ThoughtFactory.CreateThought() A random collection of thoughts from an easily bored developer

Get Back

I've been using the Firefox 3.0 beta since I upgraded to Ubuntu 8.04, as it came as a standard package, but until now I had no idea that version 3.0 had a significantly different UI from 2.0. In fact, I only found out when I saw recent Flickr posts showing a Firefox comparison chart with a list of "advantageous" features. One in particular stuck out:

Large "back" button, the result of decades of market research

Large back button? I couldn't see a large back button on my Ubuntu install, even though I was running the latest 3.0 release. What were they talking about?

After installing Firefox 3.0 on my Windows 2003 machine at work I soon found out: They've enlarged the back button, presumably because it's the most commonly hit icon in the tool bar, and it looks pretty cool. I must say that I don't use the back button much, I'm more of a "delete key == back" kinda guy, but it's a nice touch.

Apparently there's a bit of backlash against this new feature, but at least they're trying. It's certainly less jarring than IE7's "hide the menu" approach to UI innovation, and it makes quite a lot of sense from a practical point of view.

I've now upgraded my Mac and XP machines to Firefox 3.0, and I'm enjoying the new UI. As an aside, and regardless of John Gruber's list of gripes, I still think that Firefox 3.0 on the Mac is a huge step forward in comparison to what they had. Versions 2.0 and 3.0 are like chalk and cheese. But I digress..

So why didn't my Linux install have this spiffy new button? Well, it turns out that Firefox 3.0 on Linux is one of the latest applications to get the Tango treatment.  Tango is an attempt to bring some order to the world of open source applications by giving them a sense of consistency. This is actually a great idea, and it's done wonders for applications such as OpenOffice.Org and The GIMP, which now look somewhat respectable. There's a showroom full of projects that have had a Tango related makeover, and most of the featured applications are much better off with the new icon set.

This is all well and good, but what about Firefox? It's probably the biggest open source project in next to Linux itself, and yet it's not yet mentioned in the Tango Showroom. Surely there's a reason for this?

Well, a potential reason becomes fairly obvious once you actually open up the browser. The very first page that pops up has a picture of what the new theme looks like on Windows Vista, which is a stark contrast to what you are seeing in your native browser window.

See what I mean? The "standard icon" idea that has worked so well for OpenOffice.Org, The GIMP and VMWare Workstation has given us a fairly plain browser that has lost all traces of the innovation that the Firefox team were trying to implement. It looks pedestrian and boring, in fact if it wasn't for the deli.cio.us plugin icons I think I'd never get any work done, as a mere glance at my Firefox toolbar would send me straight to sleep.

It's sad that the most interesting, and therefore the one most likely to draw your attention at a casual glance, icon in the standard set now being the home icon. Although it is much more visually appealing than the plain forward and back arrows, it's a button that I can't remember ever clicking. Not even once. There are no paint brushes or printers to mix things up and keep your eye from settling on a useless feature that you've never wanted and will never need.

The great thing about Firefox is that you can apply a theme to get it to look however you want, so you would think that I would have no need to complain. I could just pick a theme from the Firefox website and would be happy, right? Well, yes and no. There's no "official" theme from Firefox that delivers similar functionality for Linux. There might very well be a 3rd party theme that will make my browser act like this (I did look for one without success, but that's another story altogether), but that still doesn't change the fact that the Firefox team have taken a vastly different approach to their Linux UI when compared to OSX and Windows, one which flies in the face of their obvious urge to innovate.

Alex Faaborg spoke about how they wanted to integrate with the host OS as much as possible on the proprietary platforms, and that didn't stop them from making the forward and back buttons look absolutely nothing like any native control on XP, Vista or OSX, so their integration manifesto couldn't have been that rigid. With Linux they have gone for total homogonisation, where as OSX and Windows have an "integrated, but with individual flair" feel. They haven't had all the life sucked out of them by a desire to conform to the nth degree. Standards are great, and are certainly needed on Linux given the diverse nature of the different window managers, but they shouldn't be used to stifle ideas and discourage creativity.