User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 (Beta/Release) Build ID: 20130911164256 Steps to reproduce: Experienced Australis. Actual results: The URL-bar is enormous/thick. It takes up way too much vertical space. One of the things I love about the current firefox is how I can use "small icons" and reduce the size of the URL-bar to keep Firefox's chrome/URL-bar thin & out of the way as much as possible. Now Firefox is pushing itself in my face with no way to shrink it down. I want to focus on my web-browsing. Why must Australis be displayed so prominently? I do not spend my time staring at the URL-bar. I only reference it as needed for a second or two. It makes no sense from a use-standpoint to have such a large sized url-bar. The url-bar should be as thin and un-noticeable as possible. Expected results: The URL-bar should be reduced in size a LOT. Or an about-config setting should be added to allow users the ability to have "small icons/reduced url-bar size."

I see no height difference between 2013-10-08-04-02-04-ux-firefox-27.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64 2013-10-08-03-02-02-mozilla-central-firefox-27.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64 (including "use small icons") firefox-24.0.en-US.linux64 (including "use small icons")

Though the Bug was for Mac, there are similarities to Bug 895563.

Thank you for helping to test Australis, however there are no plans to make the navbar smaller nor reintroduce small icons mode.

Take a look at this image: http://i.imgur.com/aOfq1UR.jpg The urlbar/toolbar is ENORMOUS. Notice how tall/thick the toolbar portion is? Now look at this urlbar/toolbar image (http://i.imgur.com/lH5cP8M.png), notice how it isn't blown all out of proprotion like the Australis one is? This needs to be fixed before release.

The larger toolbar shown in your first image is the result of the Greasemonkey icon being too large. Please disable all add-ons and then retest. It is important to note that we have remove small-icons mode, so the toolbar will be a few pixels larger than previously if you had small icons mode enabled.

Why is this bug not being addressed?

(In reply to Jared Wein [:jaws] from comment #5) > The larger toolbar shown in your first image is the result of the > Greasemonkey icon being too large. Please disable all add-ons and then > retest. > > It is important to note that we have remove small-icons mode, so the toolbar > will be a few pixels larger than previously if you had small icons mode > enabled. You guys need to reduce the size of this thing. If you are going to remove small-icons, you have to do something about the enormous size. Lots of people are complaining about this, yet Mozilla so far has just ignored it. There is no "grease monkey" icon in my Australis Toolbar yet it is still huge. Please address this before release. Thank you.

Even in Firefox 25, if small-icons is not enabled the Toolbar is really big. It is over-proportioned and takes up too much space.

(In reply to Jared Wein [:jaws] from comment #3) > Thank you for helping to test Australis, however there are no plans to make > the navbar smaller nor reintroduce small icons mode. There is your answer. Though, I suppose there will be at least one theme/extension that reduces the top chrome size. A few lines of CSS (see Bug 895563) made some of this easily possible. So that's the solution you should be looking for.

Could someone from Mozilla comment on why the design calls for so much Chrome? Is there a purpose to it? Not only is the URLbar itself much bigger, but the new style of tabs are much taller as well. So there is a a big increase in the amount of space taken up by the chrome compared to Firefox 25 with small icons. I usually operate on netbooks with smaller screens. It is disappointing to have so much of the browser waste space that could be used for content. Extensions are not a valid solution because extensions often impact browser performance. I try to run as few extensions as possible. Besides, this is an issue that Mozilla should address as I don't see how any Firefox users will benefit from the excess of Chrome that Australis currently exhibits. It lacks any purpose or usefulness. Thanks.

Just a note: Please don't confuse Google Chrome (the browser, capital-C) with browser UI (so called browser chrome, lowercase "c"). (In reply to sam from comment #11) > Could someone from Mozilla comment on why the design calls for so much > Chrome? Is there a purpose to it? See: (In reply to Stephen Horlander [:shorlander] from Bug 895563 comment #6) > The remaining space in the titlebar is for dragging the window. > > While reducing our chrome footprint is a goal, that has to be weighed > against visual balance. Reaching the minimum possible chrome height is a > non-goal. (In reply to sam from comment #11) > Extensions are not a valid solution because extensions often impact browser > performance. […] It lacks any purpose or usefulness. Apparently it allows for a cleaner look & feel. While some extensions can slow down the browser, most do not. Either way, themes are the way to go here, and they should not slow down the browser measurably (I'd only overwrite some specific Australis styles, or copy the Australis theme and change a few lines). If you don't want to install anything, you can fiddle with userChrome.css, that's a user style sheet loaded after the theme, you can just overwrite specific styles with that one.

(In reply to Florian Bender from comment #12) > Just a note: Please don't confuse Google Chrome (the browser, capital-C) > with browser UI (so called browser chrome, lowercase "c"). > > (In reply to sam from comment #11) > > Could someone from Mozilla comment on why the design calls for so much > > Chrome? Is there a purpose to it? > > See: > (In reply to Stephen Horlander [:shorlander] from Bug 895563 comment #6) > > The remaining space in the titlebar is for dragging the window. > > > > While reducing our chrome footprint is a goal, that has to be weighed > > against visual balance. Reaching the minimum possible chrome height is a > > non-goal. > > > (In reply to sam from comment #11) > > Extensions are not a valid solution because extensions often impact browser (In reply to Stephen Horlander [:shorlander] from Bug 895563 comment #6) > The remaining space in the titlebar is for dragging the window. > > While reducing our chrome footprint is a goal, that has to be weighed > against visual balance. Reaching the minimum possible chrome height is a > non-goal. This is easily fixed by leaving a fixed amount of horizontal space. Just enough for a mouse to grab onto at the ends of the bar. But why is Mozilla concerned about this? They are basically removing all customizability from Australis anyways, so why will users need to grab the URLbar at all? and I don't think users are asking for the "minimum possible chrome height." They are simply asking that a compromise be made between the small-icons height and the enormous default height. If Mozilla is going to remove small-icons, they should reduce the height to meet the middle distance. amount of chrome can have a major effect on user experience. It's probably the biggest reasons why I use Unity over GNOME-Shell. Unity has a lot less chrome presentation which makes for a much better experience. Firefox should look to do the same in its redesign. It is good design for user experience.