Good point David. The very same point is also made by mpt. Its his no.1 usability problem in Mozilla
http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$35 fyi, this problem is being addresed. Look at the following 2 bugs http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15144 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49543 Also look at this spec by mpt. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=65067&action=view CC yourself to the bugs and post your comments in the bug. But do read the comments in the bug first. Pratik. On 02/14/2002 05:41 PM, David Tenser wrote: > One thing that I've always thought of as a very simple, yet very useful > feature that Mozilla lacks: The ability to add/remove buttons to the > toolbar(s) and to drag/move toolbars, address fields, menus, etc. > > Even simple crappy Wordpad has this functionality (at least moving > toolbars), and freebie Outlook Express can do anything with the toolbar, > but Mozilla simply can't. You can add/remove some standard buttons like > Search, but you can't even turn of captions on buttons, like you could > in ancient Netscape 4.x > > With an open source project involving hundreds of developers over a > several-year time span, you would expect a very customizable program > with lots of design/appearance preferences, but Mozilla is in fact very > hard to customize... Ok, you can change skin, but that's about it. > > I admit that it's not the most important feature in a program, but the > truth is that none of my friends usually stick with the default > appearance of any program. Personally, I always remove the captions on > toolbar buttons, I use smaller buttons, etc. In Mozilla, you can either > display the toolbar, or not. > > Actually, the more I (try to) use Mozilla as my everyday browser and > mail client, the more I'm starting to realize that Mozilla isn't as > carefully planned as I thought it would be. By just reading the fact > that there are _many_ developers involved in a project that has been > going on for several years, you simply assume that this program is very > outlined and is aiming to be the best alternative out there. At least I > did. But appearantly I seem to be wrong, because the only thing they > seem to be doing is ignoring suggestions like this one, and fixing > trillions of bugs. > > Is it someone in this newsgroup that agrees with me, or am I just being > very negative at the moment? > > I'm going to be positive too: Mozilla _is_ very standards compliant. I > was editing my homepage the other day and I followed the book in CSS > formatting, and it actually worked without a problem in Mozilla, but IE6 > couldn't display it properly! :) On that point, Mozilla is superior, and > something tells me that this (Gecko) is their main focus. Not the UI. > > I can just imagine the Gecko engine inside a Microsoft designed UI. > > / David > >
