
The future Firefox UI - paulrouget
http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/ux-presentation/ux-presentation.html
======
blauwbilgorgel
What I don't like about these Chrome UI's is that they don't respect my OS
settings. I am on Windows 7 with the classic NT skin. iTunes and Chrome are
one of the few programs that don't respect this skin.

While in this case it is simple user preference, in other cases it could mean
an accessibility concern, or even give room to malicious attacks: With all
these custom browser skins, pop-ups over the HTML body (link destination on
hover) and no clear divide between window and application, users won't clearly
know the difference between interaction with the browser, and interaction with
a smart malicious website.

With smart design one could make the bottom browser toolbar appear to be
higher, and control the top half with your website. Fake plug-in install modal
windows etc.

~~~
Silhouette
> What I don't like about these Chrome UI's is that they don't respect my OS
> settings

Hear, hear. On our new serious workstation, we mostly run a variety of
developer tools and browsers, some basic office software, various
graphics/DTP/modelling stuff from companies like Adobe and Autodesk, and a
bunch of tools to automate things and join the dots.

On a quick look, exactly none of the major products there uses the standard
Windows 7 UI conventions.

I, for one, am sick of:

\- not knowing which keyboard shortcuts perform frequent tasks like undo/redo,
or more generally, not being able to navigate a UI using systematic and
intuitive keystrokes;

\- every application's windows having different conventions for dealing with
multiple documents, docking panels, and so on (and making the labels ever-
smaller wherever they are, so your documents all look like
"C:\users\Fred\\..." and your web pages are all "Favourite Site | The S...");

\- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious methods of
giving you "important" notifications;

\- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious auto-update
policies that break stuff;

\- every application having different ways to download and maintain plug-ins;

\- more and more applications trying to squeeze every last square inch of
screen space by hiding commands behind a small number of tabs or, worse,
meaningless menu-icon-things (we bought large, hi-res monitors for a reason,
and having access to browser bookmarks within two clicks is worth far more to
us than reading a web site at 2560x1400 instead of 2560x1370);

\- every application shoving its executables and config files in its own place
(not helped by Windows 7's holier-than-thou "you can't put that in that
directory" and "are you sure you want to do that" messages);

\- and many other things that just make day-to-day work horribly inefficient.

I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions
again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick to
it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every new
version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.

And then I wish other software, including everything I mentioned above and
most definitely including Firefox and Chrome, would just follow the
conventions or make some effort to collaborate and standardise in connection
with Microsoft (or whoever else writes the platform(s) they run on).

~~~
dpark
> I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions
> again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick
> to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every
> new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.

This, to me, is one the biggest pluses for Macs at this point. Microsoft keeps
trying to reinvent the GUI, but they don't get rid of the old stuff, even in
their own systems.

I also wish Microsoft would adopt actual application bundles. 99% of
applications should not actually need installers and uninstallers. Despite
what Raymond Chen says, a simple folder is not the same thing.

~~~
wmf
Unfortunately the Delicious Generation (including some of its adherents inside
Apple) threw out the HIG. And now we have the weird iOS-OS X hybrid that is
Lion.

~~~
dpark
I haven't used Lion yet, but from what I've seen, it's still far more
consistent than Windows.

~~~
shapoopy
This is undoubtedly true (with the flagrant exception of iCal and Address
Book), but some of us old-timey Mac users remember a glorious past full of
matte gray and a spatial Finder…

~~~
dpark
That's true about iCal and Address Book. I don't use either of those, so I'd
forgotten what they'd done to them.

I'm not an "old-timey" Mac user by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't
help wondering when Macs were "full of matte gray". Are you referring to pre-
OSX days, because it seems that OSX is more gray now than ever before?

~~~
shapoopy
I am in fact. If I remember correctly (I may very well not!) Mac OS 8 or so
(maybe 8.5) was the height of the let's-never-ever-deviate-from-the-HIG days.

This also included a glorious commitment to the desktop metaphor, when that
phrase meant anything: you really could map your mental representation of
virtual objects onto their real-life analogs and expect things to work
remarkably like you expected.

Now, I don't know that a desktop metaphor is the right way to interact with a
computer (I certainly avoid it like the plague), but it seems preferable, in
my experience, to the hodge-podge of mixed metaphors that the modern desktop
UI has become, in both Mac and Windows.

I'm reminded of the scene in _The Big Lebowski_ when the protagonists
encounter a group of nihilists: say what you will about the desktop metaphor,
but at least it's an ethos.

~~~
thaumaturgy
You remember correctly; in the 8/8.5 days, Apple's HIG was considered a must-
read for any application programmer, and deviating from it was guaranteed to
get you lots of criticism. IIRC, about the only 'non-standard' common widget
in applications was the floating windoid, which started out as a hackish WDEF.

As an (at the time) longtime Mac programmer and enthusiast, my disappointment
in the OS X UI was one of the reasons that I walked away from Mac programming
and never went back. In fact, OS X drove me to more seriously try out Linux
and learn to appreciate Windows. Now, I tolerate OS X, but still find myself
pining for good ol' 8.5.

------
starwed
Folk are focusing on the two changes that make this more like chrome (tabs in
title bar, and apparent removal of search bar.) There's more going on here.[1]

* Simplified, customizable graphical menus. No idea how well this will work, but it's only a mock-up at this point.

* Removal of the forward button, merging the back button with the URL bar.

* Refinement of per tab UI. In chrome you still get the browser chrome on pages like preferences or history.

* A change in browser chrome when entering fullscreen mode. (Chrome just over-lays the standard UI when you mouse to the top.)

[1] If anyone knows the context for these images, would be nice to link it!

~~~
kstenerud
I hope there's an option to put the forward button back in. I use it a lot.

~~~
gkoberger
If you think about it, the forward button is disabled about 80% of the time --
so it doesn't really need to always be there. The forward button isn't being
removed completely; it'll just be hidden when it's not clickable. It will
slide out when there's a "forward" URL available.

~~~
ori_b
Ugh. I hate shapeshifting UIs. Muscle memory depends on stuff being fixed in
space relative to other elements.

~~~
idonthack
muscle memory is less relevant when mousing. the range of starting positions
is large.

~~~
ori_b
I can usually mouse to within a few dozen pixels of my target without looking
at the screen, thanks to a combination of muscle memory and spatial sense.

------
beaumartinez
The dev tools' UI[1] looks _amazing_.

<http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/devTools/devTools.html>

~~~
beck5
Are they going to fully integrate firebug into firefox rather than having it
as an extension?

~~~
gkoberger
As I understand it (it's still somewhat in the planning stages, and things are
evolving), Firefox will ship with a set of developer tools which will cover
the major use cases (inspector, console, etc). Firebug will be an extension,
and will add more advanced functionality. It's being rewritten in JavaScript,
and could potentially work on any browser (Firebug and Firebug Lite are going
to merge).

This is how I understood it when I talked to the Firebug team a few months
ago. Mozilla has since hired a ton of people for their Dev Tools team and John
J Barton has left Firebug due to lack of funding from IBM -- so I have no clue
if things have since changed.

~~~
sequoia
PLEASE integrate these things carefully and in a sensible way. If I have to
use "dev tools" for x, b, and z and firebug for a, y and c that's going to be
annoying as hell.

~~~
dangoor
You will not be annoyed. Promise :)

------
ramidarigaz
Strongly reminiscent of Chrome, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Chrome's
UI was one of the primary reasons I switched from Firefox.

~~~
51Cards
And for me the Chrome UI is the primary reason I can't stand Chrome and stay
with FF.

Whatever they do to the default layout in FF doesn't bother me, just keep
giving me the option to put it back the way I like it. So far, so good...
other than needing a plug-in now to get a bottom status bar.

~~~
sp332
What do you use the bottom statusbar for?

~~~
51Cards
I use it for the standard things like hovering over URL's and watching page
load progress. And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably
well for this too... however...

FF went and added an 'Add-Ons Bar' to replace the bottom real-estate that
plugins wanted to sit in lost by the status bar removal. So now, if I use the
Add-on bar, AND allow the Chrome style status pop-up, I loose even more space
since the URL is now outside the bottom bar, and I'm left with a ton of unused
space on the Add-on bar. FF should have just made the Status label a movable
element and allowed it to go back in the bottom bar if desired. Since the bar
is going to be there anyhow for some people with plugins then their effort to
save UI space just cost me 2x the UI space. It frustrates me that what could
have been a simple and flexible change (optional, draggable status label) has
turned into a hodge podge of work-arounds.

~~~
jamesbritt
_And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably well for this
too... however..._

However the Chrome pop-up has a tendency to obscure useful page content,
especially on (oh, irony) Google docs.

I much prefer a devoted status bar. OTOH, I have a WUXGA screen (1920x1200) so
I have less need to obsess over vertical screen space.

The rise of so-called "HD" screens is one of the tragedies of modern computing
that ranks up there with Comic Sans.

------
BlazingFrog
I'm hoping they will do away with the "you need to restart Firefox after
installing an add-on". Chrome has been able to
install/uninstall/disable/tinker with add-ons without the need to restart for
years. That and a new logo (tired of that fox) and I may give it another try.

~~~
potch
I promise you the fox isn't going anywhere, but add-ons made with the new APIs
don't require restart.

------
bostonpete
I can't believe nobody's complaining about the missing dedicated search box. I
thought that was everyone's big beef with Chrome. Then again, I haven't used
Firefox in quite some time so maybe they've already dropped it.

~~~
jamesteow
Dramatic decisions are often criticized until people accept it and adapt.

I remember reading about how consumers wouldn't be able to adapt to a touch
screen phone that didn't have a keyboard option.

~~~
viraptor
Sometimes what actually happens is that people get used to the change and get
tired of fighting against. But they still don't like it at all. It's hard to
see the difference from outside.

~~~
jonathansizz
Exactly. Someone might have their leg amputated and complain for a while, then
eventually accept it and adapt. This does not mean that having a leg amputated
is a good thing.

~~~
jamesteow
That's not a fair analogy.

The alternative to not having your leg amputated in given example is likely
eventual spreading of a disease and death.

With consumer goods and services often no one forces you to have to accept
their changes.

No one forces you to use touch screen phones: there are plenty of alternatives
which do include a keyboard.

Even if you don't like one input box does all approach, you can use previous
browsers or browsers which retain the standard model.

If you don't like Netflix's price hikes, you can just use another service or
don't subscribe at all. Your life won't decline because of it.

~~~
viraptor
Not in every case. I want to use firefox because of some plugins. There is
pretty much no alternative for them. Given that is was the best choice so far,
I get to choose again between something that doesn't do stuff I need, or
something that doesn't look the way I'm used to. Staying with previous
versions is never an answer due to lack of bugfixes, security updates, etc.

Same mistake ubuntu does sometimes. It's the best in general, but has more and
more really annoying changes in my opinion.

You cannot "just switch" in many cases. In some other you'll have to choose
between two things you don't like the least. That's not a good outcome.

------
cultureulterior
I don't understand why no browser manufacturer integrates tree tabs. It's such
a great interface innovation, and everybody is just ignoring it.

~~~
ori_b
Because to a user that barely understands tabs as it is, it's simply not going
to fly. And yes, many nontechnical users do struggle with the idea of tabs.

------
stephank
I'm not sure what people like about Personas (or the equivalent in other
browsers). It always stands out, distracts, and for me even messes up the
great website I may be viewing at the time.

I'd be much more interested in a CSS extension that lets websites 'bleed'
their background into the browser chrome.

------
jerhewet
[shakes his head in disgust]

If I wanted to use Google Chrome, I'd install Google Chrome.

------
nxn
Very nice, if they actually manage to pull this look off it would probably
make it the best looking browser. My only concern is that they wont and that
it will still look like crap in linux.

~~~
streptomycin
Personally, I think all these weird modern UIs look like crap, and the
relatively standard Firefox UI on Linux is quite nice.

~~~
nxn
I don't know, that floating button in the top left bugs me in linux. It makes
sense in windows because it just blends in with the tabs next to it, but in
linux it's on its own line with the tabs showing up below it. The wasted space
annoys me to the point that this is one of the main reasons why I do not use
Firefox anymore.

~~~
streptomycin
I'm not sure what you're referring to. On my computer, it looks either like
[this](<http://i.imgur.com/jZiFO.png>) or
[this](<http://i.imgur.com/yHMKH.png>). No "floating button in the top left"
either way.

~~~
carussell
<http://i.imgur.com/d4jjL.png>

~~~
streptomycin
That can't be it, he said, "it's on its own line with the tabs showing up
below it".

~~~
carussell
nxn messed up his or her pronouns. The "it" in "its own line with the tabs
showing up below it" refers to the the title bar. It's that on Windows, the
tabs and button take the place of the traditional title bar. On Linux, drawing
in the title bar proved too difficult for a generalized approach that worked
across window managers, so the title bar remains intact, and everything is
offset by it.

~~~
streptomycin
oh. well, in that case, i like my titlebars too. i guess if someone doesn't,
they can use a WM without titlebars?

also, chrome gives you the option of disabling the titlebar, so it must be
possible.

------
erickhill
I could be an edge case, but I really dislike branded chrome skins that become
a part of the window (like the Harry Potter example). Just feels tacky to me.

------
jgranby
I wonder whether this latest proposed redesign will finally have Firefox
behaving like, y'know, a native OS X app, or whether it'll be just as shallow
as all previous efforts.

~~~
starwed
Curious, since I only recently started using a mac. How does firefox not act
like a native app?

~~~
jgranby
The whole app feels like an imitation of a Mac app. Most obviously on 10.7,
the window chrome is wrong. Other small things like incorrect and wrongly
sized fonts inside controls, or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use
an extension in its own window. When you add everything together, it just
feels wrong, like wearing clothes that don't fit.

The way they've been updating the UI so far has seen some improvements, for
sure, but it's as if they've been patching it bit by bit. I just wondered
whether this signalled a change of approach.

~~~
carussell
> or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use an extension in its own
> window

Could someone explain to me the correct way for a developer to handle this?

I've been aware of this problem for a while, and I've newly come to own a Mac,
so I've looked into it more and looked at what other apps are doing. There
doesn't seem to be a correct solution.

I looked at how Safari handles the Web Inspector, and it just adds a new,
dedicated Debug menu to the menu bar. This is a no-go in my case.

Suppose you're developer faced with a problem similar to the Firefox–extension
problem. You have something like an app-within-an-app, or maybe A and B are
actually even more closely tied together than that, but independent enough
that on any other platform it would be a no-brainer: each one gets its own
menu. What do you do for OS X?

You can't re-use A's menu items in B, because A's items—in, say, the Edit
menu—don't serve B. You can't just augment A's menu set to include B's menus
and items, because B's menus and items are so numerous and specific to B and
vice versa, that there's just so much clutter from the other's menus and
items.

~~~
Xuzz
I think the solution that Apple would suggest is to just not put an "app-
within-an-app". If the feature set is far enough apart that it feels like a
separate app that needs a separate menu bar, it should be a separate app.

(I actually agree: when is that ever better than a dedicated app?)

~~~
carussell
I'll reply by pointing out that I wrote

> something like an app-within-an-app, _or maybe A and B are actually even
> more closely tied together than that_

------
rglover
Wow. I really hope this isn't just speculation and something that's being put
into production. Yeah, it looks like a Chrome clone, but it's been done well
and with a slight twist. As a dedicated Chrome user, though, it's going to
take more than just a coat of paint to get me to switch back. Can't wait to
see where this ends up.

~~~
rbarooah
What would you want to see in another browser that would make it worth
switching away from chrome?

~~~
yaix
Be faster than Chrom(ium) with regards to start up speed and JS execution.

I abandoned FF after having used it since it was "Phoenix 0.1", because it had
become slow and bloated, like NN had been before. Would love to switch back,
but not if I can open 5 Chromium instances in the same time it takes to open
one FF window.

~~~
gkanai
Have you tried a new profile? A long-time user will end up with a really
crufty Firefox profile. Sync will move all your data to a new profile quickly
and you can see what a new profile in Firefox is like.

~~~
carussell
Sync will not move all your data. I switched to a new profile after installing
an add-on that introduced problems and uninstalling didn't correct those
problems. I fell back to Sync for the new profile so I could salvage my
history and bookmarks from my 2-ish year old profile, but it left out
something like 9 months of history, all but two of my tags, and a good chunk
of my bookmarks and search keywords (including the ones I'd set up for MXR).

I'm not sure if it was buggy, or if Sync was intentionally not tracking the
stuff that didn't get copied over. (cf mconnor's blog post a month or so ago
about implementing Sync quota caps).

------
ZoFreX
While this does look very pretty I'm kinda concerned that they're throwing a
lot of good stuff away. I'm running Firefox 5 and it really feels polished,
there's so many things I'm still discovering and thinking "hey, that's cool".
It's a feeling you most often get when a design has been iterated, and
tweaked, and worked on for a long time... I get the same feeling frequently on
the Mac I have to use at work.

This is prettier, yes. It's also a lot curvier and wastes a lot of space
compared to Firefox 5. In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me,
and Firefox 5 has done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as
the main bar at the top is larger.

And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate -
compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?

~~~
dpark
> _In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has
> done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at
> the top is larger._

Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the
titlebar area. The tab area itself is larger, but the total change is a
reduction in the amount of vertical space used.

> _And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate -
> compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?_

The curve is only on the active tab, so I don't see how it's reducing the
amount of tabs you can have.

~~~
ZoFreX
> Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the
> titlebar area.

I compared FF5 and these screenshots on my screen together, FF5 uses slightly
less real estate. It's only a minor regression though, and hey, this is
Firefox - I can customise it! It's just that prior to the current look, I had
to modify Firefox quite a lot to optimise vertical real-estate, and it's quite
nice that it's now good out of the box, so I selfishly want it to stay that
way!

~~~
dpark
What OS are you on? Comparing my FF5 install on OSX to the mockups, the
mockups use less space due to the tab / titlebar merging. I don't recall if
FF5 is already doing that merging on Windows or not. Looking at screenshots
online, it also looks like the mockup is smaller than stock FF5 on Windows,
but I haven't confirmed myself.

~~~
ZoFreX
Oh, I'm on Windows, which already has that merging in FF5.

~~~
dpark
Ah, ok. Perhaps it is worse with respect to space in Windows.

------
sprokolopolis
I agree that these mocks seem to waste space. I much prefer a more compact
design.

In these mocks, only the active tab actually looks like a tab. The other tabs
visually communicate that they are another interface element all together. I
would suggest that all tabs have a full tab outline. Currently, the S-shaped
curve on the tabs feels too wide and takes up too much horizontal space. The
curve on the corner of the tabs should be sharper to match the rounded corner
of the window. The difference in shape of the s-curve near the traffic lights
and the s-curve of the tabs is bothersome.

I am quite happy with the way Firefox 5 looks with a custom skin ("Default
Mod") and some minor customizations. It would be nice to be able to move the
tabs into the title bar to free up a little space.

------
pbreit
Why has Firefox been so slow to slim down its UI? The back button is still way
too big and the button colors not subtle enough. A browser should disappear
into the background to some extent. It's just a window into the interwebs
after all.

~~~
aberkowitz
The back button is intentionally bigger as it is one of the most used buttons
in a browser. In accordance with Fitt's law, the size allows a user to get to
it quicker than a smaller button.

~~~
dpark
I understand the logic of the bigger back button, but I think it is a poor
choice. It's rather awkward-looking, but more importantly it causes the entire
toolbar to be several pixels taller. It's an amazing waste of space.

~~~
starwed
For people who care about such things, you can customize the toolbar and
enable "Small Icons".

~~~
pbreit
It's always the first thing I do but unfortunately defaults matter.

~~~
starwed
Sure, but many like the current default -- on a netbook, I used small icons,
but everywhere else I willingly sacrifice a couple of pixels for an easier
target.

~~~
pbreit
The other browser makers seem to disagree.

------
BillPosters
Status bar 4 eva. I don't want "improved" UX, I want to keep it as is, and
anyone who wants a new UX should opt in for that. Don't force me to look at
your latest designer's attempt to be noticed.

------
UIZealot
They sure love showing off screenshots on Mac OS X. But when are they going to
follow the basic Mac OS X convention of putting the close button on the left,
and centering the tab titles?

------
ori_b
So... chrome?

------
lion0
Seems much cleaner. They should do a comparison of how much screen space is
used by the chrome vs. other browsers. Can't wait for this to high the nightly
/ dev builds.

~~~
starwed
I've been running the nightly, and there was a brief period where the tabs
were moved into the title bar. Not sure why they backed it out, but I didn't
really like it anyway. (I kind of like knowing the title of the page I'm on --
for instance, with this particular link it conveyed semantic information that
was missing from the page itself.)

------
jeremyarussell
I hope they allow people to keep the old current look if they'd like. I'm more
tired of changing constantly then anything, and I love the UI in firefox now.
Not that new ideas shouldn't be tried, just that what's not broken shouldn't
be "fixed". And I personally don't like chrome because it seems to simple, so
trying to turn into Chrome isn't going to win my vote. (but hey, it's about
what the mass wants right?)

~~~
gkanai
Firefox will always be the most customizable of any of the major browsers. If
you don't like the default theme there are thousands of others to choose from,
as there are today.

------
mrsebastian
I did some digging around -- it should start appearing in Firefox 9, 10, and
11 (i.e. it will probably be complete in the Nightly channel before the end of
the year, and in Beta/Stable builds next year some time):
[http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91652-mozilla-
unveils-n...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91652-mozilla-unveils-new-
firefox-interface-for-firefox-9-and-beyond)

------
mchusma
The final design was awesome, just get rid of the home button and it will be
even better. I can't remember the last time I used that button.

~~~
paulrouget
It's not the home button but the home tab:
[http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2011/06/10/home-tab-and-
new-...](http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2011/06/10/home-tab-and-new-tab-
conceptual-mockups/)

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I love that design, makes me really excited about the future of Firefox.
They're finally started to catch up with Chrome in regards to speed of
innovation.

------
sshah
Does anyone know if they are planning on bringing back Ubiquity. Of the
different lab projects, this one I miss a lot.

~~~
starwed
You can actually download[1] an updated version of Ubiquity that works with
even the nightly versions.

The commands I personally wrote seem to be broken now, but I think the main
pre-installed ones work.

[1] Get tip.xpi at <https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity/downloads>

~~~
sprokolopolis
Thank you so much for posting this. I have missed Ubiquity.

------
smhinsey
I really hope this new tab layout doesn't mean Tree Style Tabs is out of the
picture.

------
joakin
Very good mockup. Hopefully it will get into the main releases without many
changes

------
joenathan
If you want to try the new look out right now, SoapyHamHocks has put together
a theme <http://soapyhamhocks.deviantart.com/#/d425ffz>

------
broot
I'm glad they finally got rid of that extra search bar, it was ugly and clunky
and useless. Any word on when this changes happens for real? I would love a
better looking firebug delivery device.

------
notatoad
i hope they roll this out gradually. one of the biggest things that makes
people stick with old browser versions is a reluctance to move to a new UI. if
they introduce a big change, we're going to see a whole bunch of people
sticking with an old browser version for much longer than they should.

this is something that chrome is awesome for. they have changed the UI around
a bit since v1, but each change has been so minimal that nobody has really
noticed too much.

------
aj700
Is the background blue check thing a Lion desktop picture or just something
blueprinty that moz are using for this? How do I get it (with nothing drawn on
top of it)?

------
jamesteow
I would most likely use the full screen view as I never need the menu options
anyway (it's also how I use Photoshop).

I would likely switch back to Firefox if they executed this.

------
bradgessler
I like that wallpaper. Does anybody have a link to that?

~~~
tortilla
He posted it on his blog, [http://blog.stephenhorlander.com/2011/08/desktop-
backgrounds...](http://blog.stephenhorlander.com/2011/08/desktop-backgrounds/)

------
d0m
It looks fantastic! Only thing I fear about firefox is the speed. (Speed at
Starting, loading setting windows, obviously loading pages, caching, etc.)

------
neatoincognito
What does it look like with a bunch of tabs open?

------
yaix
Glad they finally copied Chromium.

Would be great if they copied it too with regards to startup speed and JS
execution speed.

~~~
Aloisius
Firefox 8 nightlies are as fast if not faster than the Dev Channel build of
Chrome 14.

------
DrewG
Love the ones with the short URL bar. That is one thing from IE9 that needs to
be copied.

------
nodata
This UI may be good for small screens - but for desktops? I'm not so certain.

------
dpark
What's the green "tree" button to the right of the home button?

~~~
mbrubeck
It's the favicon of a site that is pinned as an "app tab".

~~~
dpark
Makes sense. Thanks!

------
thirtysixred
I hope they don't get rid of the ability to have extra toolbars since I use
the web developer toolbar quite a bit, and adding an extra step to get to it
would be very annoying.

------
alexeiz
this new UI is just awesome

------
WayneDB
Where's the mockup for Windows? There are way more people running Firefox on
Windows than OS X.

~~~
voxmatt
It's towards the bottom. Just scroll down.

~~~
WayneDB
Oh, I see. They have 1 mockup for Windows and the rest are for OS X.
Brilliant.

~~~
starwed
These aren't design blueprints. I don't really know why the OP linked to a set
of images without any commentary, but it's obvious from the URL that these
were part of a presentation. Showing exactly the same changes on every OS
wouldn't have been very useful in that context.

------
derleth
I don't care as long as I can still use the Add-Ons (extensions, themes, etc.)
to make it work like I want, which is pretty much like an improved Firefox 3.6
or so. That's the big thing Chrome doesn't have: The ability to customize the
experience in very deep ways.

------
ahmetalpbalkan
I see wasted pixels...

------
samuelhalle
Chrome, is that you?

------
mariusmg
Yeah, let's make thing more round and diverge even more from the OS look.
Morons.

~~~
fictorial
How is name-calling useful to anything here?

