Leaked Screenshot Shows a Cleaner, Simpler IE9 | Hacker News Reader

Leaked Screenshot Shows a Cleaner, Simpler IE9

webmonkey.com

28 pointsshrikant30 comments

I'm not a fan of mixing tabs on the same level as the url box. but I can imagine it was a design decision to allow for a bit more reading on widescreen monitors.

I'm no fan to judge though, as I don't think I've actively used ie for nearly a decade now.

As you can imagine, your average IE-only user typically only has one tab open at a time - so there's no reason to provide an entire tab row for them.

My hope would be that the "tab bar" would act like any toolbar that IE has today - easily dragged down to its own row. Heck, it might have been dragged UP by whomever took that screenshot.

I've always wondered about tab usage among the typical IE user. Do you have any hard numbers or studies that corroborate your statement? I ask not to put you on the spot, but figure it's possible you have this information or may even work in a usability lab that has actually studied this (this is Hacker News after all).

You would not use tabs either if it took three seconds to open a new one.

I think I might like this actually. Chrome was a good start to reducing the wasted vertical space in the browser compared to earlier versions of firefox. Combining the address bar and tabs into one line is the next logical option, it might work, it might not. Tough to know unless you've tried it for a while.

I wonder if there's a clean way they could hide/collapse the URL field to a minimal width on the left side of the tab bar, then automatically expand it on mouseover or selection.

Agree that vertical size of the toolbar should be minimized, less scrolling helps everyone.

At least from the screenshots it looks neither cleaner nor simpler.

Removing things is not the only point of simplicity.

Removing (or rather probably just moving to be in a menu somewhere) things is definitely not the only key to simplicity, but I think it does help in this case.

I think it does look quite a bit simpler to comprehend at least with respect to not slamming too much different stuff in the same sort of grouping.

When I start up IE 8 I get the tab bar which has, in this order: A favorites button with an icon and a label, the set of tabs, some toolbar icons buttons, some of which are menus, some are just actions, some menu labels, and finally another icon menu for help. The new shot looks like they moved most of that into 3 icons on the top right.

Unfortunately they moved the tabs next to the location bar, which means they will now be competing for space, but definitely trimming down and moving where all the menu options are is a plus in my eyes.

They also added the idea of greater emphasis on the back button which is certainly more frequently used, which is nice.

The main problem I see is that they have made it simple by removing stuff but leaving no room complexity and still making the look of it complex.

For instance the browser background is semi-transparent which means that yes the page will probably stand out more in some respect but at the same time they have no canvas to work with to make additions, allow for third party stuff. It will have to sit on top of that transparent canvas which will end up making it more complex.

The reason to normally use white, black or gray is to have a neutral background that almost everything fit's nicely into. Now any icon or button have to compete with whatever happens to be behind the semi-transparent canvas.

In many way's from the looks of this they are already maxed out on design debt.

Of course that might be reading too much into it from this screen shot as I don't know what their plans are. But my immediate reaction is it won't scale very well.

In their defence, that's how windows usually work on (err...) Windows 7, apps usually have the top bar and sometimes something more where transparency is allowed (there's a system setting for setting the amount of transparency, or none).

I don't see a problem since the tabs are not transparent, just with a small gradient like Chrome, and it's probably not going to be possible to add things (icons from extensions?) to the main controls of the browser.

It would be nearly impossible for IE9 to not be simpler than IE8, so I am not giving them too much credit until I actually see something shipped that the masses adopt.

Interesting write on the simplicity of IE8 vs. Safari: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1638772

I see some people saying "you NEED this" and "you NEED that". Maybe YOU do, but I don't. At least give me the option to remove it. Yes I'm a minimalist.

Personally my dream browser would have tabs and the URL box in the same row with no other icons or search boxes at ALL. Also get rid of the fat borders, maximize the real estate.

Just my 2 cents.

Where's the yahoo toolbar? (I really think that it looks similar to Chrome). But really, I'm just hoping for good css3/html5 support.

Not an IE user, but I've been impressed with the work the IE team is doing for IE9. The quality of support previewed so far outshines WebKit or Gecko. WebKit and Gecko, I think, have greater support, but the quality of IE9's support is superior.

Every single time a new version of IE is released, I think "Hooray! The masses will be able to see the web as it's supposed to be seen!" and then I'm crushed.

Every. Single. Time.

Why does Microsoft hate tabs?

The slab you see to the right of the address/search combo bar is a tab.

I know, it'd be an utter nightmare to use if you had more than 2 or 3 tabs. Compare to more tab-friendly browsers like Chrome / Firefox / Safari / Opera / anything with tabs.

Heck, they've reduced the amount of space for tabs from the previous version, where all you had taking up tab-space was your favorites buttons and a half-menu setup.

Leaked by whom? Microsoft's PR Department?

Its not cleaner or simpler, its exactly the same. Stupid people just stare at the pretty picture thats all.

You need 2 search boxes, links bar and tabs and a title bar and a status line. Everything else better take up no room.

There is no possibility of the interface changing, period. Ever.

1) It isn't exactly the same. The tab bar has been floated next to the URL bar, some of the icons have been shifted around, and overall, it seems to take up less space for the browser chrome to allow more space for the content.

2) Why do you need 2 search boxes?

3) Really? No possibility of the interface ever changing? I honestly figured Mozilla had it all figured out with Firefox 3.0 (or whichever version had the search box right next to the URL box,) until Chrome came along and had a multi-purpose URL box (that let you perform searches.) To make the statement that it will never, ever, ever change just seems brazen.

You need an address box and a search box. You need tabs. real estate concerns mean thats 2 lines so far. you need a favorites line (or i do anyway) you need a title line and a status line.

If the browser is missing any of these lines I will add it. The interface is exactly the same, internet hasnt changed browsing hasnt changed. What you need to do in a browser hasnt changed. Its nonsense.

I'm not saying you don't need a search box, but I use the address bar as my search box. That's even the default layout in Google Chrome isn't it?

So far, I prefer the Chrome approach of a unified address+search bar to the Mozilla approach of 2 separate boxes. 1 keyboard shortcut to access either is far better than 2 .. if you type a search term in the firefox address bar as well, it'll search it for you ..

Maybe stating the obvious here, but you can just remove the search box from Firefox and they look pretty much the same.

Except that you then don't have a search box. That's the magic of Chrome, is that the address bar IS ALSO the search box.

You might have to mess around with the default behaviour but you can use the Firefox address bar as a search box. You can set it up so that typing 'g foo' searches for foo on Google, 'w bar' searches for bar on Wikipedia etc. It's actually more useful than the search box (in my opinion) as you can set up shortcuts so 'gm' will open google mail, 'lol' will open up the lolcats website. So there's really no need for a bookmarks bar either (as long as you can remember your shortcuts!).

Chrome is my primary browser, but every now and then what I really miss about the two separate bars in Firefox is this use-case:

1) Select and right-click word/phrase on page

2) Select a search engine from search bar list

3) Look it up instantly on whichever search engine has focus in the search bar.

In Chrome this wouldn't be possible without a form of overhead somewhere (add-on, user script, using keyboard, etc.)

Just to clarify, I'm not against using the keyboard shortcuts - just that when I'm reading a page with a hand on the mouse/trackpad, it annoys me a just a little bit to switch to the keyboard and back to the mouse again.

Try using duckduckgo.com as your default search provider. If you feel like doing a search on a different search engine, you can just preface it with the appropriate ! (bang) command, e.g. !g = google, !w = wikipedia

As I said, in Chrome, the address box IS the search box. It works that way really well, except on the outside chance that you're trying to search for a URL, or something, but I think we can agree that's an edge case.

I agree that you need tabs, but I thought that the IE9 preview was pretty clever in floating the tabs next to the address bar, meaning it takes up one less panel than before.

Do you need a title line? Really?

Do you need a status line? I think the default behavior in Chrome is that the 'status' line floats onto the screen when there's something to show, otherwise there isn't one. I agree that you need a favorites bar, but I disagree that it won't ever change.

As for your second paragraph, let's just say that I disagree with it both in premise and in practice. Chrome's UI completely obliterates the points you suggest in the first paragraph, and again, I think the assertion that it won't ever change is as wrong as the (faulty) assertion that it hasn't ever changed, because clearly it has.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com