On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 20:09 -0700, Kalvin Lee wrote: > Yes, I am aware just how easy it us to run "su -c 'yum install > firefox'," but not all unfortunate end-users are able, If Epiphany were to replace Firefox, then Firefox would still be a featured app with a huge banner across the top of the software center (on rotation). There is no way we would ever expect users to use the command line. > Michael's usability questions also apply. To be very clear: I believe all these usability issues are fixable and that Epiphany should be reconsidered once they are fixed. I'm really very pro-Epiphany, I just happen to agree with you that it is not good enough yet and will draw criticism if we switch before it's ready. Maybe it will be ready in one year, or half a year, or never. > For some reason I'm obligated to kill Epiphany every time after I > close it (the process lingers?) This is fixed in 3.12 (the same issue is also causing 99% of the crashes), but it was never backported to 3.10. All bug reports in Red Hat Bugzilla are ignored. Alas. > and the compatibility issues are a little irksome (Google Images, for > example, refuses completely to give my its modern > continuously-scrolling interface). This is half Epiphany's fault for failing in its attempts to pretend to be Safari on OS X, but mostly Google's fault for giving us a shitty website when it doesn't recognize the browser. Anyway newer WebKit does a better job at pretending to be Safari, and Google gives us the correct website again, so fortunately this specifically is not an issue anymore. The problem is that every time WebKit changes its user agent to fix some websites, other websites break. This is server-side nonsense that has nothing to do with Epiphany's ability to render websites accurately (the most important criterion of all, and a strength of Epiphany). I think the fix for the Google homepage and Google Images broke Google Maps. Alas. > I would appreciate more exposure for GNOME Web, but shipping it by > default might not attract the right audience for that. And I don't > quite understand how Fedora contributing to Firefox "instead of" GNOME > Web is the wrong direction, if anyone could expand on that for me? The reason is that Firefox does not integrate well with GNOME, and it never will. It does not use the standard GTK+ widgets that 100% of the other programs in the default install use, and it never will. It does not follow GNOME design patterns, such as using header bars with big blue or red action buttons on top, and I don't see that changing either. The menu in the upper right is alien in GNOME. Two years after the release of GNOME 3.4, Firefox does not have an app menu, which is unacceptable and should be *on its own* grounds to disqualify it from the default install, if not for the fact that nothing is really ready to replace it. (I'm aware that a couple other programs, Evolution, Firewall, and SELinux Troubleshooter, also do not have app menus. I think those should be disqualified as well, but those are easier for us to fix than to argue about.) Perhaps with themes and extensions -- and it's great that Mozilla is interested in allowing extensions -- these issues can be papered over well enough to be satisfied with Firefox long-term. When I last used the suite of GNOME integration extensions (HTitle, Adwaita, and there was one other I can't remember), a year or two ago, they were good but not really good enough. Perhaps they've improved since then. None of this is to say that Firefox is somehow "bad" -- I believe it is currently the only browser suitable to be the default in Fedora Workstation -- just that we can provide a better user experience with a browser that uses the same technologies and follows the same design patterns as the rest of the desktop.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
