MozillaZine


Firefox 6.0 Beta

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
TheGameHHH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 8:50 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 6:09 am

Terepin wrote:
TheGameHHH wrote:Stylish is working just fine.


No, it is not. What version of Stylish are you using? I am in version 1.2. As soon as I updated to the new beta, Firefox disabled it because it is not compatible. In the Add-ons Manager I can't enable it. It says "Stylish is incompatible with Firefox 6". This is like I said, using Firefox 6 beta 1.

Also, created a new clean profile yet the aero border bug is still there when you open the Add-ons Manager and the Find Bar. The aero border shadow/glaze jumps up. Since I use the browser in window mode (not maximized) it is distracting. In Firefox 5 and 4 the very same thing happened, but not only by opening the Add-ons Manager, it also occurred when hovering links. So I guess it was partially fixed. Would be nice for anyone to check just in case.

Terepin

User avatar
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 2:35 am
Location: Košice, Slovakia

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 6:14 am

TheGameHHH wrote:
Terepin wrote:
TheGameHHH wrote:Stylish is working just fine.


No, it is not. What version of Stylish are you using? I am in version 1.2. As soon as I updated to the new beta, Firefox disabled it because it is not compatible. In the Add-ons Manager I can't enable it. It says "Stylish is incompatible with Firefox 6". This is like I said, using Firefox 6 beta 1.

That doesn't mean it isn't compatible. Just disable compatibility check and it will be working again.
Hope dies penultimate. What remains till the end is sarcasm. And I have plenty of it.

rkl
 
Posts: 70
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 9:08 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 6:38 am

I knew it was coming, but being on the beta channel I was fairly relaxed about it, but now I've seen this "URL formatting" for real, I'm just stunned at what a poor move it is. Yes, let's make the full URL harder to read by greying most of it out (including the protocol, making it slightly trickier to spot http:// vs. https://) and then leaving only the domain in normal black text (and not the sub-domain part? WTF? "forums" from "forums.mozillazine.org" is greyed out for example, but "mozillazine.org" is in black - looks ridiculous).

It does beg some obvious questions:

1. It's not been "formatted" ever before - even going back to Mosaic and Netscape, so why start now when it really wasn't a "broken" feature? Do we really need the domain part being the only normally visible part of the URL - what user benefit is that?

2. If you're going "format" the URL, then why wasn't bold or a different colour (e.g. dark blue) used instead for the domain name? Normal black vs. grey was a poor choice really.

3. There is no easy way (i.e. a UI tickbox for it) to revert to the old (and "correct") way of formatting a URL - this is a major no-no when such an intrusive change has been introduced. Yes, I've used about:config to fix the issue, but how many users are going to know about that?

I think this was a terribly thought out UI change - the worse one since they foolishly dropped the status bar without providing a means to enable it again (yes, again, an extension fixes it, but not many people will know that either).

GTK66
 
Posts: 1896
Joined: May 30th, 2004, 5:20 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 6:47 am

rkl wrote:I knew it was coming, but being on the beta channel I was fairly relaxed about it, but now I've seen this "URL formatting" for real, I'm just stunned at what a poor move it is. Yes, let's make the full URL harder to read by greying most of it out (including the protocol, making it slightly trickier to spot http:// vs. https://) and then leaving only the domain in normal black text (and not the sub-domain part? WTF? "forums" from "forums.mozillazine.org" is greyed out for example, but "mozillazine.org" is in black - looks ridiculous).

It does beg some obvious questions:

1. It's not been "formatted" ever before - even going back to Mosaic and Netscape, so why start now when it really wasn't a "broken" feature? Do we really need the domain part being the only normally visible part of the URL - what user benefit is that?

2. If you're going "format" the URL, then why wasn't bold or a different colour (e.g. dark blue) used instead for the domain name? Normal black vs. grey was a poor choice really.

3. There is no easy way (i.e. a UI tickbox for it) to revert to the old (and "correct") way of formatting a URL - this is a major no-no when such an intrusive change has been introduced. Yes, I've used about:config to fix the issue, but how many users are going to know about that?

I think this was a terribly thought out UI change - the worse one since they foolishly dropped the status bar without providing a means to enable it again (yes, again, an extension fixes it, but not many people will know that either).


It was a very stupid move IMHO, If they wanted to remove something why not garbage like this f=23&t=2230025&p=11003291#p11003291 which is in this sites URL.

Greenix
 
Posts: 10
Joined: January 11th, 2011, 4:17 pm

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 7:04 am

rkl wrote:(and not the sub-domain part? WTF? "forums" from "forums.mozillazine.org" is greyed out for example, but "mozillazine.org" is in black - looks ridiculous).


http://www.paypal.com.evil.org/
http://www.paypal.com.evil.org/

Which option do you think is better to identify phishing sites?

ShawnRC

User avatar
 
Posts: 90
Joined: September 5th, 2010, 9:49 pm
Location: Lake Worth, FL

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 8:08 am

Anyone know what happened with Firefox Share (last time I checked the page for it hadn't been updated in a while)? IIRC, it was supposed to be in 6 but I'm assuming it got punted to a later release.

Terepin

User avatar
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 2:35 am
Location: Košice, Slovakia

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 8:37 am

Firefox Share... ?
Hope dies penultimate. What remains till the end is sarcasm. And I have plenty of it.

rob64rock

User avatar
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: November 11th, 2009, 6:16 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 9:07 am

Terepin wrote:Firefox Share... ?

Firefox Share

Share Server staging service is being blocked as we rehash architecture and security questions.

WattsvilleBlues

User avatar
 
Posts: 380
Joined: November 14th, 2004, 7:59 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 9:17 am

TheGameHHH wrote:By the way, the new identity box design is nice.

Heh, I actually used a userChrome edit to give me the Fx 6 ID button in Fx 5. How cool am I :mrgreen:
I think they're more interested in my epididymis

rob64rock

User avatar
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: November 11th, 2009, 6:16 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 9:28 am

WattsvilleBlues wrote:
TheGameHHH wrote:By the way, the new identity box design is nice.

Heh, I actually used a userChrome edit to give me the Fx 6 ID button in Fx 5. How cool am I :mrgreen:

I use this userChrome.css style:
Firefox 6 Urlbar Identity-box Label Styled

TheGameHHH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 8:50 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 10:37 am

WattsvilleBlues wrote:Heh, I actually used a userChrome edit to give me the Fx 6 ID button in Fx 5. How cool am I :mrgreen:


Before updating to Firefox 6 I was also doing the same. No reason to do so anymore. :D

Terepin wrote:That doesn't mean it isn't compatible. Just disable compatibility check and it will be working again.


Did that and all addons are working again. Still Firefox is telling me that they are "incompatible". Wonder why is that? They work fine.

rob64rock

User avatar
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: November 11th, 2009, 6:16 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 10:43 am

TheGameHHH wrote:Did that and all addons are working again. Still Firefox is telling me that they are "incompatible". Wonder why is that? They work fine.
If AMO site or Add-on developers hasn't bumped the Add-ons max Firefox version compatibility, then it will always say incompatible in Firefox AOM even if you override the Add-ons compatibility checking to allow you to enable it for use.

TheGameHHH
 
Posts: 37
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 8:50 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 10:45 am

rob64rock wrote:If AMO site or Add-on developers hasn't bumped the Add-ons max Firefox version compatibility, then it will always say incompatible in Firefox AOM even if you override the Add-ons compatibility checking to allow you to enable it for use.


Oh so that's why. What are the "risks" of disabling compatibility checking?

rob64rock

User avatar
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: November 11th, 2009, 6:16 am

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 11:08 am

TheGameHHH wrote:
rob64rock wrote:If AMO site or Add-on developers hasn't bumped the Add-ons max Firefox version compatibility, then it will always say incompatible in Firefox AOM even if you override the Add-ons compatibility checking to allow you to enable it for use.


Oh so that's why. What are the "risks" of disabling compatibility checking?

Enabling: Incompatible Add-ons can have the possibility to cause weird Firefox errors or breakage or profile corruption on rare occasions. Mozilla doesn't recommend average users doing it, but alpha and beta testers take and understand the risks.

LoudNoise
New Member

User avatar
 
Posts: 40048
Joined: October 18th, 2007, 1:45 pm
Location: Next door to the west

Post Posted July 9th, 2011, 11:10 am

Split off Terepin's nasty comment. He is now serving a week ban.
Post wrangler
"Choose between the Food Select Feature or other Functions. If no food or function is chosen, Toast is the default."

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests