Install a mouse gesture recognition extension from
http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures/installation.html
and you can change font size, among other things, with a flick of wacom pen.

Yes, Firefox is where it's at. I've been using it since it came out. Those Mozilla dudes know how to rock.

I have been using Firebox as my main browser on my horrible WindowsPC at work for several months, and I use it on MacOS X at home about 50% of the time (Safari has the other 49%, then 1% for "legacy" sites that need MSIE).

Its excellent. And I recommend the Smoke theme, especially for macos x. Smooth!

And here's a photo...

And if you do any web work, the Web Developer Toolbar is a must-have extension.

I use also Mozilla on my Windows machine, to avoid in a "clean way" the popups and others things but don't see the point to use it on the Mac, Safari do a pretty good job by default.

I've also used fx since 0.8 and i love it, but it still hasnt managed to completely replace my previous browser opera (which when you clean off all the bells and whistles is a good browser too).

But for fx to get as much use as it does on my system is a credit to mozilla.

My wife is a devout Firefox user, even on OS X. I prefer Safari, personally. However, even at 0.8 it's better than IE. I mean, how can anyone stand to browse the web without a tabbing browser???

Like David, we suffer IE when it's necessary. IE isn't the worst, per se. But it ain't the best. However, we'll see what happens in a few years, since MS is no longer developing IE for the Mac.

tabbed browser...?

Yes, tabbed browser. It means that you can open multiple pages in the same browser window. They get opened as "tabs". Little things you can easily leaf through in stead of opening several new actual browser windows. It is very cool.

OK, that was enough for me to download and try it.

That would be a killer feature, but, of the sites that would be useful (for me) to bookmark as tab groups, hardly any of them work in Firefox.

Oh well...back to IE and making multi-window-opening links the long way.

Also, having checked out the tabbing browser, I think I'm missing something. Aside from the ability to create multi-site bookmarks (which, as I said, I can see would be a killer feature), what's the advantage?
Chris, when you say 'how can anyone stand to browse the web without a tabbing browser???' it sounds like you use the tabbing thing just in normal browsing. At the risk of asking a really stoopid question, why is it better to have sites in tabs, rather than in windows?

NO PAGERANK!!
Thats what I need for my browser.
Firefox isnt quite there yet. Or should I say, Google isnt quite there in support.

Hildebrant.

I think the tabs are more convenient than separate windows, since they don't clutter your taskbar/dock -- they're all together in the browser where they belong. Of course you can still open multiple Firefox windows if you want to.

When I want to follow a link without losing my place on the current page, I find it very convenient to open the link in a new tab. Just middle-click the link (assuming your mouse has three buttons or clickable scroll wheel). Whenever I'm forced to use IE, I find myself middle-clicking links out of habit. You can also configure new tabs to load in the background, so you can open pages for later browsing without interruption. There's a Tabbrowser extension that adds tons of other options.

I remember hearing of an IE plugin that adds tabbed browsing, but I'm not sure how it compares.

I like the forms fill-in function too (but I wish it would let you select which ones to keep and which ones to discard).

Don't get too carried away guys. When Firefox has 95% market share, it will attract 95% of the loonies too. Are you 100% sure it will stand up to that kind of scrutiny?

Steve, I like tabbed browsing because I can group my browsing in a subject-oriented manner, rather than in an unsorted mess.

If someone on typophile links something, I can open it in a tab attached to the originating window, then Cmnd+Tab over to my email window which might have a tab for Hotmail and/or Gmail along with tabs for any links I got in emails. It's nice for research too, since I can run 4 Google searches in 4 windows and open links related to each in tabs under that originating Google search. I find IE to be laborious in contrast.

This hits on a fundamental difference in the 2 big OSes (mac and windows) as well: logical/hierarchical segmentation. While tabbed browsing is possible in both OSes, in Windows every document gets its own Taskbar item (except in apps like Photoshop), but in Mac OS every app gets its own Dock item, then you can move between documents in the app you choose. There are benefits to both, but I prefer the Mac method of hierarchical segmentation (this isn't an official term, I'm just using it for convenience). Also, OS X allows document windows from different apps to intermingle, so you can pull your Illustrator work to Photoshop without having to move every window out of the way, so it's not too strict about the segmenting (OS 9 does not have this ability).

I'm not a PC-hater, and I don't use every single widget and feature of my browsers, but even for me IE is behind the curve in a few siginificant ways. And, if I understand correctly, MS is ditching IE anyway (probably so they can just integrate browsing directly into the OS).

>>I can group my browsing in a subject-oriented manner, rather than in an unsorted mess

OK - seems like a good reason to go for tabs.
(I think I was just having difficulty seeing the benefits in abstract, having little practical experience of tabbed browsers - more on that below).

>>in Windows every document gets its own Taskbar item (except in apps like Photoshop)
I'm not sure how far this is true. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'apps like photoshop'.
As far as I can tell its only IE, plus MS Office applications that give each document its own Taskbar item (even those get documents stacked into a single taskbar item in XP).
Looking at my quicklaunch bar, I don't see any others that have more than one taskbar item for multiple documents. (Of course you could open multiple instances of the app, if you wanted multiple taskbar items).


>>I'm not a PC-hater...
Well I'm no zealot, but sometimes the superior air of some Mac users does get up my nose. (I don't mean anything in this thread, but there are occasional comments on Typophile which just show some people's ignorance).

I use PCs as local machines, but my web work has always been on Unix servers, running Apache/PHP/MySQL so I'm already converted to the open source/gnu/free software cause.
I had stayed away from Mozilla because of its connections with the nightmare that was Netscape, but this thread convinced me that it was time to give Mozilla a go. I tried Firefox, but most of the sites I use don't work well (or at all, in many cases). I put this down to it being a beta, and downloaded Mozilla 1.7. Same result I'm afraid.
I can see that tabbed browsing could be an advantage, but I don't want to change browsers every time I want to go to my bank/bookies/remote e-mail etc.

True, true. Compatability and sites that only function in IE are the big shot against a lot of these open-source browsers. Safari's pretty good about all that, and will be improving dramatically this fall, from what I hear. Except for a brief spate of IE-only browsing in college, I've always used multiple browsers. So, I guess it's just something I'm used to.

I certainly have a preference when it comes to OS/hardware, but I use both. I'd probably be Mac-only (at home/home office) if it weren't for gaming and the fact that sometimes things get sent to me in PC-only formats. Also, Macs are more typesetting-friendly, which goes a long way for me. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Longhorn puts an end to a lot of differences in that arena.

"Are you 100% sure it will stand up to that kind of scrutiny?"

I'm 100% sure that it will be infinitely more secure than a browser like IE that is tied directly into the operating system.

I'm also 100% sure that the Mozilla crew can get a fix out sooner as they have nightly builds.

The argument that people write malicious code to attack windows/IE is because it has the largest market share is only a half-truth. People forget that it is also the easiest OS to 'break' as there are so many ways to tie malicious code into the OS.

"but most of the sites I use don't work well (or at all, in many cases). I put this down to it being a beta, and downloaded Mozilla 1.7. Same result I'm afraid. "

And this would be due to lazy web developers that don't actually build web sites, but rather IE/PC sites. Don't reward bad design by sticking with the status quo. ;o)

>>lazy web developers that don't actually build web sites, but rather IE/PC

Sometimes yes, more often its due to budgets that say an extra 50% effort for an extra 5% market share isn't worth it. It is also true, despite what some might say, that sometimes its due to bugs in Mozilla.

"Sometimes yes, more often its due to budgets that say an extra 50% effort for an extra 5% market share isn't worth it."

That statement is ridiculous on two counts. Both of those figures are completely made up.

Accessibility does NOT require significantly more effort to implement, whether online or in the physical world. It DOES take intelligent planning.

And Steve, please point me to one site that was built only to support IE due to a bug in Mozilla? You may be right, but the overwhelming number of sites out there that are IE/PC-only is due to PURE laziness/unskilled web developers.

>>That statement is ridiculous on two counts. Both of those figures are completely made up.

IDG NEWS: IE market share measured at 94.73 percent on July 6.
These figures aren't the gospel, but they're pretty much the same as any others I've found from mass monitoring projects.

>>Accessibility does NOT require significantly more effort to implement

Used in the sense or portability between browsers, accessibility does require significantly more effort to implement in many websites.
Why do you think that you see so many websites which list only IE and some 4th gen version of NN as supported browsers? (and I don't mean little Jimmy's home page, but big functional sites, run by multinational corporations).
The reason is that its just prohibitively expensive to test large functional websites on every browser/OS combination.

>>one site that was built only to support IE due to a bug in Mozilla
You have not read what I said. I didn't say that sites were built only to support IE because of bugs in Mozilla. I said some sites don't work in Mozilla because its not worth the effort of making sure they work in every browser OS combination, when one particular combination is so dominant.
I then separately stated that sometimes sites don't work in Mozilla because of bugs in Mozilla.

I really don't want to get drawn into this. Its not like I love MS or something. As I said, I'm already a convert to the open source/gnu/free software cause.
I gave Mozilla a go. Maybe one day, I'll try again. But the important thing about a browser, to me, is that I can use the sites I want to use.

"IDG NEWS: IE market share measured at 94.73 percent on July 6."

What does the market share of a browser on desktop PCs in the office have to do with the market share of a targetted demographic of humans?

ALL browser stats like this are--for the most part--not relevant to USER prefs. Of course IE leads. It always will. As long as corporations by cheap PCs with Windows on them, there will be a large portion of people that HAVE to use IE from 9-5 (whether they actually prefer that browser or not).

The incorrect assumption is that 95% of web users use IE 100% of the time as their preferred browser.

"Used in the sense or portability between browsers, accessibility does require significantly more effort to implement in many websites. "

I'm sorry, Steve, but that is just wrong. You design to standards, fix a few layout bugs in IE, and you're up and running. Accessibility is accessibility. When designing with accessibility in mind (a core part of good web design IMHO) then the browser issue is resolved along the way.

HTML is HTML. Javascript is Javascript. CSS is CSS. Designing with those tools, you can go a long way. Again, there's a few hiccups in IE/PC that you need to design around, but these aren't budget-doubling issues. Just small annoyances that--if you know about them--you can easily design around.

This is really no different than in the real world. Building an accessible house isn't prohibitively more expensive. It does take a tad more planning. But once you know the jist of accessible design, it becomes a non-issue.

"Why do you think that you see so many websites which list only IE and some 4th gen version of NN as supported browsers?"

Because there are a LOT of crappy, lazy web development firms that screw their clients...along with a LOT of crappy, old, out-of-date web sites. For whatever reason, a Fortune 500 company wouldn't dream of publishing an AR with an out-of-gamut photo, but thinks nothing of having their web site be completely inaccessible.

"he reason is that its just prohibitively expensive to test large functional websites on every browser/OS combination."

I can't argue you on this point. That's simply wrong. It takes me all of 5 minutes to test in all the major browsers. Plus, you don't NEED to test in EVERY browser...you just need to make sure it's accessible.

"But the important thing about a browser, to me, is that I can use the sites I want to use. "

Oh sure. No argument there. I'm just trying to make it clear that the reason there are a lot of IE-only sites is predominantly due to lazy/incompetant developers...rather than the myth that it's difficult to develop accessible web sites. (FYI, Firefox can spoof its useragent, so you can get around a lot of sloppy browser detection scripts fairly easily.)

>>What does the market share of a browser on desktop PCs in the office...

Those figures aren't for 'market share of a browser on desktop PCs in the office'.
They are based on a daily survey of about 30 million browsers hitting thousands of different Web sites.
You could also look at Jupiter Media who survey over 200 million browser hits a month. Their figures are pretty much the same.


>>there will be a large portion of people that HAVE to use IE from 9-5 (whether they actually prefer that browser or not).

And in what way is it relevant if someone is not using the browser they want to use?


>>You design to standards, fix a few layout bugs in IE, and you're up and running

Obviously, because there are no bugs in any other browsers...and they all implement flawless standards flawleslly
Meanwhile back in the real world...



>>It takes me all of 5 minutes to test in all the major browsers

OK.
1. What's a major browser?
Given that you're saying everyone else should bother to test in a browser with a market share of less than 5%, how minor does a browser need to be for you not to bother testing? Still, its nice to see that you accept the principle of 'testing in all the major browsers'. Its just the numbers we disagree on then.

2. Five minutes. What kind of web site is that?
I have nothing against small websites. Some of the best uses of the internet are small websites, with only a few pages.
But many of the useful things on the internet are in much larger sites. Your looking at a testing period of closer to 5 weeks than 5 minutes.

Anyway, as I said, I don't want to get drawn in. Feel free to answer this post if you want the last word.
I don't want to continue this any longer.

>>5 minutes or 5 weeks to test a browser?

C'mon, just go to anybrowser.com to test across browsers and save yourself some time and headaches.

Steve:

I know where those stats are from. My point which I may not have made clear is that those are simply browser stats. They say nothing about the preferences of an actual user. I use IE day-in, day-out at work. I hate it. But I have to use it. So, when I visit sites, I'm logged as an 'IE/PC' user, when, in fact, I'm much more of a 'Firefox/Mac' user.

There isn't a lot of statistics based on this. I did a bit of research once and found a few folks that had access to large national web sites and were able to break down stats by time of day. After 5, they'd see a 5% swing in the amount of Mac users, for example.

"And in what way is it relevant if someone is not using the browser they want to use?"

If you go on those generic browser stats alone, you'll lock out some of your audience. If Mary logs into your site at noon to buy something with IE/PC great, you made a sale. When she gets home to buy another item, but you block her because she uses Firefox, well, you lost a sale...even though you pegged her as an IE/PC user.

"Obviously, because there are no bugs in any other browsers...and they all implement flawless standards flawleslly
Meanwhile back in the real world..."

What are you talking about, Steve? Did I say browsers had no bugs? Like I said, design to standards, fix the layout bugs in IE. Are there other bugs? Sure...but nothing major that will affect your site 99% of the time. If you have examples of this big Mozilla bugs that are a hindrance, please share them.

"1. What's a major browser? "

Windows: IE 5+, latest Opera, Latest Mozilla(S), NN4 (I still check that one).

OSX: Latest Safari, Latest Mozilla(s), Latest Opera, Latest Omniweb

OS9: IE5 (blech)

Linux: Konquerer

Other: A text browser, JAWS, etc.

"2. Five minutes. What kind of web site is that? "

Pretty much any. It takes me less than 5 minutes to run my page through all of the above browsers.

Again, if you're designing to standards, it's even less of a deal. When you do that, the only odd-ones out are IE/PC, IE/Mac and NN4...which there are plenty of well documented workarounds for their quirks.

I'm not trying to bash you Steve...I'm just trying to dispell the common myth that you (and many many others) perpetuate. This is part of the problem why you have to keep IE on your computer. Microsoft has developed a nice little catch-22 with their browser. Everyone uses because there are so many sites only developed with IE in mind. There are so many sites only developed with IE in mind because so many developers assume everyone uses IE on windows. This has pretty much enabled MS to not have to worry about fixing a badly broken and rather insecure browser.

Getting people to ditch Microsoft Internet Explorer is like trying to hold back an incoming tide. It's out of date � 'I'm still going to use it!'

It doesn't follow Web standards � 'I'm still going to use it!'

New security exploits appear almost every day and the lack of patches is abysmal � 'I'm still going to use it!'

You might as well hand your credit card and banking details over to the Russian mafia � 'I'm still going to use it!'

There are excellent alternatives that don't have all these problems � 'I'm still going to use it!'

Last month, The Mozilla Organisation have introduced Mozilla 1.7 � by far, the best browser ever. If you want something a bit lighter in weight, Firefox 0.9.1 fits the bill nicely. If you want a Gecko-based OSX client, there's Camino 0.8. There is also a new version of Thunderbird, which neatly sidesteps all the Outlook and Outlook Express email vulnerabilities.

I know � you are still going to use it!�Sad!

Information from "Web Page Design for Designers

http://www.wpdfd.com

So what browser should I be using if I'm on WinXP-Home, and how do I move my huge legacy email boxes from NS4.72 to it?

hhp

I've been using Firefox for a few months now (since it was called Firebird). I like it very much, and use it for everything except Windows updates, which seem to require IE.

I use Mozilla's Thunderbird for e-mail, and am very happy with this also. I used to use Eudora, but got tired of waiting for them to support Unicode.

Hrant, I thoroughly recommend Firefox for use with Win XP. I'm afraid I don't know hot to move you mail boxes from NS4.72, but I found the switch from Eudora e-mail to Mozilla Thundebird to be painless: my mail boxes were flawlessly converted.

Gerald, what you're asking of me is to say:

"Firefox is groovy, with tabbed browsing and all, even though I can't get into my bank's web site - but I'm still going to switch to it".

"...I can't get a bet on at fixed-odds - but I'm still going to switch to it".

"...I can't log in to any spread firms' websites - but I'm still going to switch to it".

"I can't get live sports updates - but I'm still going to switch to it".

"I can't pick up my work e-mail over the net - but I'm still going to switch to it".

Whereas instead, I'm saying "I tried it, it doesn't work, I'm not going to switch to it".

Call it sad if you like, or just call it practical.
===================
Listen guys, the idea that 'pretty much any' website can be tested in five minutes, or that anybrowser.com can be used for serious testing, suggests that we're talking anout different things.
If you want to put in a tender to, say, Barclays Bank, offering to test their website for 1/12th your hourly rate, then be prepared for them to laugh their socks off. Your offer will definately be the lowest, but you still won't get the job.

I'm really surprised to hear about certain sites not being usable with Firefox. I haven't fired up IE since I switched over a few months ago, and I've never had a problem with any site: banks, forums, whatever. And I can't see any reason why I should. It's IE that's the 'problem browser' -- you have to deviate from standards-compliance to make certain sites work with IE, not the other way around.

And Hrant: so far as I remember Thunderbird will automatically import mailboxes and address books from pretty much anywhere. Bearing in mind that all of the Mozilla stuff is ultimately derived from Netscape code, I can't imagine even NS4 would be a problem (although is it a different core, ie not Gecko? I can't remember) ...

R

>>you have to deviate from standards-compliance to make certain sites work with IE, not the other way around.

Yes, that's partly true.
Still can't log into my bank, though.

>>I have yet to bump into a website which isn't compatible with Firefox

Yves, maybe I have been unlucky but I can't log in to sportingindex.com or sportingodds.com in either Firefox or Mozilla.
A man has to have an income y'know...

I can log in to the Woolwich (UK building society owned by Barclays), but I can't check my accounts to make sure those pesky bookies have coughed up.

As I said, I'm no big fan of MS, but when the first three practical sites that I try don't work, I start to lose enthusiasm. When a few more of the next dozen or so don't work, I give up.
I've no doubt that some people will have pain free browsing experiences with non-IE browsers, but for the set of websites I use every day, its a non-starter. So crucify me.

>>To each one his own
My thoughts too, Yves.
I guess I have become a little tetchy in this thread, but it wasn't aimed at your comments.

I think its my reaction to being painted as some MS apologist, which I'm certainly not.

You mean you're not running InDenial CS on JesOs 10.4 yet, Yves?

> Thunderbird will automatically import mailboxes

So Thunderbird is the email app that comes with Firefox?
Any other <impressivenaturalphenomenon><animal> products I need to know about?

David, funny.

hhp

"If you want to put in a tender to, say, Barclays Bank, offering to test their website for 1/12th your hourly rate, then be prepared for them to laugh their socks off. Your offer will definately be the lowest, but you still won't get the job."

You don't test sites AFTER they're built. That's like building a house, and then going in to retrofit it to be accessible. It's a nightmare and incredibly expensive.

Building an accessible web site is fairly painless, provided you make that a design priority from the get-go.

I completely sympathize with your problem, Steve. There are a lot of sites that aren't built well. Just don't equate that with an assumption that it takes a lot of effort to build an accessible web site that works in most browsers vs. IE only.

Hrant...definitely look at Thunderbird. It doesn't come WITH Firefox...it's a standalone application.

If I click on a link in an email in Thurderbird, will it open in Firefox?

hhp

After massive problems with IE I switched to Fox again (I discarded it some months ago, as it seems to be slower when it comes to showing images on websites) and so far I like the structure, more transparent. Some very nice plug-ins available, theme-able, integrated RSS-Feed without any hassle. It had a few problems with my MX900 mouse, but since I use the Logitech diNovo I am by now used to finding workarounds every day... that desktop set is nice to look at but in terms of programming, its a nightmare times ten. Worst piece of software ever :-)

Hrant, the idea with the Thunderbird/Firefox stuff (both parts of the SeaMonkey project) is that it's essentially a kind of modularised Mozilla, so you're not downloading and using one monolithic do-it-all application, but lightweight, fast programs that do one thing well. So Thunderbird doesn't as such 'come with' Firefox, but it's the mailreading arm of the SeaMonkey project. There are other side-projects, all being developed by community, such as the Sunbird calendar, which can also integrate with Thunderbird (although the last time I tried it it was still awful buggy).

And yeah, I can testify that the spam filtering in Thunderbird is great. From about ten a day I now get about one a month slipping through, and no false positives so far.

Steve -- if you have the time (maybe a spare five minutes) you could report your non-working sites on the Firefox forums? It's easier than filing a full bug report (for which you need to be using the latest nightly build etc.) and the developers do seem to read the forums. FF is still, after all, in beta.

Rob

>>Steve -- if you have the time...FF is still, after all, in beta.

OK, I can spare 5 minutes for that, but Mozilla 1.7 has the same problems, so its not really a beta issue.

While I'm not naive enought to think that there's any software out there without bugs, I am quite prepared to believe that the problems with these sites may be that they have been authored for IE, and that it may be the site that's at fault, rather than the browser. Though it may be, a bug with the browser, so I'll try to find time to report the sites all the same.

<attempt-to-make-myself-clear-without-causing-a-row>
The point I was trying (and failing) to make to Darrel was, and is, that even where the website is at fault, if it doesn't work with Firefox or Mozilla, or Opera, or web TV, or Liberty boxes, its not necessarily down to lazy web developers.
Often its down to budgets. And in the real world of corporate web development where testing takes place during and after development, it is a crucial and significant part of the development budget, which does influence which browsers/devices are supported.
Sometimes, its also due to browser bugs.
</attempt-to-make-myself-clear-without-causing-a-row>

"that even where the website is at fault, if it doesn't work with Firefox or Mozilla, or Opera, or web TV, or Liberty boxes, its not necessarily down to lazy web developers."

That is true. I'd simply argue that it's USUALLY an issue of lazy web development (whether that be the developers, project management, upper management, etc.).

"Often its down to budgets. And in the real world of corporate web development where testing takes place during and after development, it is a crucial and significant part of the development budget, which does influence which browsers/devices are supported. "

I agree that that *is* a common excuse...but it's not usually (though it is sometimes) valid, as developing cross-browser web sites, provided the developers know what they're doing, doesn't cost more.

We simply disagree on this point. So be it. ;o) ;o)

To be fair, part of the problem is the toolset given the developers. I do a lot of .net development these days and, surprise, surprise, .net favours IE on the front-end. So I need to go in and develop my own front-end interfaces for most widgets rather than depending on .net's built in widgets.

I've worked with CMS tools that also favour only one specific browser. So, if the base set of tools is already flawed, then it's hard to blame the developers that need to work with said tool (though I could blame the folks that decided on that particular technology. ;o)

<font class="dontLookLikeCrap">i have been using mozilla for over a year and it's very smooth. you can't use windowsupdate though.
havent tried out firefox yet. the thing with mozilla is that it is very steady, you can open up 20 pages at the same time and know it won't crash or anything. as for tabs, they are essential. i used to open links in new windows with ie, but the bigger mouse trip to the taskbar and the untidiness of the whole deal made it a bad experience. the mail&newsgroups program is just a click away. only thing that is not perfect is the download manager - you still need a good external download manager (netvampire, getright, dap or whatever else). you cant even trust it for a resume!

and btw, since there is this talk of "buggy sites" and crappy web developing, is it just me or are all tables of typophile forums set to a standard width of 768 pixels? i am currently working on 800x600 and get an horizontal scroller and have to scroll to the right to read a whole line of a post. Shouldn't it be like width="100%"?</font>

" is it just me or are all tables of typophile forums set to a standard width of 768 pixels?"

Yes, this has been an old gripe of mine too. This forum technology leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, there's enough good folks/content in here to make the bugs tolerable. ;o)

It's kinda funny, but Firefox is the ONLY browser that works properly for my wife in whatever forums she goes to. She said IE and NN never worked, but this one (firefox) was displaying things and allowing her to post correctly. Go figure!