Sorry for that many posts, but I just got another idea regarding the icons.
The third row of icons and the last two icons in the fourth row show something what is called 'teardrop design' which plays nicely with the water theme of Jolla/Sailfish. I think that it would not make much sense to just make this theme and not expand it beyond the menu icons.

My guess is we might see this theme in hardware design of the Jolla phone - probably not as radically as in the aforementioned Nokia phones, as it would steal screen space, but at least symbolically.

What do you guys think?

I think it's a good thing to have different shapes, cause not every shape fits for every icon. For cutefox I would maybe choose this shape.

OK we have a real cross platform browser alternative to flash now.

From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...announce_orbx/
--
Mozilla and Los Angeles, California–based graphics software company Otoy have jointly announced ORBX.js, a new JavaScript library which the companies say can deliver full 1080p, 60fps digital video in a browser window using only web standards–based technologies.

"It is a remarkable achievement to see a high performance video codec rivaling H.264 that runs entirely in the browser," Mozilla director of engineering Vlad Vukicevic said in a canned statement.

The library is said to work on any modern browser, including those running on mobile devices – provided, that is, they offer "fast JavaScript" and support WebGL. Those criteria are likely to exclude many built-in smartphone browsers, but recent builds of such downloadable mobile browsers as Google Chrome, Firefox, and Opera should fill the bill."
--


So IMO if Sailfish phones use this and the web starts getting on board with this then I can ditch my flash requirement. Also if you read the article it can be used for virtualization too.

Video http://allthingsd.com/20120530/otoy-...-to-the-cloud/ <---- oops that's a year old

Native versus Otoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88bK4O0aPnU

Techcrunch phone and tablet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3NKhfjKU0

Recent with Nvidia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRdSxZtUpFk

120fps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWi9aywkPI

Website http://render.otoy.com/

Download demo for Winblows Linux or Mac http://render.otoy.com/downloads.php

If you grab your N9, get on wifi, use firefox and go to http://render.otoy.com/gallery.php and pick any of the non video items the pictures look really good.
The video however, though high resolution is very slow to load and plays choppy. I'm guessing because they don't have enough rendering power yet, they are probably getting overwhelmed and maybe the choppy playing has something to do with the N9 as it plays beautifully on my 64 bit linux desktop in firefox.

So testing with

N9 = works only with firefox browser. Opera, qmlbrowser, stock browser, UC browser does not work.
Video plays choppy but high resolution, pictures look very good.

My desktop - running plasma DE on mex from http://linux.exton.net/ on a 64bit 6 core amd 3.2ghz and nvidia gtx460 with latest 319 drivers in firefox results = looks very good.
Video still loads slowly I think they are underpowered right now.

Dell d630 running kubuntu 13.04 and windows 7 using firefox videos and pictures looked very good but download is super slow. They need more of them 33,000 dollar nvidia towers.

I'm going to ask some HTC one owners over at the XDA forums to try it out and see how it plays on that device.

Or rearranged like that




or like that

Mozillas innovation seems promising .
Another one on board

I don't think there should be any enforced style for icons.

Flash is way more than just video.

Flash is on its way to the grave so forget about it. For video we have video tag. JavaScript decoding is needed only as a fallback for crippled browsers. I'd like to see a decent VP8 decoder in JavaScript, but for mobile it's too bad though. Performance will be too inferior, since hardware decoding will always be faster.

why don't you just change your UA to IOS? then go to BofA? that's what I do, way faster than firefox. i just use that for most sites nowadays, since pretty much everything is optimized for it. it does kick you to the mobile site a lot though too. and if you click on a youtube link, it works in our video player. it's just other flash items don't work.

but i agree, we totally need flash. and a faster browser

Be that as it may (re: Flash on the way to the grave), enjoy that video tag when DRM steps deeply into HTML5. It'll happen whether you like it or not for the most part. VP8 does actually have a chance to avoid this though - the recent patents (submarine or not) wins have pushed MPEG-LA to the side for now.

And my statement still stands despite what you've stated. Flash is much more than just video. Most Linux lovers/users refuse to see beyond that; can't blame them though.

Either way, HTML5's canvas is not an answer or replacement. jQuery and JavaScript has become what HTML5 cannot deliver. And this ORBX.js announcement further seals that as a fact.

Actually, we don't need Flash. We need something that works well. HTML5 and JS ain't there fully yet. Not bit for bit.

But it's actually getting there. Just not fast enough for me.