John Reyst wrote:
>>This is all pretty unacceptable from a Windows user's point of
>>view, and, as much as I love Mozilla, these things are constant
>>annoyances for me.
>
> Do Windows users just have higher standards? When it comes to interfaces, I
> generally am not surprised (nor generally bothered) by slight niggling
> annoyances in Linux. But in Windows, for an application that is ABOUT to go
> 1.0, I would not expect to see these types of things. Just picky I suppose,
> but even Microsoft does better usually. Sure their security/stability is for
> shit, but at least their user interfaces generally seem to work as intended
> and get most every basic thing right. I have used many many different Linux
> flavors from back to RH5, and I am used to user interface polishing being
> pretty low on the priority scale, but for a Windows application, these
> things *must* be fixed, or else the mass community will be like my wife and
> just get irritated and go back to IE/M$. It seems like quite often many
> developers just keep throwing in more and more half-working bells & whistles
> when they should more appropriately be focusing on making the basics work
> PERFECT. I am a big fan of Mozilla, and would like to have my wife and
> daughters using it, but my daughter constantly complains that the types of
> websites she goes to (barbie.com, cartoonnetwork.com, disney.com etc) don't
> seem to work right, while my wife is generally ok with it other than the
> annoying Password Manager dialog constantly popping up.
The sad truth is that probably none software company (maybe Apple?)
creates programs intented for using by people in the only right way "UI
first, functionality then". Simply, we can't expect people creating
software from the command-line and spending 20 hours a day on it to be
really concerned about (G)UI.
Jirka
