"AwesomeBar" is totally NOT awesome

Eygte450 · Post by **Eygte450** » March 22nd, 2008, 12:41 pm

Cyberkilla wrote:
This is my interpretation of the awesome bar. What you think? Vista theme.

AWESOME!

devs must look this picture! maybe they can learn something about integration..

Mardak · Post by **Mardak** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:08 pm

redhat71 wrote:as long as it gets the job done (autocomplete urls only), i'm more than happy to learn how to use these "@ # +"

Here's a build that allows you to specify an empty keyword:

https://build.mozilla.org/tryserver-bui ... l.urlonly/

Change your about:config preference to have match.url be "" instead of "@" and everything you type should be matching in the url.

pikaunforgiven · Post by **pikaunforgiven** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:09 pm

personally i wish it were all one line like the old one, you can hold a lot more url's in a single line than two without it looking huge. in fact this is the only reason i use oldbar, otherwise i'd gladly use the "awesomebar" more.

Mardak · Post by **Mardak** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:15 pm

Jeroen.83 wrote:some text here + bugzilla

This should bring me only the results of bugzilla, since I tagged the bugs in bugzilla. But it gives me nothing... Am I doing something wrong?

Oh oops. "+" used to make it restrict searches to tags, but now "+" means to make sure all the terms are tags.

Perhaps there should be a separate "restrict to tagged results" and "must match tags".

the_dees · Post by **the_dees** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:25 pm

pikaunforgiven wrote:personally i wish it were all one line like the old one, you can hold a lot more url's in a single line than two without it looking huge. in fact this is the only reason i use oldbar, otherwise i'd gladly use the "awesomebar" more.

Different use cases I think.

Firefox2 is very annoying when looking for Bugzilla Reports. I can only see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=xxxxxx Bug xxxxxx - The bug is ...

I think two lines aren't such a bad idea.

GSkRC33NJ9US · Post by **GSkRC33NJ9US** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:43 pm

Omega X wrote:Wow, you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly how Vista looks natively.

Thank you:) It really can't be that hard to make it look like that. Afterall, the Mac theme has a similar looking highlighter, and the title looks like it's bold too.

fittysix · Post by **fittysix** » March 22nd, 2008, 1:46 pm

Cyberkilla wrote:
This is my interpretation of the awesome bar. What you think? Vista theme.

The menu highlighting is <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420237">Bug 420237</a>
I like the not-quite-full separators you've got though, it's a nice small touch that makes a good difference. It's kind of hard to tell from this mockup, but I'm guessing that the page title text is always bold? if so, how are found strings highlighted?

Eygte450 · Post by **Eygte450** » March 22nd, 2008, 2:16 pm

fittysix wrote:
Cyberkilla wrote:
This is my interpretation of the awesome bar. What you think? Vista theme.

The menu highlighting is <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420237">Bug 420237</a>
I like the not-quite-full separators you've got though, it's a nice small touch that makes a good difference. It's kind of hard to tell from this mockup, but I'm guessing that the page title text is always bold? if so, how are found strings highlighted?

he said in the same post:

Cyberkilla wrote:Make titles of page bold, and urls normal. And the partial matches could just highlight the background and/or underline the characters.

GSkRC33NJ9US · Post by **GSkRC33NJ9US** » March 22nd, 2008, 2:18 pm

fittysix wrote:The menu highlighting is <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420237">Bug 420237</a>
I like the not-quite-full separators you've got though, it's a nice small touch that makes a good difference. It's kind of hard to tell from this mockup, but I'm guessing that the page title text is always bold? if so, how are found strings highlighted?

Well, I like the idea of underlining the characters that have been 'matched' with your search.

It is easy to see *why* the search has found the particular url, when underlined, but not obtrusive and ugly.

The other option is a faint selection background around the selected characters.
A bit like what is seen when you search google's cache...

In the image above, I have shown two different ways. I think both look reasonably good, and unobtrusive. I know that my background highlight needs to be bigger. A proper highlight would have a bit more above and below the characters:)

fittysix · Post by **fittysix** » March 22nd, 2008, 2:31 pm

The highlight isn't allowed unless it's a regular system highlight due to accessibility (high contrast themes, whatnot)
The underline alone isn't too bad, but it doesn't stand out nearly as much as bold-underline, I would probably be in favor of it though (for titles at least) since it does certainly look nicer.

GSkRC33NJ9US · Post by **GSkRC33NJ9US** » March 22nd, 2008, 2:51 pm

fittysix wrote:The highlight isn't allowed unless it's a regular system highlight due to accessibility (high contrast themes, whatnot)
The underline alone isn't too bad, but it doesn't stand out nearly as much as bold-underline, I would probably be in favor of it though (for titles at least) since it does certainly look nicer.

An underline makes it clear enough to see, but doesn't interfere with the user actually browsing the list of urls as much as when it is also bold.

This is just my opinion, but I ask you to take it into consideration, because it is something that I noticed the moment I first used it - almost as if you are using two different methods to draw attention to the matches, where only one is needed.

I don't know, at least I've voiced my opinion about it;)

EDIT: Should I submit the images to that bug, or will someone pick up on this if they are interested anyway?

EDIT: I've added a comment on the bug to draw attention to this.

fittysix · Post by **fittysix** » March 22nd, 2008, 4:23 pm

<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393508">Bug 393508</a> is more fitting for the overall look of the autocomplete, bug 420237 only deals with implementing the menu style highlighting.

GSkRC33NJ9US · Post by **GSkRC33NJ9US** » March 22nd, 2008, 4:28 pm

fittysix wrote:<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393508">Bug 393508</a> is more fitting for the overall look of the autocomplete, bug 420237 only deals with implementing the menu style highlighting.

Oops. I've already said something.

Perhaps I should post the same in that bug? I'll see if there is a way to delete my comment.

a;skdjfajf;ak · Post by **a;skdjfajf;ak** » March 22nd, 2008, 4:40 pm

Mardak wrote:Hrm? What /does/ it look like on vista?

We're going with 2nd from left for now as decided by beltzner because the other ones might feel too cramped to some users. But I suppose that might change if there's enough feedback after beta 5.

I hope I haven't missed a post, but here is what Awesome Bar looks like on my Vista HP SP1

Todays build:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5pre) Gecko/2008032204 Minefield/3.0b5pre Firefox/3.0 ID:2008032204

Fabfire · Post by **Fabfire** » March 22nd, 2008, 10:43 pm

the_dees wrote:
pikaunforgiven wrote:personally i wish it were all one line like the old one, you can hold a lot more url's in a single line than two without it looking huge. in fact this is the only reason i use oldbar, otherwise i'd gladly use the "awesomebar" more.

Different use cases I think.

Firefox2 is very annoying when looking for Bugzilla Reports. I can only see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=xxxxxx Bug xxxxxx - The bug is ...

I think two lines aren't such a bad idea.

Good for you. Nothing wrong with that.
Me, I think it sucks.
Bad for me, because I don't have the option to change it to one line.
That's the problem - the devs didn't (as far as I know) give us the option to have it to display in one line (and with smaller fonts).

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b5pre) Gecko/2008032218 Minefield/3.0b5pre ID:2008032218