Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon

Quick question: Is there someone here that would hate my extension not being 100% faithful to how Greasemonkey should look and act like (Think of the current upstream version of Greasemonkey on Firefox), or do you guys just care about the extension being compatible and effective, no matter how different it'll look like in comparison to the old fork of Greasemonkey (I call Janek's fork old now, since I maintain a modern fork of Greasemonkey)?

Hmm... well, where possible, would you mind trying to stick to words over icons, and windows with proper buttons that aren't too flat?

Like, I'm sure people will be happy to just have an updated extension, but people would be even happier if they get something that feels more like an XUL extension, rather than just an XUL port of a UI that seems like it would be more at home on a Chromium-based browser, since in some cases the UI is a part of what they are wanting to get away from.

I think most people would prefer to just try not to demand too much of you because they feel like getting a working extension is such a big win and they'd likely be willing to tolerate a Chrome-like UX if it's too much trouble to do something more traditional, so it falls more into the category of... just do your best knowing your audience and accommodating where you can, knowing people will understand where you can't.

I would generally think people care less about having the UI look exactly like another extension, and really just don't like the "mobile app feel" that WebExtensions usually have. From what I've seen of your extension, it is doing a good job so far and seems not to have gone in the "Chrome UX" direction. But for the most part you can likely do as you wish with the UI.