Firefox vs Safari. .

[Brown Study]

I use Safari with a few plugins: SafariStand, Saft, Inquisitor, and SafariPlus. It does everything I need, and its still faster. And it fits in with OS X, instead of Firefox's ugly Windows look.

I very rarely need the address bar visible, a real-estate thief with any browser. With Firefox, I can do everything without it (see thumbnail).

I use the right-click contextual menu (much modified with an extension) and/or Mouse Gestures (another extension) to go forward, back, down and up, and to scroll right and left if I have to, among other things.

If I need to punch in a URL, Firefox's built-in Cmd-L opens a small window where it can be typed. The PrefBar (an extension) across the top (that in this case has website colours turned off) disappears and reappears by punching F8. With that bar visible, tabs appear under it.

What if your page has a flat simple look - you dont want all these water/mercury/wet/blue looking blobs all over the dam page.

Yep. I don't bother with any theme other than the default, because there is no need for any of them, including any faux-Mac skin. There is nothing to change.

My SeaMonkey setup is identical, as is WaMCom's Mozilla 1.3.1 that I use in OS 9. The OS 9 version also has the PrefBar and Mouse Gestures extensions, so using any of them always provides the same clean look and doesn't mean having to change any habits (other than Shift-Cmd-L instead of Cmd-L to open the URL window).

 

[giulio]

By flat simple, you mean a Windows 98 look? Those 'blobs' are part of OS X!

No, I meant literally 'flat', like not 3d bubbly. It's fine for Apple to design their OS any way they want. But I find it rude that they impose that look into every single website by using aqua in safari.
See attached.
Apple uses aqua for all form elements, highlights the selected input field (is the blinking bar not enough), and restyles the search box (how and why I don't know).

Apple wants you to Think different? Not here: Think US!

 

[Alexis]

It is a nice look though and many websites are improved with those buttons!

In your screenshot, both designs look good, although I appreciate you'd prefer your own design in that instance.

On the other hand, can any website be made to look bad with those buttons?

 

[giulio]

Down with Safari

It is a nice look though and many websites are improved with those buttons!

In your screenshot, both designs look good, although I appreciate you'd prefer your own design in that instance.

On the other hand, can any website be made to look bad with those buttons?

It's not my design, it's my client's. But the point I'm trying to make is that Safari removes the choice of design. And that's just wrong/rude/pushy... and well... anti-Apple-thinking!

And I think yes, sites can be made to look bad, even with Apple's can-look-no-wrong aqua themed buttons. Not that they look bad themselves, but because they kill the site's theme.

As a mainly design oriented community, I can't believe how that is in any way acceptable.

Folks don't like Firefox because it looks like a PC program in an otherwise aqua looking OS. So why are we not more upset with Safari putting aqua into every website? Its the same thing. But at least Firefox doesn't modify the website's look in real time haha!

Also imagine this scenario. You design a website thinking about the aqua buttons. Now 99.9999999% of the world sees it differently. But you dont care, it looks swwweeeeeeeet in safari. Then Apple changes the way aqua look in the next OS update. Whoops, there goes your website design. No control over your design is a bad thing.

 

[Kar98]

Firefox feels like you're running a PC browser on OS X and it's very ugly compared with the attractive interface of Safari.

Huh?

 

[baggss]

I've tried Safari, FF, Opera, iCab, Netscape (4,5,6,7,8 & 9), OmniWeb, SeaMonkey, DeskBrows, Surfdud and IE. With the exception of IE, they are all good browsers.

None of them have done anything that I find simply outstanding enough for me to switch from Safari.

 

[Kar98]

None of them have done anything that I find simply outstanding enough for me to switch from Safari.

Then you haven't tried the Firefox extensions AdBlock Plus and CustomzieGoogle.

 

[baggss]

Then you haven't tried the Firefox extensions AdBlock Plus and CustomzieGoogle.

Wrong. I use them on my PC at work, but have no need for them on my Mac at home. My connection at home is fast enough where loading ads doesn't take any real time and the ads themselves don't really bother me. I don't find the Google customize extension overly useful, even at work, and it's not enough for me to dump Safari.

To be honest, I tend to find FF on the Mac a bit over rated.

 

[technologist]

It's not my design, it's my client's. But the point I'm trying to make is that Safari removes the choice of design. And that's just wrong/rude/pushy... and well... anti-Apple-thinking!

And I think yes, sites can be made to look bad, even with Apple's can-look-no-wrong aqua themed buttons. Not that they look bad themselves, but because they kill the site's theme.

As a mainly design oriented community, I can't believe how that is in any way acceptable.

Folks don't like Firefox because it looks like a PC program in an otherwise aqua looking OS. So why are we not more upset with Safari putting aqua into every website? Its the same thing. But at least Firefox doesn't modify the website's look in real time haha!

Also imagine this scenario. You design a website thinking about the aqua buttons. Now 99.9999999% of the world sees it differently. But you dont care, it looks swwweeeeeeeet in safari. Then Apple changes the way aqua look in the next OS update. Whoops, there goes your website design. No control over your design is a bad thing.

Designers shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. Buttons look like they do (in whatever browser, on whatever platform) so that people instinctively know, "This is a button; it will perform an action if I click on it." The shape of the system button (whatever the user's system might be) is an affordance that aids recognition.

Breaking user expectations because of your (client's) sense of fashion is a waste of both your time and your users'. You should not be designing websites around any button style; you should be designing websites that are functional, easy to navigate, and compatible regardless of whether your user is using Safari, IE, or an audio screen reader.

[In this sense, Apple's use of Aqua buttons on Safari for Windows is a bad idea...but given how many times the shape of the default button on Windows has changed recently (Classic/Luna/Aero) it's almost irrelevant.]

 

[giulio]

Designers shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. Buttons look like they do (in whatever browser, on whatever platform) so that people instinctively know, "This is a button; it will perform an action if I click on it." The shape of the system button (whatever the user's system might be) is an affordance that aids recognition.

Breaking user expectations because of your (client's) sense of fashion is a waste of both your time and your users'. You should not be designing websites around any button style; you should be designing websites that are functional, easy to navigate, and compatible regardless of whether your user is using Safari, IE, or an audio screen reader.

[In this sense, Apple's use of Aqua buttons on Safari for Windows is a bad idea...but given how many times the shape of the default button on Windows has changed recently (Classic/Luna/Aero) it's almost irrelevant.]

That's hypocritical. Apple designed aqua. The buttons look different than those from OS9. Why did THEY reinvent the wheel?

And I, as well as most in my field, am a level above making sites that are merely functional and easy to navigate on any browser or platform. They have to look excellent as well. And be original. Sites that steel Apple's design just reek of novice. Aqua buttons are cute for Apple and it's branding, but they are doing designers a disservice.

The thought of every website I visit having aqua buttons on it is entirely absurd. Everyone here would have a isht-fit if every website had XP style buttons. Dang, not even Microsoft resorted to this lunacy!

Apple does change the look though, if you specify an image. So why not if you specify CSS?

 

[Audio.Trench]

I've had the opposite experience, firefox has always crashed at least 4 times a day for me, I use safari and its way more stable and the beta is faster.

Same here.. I've always used FireFox on my Windows machines before I got my first Mac a few years ago.

Once I got my Mac, I've always used and preferred Safari.

When FireFox 2.0 was released, I've had nothing but problems with it crashing, freezing, and being just plain slow.. This is on Windows and OS X.

The only real benefit for my usage of FireFox is the amount of plug-ins/extensions you can add to customize it to your liking.

When I found a "session saver" add-on for Safari, I ditched FireFox completly.

 

[Stretch]

I think Saft and SafariStand beat anything for Firefox.

 

[Brendan]

On my Windows PC, I prefer Firefox over Safari, because on Windows I have many issues with crashing, freezing, etc.

When I get my Mac, I may begin using Safari.

 

[Ryan13]

I have used Safari since I got my mac.

 

[giulio]

I also find it hypocritical that MS got heat for only allowing IE on a newly delivered PC. And what is Safari?