|
HalloKitty posted:Surely these actually take up LESS space than the previous context menu items.. It adds horizontally arranged elements to a menu designed for vertical elements. There was nothing wrong with how those menu items were before.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
It saves space and it's a smart solution for actions that people already have associated with iconography.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:It adds horizontally arranged elements to a menu designed for vertical elements. There was nothing wrong with how those menu items were before. I'm all for calling Mozilla out on change-for-change's-sake but in this case it really doesn't seem like they did any harm. At least in this case they did something original, rather than just stealing the idea from Chrome. That said, I'm on FF31 and I still have the old text-only menus.  Edit: Oh, it's an FF32 beta thing? Something to look forward to, I guess. xamphear fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:
The amount of crud in FF's context menus is absolutely ridiculous and I couldn't use this browser without this addon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:
Not against this, but do the B F R shortcuts still work? Also I'm on the latest but mine are still text based, is there a about :config option I need to toggle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
I've been using menu editor anyway, and the default interaction of that and the change is to have two blank lines on the dropdown menu with those icons next to them. So you could use menu editor to get rid of them, but not to turn them back into text.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
zachol posted:I've been using menu editor anyway, and the default interaction of that and the change is to have two blank lines on the dropdown menu with those icons next to them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I actually haven't tried but probably. Menu editor is a pile of voodoo that conflicts with Tab Mix Plus in weird ways and I'm using it for a very specific thing I don't want to touch further because it works right at the moment. On a fresh install I'd assume it would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
zachol posted:Menu editor is a pile of voodoo that conflicts with Tab Mix Plus in weird ways
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Oh hey nightly updated and rearranged the back/forward things and added the other two. Just used it now, Menu Editor can hide them and hasn't spoiled the voodoo, so that's great. Hopefully it'll survive a restart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:For my curiosity, as much as possibly for your own convenience, you could try if you can get rid of it with Menu Editor. I'm on an older version of Firefox, so I can't guarantee it will work with FF32 and/or these icons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
I use Menu Mod rather than Menu Editor. I haven't noticed any strange interaction with other add-ons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
Is there a way to move the "find in page" bar to the top? I'm moving back to Firefox after using Chrome for a while, and I find that it's more natural for my eyes to stay near the top of my screen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:It adds horizontally arranged elements to a menu designed for vertical elements. There was nothing wrong with how those menu items were before. People still use mice. The fat-thumb buttons dont need to be in the main desktop product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:People still use mice. The fat-thumb buttons dont need to be in the main desktop product. Touchscreen capable "desktops" are shipping with ever more frequency. In this case, where device capabilities can't be determined with ease, a comfortable touch target for common actions isn't too bad a thing to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Right clicks and context menus seem like weird considerations for a touchscreen device, especially for actions that have dedicated screen space already. The only times I'd want to use the context menu for back, I'd be using a mouse. With a touchscreen, it's a relatively long and involved process. I don't get why you'd redesign the context menu for that. Obviously different people have different workflows, I just think optimizing the context menu for touchscreens doesn't make sense, especially for back, forward, etc. It feels a little cargo cultish, like they're designing for touchscreens because that's how a modern browser should behave, even in cases where it's not actually needed or useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybrid inputs for hyyyyyyyyyybrid devices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
I guess to boil my point down, I don't see the point in, really, making a design concession to the touchscreen aspect of a device in regards to a context menu when the function you're talking about is more easily accessible directly onscreen with that sort of input. There's a back button right up there. Bringing up a context menu is really awkward on a touchscreen. I can't imagine a situation where long press and then a tap would ever be more convenient than a single tap on the dedicated back button. With a mouse, it makes sense in terms of having less movement, and it's also good for navigating with a keyboard. In both of these cases, changing the direction to horizontal icons adds nothing and is just confusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
pipes! posted:Touchscreen capable "desktops" are shipping with ever more frequency. In this case, where device capabilities can't be determined with ease, a comfortable touch target for common actions isn't too bad a thing to have. If this were an optional interface toggle that would be something at least. Theres no reason that giant desktop displays need to deal with design elements that are being lifted from phones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
While we're (I feel justifiably) bitching about interface changes again, I know there's a few Mozilla people that read this thread, has there any internal discussion about this: Source: http://netmarketshare.com/ Guess what changed at the end of April? I mean usage was dropping anyway, but it sure seems to have accelerated around version 29.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
One of the things that really irritates me about Chrome is the nonstandard context menu UI. My assumption, at least, was that the change was made for touchscreens/hybrid devices, but that should be a unified OS-level change, not something a program decides to "innovate" on off by itself. Programs that radically change what I think of as "system UI" really irritate me. It irritated me that Apple decided iTunes needed its own elements (granted like half the other music programs did that too, but those were also irritating), and it irritated me when Chrome, and then Firefox, decided to mess with the layout of the title bar. I've put a lot of effort into making Firefox look and function similarly to all the other programs on my computer, and I don't like it when the dev team decides it needs to "innovate" regarding those sorts of elements. A thing I really do like regarding Apple and iOS is how Apple provides very particular elements that (almost) all programs then use themselves. Programs behave similarly when deleting episodes/files/whatevers, playback controls look similar, popup elements look similar, all that kind of stuff. You can have unique UI elements if you want, sure, like a game can have its own unique menus, but if you're making a utility app, like a video player for a specific site, you can tap into the UI elements that Apple provides and have your video player look and behave like all the other video players. This is really great. I love that Apple does this, and I love that app developers go along with it, and I really hate that Google and Mozilla in all their "we need to adapt to modern UI development thought" aren't taking this cue and are getting rid of system UI elements, like a context menu that behaves the same way as with all the other programs. Anyway, that was my rant, thanks. Also I will admit that it is Microsoft's job to get on the ball a little more with this and they haven't, and that I could understand why Google/Mozilla feel the need to get ahead of them if the OS developer isn't keeping pace. It just still pisses me off. Windows 8 could and should have had a touchscreen friendly context menu design that applied to all programs and that Chrome and Firefox would use, but the lack of that at this stage doesn't feel like a good enough excuse to break away from the system UI (yet). e: Also yes I'm aware that with both iOS and Windows a lot of the identical UI stuff is also a matter of convenience/laziness. When I updated to iOS 7, my apps all started looking different, and the same program in Win 7 and 8 will look different for the same reasons, and it's not necessarily like the devs decided "I'm going to use the default UI elements for the sake of helping to provide a unified experience," they just did it because it was easier. But really that just emphasizes my point, because both Google and Mozilla have made a particular effort to break with that system UI, and it being so deliberate is what really cements my irritation. zachol fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
zachol posted:... the lack of that at this stage doesn't feel like a good enough excuse to break away from the system UI (yet). What system UI are you talking about? IE hasn't show the menu bar by default for a very long time now, Windows Explorer hasn't had one since XP, Office ditched it back when 2007 came out, even Paint and WordPad are now using ribbons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Really low-level stuff like window borders, the minimize/clise buttons, the scroll bar, and the context menu. Like even if new Microsoft programs have gotten rid of the menu bar, they still use system borders, aero in 7, that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
zachol posted:Really low-level stuff like window borders, the minimize/clise buttons, the scroll bar, and the context menu. Chrome uses the system borders, minimise/close buttons and and Aero too. Chrome's scroll bar is different to the standard Windows one, but it's actually closer than IEs current implementation. MS apps on the other hand are actually less consistent - Office and Visual Studio don't use any standard controls, not even the system minimise/close buttons
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
So I'm having a really weird problem now, and the only things that have changed on my end in the last 2 days or so were TabMixPlus dev build updated and Classic Theme Restorer updated, I've tried going back a version to see if that solved it but it doesn't, another thing is that this could have always been and I just noticed it today but I doubt it. Anyway the problem is that with a bit of browser use these forums become choppy scrolling upwards, middle mouse click to bring that scroll dot (whatever that is) and having it scroll up causes pretty bad choppiness to happen, slower scrolling is much more noticeable, it's really weird as scrolling down is smooth as butter it's only when going up, and only on these forums, it gets really really bad requiring me to restart the browser which does fix it until a bit of browser use again, any ideas? It sounds like a memory leak but doing a FF garbage collect does nothing and my ram usage isn't high (450k~) and it's only on these forums and it's only when going up, so drat strange. I'm wondering if others notice this too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
I had a similar problem recently when I updated my Logitech mouse drivers. Going back a Setpoint release solved the issue for me, but that's not much of a solution if you aren't using their software.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Knormal posted:While we're (I feel justifiably) bitching about interface changes again, I know there's a few Mozilla people that read this thread, has there any internal discussion about this: What country is this meant to be for? I understood that Chrome is the #1 browser for the last 6 months at least, and more than twice as popular as Firefox right now. Your graph is way different to reality I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
IE and Chrome should probably be swapped in that graph. Here are a few alternatives, probably more realistic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Note that it's now pretty complex to correctly identify a browser from a user agent string based on a simple regex, so browser stats provided by sites doing their own analytics are more likely to be wrong than right. For example, 17% of Wikimedia's hits are unidentified, but that doesn't tell you how many others that it thinks it knows are miscategorized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I'm no longer at Mozilla, but there is constant internal discussion about market share, as reported from a number of sources (all of which disagree). Always has been. Edit: Alereon posted:Note that it's now pretty complex to correctly identify a browser from a user agent string based on a simple regex, so browser stats provided by sites doing their own analytics are more likely to be wrong than right. For example, 17% of Wikimedia's hits are unidentified, but that doesn't tell you how many others that it thinks it knows are miscategorized. Yeah, and the people who have the best data (Google, Facebook, etc.) don't tend to want to publish their data for various reasons. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Ars Technica does their web analytics thing every once in a while, but I am not sure where they get their data. The web browser graph looks a lot like the one above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
beejay posted:Ars Technica does their web analytics thing every once in a while, but I am not sure where they get their data. The web browser graph looks a lot like the one above. They may have more corporate traffic where IE is the standard especially compared to Wikipedia and Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
beejay posted:Ars Technica does their web analytics thing every once in a while, but I am not sure where they get their data. The web browser graph looks a lot like the one above. Honestly I find it really hard to believe that Chrome is really ahead of IE, considering the amount of non-technical people I encounter who have no idea what a web browser is, and only that the E on their desktop makes the Internet happen. Some of them are undoubtedly ending up with Chrome without realizing it because of Google's genius "Try a faster browsing experience" or whatever it says button that shows up when you go to google.com with IE, but I can't see that happening on the majority of Windows systems like would have to happen to dethrone IE. There's just so many Windows systems out there, especially in the business world, I can't believe almost half of them have Chrome installed. But then again I guess if those machines are never really used to browse the Internet they shouldn't count towards marketshare, even if they're part of the install base. Also seriously, Africa?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Knormal posted:Honestly I find it really hard to believe that Chrome is really ahead of IE, considering the amount of non-technical people I encounter who have no idea what a web browser is, and only that the E on their desktop makes the Internet happen. Some of them are undoubtedly ending up with Chrome without realizing it because of Google's genius "Try a faster browsing experience" or whatever it says button that shows up when you go to google.com with IE, but I can't see that happening on the majority of Windows systems like would have to happen to dethrone IE. There's just so many Windows systems out there, especially in the business world, I can't believe almost half of them have Chrome installed. But then again I guess if those machines are never really used to browse the Internet they shouldn't count towards marketshare, even if they're part of the install base. Adobe+Google also bundle Chrome with Flash now, which is a serious vector. Africa is mostly mobile on feature phones, and Opera has a lot of historical installed base there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Seems like Google is paying a lot of developers to cram a Chrome bundle in their installer these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
So, remember how there was talk about adding ads to the new tab page? Apparently there are some new mockups: http://ytjbre.axshare.com/enhanced_view_-_concept_1.html 
Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Adobe+Google also bundle Chrome with Flash now, which is a serious vector. Does Microsoft bundle Flash if you upgrade IE on Windows 7? They bundle Flash with Windows 8 and up since it's the only plugin they allow in Modern UI, but it's also for IE on Desktop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:So, remember how there was talk about adding ads to the new tab page? Apparently there are some new mockups: http://ytjbre.axshare.com/enhanced_view_-_concept_1.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats going to be default gently caress-you behavior? Probably? Looks like you can turn it off, but I'm wondering what, if anything, AdBlock will do about it. Although  at calling the ad-infested version "Enhanced".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Theres just too many decisions that are ... sub-optimal. Something has to be going on behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 02:57
|
|