UX branch discussion
- Omega X
- Posts: 8225
- Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
- Location: A Parallel Dimension...
Re: UX branch discussion
Not sure that torching every check box in the options menu will solve that problem. User error will FIND a way to mess something up. It doesn't matter how hard you try to remove easy access options.
It sounds like they're letting the numbers run the show again and everyone giving support should prepare to drive users to use about:config.
It sounds like they're letting the numbers run the show again and everyone giving support should prepare to drive users to use about:config.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: July 18th, 2012, 11:57 am
Re: UX branch discussion
Also supporting Limi. Turning these into about:config-only settings will make harder for users to turn these against themselves. Most of them do not know about the about:something pages, and I personally doubt anyone would start missing any of these. Also, those who want to control JS (and know what it is), are on the level where they already use either NoScript or YesScript.
Sorry for my bad English. Even if there wasn't a mistake.
- malliz
- Folder@Home
- Posts: 43796
- Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
- Location: Australia
Re: UX branch discussion
Sorry limi as hardly covered himself in glory since taking on his current role. To me it seems more like dev snobbery. "We got it right don't touch it" cop out time.... again.
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
"Terry Pratchett"
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: May 29th, 2011, 10:51 pm
Re: UX branch discussion
Doesn't "Reset Firefox" cover the dangers these tantalizing check boxes present anyway?
- Omega X
- Posts: 8225
- Joined: October 18th, 2007, 2:38 pm
- Location: A Parallel Dimension...
Re: UX branch discussion
That doesn't matter. 98% of the people are too dumb to use an Options menu anyway. IF you want an option, you're smart enough to comb through about:config or get an addon. Atleast according to them.
-
- Posts: 475
- Joined: March 21st, 2012, 7:09 am
Re: UX branch discussion
It says on the bottom of the blog that Limi used to work for Google. Why then am I not surprised he isn't too fond of customization? If I want to be treated like a child I'll download Google Chrome.
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: June 28th, 2008, 4:57 am
Re: UX branch discussion
Taking some of the more useless and dangerous options out of the options menu also frees up more space for new options that might be more useful. I don't really have a problem with this pruning as long as they go about it logically.
-
- Posts: 108
- Joined: January 26th, 2012, 3:03 am
Re: UX branch discussion
I've seen many applications solve this by having a 'Show advanced option' checkbox, so perhaps something along those lines is worth considering.
- malliz
- Folder@Home
- Posts: 43796
- Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
- Location: Australia
Re: UX branch discussion
Ver Greeneyes wrote: as long as they go about it logically.
Now that would be a first
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
"Terry Pratchett"
-
- Posts: 269
- Joined: February 7th, 2013, 3:19 pm
Re: UX branch discussion
Another consequence of removing too many options is that one day, an average user will need one of those (for whatever reason), Google it, and get to the about:config page. Chances he'll break something then are way higher than they are now, also because resetting options is harder. "How was that called again? Something with browser. No, javascript. Or was it something else anyway?". A misclick in about:config is easier to make and harder to revert than in the options panel.
I hate to say it, but I think at least a few of these changes are intentional.
- Add-ons are to be moved exactly where you say (bug 695913). There's even a bug about removing the add-on bar entirely, but comments suggest they might not to that anyway. Phew, crisis averted.
- Those items are to be merged (bug 755598)
- The current Firefox button isn't movable by default either. It's just less bad, because it is better placed now
- The shrinking and the single drop area probably are intentional too. Have a look at this preview.
Pr0phet wrote:I really hope this is just an early prototype, because this looks very sad.
When you enter customize mode the whole interface shrinks which doesn't make much sense.
In the latest version the tab-bar and add-ons bar are completely un-customizable.
The back-forward buttons, the url-bar and the reload-stop button are joined as one unmovable element. The new app-button is also glued to the right end of the nav-bar.
In this version you can only drop buttons in between the above mentioned 2 elements.
I hate to say it, but I think at least a few of these changes are intentional.
- Add-ons are to be moved exactly where you say (bug 695913). There's even a bug about removing the add-on bar entirely, but comments suggest they might not to that anyway. Phew, crisis averted.
- Those items are to be merged (bug 755598)
- The current Firefox button isn't movable by default either. It's just less bad, because it is better placed now
- The shrinking and the single drop area probably are intentional too. Have a look at this preview.
- Grantius
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: June 28th, 2011, 4:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: UX branch discussion
Whens the curved tabs landing for Nightly?
Micro gaming box: AMD A10-7800 APU, 8gb RAM M350 ITX case (size of a book), Windows 10/Ubuntu
Tablet/Laptop: Asus Transformer T100, Intel Atom 2GB RAM, Windows 10 x86
Mobile:Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 Pro
Tablet/Laptop: Asus Transformer T100, Intel Atom 2GB RAM, Windows 10 x86
Mobile:Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 Pro
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: March 24th, 2011, 10:38 am
Re: UX branch discussion
My hope, never!
sry for my bad english.
My real user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv: current nightly) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/current nightly
My real user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv: current nightly) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/current nightly
-
- Posts: 8829
- Joined: May 7th, 2006, 10:29 pm
- Location: California
Re: UX branch discussion
My hope, soon!
-
- Posts: 471
- Joined: February 25th, 2013, 9:52 pm
Re: UX branch discussion
the curved tabs, by themselves, are quite good looking.
- Drumbrake
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: February 14th, 2011, 2:34 am
Re: UX branch discussion
Curved tabs would be the least of my worries: OTOH,dumbing down Firefox's options menu beyond repair and shrinking interface customization until it is level with Chrome are on the top of my list.
Not everyone who wants/needs to adjust some preferences is supposed to be a geek all too happy to dig into about:config
Not everyone who wants/needs to adjust some preferences is supposed to be a geek all too happy to dig into about:config