAVIGATOR 5"... That statement was dated May 28th, 1999. Less than two weeks ago.

Quite frankly, I had no idea that XUL was this far from being finalized.

Which leads me to wonder how could anyone be so confident, at the expense of Mozilla's success or for the sake of being right, that XUL is the right thing to do?

Hmmm... I sense dissentation in the ranks.

Bruce "Truly a Mozilla supporter... definitley not an ass kisser"

the same applies to the rest of mozilla. We don't know how much CSS2 mozilla will support (if any). Mozilla will also scrap the networking code. Take a look at http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xptoolkit/ and you'll see quite a few features that aren't implemented yet.

Oops... forgive my grammer:

Hmmm... I sense dissemination in the ranks.

Goodnight folks.

Oops again...and my spelling: *grammar*!!

I really need to hit the hay! :)

Neither is right.

The word you wanted was "dissension", but its use is incorrect in that statement as well. Dissemination means to "propagate, disperse, scatter" - as in "the ~ of ideas".

Dissension implies a breaking in the ranks - in this case the ranks of Mozilla developers, and as of this point, there is none. There can always be disagreement over direction, coding practices, most efficient means, etc., but for disagreement to qualify as dissension would require Mozilla developers actively speaking against XUL, and inciting others to speak against it as well.

Good morning,

You are right, Chris. I was in need of sleep, wasn't I? ;-)

Which still leads me to wonder how anyone could be so confident that XUL is the right thing to do?

Bruce,

We don't need to wait for a final XUL specification before we start working on a XUL Tool. Although it's the most important function, the generation of XUL code will be one of the last things we need to deal with.

So don't worry! 8)

Anthony

this thread

has gotten

way too

looooooooong

What a way to end such a fine discussion.

I still wonder how anyone could possibly argue, confidently, that XUL is the right thing to do.

Where does all this 'cross-platform saves the world' hype come from anyways?

It's sounds like the same hype I hear time and time again from the same crowd: The Unix crowd.

Sun -> Unix, Netscape -> Sun... Netscape -> Unix? Ah, now it's beginning to make sense.

It's a god damned shame, too, because I wanted Mozilla to take the world by storm the same way Netscape did back in 1995/96... to once again be the undisputed leader in the web client market. (You know what I mean? Type about:mozilla in your Netscape location bar to find out.)

Unfortunately, some out there just don't seem to get that the market to capture is not the Unix market... it's the Windows market.

XP and Windows is like oil and water. Maybe they'll finally just make their XP UI for those who are accustomed to the XP way of life: Unix Users. Leave the native UI to those who are accustomed to the native way of life: Windows Users.

are you saying that unix users tolerate slow performance and that windows users are used to the speedzone? whoa there!

Anyway we have XUL newsgroups and there's no point to continue this "thread" here

One of the things to realize about Netscape is that it really is a cross-platform company, with a substantial number of engineers with experience on UNIX and on Mac.

In the old world of MozillaClassic, there were three full front end teams (one for Mac, one for Windows, and one for UNIX), and each of us crafted the native UI doing redundant work on each of the three platforms.

We could have continued to follow this model, but the primary problem is that we simply didn't have the resources to re-write the UI from scratch in a timely fashion with our resources split in three.

The solution we reached was that we needed to eliminate redundancy and to make the most out of the resources that we had. Hence a cross-platform solution, where each engineer would be coding for all platforms rather than just one.

So practicality largely motivated the decision to attempt a cross-platform UI.

I still don't quite understand what your objections are to the UI we're developing using XUL. I understand your concerns about speed, and I've mentioned what we're doing to address those issues, but I'm not really following your argument about the look and feel of the UI.

It would be helpful to me if you could cite specific examples of where you see our XUL UI violating Windows UI guidelines. I could then let you know if the violation is simply a bug (which could be contributing to a false perception that we're doing something wacky and non-standard).

I do maintain that it is acceptable for a Windows application to define its own chrome. This has been a regular practice on the Windows platform for some time now. New Microsoft products even partake in this practice with regularity.

Note that I'm not even talking about wizzy programs like Winamp. Our UI is fairly conservative. A button is still clearly a button. Speed issues aside, what specifically is bothering you?

Without specific examples, this argument isn't constructive. With specific examples, then we can work to alleviate any concerns you have about XUL.

"are you saying that unix users tolerate slow performance and that windows users are used to the speedzone?"

I'm saying that Unix users are accustomed to a certain type of environment and that Windows users are accustomed to a certain type of environment. The point being that these two environments are not equal. And since you brought it up, XP environments are far more common in a Unix setting than a Windows setting. I don't make the rules... I just state the case.

"Anyway we have XUL newsgroups and there's no point to continue this "thread" here"

Well, I shall politely bow out. I did, by the way, head over to the XUL newsgroup to make another last ditch attempt to persuade Mozilla to take the native approach with Win32. The newsgroup was more or less dead, at the time, except for a brief introduction to XUL... and a stern warning/disclaimer not to use it unless you wanted to make multiple changes to your XUL code prior to the final implementation.

By the way, I was looking forward to your input on that button I sent ya!

My last response was to arielb... Mr. Hyatt had replied in the interim... I'll answer that one next...

I'm still writing a response for Mr. Hyatt... but in the meantime...

mozineAdmin,

I believe I sent you a perfect clone of a native NS 4.X button, too! What happened? Everybody I sent that thing to replied... except you and arielb!

I should mention though that you and arielb were the only ones from MozillaZine that received a demo of that button... what does this mean? A MozillaZine conspiracy to kill the native button! hehe! :) (Just Kidding)

David,

First let me address the 'look & feel' issue.

When I say 'look & feel', I'm not referring to any one single UI attribute such as performance, etc...

'Look & Feel' encompasses many things and describing it via a message would be similar to describing a picture via a message... very difficult. I know that sounds like a real cop out, but it is not.

Let me ask you first, what major Win32 application out there sports an XP UI? Or better yet, you can forget XP all together, and go simply by a customizable/skinnable UI that's resolved at runtime?

Now, if you have managed to think of any... I myself, cannot... how many of those are sold with the intention of generating a profit?

Now... look at the final results before you. Skinnable/Customizable/etc... UI's are nothing new... if they are so hot and 'indifferent' to the 'look&feel' of a native UI then why is such a UI implementation in the Windows market so rare? Of course, such UI implementations are quite popular in the Linux market.

Let's face it... the UI is extremely important. Opera is a perfect example of a killer browser that's held back not so much because it has a $30 price tag... but because it sports a UI that's unacceptable to most.

If NeoPlanet would have developed a 'static', well designed, high performance wrapper for IE, rather than what they did, I have no doubt's it's use would be much more common with IE users. Let's face it... the IE UI is a bit plain... but it's fast, solid, smooth, and consistent. Something NeoPlanet can never be.

Now since my last suggestion was a bit too drastic. How's about this: Have a couple guy's build a native Win32 UI for the browser ONLY... then have a XUL implemented UI for the browser ONLY... next, rent a booth space for a weekend at a major 'flea' market (or something like that, I think San Jose has a major one)... setup 3 or 4 PC's with both styles of browsers and solicit feedback from as many passerbys as you can over the course of a whole weekend. Record their opinions on which they liked better and then, at the end of the weekend, tally the results. Which ever wins, is the way to go. I believe the Win32 will win by a long shot.

Now, before you start laughing or something, I will put my money where my mouth is and pay for the booth space myself... shouldn't be any more than $200 to $300.

The important thing here is for you to get feedback on this kind of stuff from people outside of mozilla.org, outside of mozillazine, and outside of the 'techie' mindset all together.

Sorry I took so long to write all this...

oh yeah I think the button demo was very good. The big question is-are you planning to take the mozilla layout/networking code and just put an identical copy of the Netscape 4.x UI on top of it?

Thanks for checking it out!

As to your question: That is the plan, to make a perfect replica of the 4.X UI to use as a wrapper for the MozillaControl. Next thing is to hammer out a NS4 collapsable toolbar...

Bruce,

I don't open executable files sent to me. Sorry. I'll wait for a final product.

Arielb doesn't work for MozillaZine. He just contributes news items he finds on the 'Net.

sigh...you still didn't give any specific example besides performance. That's what drove this forum nuts-your argument almost sounds like "I'm right no matter what you say and that's it".

Now I can show you what I mean by a specific exaple-the explorer bars in IE4. Oh sure the press raved about them and the MS Arsekissers loved them. Too bad MS forgot one basic tiny little thing: scrollbars! Hello? You're telling me I should click on the down arrow to move one level at a time or that I can only expand one category compared with Netscape's bookmark app which uses expandable trees-and with (!) scrollbars!

You also argued that very few windows apps skinnable. That's not true-winamp is so hot that AOL bought the company. ICQ via ICQ Plus http://icqplus.da.ru/ is skinnable and there are tons of skins for it (800+ at least). Check out http://customize.org/ http://skinz.org/ for windows or check out http://kaleidoscope.net/ for the mac. This is mainstream stuff but the whole idea is still in its infancy until we have a standard "skinning" language that's easy to use. That's what XUL is supposed to be for. Right now, every app has its own way of doing things which makes things harder for skin developers.

You mentioned Neoplanet. First of all it's just a wrapper for IE. They have nothing to do with MS so they have to take the indirect route. The other problem is that there's no way to create a skin (at least to my knowledge) without all this other stuff (advertising banners,etc) that get in the way.

I agree that Opera's UI isn't so good. On the hand there are many people that swear by it. They've proven that a tiny company from Norway can produce a browser from scratch and still make money even when the competition is free. But this has nothing to do with skins. You see, Netscape does hire UI engineers...

Are you sure about this last suggestion? It's very easy to "blow away" passersbys from CA with a really cool UI. My test would be to give the browser to an ordinary family in say oklahoma for a _week_-not 5 seconds on their feet and see which style they prefer. My bets on the XUL style because it will be refined and redesigned over and over until it's simple and easy to use. We can also draw upon an entire army of gfx designers. All you have is the old Netscape 4.x look and feel.

a perfect replica including its UI imperfections? ;) I'll give you another example of a native problem (and this affects both IE and Netscape). Let's say you want to open a file. So you go to the File menu, click on open page and you see the open page dialog (now I have to cancel it in order to type argh!) Now I click on choose file. Now I'm in the open file dialog (I won't even begin to point out the many problems with the file dialog http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm ). I click on an htm file and click open. Now I'm in the first open page dialog again. Finally I click on open and it opens. That my friend is the price we're paying for native controls. Here's a feature I use at least once or twice a day and remember-I couldn't do any browsing or typing into this form until the operation was completed. (I should point out that Netscape has the stronger UI even though IE and NS are just as convoluted. But NS offers a help button and Open is more specific to the task at hand than OK)

(last sentence only refers to the first open page dialog which Netscape wrote. The native open file dialog doesn't have a help button)

arielb,

I'm sensing that you've become somewhat angry and I'm wondering why. Your posts are usually well thought out and intelligible.

Nothing you've said makes any sense and at least 1/3 of it is putting words in my mouth and misquoting me.

For some reason you interpret 'native UI' to mean 'Microsoft brewed UI'

Your 'links' representing major Win32 applications is far from accurate. Which raises my next question as to exactly how old you are? Not meant to be a slam... it's just that was the first thing to enter my mind after I read this.

You somehow managed to turn my statements regarding Opera and it's UI into me saying that Opera was/is a failure... which is completely false.

As far as my suggestion... you darn right I'm sure. $200-$300 is a small amount to pay for some worthwhile research and, if it helps Mozilla in any way, it would be some of the best money that I had ever spent.

I just read your next post... I'm not sure what you are getting at there, either... or what that has to do with my address to Dave Hyatt.

Next time, try to think a bit more about my statements, rather than twist them into falsehoods and later quote me on them.

Back to Dave Hyatt,

Try to give some serious thought to my suggestions... there's zero downside risk involved and an enormous amount of info to be gained.

Feel free to email me direct and I'd be happy to send you a cashiers check for the weekend booth. In fact, I'd probably even fly down there just to check it out for myself! :)

hmm I wasn't angry at all and I'm disappointed that you feel this way. Maybe it's because I wrote too much at such a crazy time of day? Maybe it's because I get such a tiny window to type in. I'll try again.

From the standpoint of look and feel, a native UI on Windows comes from Microsoft. Therefore, the open file dialogs are native controls.

The explorer bar example was to refute the idea that "IE UI is a bit plain... but it's fast, solid, smooth, and consistent"

The links clearly prove that there is a healthy skins community in the windows world. I agree that the websites may appear to be a little "geeky". I just wanted to show:

1) that the skins phenomenon isn't limited to linux. 2) the wide variety of "skins" available for icq plus. Most of these skin designers are pretty average people. Like I said before, 800+ skins for ICQ, over a thousand skins for kaleidoscope (not freeware btw) and AOL did buy winamp. (I guess it depends on the definition of the word "mainstream"-what's mainstream for the internet isn't mainstream for the rest of the world. ICQ and winamp are mainstream apps for the internet)

I never said that you felt Opera was a failure. You wrote that it's a killer browser that was held back by its UI. Quite a few people love it for its UI-they love the MDI stuff. Furthermore, Opera's UI has nothing to do with skins or a run-time UI...

The other post isn't an argument for skins but it was to point out the danger of using native Windows standard controls. If you copy Netscape 4.x's UI to the letter then you will copy the bad along with the good.

Anyway I'm not trying to attack you. All I want is to get a precise sense of "good look and feel". It's difficult but the more examples you can give the easier it is for other people to fix these problems.

Bruce,

We have asked you time and time again to please tone down your posts. We will ask again. I refer specifically to arielb's comments above, where you questioned his age. This is inappropriate, and must stop. We do not, and will not, tolerate name calling or personal attacks in the forums from any participant, and I will politely ask that you cease and desist this type of conduct.

Thank you,

Jason Kersey, mozAdmin2

arielb,

Don't sweat it... not at all. :)

"From the standpoint of look and feel, a native UI on Windows comes from Microsoft. Therefore, the open file dialogs are native controls. "

That's not true. Don't confuse a native UI with 'standard controls'. That button I sent you wasn't a standard control and it wasn't from Microsoft, but it was native. Many Win32 apps use non-MS UI components but they are still native.

"The links clearly prove that there is a healthy skins community in the windows world."

I meant that skinnable UI's were much more common in linux... even some of the OS shells are skinnable. The point being that 'skinnable' is not mainstream in the windows market. Set aside ICQ/WinAmp which are freeware/shareware... you'll be hard pressed to find any major win32 application that boasts a 'skinnable' UI: MS Office, Lotus SmartSuite, Corel WP Suite 8.0, Borland Delphi, Dreamweaver, Flash, Norton Utilities, PaintShop Pro, WinZip, MathCAD, AutoCAD, Fireworks, Flash, FTP Voyager, GetRight, Visual Cafe, Quicken, MS Money, ad infinitum... just to name a *few* off of the top of my head. When you compare the two types of UI's in the Windows market. Skinnables are practically non-existent compared to native UI's. There is a reason for this... it's basically a marketing issue... and nothing more.

You're also forgetting the XML wrapper that users didn't care for when compared to the native IE wrapper. They didn't think the XML UI was bad in and of itself... they simply *preferred* the native UI. And Mozilla needs to do this for it's Win32 version if it wants to retake market lead.

"I never said that you felt Opera was a failure."

Yes, you are correct. And I apologize for misreading that... I don't know how I did.

"If you copy Netscape 4.x's UI to the letter then you will copy the bad along with the good."

The whole point of what I'm doing is that of making a pure replica of the NS4 browser. I'm not trying to improve it... or change it... but duplicate it perfectly. I'm just doing it for fun... not for money... and part of the fun is the challenge of precisley mimicing NS4. Does that make better sense now? If I were to change it at all... then it wouldn't be a clone of NS4... would it? ;-)

"Anyway I'm not trying to attack you. All I want is to get a precise sense of "good look and feel". It's difficult but the more examples you can give the easier it is for other people to fix these problems."

I know you're not trying to attack me... I basically misread parts of what you were saying... it's 8:17am right now and I should have gone to bed 7 hours ago!! hehe! :)

To Jason,

I was in the middle of responding when you typed that last message.

There has never been any need for me to 'tone down anything'... ever.

I did make a mistake in asking his age because I admittedly misread his post and for that I apologized. There is anything but hard feelings between Ari and I.

For you to extrapolate that one incident into me being asked 'time and time again' is complete nonsense.

Hey Bruce, Was just catching up on old posts... a few comments.

"why is [Skinnable/Customizable/etc...] UI implementation in the Windows market so rare?"

Ummm... what's Windows 95/98 Plus then? ever since win3.1, Microsoft has allowed (albiet limited) costumization of the entire GUI interface. There's millions of theme's floating around out on the Net. It seems almost second nature to want to do something to make the desktop more personalized (heck I even made a rudimentary "Bob & Doug" theme). Second, every major Productivity, are development App MS puts out now has customizable drag & drop toolbars. Users can add and create there own button, and even code them with Macros. All sorts of third party software has this same functionality (Corel, Allaire, Lotus ...).

while "skinable" isn't quite common place (except the "desktop themes"), customizable is there BIG TIME.

Now, re: this ephemeral "look & feel" you can't seem to discribe, but are dead certain will kill XUL.

You made a "button" demo to, I'm assuming, prove this point. Instead of e-mailing it to a select few... stick it on a web site somewhere so we can all "look & feel" for ourselves. (please don't e-mail it to me... if I want it, I'll download it)

Damn! that last "hey Bruce" post was from me...

Anon,

"why is [Skinnable/Customizable/etc...] UI implementation in the Windows market so rare?"

Because they are. The Windows Plus themes is a far cry from a runtime resolved user interface.... colors and backgrounds... not controls, menus, and widgets.

As far as XUL... I think the Linux/Unix market will eat it up. Windows users, however, won't be so eager to swallow it. Does that mean 100% of all windows users? No, not at all. I'd say about 70% of them.

The button 'demo' that I sent out was to a large group of people... only two of which were from here. It had nothing to do with this XUL thread... it was pertaining to a project started long before this thread even existed.

Hi SomeSmartAss!

I acknowldedge your identity.

No problemo...

To Jason,

Re: Bruce/MSNAK's "tone". It's more a debating tactic than a tone...

Circular arguments...

Pokes at an other person's knowledge/ability/status to discredit their position...

quickly retracted unfounded (or "misread") retorts.

even the simpathetic "I can see you side too, but/I want this to succeed as much as you, but" tone he occasionally takes is designed to throw us off guard.

They're all tools used to win debates, regardless of the merit of their argument.

Now, I'm not dismissing you as "meritless" Bruce, just pointing out that, given enough skill, a debater can win an argument, whether they think its right or not.

One thing he hasn't used much, is semantics. The "well you may have meant that, but what YOU SAID IS .." kinda stuff. (had an ex-girlfriend that could use that like a scalpel... I think she's a lawyer now)

The interesting thing is this offer to pay for a Booth at a flea market... both a "up the Ante" tactic (suddenly he's got $300 bucks riding on this) and a nice little diversion to boot (we'd have to agree on the standards of the comparison, and whether a walk by flea market booth is the best place to do the "test"... lot's of off topic stuff).

I think he's long since stopped trying to prove a point. Now he's trying to "win" this debate is all.

that's my 2 cents worth, at any rate. I am after all just Some Smart Ass ;)

SomeSmartAss,

Believe me, after reading your last post, I don't think I'll ever take anything you say seriously, again.

What concernes me is how many others are there like you who's involvement with Mozilla is nothing but a mask for a hidden agenda.

The difference between you and I is that if I make a mistake... I will come clean on it and be a man about it. If I am proven wrong about something... I *will* admit it.

You, on the other hand, like instigating and provoking... these are the things that you feed on. Once this thread was becoming 'intelligent', you all but disappeared... and then suddenly reapper out of the blue when a little turmoil strikes.

Quite frankly, you and anyone else like you, should be ashamed of yourselves. It is people just like you that give Netscape/Mozilla such a tacky image.

I happen to have a strong interest in seeing Mozilla succeeed. If I see something going wrong, I will call it, regardless of the popular 'consensus'.

I have learned, all too quickly, that there are a great many 'goof offs' here who's interest in Mozilla is nothing more than a way for them to vent their blind hatred.

With the exception of probably 5 or 6 people that I have seen post here... all, are nothing short of a discredit to Mozilla... who's desire to be 'right', or rather, 'not be proven wrong' ranks far above any interest in helping Mozilla succeed.

I had heard negative things left and right about MozillaZine for quite sometime now... and decided to give it a fair shot and see for myself.

Unfortunatley, it has been nothing less than a disappointment and nothing less than an uphill battle to try and save Mozilla from making a critical mistake.

So be it. But when I start getting the feeling that I'm working harder than the one I'm trying to help... that's when I sense that there is something seriously wrong.

Best of luck.

I vote that we close this thread. Maybe Bruce could write an article and submit to to the m'Zine and we could start a more rational discussion. I can't figure out where this one is going. Bruce, could you put your thoughts on why an XUL interface is "a critical error" and maybe link some visual examples into an article here and maybe over at the .org's BlueSky section. I would actually like to better understand your thoughts. From there we might be able to have a more productive discussion.

If anyone does wish to post concerns and/or problems with the XUL UI, post to netscape.public.mozilla.xpfe. That's the primary newsgroup for development discussions regarding XUL.

Bruce,

first off, I chose my moniker for a reason. It suits me very well. (it also allows me a bit of leeway at times)

This news thread has reached 350+ comments, almost all of which can be attributed to you're argument against XUL as a good user interface. In all that time (type), you still have yet to explain why, let alone prove this, yet you steadfastly hold your ground, without budging. If you want to chalk it up to us being too dense, or pig-headed to understand then fine, go right ahead. But to be fair, you've been just as pig-headed. You say you want to help Mozilla, yet all you do is say that XUL won't fly. At first it was performance issues, but you very quickly (somewhere in the 50 post range) turned it into a "look & feel" issue and, despight many of us trying to figure out what you were talking about, you kept beating the same "native UI is better" drum.

The point of my last posting was not a discreditation. It was a comment on the tactics you have used to argue your point in this forum. This is not to say these are calculated in any regard, you probably don't even know you are doing it half the time, since its more than likely second nature. It is simply the way you discuss things. That said, you never-the-less are using classic debating tactics. You're quite good at it too.

my specific comments on your tactics;

"Circular arguments" I am not the only one who has noticed the repetition, and circularity of your arguments. Many, the MozZine Admins in particular, have been quite frustrated by this.

"Pokes at an other person's knowledge/ability/status to discredit their position" You are unquestionably a very inteligent, and knowledgable person. You do, however, take a quite Elitist (and occasionally age-ist) stance, especially when we "plebs" ask you to explain your possition. These little coments are very effective tools in undermining credibility.

"quickly retracted unfounded (or "misread") retorts." Hey, we all make mistakes... intentional or not though, you seem to do this a lot.

I for one hope you come through with the Booth offer, and I hope Mr. Hyatt accompanies you. I think that is the only way to solve this argument.

Oh, and as for me disapearing... sorry for having interests outside of this news thread.

BTW. I have no hidden agenda. I don't realy have an agenda at all. Just opinions.

"Bruce, could you put your thoughts on why an XUL interface is "a critical error" and maybe link some visual examples into an article"

Works for me too.

I'll be making a total of two posts to this thread and then I shall save further comment for the netscape.public.mozilla.xpfe discussion group. My first response is in regards to SSA's comments and my second will be that of a question for Hyatt.

Hello SSA,

I'm guessing that your abstinence from this discussion occured when strong points were being made suggesting that XUL was not in the best interest of Mozilla.

The 'chrome' of MSIE 5.0 was originally slated to be an XML wrapper that would be rendered by the ShellDocObject itself. In other words, the IE engine was going to render the UI based on it's description in an XML document: Surprisingly similar to how NGLayout will render it's UI through XUL.

Obviously, that didn't happen. It didn't happen for one reason, and one reason only: Extensive user testing showed that users preferred the win32 chrome over the chrome described with XML.

This was the second, and final, setback for M$ in it's quest for an 'innovative' IE chrome. The first flop involved using a technology called ChromeEffects which was rejected mainly because of it's hardware requirements and harsh criticisms from 3rd party developers.

Although these events weren't highly publicized, they were far from being a well-kept secret.

I'm somewhat miffed as to why this tidbit of info was swept under the rug, since it tipped the scales from speculation vs. speculation to 'real world data' vs. speculation: in favor of not supporting XUL.

Anthony

Hello Hyatt,

My question is whether MozillaZine is the proper place to discuss any matters of significance with regards to Mozilla?

Or, are all matters of significance discussed in the newsgroups?

Thank you,

Anthony

Anthony, "The 'chrome' of MSIE 5.0 was originally slated to be an XML wrapper that would be rendered by the ShellDocObject itself."

Yes, I was aware of that fact. A fact you brought to the table (aprox 75 or so posts back). My comments were directed at Bruce's argument stratigy specifically, not the "XUL vs. Native" argument as a whole.

The reason I posted them was because, your comment aside, there was no forward movement in the "XUL will fail" statements Bruce was posting (since just before the posts numbered 100). He was simply stating that "average windows users would not take to XUL, and when asked to back up said argument, he would make a glib remark, or off-handedly dismiss the request as "you just don't get it".

Now, again, your post aside, he seemed to be reverting to this line of "attack", by changing tact slightly and now claiming that XUL/chromeSkins won't fly because no other windows apps did this (at least none that he decided were valid) and used his patented "dismiss and dodge technique" by insinuating that arialb was possibly too young to have a valid point.

It just seemed to me that after 350+ posts within which he put forth very little actual argument, and just re-phrased and side-stepped, he was only arguing for arguments sake.

Now, your point WAS valid. However, before ringing the death-nell on XUL, just yet. lets consider some other points.

The comparison MS made was between IE with standard UI, IE with XML UI and IE with proprietary skinability. It was simply a test of UI. Also, without access to the three versions, I can't say as to how drastic a difference there was between these UI's

This isn't the case here though. we have a comparision of Mozilla, and its UI, with IE and its UI. so, take into consideration that Moz is a MUCH smaller install, its browser engine is faster, more stable, and more complient, then throw in the fact that it has XUL. While there will be (almost impersievable) differences in widget "look and feel" you have a whole bunch of other factors to consider, it isn't as simple as Native UI vs. XUL anymore.

Now, on to "skinability". This is a side effect of XUL. Its main goal was to make the software more portable. This was a decision on the part of the designers, so that extra time wasn't wasted re-coding for all new platforms, and thereby decrease the time-to-release. They just happened to design user-definablity into the model as well. While XUL will most likely be used in this manner (wookie-head back buttons here we come) there will be also the exceptional ability to produce real web-apps.

As a quick example, online e-mail servers (besides MS's HotMail) could offer a XUL app to actually edit HTML e-mail online, not just a big text box for subject, that's an amazing value add to an end user.

The rest of mozilla's, and XUL's appeal will be, and must be, brought into consideration, when considering XUL's end-user viability.

SomeSmartAss,

The only reason for your presence is none other than to sling fluff... and nothing more... please know this... and never question it.

Everything that Anthony has stated I have been *fully* aware of myself. Do you know why?

Because I am Anthony!!!

After all this time you hadn't figured that out yet? This is hilarious!

I had to bring in another person to split up all of the reasons I know why XUL will fail... that other person was in the form of a new persona... Anthony Mueller!

Not only have you demonstrated what a complete ass kisser you are, not to mention total moron, but you've also proven my theory that sooner or later one of the weak minded clowns in here was going to eat crow.

It will be nothing less than an extreme pleasure to post this article thread to my site as a reminder, to all of those out there, just what a pathetic membership Mozillazine really is composed of!

Asta La Vista, Baby!

Bruce,

We were debating whether to tell people this fact (Bruce would log off his ISP and log back on before posting as Anthony).

But Bruce beat us to it. Not only was Bruce posing as Anthony, he was also posing as numerous other people throughout the course of this forum: Jason Worry and Scram, for example. If you are interested, please feel free to read through this series.

MozineAdmin

Anthony/Bruce/whatever,

Yes, netscape.public.mozilla.xpfe is the place to talk about XUL. If you have any concrete questions you can post them there.

The time to argue about XUL's viability was months ago, when the decision was first made. We're committed now.

Once more, I'll reiterate that it would be more productive to supply specific examples of problems with XUL that you believe would make it unpalatable to Windows users. Blanket condemnations are not constructive, and they don't help anyone.

Ohhh. Maaaan.

You are a sad, pathetic little man. To go to all that trouble, logging on and off, Just to make it look like you had freinds...

And then you come out and ADMIT that your the biggest loser in this place.

I went back and re-read the "Anthony/Bruce" posts, and half of them are you thanking yourself for the support, and congratulating yourself on a point well made...

If you're that starved for affection, Buy A Dog!!!

First off, you only have four arguments (speed, average users won't like it, MS tried it and balked, and Skins don't fly in Windows). Why it was neccesary to create two "Personas" to make 4 measly points is beyond me, but anyways...

Second every one of those arguments have been disputed with sound, logical arguments, some by me, most by Dave Hyatt, Arielb and Tekhir (earlier on)

In case you missed that, the last post was, in fact me. And I'll just point out my *forite* part of your last post...

"Not only have you demonstrated what a complete ass kisser you are, ..."

Sorry Ain't kiss a single ass, that I can remember

"not to mention total moron, but you've also proven my theory that sooner or later one of the weak minded clowns in here was going to eat crow."

take a good long look in the mirror, before you start calling other people weak minded clowns....

hmm maybe I'll see Jeckyll and Hyde next time I go to Broadway...

I didn't find Anthony's (or Bruce or whatever persona he feels like today) case to be convincing either.

"Extensive user testing showed that users preferred the win32 chrome over the chrome described with XML. "

Do they give a _specific_ reason? All I can say based on my experience is that we shouldn't trust Microsoft's user testing abilities...

Anyway I am convinced that either we move to the new XUL NG or we close this thread completely