[Marketing-Public]Mimic IE UI

James Russell marketing-public at mozilla.org
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:35:56 -0500

Actually, Mozilla's UI is Edit-->Prefs not "Tools-->Options" which was 
just what you mention: Firebird wanting to mimic IE. I personally hate 
this change. I think it would be nice to offer two UIs so that I don't 
have to fume about IE creeping into my Mozilla.

Percy.Cabello@pfizer.com wrote:

>As many have noted before, there will be a problem to convince some (many)
>people about changing for a better browser, because they may feel that the
>benefits are not worth the additional learning required. I remembered when
>Microsoft released Word 2.0 and it was in open war against Word Perfect (the
>king of word processors then). Although they offered a new UI, they also
>offered the option of using a Word Perfect 5.1 commands and so. Until today,
>Word 2000 features a WordPerfect Help... (although the utility of it today
>is debatable, you get the point).
>I think Mozilla can offer a zero or near zero learning curve for switching
>to Mozilla browsers (focused, however in Mozilla Firebird). One of the main
>concerns are the terms with which each browser identifies certain features,
>for example:
>Mozilla - IE
>Bookmarks - Favorites
>Location Bar - Address Bar
>Bookmarks Toolbar - Links
>Navigation Toolbars - Standard Buttons
>Reload - Reload
>Options... - Internet Options...
>Page Source -> Source
>Cache -> Temporary Internet Files
>and so on...
>Also, arranging menus in a way that may be easy for user:
>Tools/PageInfo -> File/Properties
>Go -> View/Go to
>Send options go after Print options in the File menu in IE. I think this is
>a logical order since people print more frequently than send a webpage
>(considering also that the print button is not displayed by default).
>The Options window is a completely apart challenge, because of its
>complexity. But can also be redone.
>To be honest I don't think the IE interface is much different, better or
>worse than Firebird/Mozilla's. This is a matter of personal tastes of
>course, but all in all it works well. And again, as terrible as it can be it
>is the one most users already know. A happy medium can also be achieved I
>As ridiculous it may seem to me now, at the beginning, these little
>differences kept me from swithching to Mozilla at the beginning: why do I
>have to learn all this (and slow down my browsing) for so little benefit (at
>that time, before 1.0, mozilla was not as stable as today).
>Also, I think Mozilla features superiority are only perceived after using
>the product a while, and even more for non hardcore internet surfers.
>Once the feature is available, ask which UI the user would prefer at setup
>time. If Quick Install selected, go ahead with classic UI, but in first
>launch ask again. There should also be a preference for this.
>Of course, plugins handling is the main usability issue remaining. I still
>don't get why, on a plugin absense, I am directed to a webpage, instead of
>simply downloading the required plugin from a Mozilla trusted (hardcoded)
>site, where only required dll, or whatever files are downloades and not an
>EXE which requires non less than four steps for the user (download, find the
>file, install, restart); compared with one click in Microsoft's "do you
>agree to install...".
>I am eagerly waiting for the Firebird release of QuickManager. I think this
>extension will bring the themes and extensions feature to the real world for
>Checked the Steven Garrity's weblog link posted and agree with it. It
>collects some previous thinking about icon cosistency, version numbers and
>adds some new for me ideas, like following OS guidelines. 
>marketing-public mailing list