New Mozilla.org Website Beta

reb · Post by **reb** » August 22nd, 2004, 1:11 pm

It's a pity you didn't use XHTML...

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » August 22nd, 2004, 4:43 pm

rubix333 wrote:Like beleg said, there's no clear indication that Mozilla products are free, have no adware or spyware, and are "open-source". Explaining all this on every product page is probably overkill. A "Firefox is free. Learn more..." link to a generic, Mozilla Foundation page explaining the freeness, cleanliness, non-profit, and open-sourceness of everything Mozilla would be great for new users.

Hear hear! This MUST be added and a separate page with a full explanation is the best way to do it. Lots of software websites claim to have free downloads but often has ads/adware/spyware/nagpopups/trialperiods/etc. Mozilla's products however are FREE-ware, no strings attached, and visitors should know about it.

I also have to agree that "take back the web" is a much better slogan then the "reloaded" one.

On the Support, Developers & About page, what about placing the navbox on the right side of the content instead of on the left?

khlo wrote:If the new design could use XHTML 1.0 Transistional at least, that'd be even better.

Actually, going from STRICT 4.01 to TRANS 1.0 is a step backwards. Also since XHTML 1.1 compleatly breakes in IE unless you send it with a bogous mimetype your 2 best options really are 4.01 or 1.0 STRICT and between those 2 it's mostly a matter of author preference.

Greg K Nicholson · Post by **Greg K Nicholson** » August 22nd, 2004, 5:22 pm

Yeah - it doesn't really matter which standard you choose as long as you stick to it.

Jimmy_C · Post by **Jimmy_C** » August 22nd, 2004, 6:43 pm

(note: My comments were cross-posed in your blog (Acts of Volition).
These are just rationalizations for a "gut feeling.")

Personally, I don't really like it. Instead of a web page design, you created a web letter-head design!

You use a tab like navigation at the top; however, the box containing those design-parts seems to be set off of the rest of the page. (I'd rather use "design elements" but that word was already co-opted by SGML/XML.) Real tabs don't look like that - they form part of the edge or frame of a page - and the effect seems out-of-place.

It almost seems as if you started with a standard page, then just "plopped" the navigation and branding elements onto it. Like a letterhead, you see. And since most letterheads are just fluff and have little to do with the content, these parts seem alien to the content. It just doesn't feel right.

Äkiidoll · Post by **Äkiidoll** » August 22nd, 2004, 7:19 pm

The Mozilla logo being used needs serious re-thinking,
its too small/blurry/un-recognizable, not professional
looking at all. (*Branding*)
I just grabed your black background header and put
this together in 10 mins, Dino image is cleaner.

Use XHTML code.

Jimmy_C · Post by **Jimmy_C** » August 22nd, 2004, 9:05 pm

Caetck wrote:The Mozilla logo being used needs serious re-thinking,
its too small/blurry/un-recognizable, not professional
looking at all. (*Branding*)

Use XHTML

Why isn't regular HTML good enough? What SVG or MathML is used on Mozilla.org? What advantage does XHTML provide over HTML for experienced web developers?

Shinglor · Post by **Shinglor** » August 22nd, 2004, 10:19 pm

Caetck wrote:Use XHTML code.

HTML 4 is the best choice here, it has to work in as many browsers as possible. Lots of people when they install Windows download Firefox through IE6. Some people may even be stuck with IE4 until they can downlod Firefox.

XHTML is not properly supported by IE6, it will work if you send the wrong MIME type but we need full compatibility will old browsers. HTML is the way to go in this case.

Syncronous · Post by **Syncronous** » August 23rd, 2004, 12:01 am

Any way you can put more screen shots up? I'd like to see the tabbed interface close up as well as the redesigned "options" section in FireFox. Plus, I would like to see screen shots of customizing the toolbars and all the themes you can have on Firefox. Please, more eye candy. Downloads take a long time on dial-up. It would be nice to know what you are getting before you download. I hate those "mystery" downloads. Just put up a whole "screen shots" page like you used to have in the past. Pictures are worth a thousand words. A flash presentation would also be awesome.

gizmo · Post by **gizmo** » August 23rd, 2004, 12:10 am

In the page : http://website-beta.mozilla.org/project ... tions.html
if you click on "French Calendar", you will have a 404 error for the URL : http://frenchmozilla.org/FTP/Calendar/

For the Sunbird project, it would be cool if a screenshot link could pointed to the mark's screenshots.
And, the sunbird logo isn't the good (already say in this thread).

Äkiidoll · Post by **Äkiidoll** » August 23rd, 2004, 12:19 am

My post was not so much about the code youre
writing this site web site in...
its main thrust was focused on a cleaner Mozilla
logo than the current one being posted to the server.
Example of a clean Mozilla logo in my last post^^
At this point it appears the logo is an after thought,
instead of being used to "Brand" the web site. :roll:

g0ph3r · Post by **g0ph3r** » August 23rd, 2004, 12:52 am

I don't know if this has been brought up yet...?

The beta page has a fixed width (overall) in comparison with the current page. IMO that is a serious regression which makes the new page look as if the mozilla organization doesn't know how to write a webpage...

I mean, this page is about the organization who is producing the next-generation web framework, and one of the best browsers. This organization should really understand the web, right? But presenting itself with a front page which leaves almost 50% of my window blank simply does not look professional at all. At least, that is my opinion.

I'm using Firefox 0.9.2 on WinXP, display resolution is 1680x1050.

bye, daniel

wootest · Post by **wootest** » August 23rd, 2004, 4:16 am

"The beta page has a fixed width (overall) in comparison with the current page. IMO that is a serious regression which makes the new page look as if the mozilla organization doesn't know how to write a webpage...

I mean, this page is about the organization who is producing the next-generation web framework, and one of the best browsers. This organization should really understand the web, right? But presenting itself with a front page which leaves almost 50% of my window blank simply does not look professional at all. At least, that is my opinion.

I'm using Firefox 0.9.2 on WinXP, display resolution is 1680x1050. "

Speaking as a web designer that's tried all of these solutions, there are a few main benefits to fixed width design:
+ It will fit in most resolutions for sure.
+ It will look more or less exactly the same given the same font face and size - text will wrap at the same places, images will float in the same pages, etc.
+ Width is limited.

The good thing about width being limited is that text on a monitor, or anything, really, is easier to read in small columns. When was the last time you read a newspaper with one big wide column? It's harder to read and you have to tilt and put much more strain on your neck than should be necessary. I often find reading simple A4 Word printouts a chore simply because the columns are too wide.

I'd also like to comment especially on this part: "But presenting itself with a front page which leaves almost 50% of my window blank simply does not look professional at all." No offense, but I'd think less than 10% of Mozilla's targeted audience has even above 1280x1024. A fluid width design which does not look cramped on 640x480 and does not look stretched out on resolutions such as yours (a widescreen one, too!) is very, very, very hard to acheive. Besides, there are enough ways for the site to render different across browsers, font settings, operating systems, printouts vs screen.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » August 23rd, 2004, 4:43 am

wootest wrote:A fluid width design which does not look cramped on 640x480 and does not look stretched out on resolutions such as yours (a widescreen one, too!) is very, very, very hard to acheive.

To your good post I would like to add that the only really good way to allow some fluidity without the risk of making lines too long is to use min & max widths. Of cource IE, which the main target usergroup will be using, doesn't support this very usefull CSS so you can't really rely on that.

As for some peoples comments about the designer of that site not knowing anything about fluid layouts... just try out ctrl + +/- to zoom the text. I's not perfect, but it sure shows that the designer(s) know more about fluid layouts then most posters here.

I would have been proud to be able to call the new desig mine and it's a quantum leap forward from the old design in usability and looks.

Just compair eg (and NOT the non finished index page which some keeps insisting on doing)
http://website-beta.mozilla.org/products/
http://www.mozilla.org/products/

aurum3 · Post by **aurum3** » August 23rd, 2004, 5:57 am

The new beta site looks really good. Well done.

The changes I would like to see are the navigational tabs. Selected tab should be highlighted.
The site should remain fix width and there is nothing wrong with this.

g0ph3r · Post by **g0ph3r** » August 23rd, 2004, 6:14 am

wootest wrote:+ It will look more or less exactly the same given the same font face and size - text will wrap at the same places, images will float in the same pages, etc.

I'm not sure if this is really important. It is a web page after all, and not some printed document where you want to control each element down to the exact pixel.

wootest wrote:The good thing about width being limited is that text on a monitor, or anything, really, is easier to read in small columns. When was the last time you read a newspaper with one big wide column? It's harder to read and you have to tilt and put much more strain on your neck than should be necessary. I often find reading simple A4 Word printouts a chore simply because the columns are too wide.

Hm... With regards to long texts you have a very valid point here. But honestly, I do not see large essays on the Mozilla homepages...

I usually do not have such a problem with rather long lines. I often find it more annoying having only a few words on a single line, forcing me to scroll down much more, while the rest of the screen is left blank. For example, just checking the "Products" beta page, I find that the right column is way too small: it usually has only 6-8 words on a line.

wootest wrote:I'd also like to comment especially on this part: "But presenting itself with a front page which leaves almost 50% of my window blank simply does not look professional at all." No offense, but I'd think less than 10% of Mozilla's targeted audience has even above 1280x1024. A fluid width design which does not look cramped on 640x480 and does not look stretched out on resolutions such as yours (a widescreen one, too!) is very, very, very hard to acheive. Besides, there are enough ways for the site to render different across browsers, font settings, operating systems, printouts vs screen.

No offense taken.

To wrap it up, I see that there are some valid points for a fixed width web page, I just think that it doesn't look professional. Sorry, but I somehow think that a web page should "scale" with the preferred user settings (i.e. browser window size, font size, etc.). For sure, it's technically very, very hard -- if not impossible -- to achieve a similar layout for both very small and very large screens. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned, but I still think that a web page should have a scalable layout and should not use fixed width.

But I also don't want to start a discussion here about fixed width vs. variable width. In the end, it may just be a matter of personal preferences... I prefer full-sized web pages. :-)

New Mozilla.org Website Beta

No XHTML ?

Mozilla logo being used needs serious re-thinking

Re: Mozilla logo being used needs serious re-thinking

Bad URL for french calendar

Fixed width?