Lancer wrote: > - form elements: A form it is not a page, it is a... form.
So you will not be eliminating all scrollbars then. I thought that was your intent, sorry if I misunderstood. I might worry then that giving the user two different methods of scrolling might be confusing; definitely inconsistent IMO. > - framesets, iframes: i dont see a problem here... > Perhaps you don't, but please clarify for me. If there are 3 frames shown, each one scrolling, how will the floating slider thing work? Will there be three floating navigation panels? Will there be one with three slider boxes within? I'm just trying to get a full sense of what you intend. > - How about pages that scroll horizontally?: heh... the floating window > will illustrate the width and height of the canvas; the red frame > describes the zone of the page that you actually have on the screen. > Doesnt metter the dimentions of the page, just slide the red frame. > Ah, I see. Perhaps it would be good to put this in your mock-up for clarity. As well as mock-ups for the frames and CSS overflow possibilities. > >> It looks to me like the proposed "slider" window is just a scrollbar >> that is very short and very wide, with no scrollbar arrows, and the >> scrollbar "thumb" is a red outlined box. And, of course, it floats in >> a separate "window", which seems to me like it would just confuse the >> user since it's not clear what part of the screen it applies to, and >> it obscures content. >> > - i guess that the previus description clarify this. Yes, except for the part about obscuring content. >> Is this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? >> > - The BIG problem i acctually see on mozilla is that the Sidebar is the > Only(one, uno, un, ein,um.) NEW thing it can be offer. Just take a look > to the actuall last builds fullscreen; there is no diference with IE > fullscreen... > I agree with you that Mozilla should be open to ideas about new innovative user interfaces, if such interfaces will indeed benefit the user. But just because a new idea arises doesn't mean that it is worth implementing. I tend to think that the reason all GUI apps nowadays share the same set of widgets (scrollbars, toolbars, status bar at the bottom, tooltips, dropdown menus, etc.) is that they have been proven over many years to *work*. So any new idea for interacting with the GUI has to ask the following: 1) Is it better than the current way of doing things? Will it make life easier for the user? (I think in some ways your idea is more powerful and flexible than scrollbars, i.e. controlling both vertical and horizontal scrolling at once). 2) Are there any unwanted side-effects that would inhibit other aspects of usability? (Obscuring content?) 3) Will the new interface confuse the (novice) user because it is different than the standard they have learned? 4) If the new idea is replacing a current widget, does it do so consistently? I want to clarify that I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas, just to help you flesh them out and make sure that they will actually add to the value of the user interface, not just "look cool". >> "...gives life to the monitor by allowing the web pages talk by >> themsel[ve]s." That's hilarious! >> > - Again, and talking about User Interface. Why Mozilla wants to be an IE > clon? Is going to kill it making that?. I'm sorry, that just seemed like marketing-speak personification (web pages don't talk, silly!) which always makes me laugh. > \ U.I. is almost the principal reason of why people choose an aplication. Yes, *almost*. The #1 reason is: because it's installed on their machine by default. ;-)
