June 7, 2004
Firefox gets a "new" look
So we now have a new default theme for Firefox on Windows, called Winstripe. The problem is that the new theme is heavily inspired by MacOS design and does not blend in on Windows XP. This blog entry is about my view of the situation and an attempt to point out what needs to be done in order to make this work.
First of all, congratulations to Kevin Gerich and Stephen Horlander for being chosen to create the new default theme. Pinstripe is a beautiful MacOS X theme and proves that you guys are very talented and pay great attention to the details of MacOS design guidelines.
Second, my deepest sympathies to Arvid Axelsson (author of Qute, the default theme for Firefox up until now) who wasn't informed about the new plans until they were already decided. Apparently, Arvid's experience with Qute wasn't even used by the Visual Identity Team. Instead they chose to develop Winstripe without Arvid's knowledge, while he was still checking in updates on Qute. Clearly, Mozilla.org are having some communication problems and this is not the first time I've noticed this. Hopefully both parties can learn from their mistakes and move on. Enough said, let's focus on the Winstripe theme!
Jon Hicks mentioned in Kevin Gerich's web log that he finds Qute to be unprofessional. Mr Hicks is a professional and most probably knows what he's talking about, but I can't say his comment makes that much sense in this case. Qute conforms strictly to the Windows XP icon design guidelines, which includes a number of important attributes. Winstripe, at its current state, hardly conforms to any of them.
With all due respect, the MacOS-inspired Winstripe theme is best suited for... MacOS. It even has the vertical drop shadow that is so typical for that platform. It is indeed an excellent (MacOS) theme, but it has no place in the Windows (Luna/Classic) interface at its current state. It's pretty obvious that Kevin and Stephen are using Macintosh, which leads me to the key question: What's the point of designing a Windows theme if the artists don't want to conform to the Windows XP guidelines? What good does it do to make Firefox look like a MacOS application on Windows, when an overwhelming 83.32%Based on visitor stats for Firefox Help on May 2004. of the user base are running Windows and only 2.86%Based on visitor stats for Firefox Help on May 2004. are running Macintosh?
Anyway, the decisions have already been made. So how do we make Winstripe look good on Windows XP? Well, there are a number of things that need to be done in order to achieve the Windows XP (Luna) appearance. Here are my suggestions:
Use rounded shapes
This is the most apparent weakness of Winstripe at its current state. For example, the Home icon looks strict and dull compared to the inviting Home icon of Internet Explorer, or Qute. Look at the icons in the Windows XP start menu. None of them have hard edges. All of them use soft, smooth, cute looking shapes, such as the Calculator icon mentioned above. This is key to the Windows XP icon design, and if we're not going to follow that guideline, we're not going to blend in on Windows XP.
Use gradients
This is being used in Winstripe already, to some extent. But the icons still look as if they were designed pixel by pixel, unlike the native Windows XP artwork which look like scaled vector graphics, and as such, much softer.
Use more depth
Windows icons should not be flat anymore. They were in Windows 3.1 and 95. They still were flat to some extent in Windows 98/Me/2000, but in Windows XP, which should be the primary target, the icons have a 3D-looking appearance. This can be achieved by having a common light source from the top-left corner and a subtle drop shadow on the lower-right corner.
Don't use a vertical drop shadow
This is just not the convention on Windows XP. I've never seen it used before and it actually looks strange. Drop shadows should be used sparsely in toolbar icons and as mentioned above, they should be located on the lower-right corner.
Use the same width for all icons
The Mail & News icon is wider than the other icons. The Back/Forward triangles appears to be wider than the Reload icon. I could probably come up with more examples. The end result is inconsistency. I know the actual width of the icons are the same, but it just doesn't look balanced.
Blend in and look modern :)
This is a vague suggestion, I know. The current Winstripe theme just doesn't attract me. Try to look cool and modern, try some new ideas, drop the strictness, try to make an impression. I can't express it better, the Winstripe theme is just too squarish, flat, strict and uninspired. A default theme should be inviting, the buttons should encourage you to click on them. The goal of Winstripe should be to blend in with the Windows XP artwork as successfully as Pinstripe does on MacOS X.
I hope this feedback is of any use and that I managed to be specific enough about the current flaws of Winstripe. I'm confident that this can turn out to be a great theme. Personally, however, I much prefer Qute since it already is a perfect fit for Windows XP.
Good luck Kevin and Stephen and keep up the great work!
Posted by djst at June 7, 2004 9:25 PM>>Second, my deepest sympathies to Arvid Axelsson (author of Qute, the default theme for Firefox up until now) who wasn't informed about the new plans until they were already decided.
He didn't want to open Qute, so why should they say "pretty please and we'll keep Qute forever?"
>>Apparently, Arvid's experience with Qute wasn't even used by the Visual Identity Team. Instead they chose to develop Winstripe without Arvid's knowledge, while he was still checking in updates on Qute.
Why should they use his experience with Qute? Winstripe is totally different and the Qute guy couldn't help at all. Also, other developers spend lots of time on a feature and then it's turned into something else.
>>Clearly, Mozilla.org are having some communication problems and this is not the first time I've noticed this. Hopefully both parties can learn from their mistakes and move on. Enough said, let's focus on the Winstripe theme!
Why do people need to be informed of things like name changes, theme changes, things that don't change the quality of the browser? Why can't people accept Mozilla Suite is crap because of the community and Firefox is the work of a great dictator?
>>Jon Hicks mentioned in Kevin Gerich's web log that he finds Qute to be unprofessional. Mr Hicks is a professional and most probably knows what he's talking about, but I can't say his comment makes that much sense in this case. Qute conforms strictly to the Windows XP icon design guidelines, which includes a number of important attributes. Winstripe, at its current state, hardly conforms to any of them.
Ever noticed that we were stuck with his little moon throbber for a REALLY long time and that his icons are choppy in small size? Plus he put too much artistry into icons like Reload, which makes it less than obvious. While XP uses bright shiny colors, Qute is dull.
>>With all due respect, the MacOS-inspired Winstripe theme is best suited for... MacOS. It even has the vertical drop shadow that is so typical for that platform. It is indeed an excellent (MacOS) theme, but it has no place in the Windows (Luna/Classic) interface at its current state. It's pretty obvious that Kevin and Stephen are using Macintosh, which leads me to the key question: What's the point of designing a Windows theme if the artists don't want to conform to the Windows XP guidelines? What good does it do to make Firefox look like a MacOS application on Windows, when an overwhelming 83.32%Based on visitor stats for Firefox Help on May 2004. of the user base are running Windows and only 2.86%Based on visitor stats for Firefox Help on May 2004. are running Macintosh?
Mac users hate ugly things. Windows users don't care, as long as it looks good(not like XP) they're okay with it. Does it really look like Mac OS X? Have you noticed that OS X icons are like mini-photographs not simplistic buttons? Sure somethings are OS X like the Bookmarks, but Windows users probably never heard of OS X or care if the Bookmarks are too glossy
>>Use rounded shapes
I don't know why everything has to be rounded these days, but the hard edges make them more obvious as to what they do.
>>Use gradients
Winstripe doesn't need to be any more shiny than it is.
>>Use more depth
2D is in your face and easy too understand, which is why design experts at Mac suggest 2D for toolbars. Also notice that Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Real use 3D buttons but are facing towards you, not away, like Qute.
>>Don't use a vertical drop shadow
Yay! I agree!
>>Use the same width for all icons
They all look the same to me
http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/11673/preview.png
>>Blend in and look modern :)
You're making sound like people use apps for the theme. The theme should be subdued, so it doesn't get in the way of browsing. Have you seen Microsoft's Longhorn's theme? It's modern AND ugly.
>>A default theme should be inviting, the buttons should encourage you to click on them.
I don't click Back/Forward on Firefox because it looks "inviting" I click it because I want to go to a previous page. A default theme should just be not ugly.
>>The goal of Winstripe should be to blend in with the Windows XP artwork as successfully as Pinstripe does on MacOS X.
It does it kind of. Uses XP colors and all. Also, how many products outside of Microsoft look XP? Java, Flash, Quicktime, Real all use some proprietary look.
Good luck Kevin and Stephen and keep up the great work!
Posted by: PK at June 7, 2004 9:34 PMEverybody and some people more seem to assume that the email posted on MzillazineForums indeed was the hole communication between m.o an Arvid. It`s 5 month old isn`t it?
Why does everybody assume that Arvids claims are true. He is the guy posting such email in public, should Ben act the same and post more emails and chat logs, if there are any?
Don`t know how long the thread already is, but the first 11 pages nobody even considered this.
Everybody seems to bash Ben/m.o for a lack of profesionalism and communication. They do not have any proof for that, tey all assume that waht they are reding is the whole truth. Seems naiv to me.
Why it should look like Luna? Not all users use Windows XP. There are still many people using Windows 2000, some even Windows 98...
I personlly HATE Luna style which is so ugly... the new theme looks nice... and I rarely use the buttons anyway (mouse geasure does almost everything), so the theme doesn't really matter...
Posted by: minghong at June 7, 2004 9:35 PMOk "PK", clearly you haven't read or understood the Icon Guidelines or why they are important to follow. As I said, the goal of Winstripe should be to blend in with the Windows XP artwork as successfully as Pinstripe does on MacOS X.
"It does it kind of. Uses XP colors and all."
And "all"? No. Not by a long shot. Just don't comment on stuff you don't understand, ok?
"A default theme should just be not ugly."
If that's your only requirement, then I can see why the Windows XP guidelines don't matter to you. Fortunately, there are other people who do care about professionalism. First impression is crucial.
">Use the same width for all icons
They all look the same to me"
Look at the mail icon again. It's wider than the other icons. And even if you somehow manage to prove that it technically isn't, it still looks like it, which is what matters.
Posted by: David Tenser at June 7, 2004 9:35 PMA wider mail button is acceptable as it opens external application (which makes it differents from other buttons)... OK, just kidding... :-P
By the way, it is called "Icon Guidelines", not "Icon Rules", or "Icon Requirments". As "PK" said, there are many applications with completely non-native (sometimes ugly) look and feel, e.g. Java applications, Opera, ICQ, etc...
Posted by: minghong at June 7, 2004 9:53 PMWhen you commented on Kevin's blog, you apparently *were* working from the same document as me. :-)
http://s95135199.onlinehome.us/2004/06/06/winstripe/
What you've said pretty much echoes what I said, tho you went a little more into the background of the change while I concentrated almost entirely on the theme itself (in perhaps a slightly more compact, technical form) with respect to all the guidelines presented in the MSDN doc.
Posted by: Jeff Walden at June 7, 2004 10:11 PMJeff, when I first wrote this in Kevin's blog entry, I wasn't working from any doc at all, but I've read the guidelines several times before and just knew what I was talking about. When making this blog entry, however, I included the guidelines to provide a better source for my statements.
Posted by: David Tenser at June 7, 2004 11:14 PM>>Ok "PK", clearly you haven't read or understood the Icon Guidelines or why they are important to follow. As I said, the goal of Winstripe should be to blend in with the Windows XP artwork as successfully as Pinstripe does on MacOS X.
How many major apps look like Luna? Quicktime, Real, Opera, Java, Kazaa, Winzip, AIM, Yahoo Messenger... They're all successful, proving you don't need to look XP to succeed. Also, Winstripe is for Windows, not Windows XP.
>>And "all"? No. Not by a long shot. Just don't comment on stuff you don't understand, ok?
I understand that green looks like green and blue looks like blue. I don't care if it's a few shades off.
>>If that's your only requirement, then I can see why the Windows XP guidelines don't matter to you. Fortunately, there are other people who do care about professionalism. First impression is crucial.
My first impression of a product is how it does stuff. Firefox can block popups and do tabs. That's good enough for me. You keep pointing back to the Windows XP guidelines, implying its professionalism. Since when was listening to Microsoft professional? If the theme looks like something you can't make out of Paint, than its good enough for me(exaggerating)
>>Look at the mail icon again. It's wider than the other icons. And even if you somehow manage to prove that it technically isn't, it still looks like it, which is what matters.
No, it's still the same size. It only looks that way because of the little arrow, same as Back/Forward.
Another thing, people just don't stare at themes and look for every detail. They look at the theme as a whole. Someone can always find fault with someone/something attractive, but unless it's blatantly ugly, most will find it attractive.
Posted by: PK at June 8, 2004 12:01 AM"Another thing, people just don't stare at themes and look for every detail. They look at the theme as a whole. Someone can always find fault with someone/something attractive, but unless it's blatantly ugly, most will find it attractive."
True, which is why the overwhelming negative reactions from the community is to be taken very seriously. That says something about Winstripe, doesn't it...
Posted by: David Tenser at June 8, 2004 1:05 AMQute had already much critism initially, the most frequent one was that it looked to much like a windows app.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 8, 2004 10:07 AMThere may be a part of the "community" less active-interactive (...) but nonetheless following carefully the Mozilla/Firefox development. I, for one, am usually the typical lurker/watcher - and I welcome the move.
In my work (translator), I'm constantly on the internet for research, references, all kind of sites, and imho the new theme appears to provide a more pleasant browsing experience, less kid/fun-design oriented. Sure, it needs improvements but already the design feels solid.
(just my pretty useless 2 pennies, of course :)
PK: "Have you noticed that OS X icons are like mini-photographs not simplistic buttons?"
Actually, they are photorealistic artwork rather than photographs. Apple's guidelines specifically forbid scaled-down photographs.
Posted by: Leons Petrazickis at June 8, 2004 6:51 PM"Firefox can block popups and do tabs. That's good enough for me. You keep pointing back to the Windows XP."
MOZILLA suite does this as well...but which is more well-received by end users? :P FF succeeds because of its natural interface and overall good look, it's "welcoming" almost, the success of good UI & theming. Obviously you don't care much for MS's guidelines but then why not just throw in Win95 icons, they're pretty subdued, and 2d (nevermind u-g-l-y). Then you get a defacto Mozilla classic theme (sidenote: which is default of course--why!?! still!!) and how many times has that been referred to as "crusty".
That said Winstripe has great potential, I like the colours used by back, forward, refresh and stop. Myabe not the refresh icon though ;)
Posted by: blowtex at June 8, 2004 8:29 PM>>True, which is why the overwhelming negative reactions from the community is to be taken very seriously. That says something about Winstripe, doesn't it...
Yes, it says it's unpopular, but I don't think so, and Ben and a few eithers. Qute fans will give up eventually.
>>Actually, they are photorealistic artwork rather than photographs. Apple's guidelines specifically forbid scaled-down photographs.
That's why I said "...!!!like!!! mini-photographs..."
>>MOZILLA suite does this as well...but which is more well-received by end users? :P FF succeeds because of its natural interface and overall good look, it's "welcoming" almost, the success of good UI & theming. Obviously you don't care much for MS's guidelines but then why not just throw in Win95 icons, they're pretty subdued, and 2d (nevermind u-g-l-y). Then you get a defacto Mozilla classic theme (sidenote: which is default of course--why!?! still!!) and how many times has that been referred to as "crusty".
I was saying that I don't need something that would win an art award as a theme to like Firefox since Firefox has just enough features. I wouldn't throw in win95 icons because they're tiny, ugly, and not obvious and I stated before that the theme doesn't need to look snazzy, just not ugly. Winstripe has perfect size(same as IE), it's not ugly, and the button's functions are obvious. Mozilla Classic is ugly, the buttons aren't obvious, and it's really ugly.
Posted by: PK at June 9, 2004 1:02 AMHas it occured to anyone that not everyone uses XP and not everyone likes that “cute” look of it. I, for one, can’t stand XP and that awful Luna look. I just wish everyone that keeps references the XP guidelines realizes that there are a lot of people who actually DONT like the XP look
Posted by: Zach at June 9, 2004 3:23 PMZach: even though you don't like the XP look you cannot ignore the fact that Windows applications (W2K, WXP, W2K3) look like that.
The Microsoft guidelines (for Icon design) in question apply to more than Luna.
I personally come from the mac world... and for the longest time we had the the Qute theme for both firefox and tunderbird... and i thought it looked like a load of cow manure! All my windows friends look at me thinking I was nuts... well in some respects I think its about time the roles are reversed... I love the way winstrip looks... for XP systems... I supposed all they need to do really is brigten the color sna make the eye candy stick out more... really the only thing that makes the theme look bad to me on firest glance how much the window widgets stick out (like the head of the windows). Now the question is this... did Qute 0.1 fit into the the guidlnes for XP? Heck no... Did it look good... heck no... Kevin and Stephen did a GREAT with the Mac Theme... from v.1 to the final release... wait till Firefox 1.0 comes out.. the see what it looks like... then see if it does't fit the MS UI. I think the real reason everyone seems upset has to do with they fact they wheren't consulted... In the end Ben is right the main theme (default) theme should look similar across the product line... Qute should only be a user add and and should have no place in the tree... since it still infects the pinstrip theme (based on how the themes get built).
Posted by: Samual Icky at June 10, 2004 4:20 PMThe fact of the matter is that some people care more about the functionality of the program than the appearance of the icons inside it. Then again, some people don't. I LOVE firefox. The fact that Winstripe is the 'default' theme is wonderful, whether I like winstripe or not. Let's not forget that there ARE themes! You can change them. If you do not like the default theme, change it to one you do like! I wish I could do that in IE! I would download and use Firefox if the theme was bright pink and yellow, because I can change it! I applaud winstripe. It is what it is. Not to mention that personally, I think i would go against luna 'guidelines' because..well.. . microsoft... UGH!
Posted by: ahren at June 10, 2004 9:54 PMI remember when Qute came, so many people said "Get a new theme!" and now when it comes to them, they say "Only geeks use themes!"
Hyprocrisy...
>> How many major apps look like Luna? Quicktime, Real, Opera, Java, Kazaa, Winzip, AIM, Yahoo Messenger... They're all successful, proving you don't need to look XP to succeed. Also, Winstripe is for Windows, not Windows XP.
They're successful in spite of their appearance. Quicktime and Real are popular because users have no other choice. You can't get the current codecs if you don't install them. Java at least has the excuse of being cross platform but even it has a windows theme. Until MS started bundling a zip utility with WindowsXP you had to use WinZip or one of it's even tackier competitors. Yahoo and AIM, well I sure don't use them, but that's the only thing most people know about.
Hell, Winstripe may be "for Windows, not Windows XP" but doesn't look like any version Windows, it looks like OSX which is fine if your running OSX. But with less than 3% of the user base on a Mac it makes sense to orient the appearance to a Windows audience.
Posted by: andrew morton at June 11, 2004 10:53 PM>> Hell, Winstripe may be "for Windows, not Windows XP" but doesn't look like any version Windows, it looks like OSX which is fine if your running OSX.
Have you ever even used Mac OS X? This theme looks nothing like an OS X app to me.
Posted by: Mike at June 11, 2004 11:39 PM>>They're successful in spite of their appearance.
Exactly my point. Please point out some programs that people use because they're cute. None.
>>Quicktime and Real are popular because users have no other choice. You can't get the current codecs if you don't install them.
Users don't HAVE to install them. But they do not because of their theme but because they do something useful and are advertised a lot. Firefox is not mainstream because people don't see the point when you could have more pages work in IE, block popups/tabs with Avant and there is no advertisement for it(This page requires IE 6, Netscape 7, or Firefox)
>>Java at least has the excuse of being cross platform but even it has a windows theme.
You can be cross-platform and look like the OS you're on, so cross-platform does not excuse Java. And Java does not have Luna last time I checked.
>>Until MS started bundling a zip utility with WindowsXP you had to use WinZip or one of it's even tackier competitors.
Oh no. I have to use Winzip which is so ugly and it's killing me(yawn)
>>Yahoo and AIM, well I sure don't use them, but that's the only thing most people know about.
Yep. People use it because they know about it, not because of the theme. If people knew about Firefox they might like it, but they don't know about it.
>>Hell, Winstripe may be "for Windows, not Windows XP" but doesn't look like any version Windows,
Again, Quicktime, Real, Winzip, AOL, Yahoo Messenger, AIM, even Windows Media Player don't look like XP. At least Winstripe has similar colors.
>>it looks like OSX which is fine if your running OSX.
Does http://kmgerich.com/archive/images/winstripe_inprogress.png look anything like
http://alex.sfne.com/stuff/camino.jpg ?
Camino is glossy, shiny, and the icons are semi-realistic.
Winstripe isn't glossy, shiny, and the icons are simple, similar to traffic signs.
Options and Bookmarks Manager are Aquafied, but you only use those tools so much. This theme is just weeks old, based on Pinstripe, what'd you expect?
>>But with less than 3% of the user base on a Mac it makes sense to orient the appearance to a Windows audience.
Windows doesn't have a look. Microsoft is breaking its own rules with Windows Media Player and nobody else is trying to be Luna. Ben Goodger also expressed a need to have a similar look across all platforms. And what part of the main toolbar looks like Mac to you?
Posted by: Darren at June 12, 2004 5:43 PMCurrent Fashion != Good Design.
Posted by: JP at June 13, 2004 6:01 PMPinstripe on Mac looks stunning. There's no way I'd use Firefox with any other theme. I don't want an XP styled Pinstripe and Windows users don't want a Pinstripe inspired XP. Meeting in the middle like this doesn't work. And besides, the theme looks very amature, even before getting to the XP/OSX debate.
Posted by: Jedy at June 14, 2004 7:18 PMI'm going to have to go with the different themes for different applications. There's nothing wrong with loading up different icon sets and themes for different OSes. Why can't we stick with that concept.
Secondly, if the theme isn't of the proper quality now then it shouldn't be the default theme. The default theme should be the best theme of the day. Sorry for the Winstripe people, but on Windows, that's Qute.
As for the ranting about not adhering to the Windows Look and Feel Guidelines... those guidelines aren't just for the few people who hate MS, but they're based on usability feedback from a lot more users than Mozilla will ever have access to (in the near future). They were carefully designed and should be adhered to because when you do, you get the benefit of all that research that went into the icon design.
I saw some comments above that people complaining about the look of Luna. You my dear friends do not constitute the majority. This research has already been done. So the question becomes, "What's more important, Firefox's future, or your opinion?" You want to back up your opinion... run a study.
Also the recent comment about WMP breaking it's own rules. If you read the rules more carefully you'll realize that there are different rules for media consumption (sound, video and images) and document viewers (like web browsers).
Orion Adrian
Posted by: Orion Adrian at June 15, 2004 6:08 AM>> You my dear friends do not constitute the majority. This research has already been done. So the question becomes, "What's more important, Firefox's future, or your opinion?" You want to back up your opinion... run a study."
I think that sums it up quite well. What's more important, Firefox's future, or your opinion?
>> Users don't HAVE to install them. But they do not because of their theme but because they do something useful and are advertised a lot."
Huh, they DO have to install them. Most people who use AIM or ICQ think that's the only way of getting to the network where their friends are. People who download Quicktime or Real don't download them because of their "great features", but because they are (were) their only option to play quicktime and real movies.
And as said above, the guidelines strictly say that media software don't have the same rules that other applications, and we are speaking about icons anyway here, not the whole interface. WMP's icons follow MS' guidelines perfectly.
>> This theme is just weeks old, based on Pinstripe, what'd you expect?"
I would expect a more professional theme than a "just weeks old" mock up, which I don't think it is btw, but you are stating it.
>> Let's not forget that there ARE themes! You can change them. If you do not like the default theme, change it to one you do like!"
Explain that to the thousands of people that will see Firefox and say "Oh... that looks so old and boring compared to my super IE!!! I'd rather keep IE...". Do you think they will come up with "Oh! Maybe they have something called themes!".
First impression is what we're arguing about here. If Winstripe will be a beautiful and fully adherent to the OS guidelines theme when it becomes more advanced, then only include it THEN. Meanwhile, leave qute. Also wait till TB gets the theme too, otherwise you ruin the whole idea of consistency they are trying to push with Winstripe.
>> I just wish everyone that keeps references the XP guidelines realizes that there are a lot of people who actually DONT like the XP look"
Well, a lot of people don't like OSx icons, but that's how icons have to look if you develop an OsX application. That's what the new Windows Icon Design Guidelines are. That's what have to be made so that the interface is consistent with other applications in the OS (which is supposedly taken into account with Winstripe, ironically). Ok, don't do it, draw Win95 icons just because people are using Windows 95. But don't say you are looking for a consistent look.
>> Qute fans will give up eventually.
So that's the solution? :P
>> My first impression of a product is how it does stuff. Firefox can block popups and do tabs.
Err... that's a second impression. First impression is visual. You see the theme before you can use it, even before downloading the app. It might not matter to you, but there are a lot of people that don't even know Firefox and a theme like Qute might incite them to download it.
>> Also, Winstripe is for Windows, not Windows XP.
Then why do you find it OK that it has Xp's colors?
>> You keep pointing back to the Windows XP guidelines, implying its professionalism. Since when was listening to Microsoft professional?
It's not a matter of listening to Microsoft or not. It's a matter of the Firefox team wanting to blend with the OS. The only way they can do that is by following the guidelines of that OS' icons and interfaces. Which, coincidentally, are done by Microsoft.
And btw, as for only Microsoft using Xp icons in apps, you should get out of under the rock: almost all new windows applications have Xp-style icons, and those that don't look extremely outdated not only in Windows Xp, but in any version.
Posted by: Guido at June 18, 2004 10:23 PMwhy is everyone so defensive with feedback?
david gave some feedback.. people, and more specifically the designers, agree with it or not is irrelevant.
feedback is crucial for a work to evolve... so why all the hate? :)