Comments on: The *New* Spread Firefox (beta) is Here! http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/ Mozilla creative, branding and other random thoughts. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:55:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Axel Hecht http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1547 Axel Hecht Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:01:19 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1547 My first impression when going to the new front page was "that's a Japanese site". Maybe post-30 europeans are not in the target audience, but I thought it was too much unrelated content. /me feels like "the youth of these days, just figure which sites they're going to". Ranting about music is soooo last generation, I guess. My first impression when going to the new front page was “that’s a Japanese site”.

Maybe post-30 europeans are not in the target audience, but I thought it was too much unrelated content.

/me feels like “the youth of these days, just figure which sites they’re going to”. Ranting about music is soooo last generation, I guess.

]]> By: The New Hub of Open Source Marketing | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1538 The New Hub of Open Source Marketing | Giant Spatula > a Rolnitzky blog Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:45:15 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1538 [...] consider creating or contributing — Rhian has the skinny on what’s involved. John Slater has a great post about the redesign that’s worth a read. And readers of this blog may want to [...] [...] consider creating or contributing — Rhian has the skinny on what’s involved. John Slater has a great post about the redesign that’s worth a read. And readers of this blog may want to [...]

]]> By: John http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1534 John Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:39:04 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1534 Fred/Martijn - Actually, my screen isn't that big and I didn't use any magic software (including the extension referenced above...thanks for the tip though!) - the image included with this post is actually the final design mockup. I used it rather than a screenshot of the live site b/c the live beta site still has a few visual bugs that haven't been fixed, and I wanted to show the page as it was intended. -John Fred/Martijn -
Actually, my screen isn’t that big and I didn’t use any magic software (including the extension referenced above…thanks for the tip though!) - the image included with this post is actually the final design mockup. I used it rather than a screenshot of the live site b/c the live beta site still has a few visual bugs that haven’t been fixed, and I wanted to show the page as it was intended.

-John

]]> By: Martijn http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1526 Martijn Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:15:26 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1526 Fred, the fireshot-extension provides functionality like that: http://screenshot-program.com/fireshot/ I found a little typo in the box that encourages to download Firefox: "If you don't already have the fastes, " It misses the t at the end of fastest... Fred, the fireshot-extension provides functionality like that: http://screenshot-program.com/fireshot/

I found a little typo in the box that encourages to download Firefox: “If you don’t already have the fastes, ”
It misses the t at the end of fastest…

]]> By: Fred http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1516 Fred Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:54:37 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1516 How did you make this big screenshot? Is your screen that big or did you use some magic software? How did you make this big screenshot? Is your screen that big or did you use some magic software?

]]> By: Gérard Talbot http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1514 Gérard Talbot Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:17:33 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2007/11/16/the-new-spread-firefox-beta-is-here/#comment-1514 Hello John Slater, 1- SFx people went to choose XHTML served as text/html. This is not a best choice; this is widely regarded as an inconsequent choice by web developers. I can live with that choice... but then, if one day, there is another redesign of SFx website, I hope that the process of deciding on the best possible DTD choice will be taken in that regard. 2- Right now, the newsfx.spreadfirefox.com has 37 validation markup errors: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://newsfx.spreadfirefox.com/ Why? 3- The current stylesheet has hundreds of CSS declarations: hundreds in over 1600 lines of code! It has 320 CSS rules: in my opinion, that is <b>insane</b>! I wonder if a process of combining, relying on browser defaults, using inheritance will be done because that stylesheet certainly, definitely does not look like an optimized one. Using inheritance is what some MDC tutorials are also recommending. 4- body { font-family: Verdana, Arial, Lucida, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 84%; font-size set to less than 100% for body element is formally and explicitly discouraged and not recommended by a wide majority of web authoring, accessibility and web standards groups, including <a href="http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size" rel="nofollow">W3C QA</a>. <a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html" rel="nofollow">Verdana is also discouraged by several people</a> for precise reasons. Why redefine and redeclare margin:0 and padding:0? Why redeclare h1 to h6 and p margins and paddings if you've set all of these to 0 to begin with? Why undo what you first have done on purpose, intentionally? Several rules and declarations are clearly going against accessibility. a img,:link img,:visited img {border: none;} is explicitly going against what J. Nielsen calls clickability, predictable clickability by user. "Users shouldn't have to guess or scrub the page to find out where they can click." <a href="http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/images.html#no-border" rel="nofollow">"removing the border that indicates an image is a link makes it harder for users to distinguish quickly and easily which images on a web page are clickable."</a> WDG Web authoring FAQ There are over 22 (I stopped counting...) declarations with font-size using px unit, with a clear majority of them under 12px: again, all this is not recommendable, all this is formally and explicitly discouraged by accessibility and standards groups including W3C QA. It's not just the px unit, it's also the size. Etc. regards, Gérard Hello John Slater,

1- SFx people went to choose XHTML served as text/html. This is not a best choice; this is widely regarded as an inconsequent choice by web developers. I can live with that choice… but then, if one day, there is another redesign of SFx website, I hope that the process of deciding on the best possible DTD choice will be taken in that regard.

2- Right now, the newsfx.spreadfirefox.com
has 37 validation markup errors:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://newsfx.spreadfirefox.com/

Why?

3- The current stylesheet has hundreds of CSS declarations: hundreds in over 1600 lines of code! It has 320 CSS rules: in my opinion, that is insane! I wonder if a process of combining, relying on browser defaults, using inheritance will be done because that stylesheet certainly, definitely does not look like an optimized one. Using inheritance is what some MDC tutorials are also recommending.

4-
body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Lucida, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 84%;

font-size set to less than 100% for body element is formally and explicitly discouraged and not recommended by a wide majority of web authoring, accessibility and web standards groups, including W3C QA.
Verdana is also discouraged by several people for precise reasons.

Why redefine and redeclare margin:0 and padding:0? Why redeclare h1 to h6 and p margins and paddings if you’ve set all of these to 0 to begin with? Why undo what you first have done on purpose, intentionally?

Several rules and declarations are clearly going against accessibility.

a img,:link img,:visited img {border: none;}
is explicitly going against what J. Nielsen calls clickability, predictable clickability by user. “Users shouldn’t have to guess or scrub the page to find out where they can click.” “removing the border that indicates an image is a link makes it harder for users to distinguish quickly and easily which images on a web page are clickable.” WDG Web authoring FAQ

There are over 22 (I stopped counting…) declarations with font-size using px unit, with a clear majority of them under 12px: again, all this is not recommendable, all this is formally and explicitly discouraged by accessibility and standards groups including W3C QA. It’s not just the px unit, it’s also the size.

Etc.

regards, Gérard

]]>