|
Sefal posted:I use firefox because I can have my tabs under the adress bar. Strong preference can override it but there are several reasons why it's a better default. One of them is that it's faster to click things with a mouse when they're up against the edge of your monitor, and people tend to click their tabs a lot more than their address bar.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Sefal posted:I use firefox because I can have my tabs under the adress bar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
This just in, forums poster calls theory with dozens of confirmatory studies bad, scientific community reels, declares, "Maybe we should just shut it all down." (For reals though, of all the things to be worried about in a browser, the position of the tab bar seems like one of the least-interesting, unless you're one of those tree-style tabs people.) Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Also for novice users it makes sense to show the address bar below the tab so they understand that the address is for this tab, not the tabs all being for the same address. With some desktop video recording software you can confirm the edge of the screen thing for yourself, at least if you're honest with it and don't deliberately change your habits to bias the data. E: you don't even need to change your browser layout. Just record yourself for a bit doing regular computer actions and then watch it and see how much you undershoot or overshoot buttons. Desuwa fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Sefal posted:I use firefox because I can have my tabs under the adress bar. I've got some bad news for you. And everyone else that likes a sane UI for Firefox. https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/issues/299/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The Gunslinger posted:I only use Firefox for the flexibility in extensions and most of them won't work in a year, very frustrating situation. Oh well, I will check out Vivaldi. I've been using Pale Moon for a few months now, and it's actually really nice. It's basically pre-crapification Firefox. Many (though certainly not all) Firefox extensions work with it -- uBlock Origin works fine, for example -- and some others have Palemoon-specific equivalents, like Encrypted Web in place of HTTPS Everywhere, and Guerilla Scripting in place of Greasemonkey. In terms of general web browsing, the only thing I haven't gotten to work is one type of Twitter video. Also embedded GIFVs in the forums don't play automatically like a regular GIF, you have to rightclick->Play, but I actually kind of like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I've got some bad news for you. And everyone else that likes a sane UI for Firefox. Why the gently caress is Mozilla so concerned with how people modify the UI? I didn't mind some of the changes over time, but the "awesome" bar poo poo they pulled was terrible and CTR was the easiest way to bring back some of the original functionality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I've got some bad news for you. And everyone else that likes a sane UI for Firefox. Likely it will get pushed back further than version 57.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
I didn't expect CTR to make it through unscathed but for it to be gone outright is damning. I don't like the idea of going to a niche browser because of concerns like security and compatibility but I will have to strongly consider what is more important to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
All I really need out of CTR is to shrink down the size of the tab/search/etc bars really, so I assume someone's going to be able to still make that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
astral posted:Likely it will get pushed back further than version 57.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
astral posted:Likely it will get pushed back further than version 57. I rather doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I've got some bad news for you. And everyone else that likes a sane UI for Firefox. lol that classic ui zealots can only support their perverse preferences by casting all other paradigms as insane Powered Descent posted:I've been using Pale Moon for a few months now, and it's actually really nice. It's basically pre-crapification Firefox. Many (though certainly not all) Firefox extensions work with it -- uBlock Origin works fine, for example -- and some others have Palemoon-specific equivalents, like Encrypted Web in place of HTTPS Everywhere, and Guerilla Scripting in place of Greasemonkey. In terms of general web browsing, the only thing I haven't gotten to work is one type of Twitter video. Also embedded GIFVs in the forums don't play automatically like a regular GIF, you have to rightclick->Play, but I actually kind of like that. palemoon has regularly lagged behind in critical security fixes and besides gently caress trusting random third party builds
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Is this WebExtensions thing the thing that will get rid of jank in Firefox?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Is this WebExtensions thing the thing that will get rid of jank in Firefox? In the sense that it will get rid of Firefox, jank and all, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Icept posted:Why the gently caress is Mozilla so concerned with how people modify the UI? They're not specifically trying to block people from modifying the UI, but they're ditching the old extension system for webextensions, which is the same system / API that chrome built and now edge uses as well. Webextensions are more sandboxed and can't do the same stuff XUL can because they don't have the same access to the guts of the program. Some of the stuff that's going away is stuff that made CTR and other UI extensions possible (or at least way easier to write). Why are they doing this? * Malicious firefox extensions can do nastier things than webextensions can. Personally I don't think this is a great justification, webextensions can still be nearly arbitrarily bad if they get through. * By using chrome's API they can piggyback on code that google's paying for. * Firefox is losing market share, so maybe they're looking to avoid the day when extensions are only actively developed for chrome. Other than the extensions API changeover, UI mods have always felt "under threat" just because it's the fastest moving target for most extension writers. Mozilla doesn't do it on purpose but every time they do UI makeovers it requires lots of update work for the extensions. (I do think they have a real problem with doing FOTM poo poo to the UI, like how they integrated Tab Groups because Exposé was hot, then ripped it out again when nobody cared. This is a known problem with open source software.) Desuwa posted:In the sense that it will get rid of Firefox, jank and all, yes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
I really have to wonder if there are any actual Firefox users left who aren't "power users" for whom the lack of CTR and other extensions are deal breakers. It would certainly be ideal if there was enough development effort behind something like Pale Moon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:I really have to wonder if there are any actual Firefox users left who aren't "power users" for whom the lack of CTR and other extensions are deal breakers. If Wikipedia is to be believed Firefox is the majority browser by usage in Germany, Cuba, the Central African Republic, and Eritrea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:I really have to wonder if there are any actual Firefox users left who aren't "power users" for whom the lack of CTR and other extensions are deal breakers. None of the Firefox users I know give a poo poo about CTR. They either prefer certain parts of the UI over chrome, or they have some particular extension (besides CTR) they can't do without. For me, I hate close tab buttons. I close tabs with middle click. It's easier, leaves a smidge more space for text, and saves me from occasional accidental tab closings. I also use tab utilities to mage it so middle clicking the new tab button re-opens the last closed tab. There's a key chord for this, but I like to mouse browse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
I don't give a poo poo about CTR and Pale Moon is a pile of wasted effort 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:None of the Firefox users I know give a poo poo about CTR. They either prefer certain parts of the UI over chrome, or they have some particular extension (besides CTR) they can't do without. Tree style tabs is my must have Firefox extension but tbh I have no idea if there's a comparable vertical tab hierarchy thing for chrome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Note that he said CTR or other extensions. No need to shout about how you don't need CTR from the rooftops. It was something like 40 or 60 percent of Firefox users that don't use add-ons at all, though I don't understand why they're not using Chrome at this point. That makes it 60 to 40 percent that do, and of them I can only imagine a majority are using just a standard adblocker. That's a majority of users, no matter how you slice it, who are probably only using Firefox because of inertia or for some of the minor customization that vanilla FF offers. Still, once only the now-standard suite of add-ons are allowed for Firefox there won't be any compelling reason to use Firefox. Preformance may be hurting Firefox but even if it performs better than Chrome it won't bring users back. Especially since no one can buy advertising as good as Google gives to Chrome on Search.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
The WebExtensions team has repeatedly expressed their commitment to add a whole lot more add-on hooks than Chrome has, and in my limited experience, they've been very responsive to discussing new APIs (I really need to file some bugs to get traction on the APIs I care about though). For instance, one of the leads on the WebExtensions team has expressed strong support for adding the appropriate APIs to let an add-on dev create something like Tree Style Tabs. I'm sure a lot of add-ons will be left by the wayside, especially if devs don't feel like updating them, but given the perf improvements I've seen from them being free to break compatibility in major ways, I think it's worth it. I feel pretty confident in saying that, at minimum, the Firefox from one year in the future will be substantially faster than the Chrome of today. (I'm mainly hedging my bets here because I don't know what the Chrome team is working on.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:If Firefox turns into just like Chrome, then I'm just going to use Chrome. This is so stupid, if these two browsers end up being the same, why the gently caress would you willingly use the one controlled by Google. Im_Special fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
You have to keep in mind that even with those API's added in, they're basically requiring a full rewrite of the add-ons. Right after doing the same for multiprocess support. A lot of add-on authors already didn't feel like going through the hassle to add multiprocess support to theirs because of the hassle. Some basically added a killswitch to keep the latest version from declaring itself compatible with modern Firefox (Element Properties did this by changing the compatibility tag to go up to Firefox 49 instead of just 35+ or whatever it was). And those that did actually go through the hassle of rewriting their add-on to support multiprocess now have to go through an even more extensive rewrite to work with WebEx, just a few months later. It's completely understandable that they don't want to go through that again, especially if it becomes harder or impossible to do the things the old version of the add-on could do. And who's to say Mozilla doesn't decide to make yet another radical change all of a sudden and make them go through it again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The WebExtensions team has repeatedly expressed their commitment to add a whole lot more add-on hooks than Chrome has, and in my limited experience, they've been very responsive to discussing new APIs (I really need to file some bugs to get traction on the APIs I care about though). For instance, one of the leads on the WebExtensions team has expressed strong support for adding the appropriate APIs to let an add-on dev create something like Tree Style Tabs. This is being absurdly optimistic about how much Mozilla gets done and shifting the blame onto add-on devs unfairly. See the decade old bug about the master password prompt, or the back and forth about u2f, where everyone can agree that it should be done. When a new, especially niche, add-on developer wants something they're going to have to commit to a multi-year argument over what's truly necessary and what the best way to do it is (perfect, enemy of the good, give people a chance to bikeshed and they will for years). That or Mozilla will have to get really accepting of pull requests and add-on developers will have to have even more passion than they do now. This ignoring the things they won't do or allow, like the thousand APIs necessary for a CTR equivalent that would allow users to undo Mozilla's hard work on new features that some people don't like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:When a new, especially niche, add-on developer wants something they're going to have to commit to a multi-year argument over what's truly necessary and what the best way to do it is (perfect, enemy of the good, give people a chance to bikeshed and they will for years). That or Mozilla will have to get really accepting of pull requests and add-on developers will have to have even more passion than they do now. As an add-on developer, you're allowed to write experimental APIs on your own that run in Nightly or Developer edition that do basically anything (read: you have full access to XPCOM and XUL) which your WebExtension can then use. Once you have your experimental API, you can start the process of uplifting it to mozilla-central. Heck, if you were feeling frisky you could probably just throw your entire old-school add-on into a WebExtension experiment and gradually rip bits out until you have a clean API, and then uplift that to mozilla-central. (You can also turn pieces of your add-on today into WebExtensions that run inside if your main add-on to migrate more easily.) Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Yeah, mozilla is actually working pretty hard at extending the webextensions api beyond what it is right now. I'm hopeful for now, maybe they won't disable xul/xpcom for everyone until after most of the functionality power users use is ported over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:This is so stupid, if these two browsers end up being the same, why the gently caress would you willingly use the one controlled by Google. You know this isn't how the world actually works, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:As an add-on developer, you're allowed to write experimental APIs on your own that run in Nightly or Developer edition that do basically anything (read: you have full access to XPCOM and XUL) which your WebExtension can then use. Once you have your experimental API, you can start the process of uplifting it to mozilla-central. And now they've got a pull request languishing for years as people argue instead of a feature request. The difference now is that people can bikeshed over specific implementation details in parallel instead of in series with the request for the new API, and you've invested a good chunk of work that Mozilla can just reject This will be an ongoing process for add-ons that's going to turn every new feature or expanded bit of functionality into pulling teeth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
xamphear posted:You know this isn't how the world actually works, right? Enlighten me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:This is being absurdly optimistic about how much Mozilla gets done and shifting the blame onto add-on devs unfairly. See the decade old bug about the master password prompt, or the back and forth about u2f, where everyone can agree that it should be done. This is what people are saying though. Like, yeah, a lot of extensions might be abandoned, but extensions authors already frequently abandon their work for reasons far more petty than that (see the SnapLinksPlus guy freaking out and quitting because he doesn't like getting feature requests). Even if Firefox essentially ends up being feature-parity with Chrome, Firefox has the advantage of verifiably not vacuuming up all your data and sending it to Google. If the tradeoff is "some extensions I like" vs "better security and performance", I'm going to go with the latter. And if some of my favorite extensions break I'll politely ask the authors what their plans are and figure out something else to do if they don't feel like rewriting them. Going "Ugh, the only true, non-insane ui is gone forever now gently caress the mozilla nazis" is silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
quote:Like, yeah, a lot of extensions might be abandoned, but extensions authors already frequently abandon their work for reasons far more petty than that (see the SnapLinksPlus guy freaking out and quitting because he doesn't like getting feature requests). Most of the major addons people are concerned about have had dedicated developers for a long time, and there is no evidence they would have gone anywhere without the decisions Mozilla has made. Moreover, this is more than just losing the developers of these addons - we're also losing the functionality in general across all future addons, since Mozilla refuses to implement critical features that would be necessary for that functionality. You can see this attitude in Bugzilla conversations between Firefox devs and addon devs. quote:Even if Firefox essentially ends up being feature-parity with Chrome It's optimistic to the point of silliness to believe that Mozilla will make feature parity with the much more well funded competition that they have trailed behind in speed and security forever. The only reason Firefox remains relevant is because of disagreements with Chrome over design philosophy, differences which Mozilla are actively eroding. quote:Firefox has the advantage of verifiably not vacuuming up all your data and sending it to Google. You can use Chromium if you're really concerned about this, though there isn't actually any good reason to be. quote:Going "Ugh, the only true, non-insane ui is gone forever now gently caress the mozilla nazis" is silly. quote:lol that classic ui zealots can only support their perverse preferences by casting all other paradigms as insane When you need to pepper all your posts with ridiculous strawmen, you don't come across as actually having a good argument. For what it's worth, while I'm very concerned about the changes Mozilla is making - they've managed to maintain a good browser for this long so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until we actually see what a webextensions only world looks like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Read posted:It's optimistic to the point of silliness to believe that Mozilla will make feature parity with the much more well funded competition that they have trailed behind in speed and security forever. The only reason Firefox remains relevant is because of disagreements with Chrome over design philosophy, differences which Mozilla are actively eroding. It's not hard to hit feature parity with Chrome WebExtensions since they're actually very limited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:It's not hard to hit feature parity with Chrome WebExtensions since they're actually very limited. I think we interpreted "Even if Firefox essentially ends up being feature-parity with Chrome" differently? I assume this means the browsers themselves, not just their addon APIs. Admittedly, Firefox does have a niche thing here or there that Chrome doesn't - userChrome.css is a notable one, so it won't be strictly inferior if the Firefox specific Webextensions additions are underwhelming. But if specific addons are all that's keeping you on Firefox, I think it will be hard to make an argument that you shouldn't switch to a Chromium browser when those addons go away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
You seem especially concerned about the loss of functionality for add-ons; however, it's no great leap to create WebExtension APIs that go well beyond what Chrome supports, since Chrome actually supports fairly little. Of course, this means rewriting a lot of stuff, and some add-ons won't be possible anymore, but looking at what Chrome supports for WebExtensions is probably not a great predictor of the limits of what Firefox will support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Read posted:Most of the major addons people are concerned about have had dedicated developers for a long time, and there is no evidence they would have gone anywhere without the decisions Mozilla has made. Moreover, this is more than just losing the developers of these addons - we're also losing the functionality in general across all future addons, since Mozilla refuses to implement critical features that would be necessary for that functionality. You can see this attitude in Bugzilla conversations between Firefox devs and addon devs. It's not a strawman. The post I quoted literally said that you need classic theme restorer to have a sane ui. It is literally a poster itt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You seem especially concerned about the loss of functionality for add-ons; however, it's no great leap to create WebExtension APIs that go well beyond what Chrome supports, since Chrome actually supports fairly little. The loss of functionality I'm concerned about is functionality that Firefox developers have denied requests for, so I don't really think there is any hope for it in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:It's not a strawman. The post I quoted literally said that you need classic theme restorer to have a sane ui. It is literally a poster itt. You're getting the posts and posters confused, my post that you quoted doesn't say that and I haven't either. The post that did was someone being tongue-in-cheek about tabs below the address bar. I mentioned that CTR would require an obscene amount of work by Mozilla to allow add-ons to undo their work and I have no reason to believe Mozilla will make the effort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Im_Special posted:Enlighten me. xamphear fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 02:00
|
|