Closed Bug 48205 Opened 24 years ago Closed 24 years ago

Use Classic Skin as default

Categories

(SeaMonkey :: General, defect, P1)

Product:
SeaMonkey
Component:
General
Type:
defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED

People

(Reporter: brista, Assigned: bugs)

Details

(Keywords: classic, polish, Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-])

Many people I hear from that have tried Mozilla or Netscape 6 really only like using it with the Classic Skin. They say that people they know would use the browser if it used a simplified (like AOL or IE) and a little nicer looking Classic Skin and if it was default. It's just an idea to consider. From what I gather most people like the Classic Skin at Mozilla.
I see no valid reason why Mozilla shouldn't default to Classic.
Assignee: asa → bdonohoe
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Browser-General → User Interface: Design Feedback
Ever confirmed: true
QA Contact: doronr → mpt
Mozilla is free to decide which skin will be the default in Mozilla. Netscape 6 is a separate issue. Reassigning to Ben.
Assignee: bdonohoe → ben
I believe this may be a dupe of a bug I've seen before. Searching for that now...
aww...i was planning on reporting this when I get home tonight, since I have plenty of rant for it. cc kerz. anyways, yes, Netscape and the marketing geniuses over there are free to make the call, but I don't see why this bug can't contain discussion that applies to netscape also (per the existence of the 'nsonly' keyword). I have plenty to say about this tonight :)
OK, couldn't find the dupe, I must have been imagining it. I, as well as a number of others (many Mozilla employees included), believe that the Classic skin should be the default. I know that Blake has plenty of arguments prepared, so I'll leave that to him and comment again at another time.
Well I actually really really like the modern skin. But as long as it's in there as an option, I don't see why classic shouldn't be the default.
Please keep the rants to yourself for now. I think we all know why Classic should be the default; we only need to rant if Ben shows signs of not wanting to do it. :-) If you can submit a patch (which shouldn't be too difficult), that would help.
Summary: Using Classic Skin as default → Use Classic Skin as default
The problem isn't getting ben to do it, or coming up with a patch for it. That's the easy part. The hard part is convincing the marketing folks, who designed the modern skin, to give up their pride and the giant netcenter ad and allow Classic to be the default. And since we've gone this far and marketing still hasn't caved in (despite the general outcry of the public), I think we'll need some better arguments.
Sorry, my last comment was in reference to NS 6. Let's leave this bug as changing the default Mozilla skin for now (since I don't think anyone has a real problem with that), and once that's fixed, I'll leave this open as nsonly so Netscape can make a final decision.
In terms of MOZILLA's default, I vote for Classic all the way! :-) Now, how do we change it?
Keywords: donttest
before we can make any skin the default it has to not suck on most windows. I have some fixes for classic in mailnews and addressbook... I'll take a look at editor, and when I'm certain that classic works about as well as modern I'll investigate this issue. setting priority, severity, and accepting.
Severity: enhancement → normal
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: P3 → P1
Target Milestone: --- → M19
Making classic the default is especially worth doing since they have simpler style rules, which resolve faster, and make the product appear more performant.
Nominating for nsbeta3, and voting! I think the best way to make Classic the N6 default is to make it so good that it is clearly preferred by most users (like Classic Coke). I assume it will be the mozilla default, once Ben decides it is ready.
Keywords: nsbeta3
I think it's already preferred by most users, judging by comments made after ever milestone and PR. Bringing marketing/UI folks into this discussion...
give classic skin a chance. make it default for M18 and we will see, what is good and waht is not so good.
I wonder if Netscape's Marketing is deliberately trying to kill any market for Netscape 6 on the Mac. Out of macnn.com, macintouch.com, and Mac comments on non-Mac-specific message boards, I haven't seen even one comment that's positive about the Modern skin. The closest any comments have come to being positive is that they didn't immediately ditch PR2 and got into the Preferences to switch to Classic. Windows comments have been nearly as bad, although some Windows users (and almost assuredly the minority) have liked Modern. GTK users have been generally less adamantly opposed to it, in my experience, but that may be due to the fact that so many apps ignore GTK conventions that they're used to it. But there's no market for Netscape 6 (Mozilla might have a chance, due to the fact that Marketing doesn't dictate Mozilla policies) on Macintosh if it defaults to Modern. IE5 has been heavily criticized for just ignoring Appearance Manager preferences, and Modern isn't even close to THAT level of platform compliance. If Marketing doesn't see the light on this issue, there's no point in a Netscape 6 for Macintosh, because no one will use it. And I fear that would cascade into Netscape not allocating ANY resources for Macintosh development, which might mean the death of Mozilla on Macintosh as well.
With regards to Netscape, I think making it the default for PR3 is the best suggestion I've heard. We've been using these preview releases all long to experiment with new things and gauge the public's reaction on them.
I like modern better than classic I use Linux/Gnome
I agree with chrisn's posts in .ui that the classic skin shouldn't be a skin, it should just exist. It shouldn't have any entry listed in the themes panel, instead, you simply apply other skins to it. I don't have that big of a problem with modern, but I think that anyone with any intelligence can agree that its just not going to work as the default appearance for the app. This sucks, because the modern skin is a testament to the flexibility of mozilla, and how you can manipulate it to do anything you want (my marketing for the day is done....). The problem is that many people aren't quite ready to have their OS's UI ripped from beneath them. The classic skin right now is doing a great job imho of mimicing OS feel on each platform, and making it the default will only help improve it. Here's hoping that whoever's driving this thing doesn't push people, and instead lets them make the jump when they are ready to.
my $0.02: if we don't ship classic as the default on MacOS, we probably shouldn't ship a mac client. no one will use it, no matter how visible you think skin switching might be.
Here's another vote for using the classic skin as the default on Mac.
Keywords: polish
I read reviews that said there should be an option in the installer. i.e. the last installer question would be: What theme would you like to use as default: () Modern () Classic. This way we get high visibility on the availibility of themes, and we allow people to start off in Classic. A fes rants: People will use the browser with whatever skin we give them. :P The Classic skin isn't nearly as stable as Modern.
Actually, the installer option is a great idea. But that still leaves which skin to have as default in the zip files.
I think you'll be surprised at just how picky users are. Mac users wouldn't use "whatever skin we give them". (Most Mac users haven't even discovered the Classic skin. In fact, my guess is that you'd have better returns on the Mac if you default to Classic and downplay skins.) Even if an installer that allows a choice of theme at install time is included, Classic should be heavily pushed (at least on MacOS). I disagree with the assessment that Modern is more stable (it's slower because of the more complicated style rules), although I agree that Classic still has work to be done. Trust me.... Default to the Classic skin and Netscape 6 might stand a chance on MacOS. Don't default to it, and, as Pinkerton says, it's not worth shipping the client because no one will use it. On Windows and GTK, you MIGHT get away with defaulting to Modern, since theming is so popular on those toolkits through the use of Windowblinds and GTK themes and Neoplanet (for IE) and such. The majority will still switch to Classic, but you might not be immediately dismissed out of hand. But on MacOS, people expect applications to look like Mac applications (witness Word 6, which looked positively Mac-like compared to parts of Modern :) ), and Classic is 6's only chance.
>I read reviews that said there should be an option in the installer. i.e. the >last installer question would be: What theme would you like to use as default: >() Modern () Classic. I think that should be interpreted as: "Whatever you do, just don't default to Modern." >This way we get high visibility on the availibility of themes, and we allow >people to start off in Classic. The "high visibility to themes" reasoning is causing more trouble than it's worth. >People will use the browser with whatever skin we give them. :P I see the smiley, but have you actually read comment in Mac discussion forums? >The Classic skin isn't nearly as stable as Modern. Based on what evidence?
I filed a separate bug 48688 about the installer option. The two bugs are mutually exclusive. If the X-heads decide to pick a bug, the other would have to be resolved as WONTFIX.
Note: It may be that your market research shows you that Mac users like to customize the look of their system. That does *NOT* mean they want an app that implements its own themes. It means that many Mac users like to customize the look of the apps on a *system-wide* basis which requires apps that respect the platform conventions. In fact, Mozilla's theme functionality breaks system-wide customizability!
about breaking system wide rules: If you want system wide rules in place use some custom port, if we GNOME users want to be able to use our GTK+ themes in moz we gotta use galeon why should everyone bend over backwards for mac when its not done for the other OS's. I also get stuck with mac booknarks with every fresh install. Why mac bookmarks why noe windows or linux bookmarks. i dont want to see crapintosh resources with an install of moz on Linux.
Mark Anderson wrote: > But on MacOS, people expect applications to look like Mac applications I would like to add to this that most users expect their applications to look like their other applications. It's not just the Mac. There are some psychological factors at play here. I expect my Windows apps to look similar to other Windows apps. It's a comfort thing. I know what the general look and feel of my Windows system is and I expect to see that look and feel in all my applications. Forget about people using WindowBlinds and programs like that. Think about people who aren't that computer literate. Think about people who don't even know what the difference between RAM and disk storage much less what a 'theme' or 'skin' is. You're going to get a lot more mileage out of something that looks and acts like the rest of the applications on a system. Consistency goes a long way, particuarlly in visual design. People might not feel as comfortable using something that looks so alien to the rest of their system. I know I feel uncomfortable in that situation.
MY SKIN SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT!!!! But seriously, anything but Modern. Modern is hideous. And Classic still has issues, but it would be great when those issues are resolved (make the bottns smaller).
'crapintosh'? - please watch your language if you want to be taken seriously. The macintosh classic skin is a completely different entity from the one built on windows and unix presently. I am a Windows user, and somewhat passionate about my platform. I expect my apps to observe the settings I have chosen in my OS' appearance manager (Desktop Properties). Anything else looks like a cheap hack or a skin that I have downloaded because I want my app to look different. In most cases I don't. Wrt the skinable apps I've tried (winamp, neoplanet etc) the skins I've downloaded have lasted about 5 minutes. I want something I can use and feel productive using.
Re: Ben's comment. Precisely my point. I merely meant that there might be a ghost of a prayer of survival on Windows and GTK if Modern stayed the default. Not that it actually should *be* that way. It's just that Mac users tend to be much more vocal about blending in with other apps than Windows and GTK users. :) In fact, I agree with Chris Nelson; Classic should be the skin you're running when you don't think you're running a skin. Sure, we'll all know better, but Joe Q. Public won't. By default, the application should fade into the operating system settings. If you apply a theme, you're deliberately trying to change the appearance, rather than trying to make it look MORE like the default should be.... Whether it's called "None" or involves a checkbox "Use themes" is semantics, but Classic should be at the root of everything, unless you deliberately choose otherwise. Even if Netscape doesn't choose to go this route (and I personally think it would be folly; if they really want Themes to catch on, they should be making it easier for authors by not forcing them to redefine widgets to look like the platform if that's all they intend to do), Mozilla definitely should, IMHO. Every skin that wants to stick to platform-like widgets and conventions will be smaller (I can't speak on the speed; I don't know how style resolution really works), because it won't have to break the chain of inheritance to get those widgets. Modern breaks the chain anyway, so it wouldn't really be affected by making Classic's widgets the default (it'd just override it), so I see no harm to it and worlds of good. And to the crapintosh poster, if we followed through on Chris N.'s idea, you wouldn't have to use Galeon to get a browser that conformed to GTK themes (well, assuming Classic could be taught to inherit GTK settings, which I thought someone was working on...?). In short, make Classic (or some other thing that conforms to platform conventions) the default XPToolkit implementation, and you'll have a lot less grumblings from the cheering section on all three platforms. At the very least, you don't lose anything, and at the most, you might just get volunteers to help refine the feel as well as the look.
I apologize for going a bit overboard on my previous post (calling mac crapintosh), its just if you look at the default bookmarks it allready makes you think your running a win32 or linux port of a macinotsh browser (There are 3 folders for mac specific bookmarks none for win32 or linux), and i dont think its very fair that we're making classic the default to keep the mac users happy. And i also think we need a better way of deciding than voting in bugzilla. many possible future users and some current users don't use bugzilla.
> if you look at the default bookmarks it allready makes > you think your running a win32 or linux port of a > macinotsh browser Oh, boohoo. As if I (a Mac user) actually visit any of the default-bookmarked sites, except when they coincide with my Netscape 4 bookmarks. You're sounding like a petty liberal with too much time on his hands. If it's THAT big a deal to you, file a separate bug. Better yet, cobble together a bookmark file for Windows and/or Linux, or just add those bookmarks to the existing file, and submit it. Hell, even I could do that, and I don't work on Mozilla. You'll probably see it in the distributions within a week. > i dont think its very fair that we're making classic the > default to keep the mac users happy. We're not doing it to make Mac users happy. We're doing it because Modern sucks dead goats through a straw. It's just that of the major platforms, Mac users are the ones most likely to care about axing an interface that sucks dead goats through a straw. You should be thankful for their heightened aesthetic, not contemptuous of it. > many possible future users and some current users don't > use bugzilla. You said it wrong; the correct phrasing is "you may think you're right, but the silent masses support me", and it's still bollocks logic.
There is already a bug to tidy up the bookmarks somewhat, although I believe the primary thrust of that one was to remove Netcenter linkage. And it's not to make mac users happy, it's to make users happy. I'm a windows user. I think that where platform standards exist for l&f, they should be followed. Anything more are cherries that I'll pick if I want them.
In my informal poll, 100% of people despise Modern and find it absolutely hideous and repugnant in every way possible. I have yet to hear anyone find one single pixel of it to not be ugly. There have been reports that even one single pixel of blue from the Modern theme, mixed in with other colors, will cause cancer in mice... Er... Ok, maybe not. But it's definitely uglier than cancer in mice. Second, you can't just "copy some settings" from GTK to make a theme that emulates GTK. Guess what? GTK themes are extremely powerful, and include the capability to hook into the widget rendering library with arbitrary code that does anything it wants to render the widget. For all you know, the current GTK theme might be downloading pictures of scantily clad sheep from venus, and painting them with 27% transparency over a picture of Natalie Portman using an AI routine to keep the features distinct, when it choses to render a scroll bar. To integrate into a Gnome desktop like a normal app, you need to take XP widgets, throw them out completely, and draw GTK widgets directly out of the GTK library, just like a proper app does. Which, of course, is what all the linux (and for that matter, all the non-linux) people I know want. I have yet to meet one single person who doesn't think the XP widgets are terrible, ill behaved, ugly under any theme, and horrifically slow. I have yet to hear a single credible reason why they should even exist, except as some sort of ill-conceived marketing gimmick. The word "unusable" seems to come up a lot as well.
Here's one very credible reason: there'd be no GTK (or Mac) port at all without the XP widgets. Unless something at Netscape has changed since the IRC chat about the state of the Mac, Pinkerton's statement (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, Pinkerton; I just remember you saying it :) ) that Netscape management wouldn't have allocated resources for Mac and Linux ports without XP widgets is still what I accept as truth. And while it's nice to think that maybe the 97% of Mozilla that's cross platform today would still be that way, allowing something like Galeon to exist, I sincerely doubt that would be the case. So, I guess it's a tradeoff.... Short term problems in nonconformity for long term gain in continued development, versus short term gain in keeping native widgets versus long term loss in not having Netscape make sure their development worked on more than Windows. Of course, Mozilla will gladly take patches to make native widgets work, if it can be done cleanly without screwing up the other ports, I'm sure.
No doubt, classic skin would gain largest acceptance in the community. So please let it be classic!! I think modern is just some designer approach not taking into account real user requirements.
Re: Anderson I must say, that explanation is somewhat more credible than the others I've heard: - standard compliance! We must support buttons that are 12,000 pixels tall! [oh please] - we must have skins! [See "marketing gimmick"] - we have to support application mumbo jumbo server gobble XML warble buzzword foo! [Give me a break. This is a web browser] In fact, the Dilbert-esque, insane absurdity of it ["let's introduce bugs so we have to hire more people!"] is just ridiculous enough to be amusing. So, you're saying the PHB's actually believed devel when it came up with some sort of laughable song-and-dance about how trying to develop a cross-platform, multi-purpose, advanced, skinnable, fast, and bug-free widget set would be less work than hacking together 2 additional UI frameworks using tried-and-true interface components? And is still buying it a year later when it's been publicly shown that superior UI can be hacked together be three guys, a can of jolt, and a pizza in one weekend? But you haven't said what the plan is for killing off XP. Clearly, if the justification for its existence is to bamboozle management, then devel must be planning on killing it off before shipment somehow, lest it sin against the profession of software engineering. Or are you saying that somehow people have come to rationalize to themselves that XP is not a giant bug in Mozilla?
Ok, everyone, this discussion would be *much* better held in n.p.m.ui. Please take it there. Other bugs for people's reference: * Cleaning up the default bookmarks (which will remove the Mac-specific ones) is bug 20862. * Making the Classic widgets the default for XPToolkit is a separate bug, which I wasn't planning to file until this bug had been fixed. If someone would like to file it before then, that's fine. * Using native widgets is Stage 3 of bug 39375. If you support this bug, please just vote for it. Thanks ...
Classic is clear to read and it's easy to follow what the different buttons and dialogues do and mean - and I say this as a user, not as a developer. The first thing I do when I get a nightly is to set Moz to use the Classic theme, rather than Modern.
Since I betatested IBM'S OpenDoc implementation for OS/2 many years ago I have never seen such a horribly slow program with such an absolutely ghastly, butt-ugly looking user interface(I just tried NS6 PR2). Even though I've switched to the classic skin it still looks terrible, just like some Java program. When I use Netscape under Windows I expect it to not just behave and look like a Windows program (even with the classic skin it doesn't), I also expect it to only use the native controls that come with the OS !! Unless performace is improved _significantly_ (by at least 2 to 3 times) and support for not having to use skins at all is added, it'll be a cold day in hell when I use Mozilla/NS6 (even IE5.5/OE is _far_ superior to NS6 !!)
Actually, I think people in support of Classic should explain why they like it here (rather than in the newsgroups), because there needs to be some consolidated place (rather than across slashdot threads, newsgroups, etc) where people can voice their support. HOWEVER... I also don't see a purpose for people to argue here. If you want Classic, calmly tell why and vote for this bug. If you want Modern, calmly tell why in bug 48710 and vote for it. There's no need to put down a skin, it just makes you look childish and lowers the respect others have for your opinion...
While I don't necessarily think it's the greatest idea to use a UI so similar to 4.x in 6.x, I do think that the Classic skin is so far superior to the Modern skin that given a lack of other options, the Classic skin has to win hand-down as the default.
I personally feel the Modern skin will scare off far more users than it will attract. The thin horizontal stripes in the navigation toolbar and dimmed navigation buttons is very jarring. One enhancement that I feel the Classic skin needs, however, is the ability to alter the characteristics of the navigation buttons analogous to the Picture & Text / Picture Only / Text Only option in Netscape 4.x.
If for no more reason than the attempt to emulate native widgets, Classic should be the default. (actually I'd like to see Aphrodite the default, but I can dream, can't I?) The classic skin is far superior to that **** modern in about a million ways so i won't bother listing them all. I think the people are making their preferences clear.
Just for some background information, the only reason that I can think that a Linux/GNOME user would prefer modern is simply because Netscape 4 didn't match anyway... and motif stuff, when compared to GNOME (or KDE for that matter), is quite ugly. The Classic skin emulates the motif look, which is why it would appear many Linux/GNOME users somewhat prefer modern. However, many Linux/GNOME users are also simply switching to using mozilla embedded in Galeon, because that actually matches the rest of GNOME. So, what I'm basically saying is that you can ignore most Linux/GNOME users' opinions. Most of us may end up using Mozilla in galeon or in nautilus. (Unless some magic way to match GTK+ themes is made, which I doubt) Another thing to consider is that you don't have to match Netscape 4 exactly. The reason people like Classic is because it matches the OS. Perhaps someone could work on a new skin which matches the OS, yet looks better than Netscape 4 did?
I don't think Classic is necessarily the ideal choice for a default skin, but IMO it's the best one currently available. You *need* to have something that resembles the standard look of the OS. Flat toned (usually gray) application background with rectangular toolbars and icons on top of them. You don't *have* to use NSN4's old icons and you don't *have* to use the same style for the toolbar grabbies. In fact, it'd be great if Mozilla had a whole new set of icons. Maybe some related to the Mozilla/Godzilla creature?
Just a thought: I wonder of those folks who vote here to make Classic the default for Mozilla, how many of those people want it for the platform specific widget set, platform- obeying fonts and colors? Classic itself is definitely not the root of everything as things like the icons on the toolbar represent a design we worked on 4 years ago. As such I feel that if this became the default skin for Netscape we missed an opportunity. Note that I am not saying that modern in its current state is the final answer to that quest. I realize that still much work has to be done to make it polished, usable and comfortable for a wide majoirty of users. Then again, 4.x's visual design was in the making for about 2 years...
Precisely. I'd be surprised if anyone wanted Classic for the icons. We want it because it, by default, blends in with other applications on the system.
Using Classic as default is not a 'missed opportunity', it is an obligation. It is arrogant, disrespectful and misguided for Netscape (or Mozilla) to think that they know better than the user and the platform vendor in defining a standard of look and feel. I wouldn't bother setting my system display preferences if I didn't think they were going to be used. I don't think that most people care about skins. Skins are 'cool' for about 5 minutes. I seriously doubt any user is going to spend more time customizing the UI than that. I was under the impression that we were building a web browser that could be used, not a liability that you had to keep tinkering with just to keep it running, like some rusty British roadster. Get past the marketing wet dream, folks. Netscape's current plan represents a gross misjudgment. Netscape's market share is well into pathetic, and I really don't think it can afford to antagonize people off by offering a non-standard UI as default. It does not matter how far Paul Hangas' group gets in tarting up the lemon, there are still people who won't like it, and the 'customizable' catch-cry won't buy much ground either. I imagine that most of NS6's target market is going to stick with the default, whether they like it or not.[1] Are most people really going to use something that by our own admission is a 'prototype feature'? It's no surprise IE is king - it's not just because it is the default but also because of the way it seamlessly integrates into the terrain. It is a ubiquitous part of Windows. It styles itself as a contemporary Mac application. It breaks a few rules itself, but it does a darn sight better than we do. Like it or not IE, not a fringe curiosity, is the client we have to beat. If Netscape has missed *any* opportunity it has been to emulate IE on a more basic level, and integrate itself. [1] (If you doubt this, look at how much difficulty our target user has in operating our search feature (see Lake's usability studies), or even using bookmarks! P.S. We only used the icons because we were not provided with a newer, improved set. If Netscape itself thought them inappropriate, and really ever had any intention of really getting behind Classic as a skin to use, it might have provided us with some new ones.
I don't quite understand your point. I think the comments here thus far (and elsewhere) show unanimously that people's primary concerns are Classic's platform-specific widget set and its ability to recognize and adhere to your platform fonts and colors. I've seen little (if any) indication from users that Netscape 4.x's lousy icons are their main reason for liking Classic. In fact, change the icons in the Classic skin, and see if anyone takes their support elsewhere. No, what I see from users is a strong urge for a program which respects their settings and resembles every other program they're used to. Not a setting-defying, platform-defying, non-customizable, coloring book- esque skin. When I look at Classic, I see something that hardly resembles Netscape 4.x exactly, but is still close enough that it's comfortable and familiar (is that not, after all, the purpose of a user interface?). It's just different enough to be fresh and new. And, incidentally, if you think Classic resembles 4.x too closely, it's only because Netscape is putting the pressure on Mozilla engineers to make it so. That's a problem on your end; not ours. As the Netscape UI lead, I'm sure you're quite familiar with the phrase "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". People complained about Netscape 4's standards supports. Its lack of new features from 3.0. Its overall 'rushed' feeling. But who complained about its interface? IIRC, users actually preferred 4.x's streamlined, colorful interface to that of IE. Were there _really_ that many requests for a brand new interface which defies anything anyone has ever seen before, on _any_ platform? You say that you feel we're missing an 'opportunity' by making Classic the default. An opportunity to what? Shock users out of their mind? Disappoint the many, many people out there who'd be ecstatic with just a 4.x lookalike containing a better parsing and layout engine? I sat my mom in front of Mozilla with the default skin on and she sat stunned like a deer caught in headlights. Didn't know what to do. Where to click. First thing she wanted to do was change everything's color (not everyone likes dark, depressing bluish teal). Turned on the Classic skin, she was comfortable and started to work. But believe me: if I wasn't there helping her, she'd never have known you could switch skins, and Mozilla would've been gone in seconds. The fact of the matter is (and again, you as the UI lead should live by this policy) that people want to be comfortable. They don't want a flashy interface interfering with what they're trying to do. As someone said earlier, the best skin is the one that you don't even know exists. The interface should work with you to accomplish your goal, not be a distraction. Hell, I think the fact that Modern is totally non-customizable is reason alone for people to switch. Don't like an ugly, depressing, all-blue interface? No time to read up about skin switching. Boom, Mozilla's closed and it's right back to IE, which actually resembles a professional app. I'm not even going to get into the considerable speed increase that comes with using Classic. So, to reiterate: by far the largest complaint of Netscape 4 was its inability to support standards and render pages properly. We've fixed that. UI was a fraction of the complaints. I think shocking users with an out of this world, never seen before UI is the last thing we want to do at this stage of the game.
I'm no judge of graphical aesthetics, but the 4.x icons make a large difference to me, since they are so familiar that I can quickly click on the right one with hardly a glance. Updating them would be fine, but please consider keeping them familiar. I don't think I'm alone in that, user testing showed very mixed recognition of the new icons. I wish we were using more of them, I really miss being able to print with a quick one-hand gesture. I could replace the other missing icons by adding bookmarks to the personal toolbar, or at least the part of it that is left for me to use as I please.
Just to clarify: when I continuously referred to 'customizablity' (or the lack of it in Modern), I was referring to the ability to customize via your OS's appearance manager (e.g. that you can make Classic's toolbars the same color as those of your other apps, but Modern's remain blue). Someone earlier made the good point that the 'norm' should be the default for users. Anything else that's wild, outlandish, or just overall different should be something they must reach out for, since not everyone wants to be different (and is it not our purpose to satisfy as most people as possible?) For those of you making the argument that users can just change skins if they don't like modern: this is not a valid argument. Just a couple extra steps to switch skins or not, the general public is lazy; they want to be spoon-fed. Consider IE and Netscape. IE is the default. How many people have taken the extra effort to take up extra disk space and install Netscape? Latest numbers show 13%, and even that's quickly dwindling. Netscape has one shot at changing user's minds. One shot before the user closes it up again and goes back to IE. Do you *really* want that one chance, that one impression, to be based on a risky curiousity? I, for one, wouldn't base Netscape's future as a company on a dream.
I cannot confirm the findings from your mom (sample = 1) at all. we had many users in our lab and in focus groups and they either did not comment on the theme design at all or commented positively on it. There we also no usability deficits on large scale because modern looked new (we tested modern exclusively on usability tests so far) Now these were not hard-core core computer experts or developers but folks using our browser and mail apps as well as IE at various levels of proficiency. In focus groups users actually specifically pointed out their interest in an appearance that reminded them less of computers and office like programs and that was (their words not ours) more delightful and personal. My point was that we missed an opportunity if consumers can not tell at a glance that this is an all new environment. You call classic "It's just different enough to be fresh and new." I disagree. Consumers will look at it and say "same old same old, why should i bother?". Consumers do not care so much for standards compliance and rendering speed (as long as they won't notice it being subpar). My point was also that it took a lot of refinement work (2 years) to make 4.x where it is today. Modern is nowhere near that level of polish, but we can get it there. We also have modern too directed towards one color scheme that was too high in saturation to work across all environments ands sites: We will crank it back towards on a more universally, more desaturated color palette. This will hopefully help to minimize discomfort caused by lack of refinement of the appearance. I agree also we would have a usability problem if the theme depicted vastly different icons for familiar actions (like not using arrows for back and forth), but this is not the case. The icons mainly lack polish and refinement and this will be addressed.
BTW just to clarify: I for one am *not* hardcoded that only "Modern" could ever be the default skin for Netscape 6. As you know I contributed many hours of work to classic as well and wanted to make that a success. My personally preferred process would be for Netscape 6 to make the decision closer to ship dated based on the Themes that are available then, facoring in each Theme's usability, aesthestics, brand, 'freshness' and comfort level. Whether that can be done with the timeline folks have imposed on us I am not sure.
As you say, the 4.x look has had lots of time to percolate, which makes it an inherently wiser choice as a default.
Ben: I like your comment especially since I have never actually seen you watch or particpate in the lab or in any of the Netscape usability studies. IMO, Search and Bookmarks are difficult to operate not because of any theme design but because of some idiocies that are half-a## compromises between end- user needs, marketing needs, schedules and results of just too much red tape.
German, the examples I cited relate directly to tasks given to engineering to implement, based on 'user studies,' namely: "Red flag search for Netscape 6" and Too many access points to bookmarks cause 'confusion.'
er. My comment about my mom was a mere refreshing break to entertain the 8- or so people who have to read all these notifications. I don't recall saying "My mom is the absolute end-all be-all representation of every potential Netscape 6 customer on the planet" ;) I find it interesting that you seem to have conducted usability tests and focus groups on the Modern skin, but not the Classic. Why not try the Classic and see the results? You say: "Consumers will look at it and say 'same old same old, why should i bother?'." But where's the typical consumer to back that up? Windows' interface hasn't changed in 5 years. It's wildly popular. Why? IE has had few dramatic interface changes. 87% marketshare. Why? I see few popular apps that undergo major interface changes between versions unless its users have specifically complained; they know that sticking to the tried- and-true is often the best solution. I also disagree about your comment that 'consumers do not care so much for standards compliance and rendering speed (as long as they won't notice it being subpar).' er, that's a pretty big "as long as". You think Netscape lost all its marketshare solely because of IE/Windows integration? Sure, maybe the average consumer won't know that Netscape 4 didn't support CSS positioning (for example). But they'll certainly notice when their favorite site doesn't show up, or looks awful, in NS and great in IE. What's their incentive for sticking to a browser that doesn't show their favorite sites properly? And, as consumers shift their focus to a different browser, so, too, will the webmasters. If Netscape truly believed that standards compliance and rendering capabilities weren't a major part of the game, surely they wouldn't be two of the main focus points and milestones around which Netscape 6 is based?
Right, German. Modern isn't REALLY ass-ugly; it's just the unhealthy mind-control that Bugzilla exerts on people that skews our opinions so much. *rolls eyes* If you want a bigger sample than someone's mom, try reading the posts on ANY forum for Netscape 6 discussion when a preview is released. I assure you, there is little love for your sickly corporate branding-cum-interface.
Look. This is obviously a widespread point of contention, and I doubt either 'side' is going to present that groundbreaking argument which'll change any minds. Modern skin has had its day in court, its 15 minutes of fame, in the last two public preview releases. I think it's only fair that Classic have its chance. Turn on Classic as default in PR3. If it's self-evident that the 200,000 or so users of the PR are clearly adamant against having Classic as the default, I for one will give way to Modern, no questions asked. I fail to see how making Classic for one of three preview releases isn't at the very least a compromise. User focus groups and studies can only gauge the opinion of so many; preview releases are the real deal.
At the risk of making 77 people hate me for life, I have one more comment tonight that should have been in my last post: It is easy for a person to sit down, use a product for 10 or so minutes, and say "hmm, the interface is pretty and refreshing." It is an entirely _different_ story for people to use that interface daily to do their work and surf the web. Similarly, it's fun at first to play around with desktop themes and sounds, but it quickly gets tiring and distracting, and you turn them off. So I think the tests in which people sit down and use the product for X amount of minutes then give their thoughts is quite flawed, yet another reason why Classic should be on by default for PR3, so people can use the product as dogfood for awhile before responding.
So I'm getting email on this bug, but I'm not on the cc list. Am I doomed for all time because I cast a vote? How do I get off this thread? :)
OK, let's do as mpt suggests and move discussion into the n.p.m.ui newsgroup. Hopefully this is the last piece of spam for everyone.
Just one last comment concern Daves Hyatt post: Voting for a bug, will put you on a BCC mailing list for it, you can't help other than to "de-vote" :-)
All my friends used IE . Some of them tried mozilla. And all of them saids that mozilla modern is UGLY! U.G.L.Y that is name of that skin so called modern.
I think the best way to settle this debate is to ask Brian Hayes at www.iarchitect.com (Isys Information Architects) for his independent professional opinion.
I would much prefer the classic skin to the modern one. The buttons, sliders, menus and popups have a cleaner, more professional look. The visual clues in the entire UI in the classic skin are much stronger which make it easier to use. In order to get people using mozilla, we have to make all the bariers for entry as low as possible. This means making it as familiar as possible. The modern skin is not anything like people have seen before and is going to alienate users.
To further haviv@erols.com's suggestion, I quote the following from http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm : "Unlike life in high school, in graphical user interfaces, looking like everyone else is a good thing. When applications look and act alike, users learn them much more quickly, since they can transfer their knowledge of one application to the others. When your application looks and behaves unlike other applications, your users will require more time to learn how to use your application. Novelty for novelty's sake is never a good thing. One only need to recall the experience of sitting in a rental car, trying to find where the controls are located in this particular car. (The auto industry has gotten much better at this; in the seventies you never knew where a control might be located)."
The "classic" skin should be the default because (among many other reasons) the "modern" skin does not have enough affordances in its controls. In the toolbar buttons, outline thickness is changed to indicate the button is clickable (ugh!). The arrow for the dropdown in the URL text field is flat and non 3D. From a novice user, it might as well be a collection of random pixels. The arrows next to toolbar buttons, do not indicate to the user : o Where they belong. In Netscape 4.x, they where part of the 3D outline (when mouseOver) o In the modern skin (as opposed to the classic), they do not offer an affordance to tell that they can be clicked at all ! This is not to say that the classic skin is perfect , but it's just much better for most users than the modern one. Improve the classic skin, and add some new features, modify/modernize the look at bit, but leave the modern skin for people who like to customize/tinker with applications.
If I'm reading this bug correctly, it doesn't have anything to do with nsbeta3. Bugzilla is not the place for Netscape 6.0 bugs. If you want to try to convince Netscape to change their mind try using http://help.netscape.com/feedback.html. Mozilla might be a good place to test out "classic as default" for Msomething - see how that goes; maybe it will generate more press than PRx.
Keywords: nsbeta3
er, um, renominating for beta3. If that were true, we wouldn't have an 'nsbeta3' keyword (or an 'nsonly' keyword, for that matter) in the first place. Feel free to mark it nsbeta3- (if you're qualified to do so), but certainly don't remove someone else's nomination.
Keywords: nsbeta3
Joseph: nsbeta3 doesn't equate to an NS6 bug, just a bug that someone wants fixed for NS6.
STOP POSTING TO THIS BUG!!!! Take it to the UI newsgroup!
nav triage team: nsbeta3-
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
Adding classic keyword
Keywords: classic
so by marking this beta3- is marketing saying that the classic skin will not be the default on macOS, one of the things we talked about with michaell and the reason this bug has then nsmac1 keyword? removing beta3- to get mgmt attention. should we open a new bug for mac-only, or have we just decided willie-nillie to leave mac on the floor?....again
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
that is what we meant by nsbeta3-, but I understand it is debatable. Reassigning to hangas who is leading Skins in general.
The problem here is that we are pretty sure Mozilla and Netscape are going to diverge on this issue. There seems to be enough support for classic as the default in Mozilla to make this happen. At some point (between now and Mozilla 1.0) when Ben thinks classic is ready we'll flip the switch for Mozilla and we will have classic as the default. At that point this bug will be marked Fixed. We do not need nsbeta3+ to make this happen for Mozilla and plan to do it whether this bug gets beta3+ or not. For areas where Netscape diverges from Mozilla there is a Netscape bug database http://bugscape/ (not open to the public) and a public feedback form at http://help.netscape.com/feedback.html When this bug is marked Fixed in Mozilla any problems in the Netscape commercial product need to be taken to one or both of those locations.
fix checked in.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
ok it turns out this wasn't as easy to do as I thought. Today's optimised win32 and mac bits auto-select Modern as default for profile manager and for newly created profiles, even though classic is registered first. I'll do a little more tinkering...
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Modern 2 looks so good now (better than classic and 4.x let alone modern 1) that I want to change my vote for this bug. How do I do that?
Nav triage team: We are minusing this to get it off our radar.
Whiteboard: [nsbeta3-]
Resolving FIXED per discussion with Ben in #mozilla. Could someone please confirm that this is working on Linux for both the first profile and subsequent profiles, and verify this. 79
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago → 24 years ago
Keywords: donttest → verifyme
Resolution: --- → FIXED
OK, created multiple profiles in Linux and it works fine, the classic skin is the default. Marking verified.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Component: User Interface Design → Browser-General
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
Keywords: verifyme
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.