Pale Moon forum

Firefox 24 ESR has started breaking in Google-owned websites so I'm forced to look for alternatives.

Pale Moon seems to be a worthy non-Australis, non-Google alternative, except for one aesthetic issue that's enough to be a deal breaker for me.



See those buttons right there? They're straining my eyes. They look like they suffer from bad JPEG artifacts. I want to disable the color glow/gradient (whatever it is). In Firefox they are clean and grayscale.

I managed to disable the goofy-looking glow effect on the URL bar with browser.padlock.urlbar_background but I can't find any similar setting for the buttons.

That's especially the reload button which looks low quality. Now you said it, this annoys me too.

A method which will always work is to dig in Pale Moon's folder and to replace the buttons (including the versions for clicked & for hovered) by your versions. But that's probably not the easiest.

Simple solution, find a nice, flat, monochrome, drab, colorless and effectless complete theme

Artifacts on reload button aren't intended/necessary, are they ?

Supernova wrote:Artifacts on reload button aren't intended/necessary, are they ?

There shouldn't be any artifacts on any of the toolbar icons. They are clean, transparent PNG files on an otherwise CSS-styled button.

What OP is describing is most likely the white/grey shadow on the button graphics, which was introduced to make the buttons stand out better in transparent Aero Glass windows. See the difference between [url]chrome://browser/skin/Toolbar-glass.png[/url] and [url]chrome://browser/skin/Toolbar.png[/url], where the former has a strong shadow which is necessary on a transparent background.

The glass toolbar buttons are only used on aero, though.

Compare (upsized 4x to check for artifacts):

Aero/glass (glow required for necessary contrast on transparent glass) Aero+Lightweight theme (classic) On XP (classic) Neither the classic aero+lwt, nor the classic XP have any glow or artifacts.
The glass one specifically has glow but no artifacts, either.

bob69 wrote:...except for one aesthetic issue that's enough to be a deal breaker for me.

Since it's just the one aesthetic issue, why not use small icons instead of the default large one? They're built in and they're spiffy.