More preference window tweaks landed on trunk

[aronin]

Waldo,

This is in reference to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342701 (Add UI for Session Restore by Default)... it was set to block Fx 2 and then was removed because of lack of time/UI as per Connor. Its a pity that despite having the Session Restore functionality, users will not have a UI to set it 'On' by default for every session. Would it be possible by any stretch of imagination to include it in Fx2 ?? It will be really great for the users if this can be done. Thanks.

[Elder Young]

Waldo,

This is in reference to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342701 (Add UI for Session Restore by Default)... it was set to block Fx 2 and then was removed because of lack of time/UI as per Connor. Its a pity that despite having the Session Restore functionality, users will not have a UI to set it 'On' by default for every session. Would it be possible by any stretch of imagination to include it in Fx2 ?? It will be really great for the users if this can be done. Thanks.

I think it's a pretty big mistake to have a feature that works (for the most part), but not to add any UI to turn it on. The easiest way to fix this would be turning the feature on by default. For the most part it couldn't hurt anything. As long as the feature works, the only downside I could think of is if people leave banking sites open and they get restored later.

[BenBasson]

As long as the feature works, the only downside I could think of is if people leave banking sites open and they get restored later.

That wouldn't happen. "Session" saving is bad terminology. The pages you have open may be restored, but the session data associated with them isn't.

[old zeniko]

The pages you have open may be restored, but the session data associated with them isn't.

Login-session identifiers are usually stored either in the URL or in a cookie. Now cookies are only restored for non-encrypted pages (together with form data and POSTDATA, see the browser.sessionstore.privacy_level pref) which makes the banking site issue (mostly) moot - but as long as a login-session doesn't expire server-side, it's nicely preserved, as you can easily verify in this very forum.

[BenBasson]

Yeah, but bank sites nearly always have a low timeout period. They also typically don't even store data in the cache. See HTTP headers cache-control:no-store and pragma:no-cache. Any site wanting actual security should do this. Forums and other unencrpyed pages are really the least of anyone's worries, since you can restore sessions using cookies by using the History anyway.

It's very easy to test this theory if you want to. Log into your bank website with a Firefox branch nightly, ctrl+alt+delete it (so it does not close cleanly) and then open it up again. When you restore the session, you should find that you're required to enter your login details again.

[Waldo]

Session restore UI just needs someone with the time to do it, mostly. If I have time I'll try to do it, but it's not clear that I will.

[old zeniko]

Implementing it would probably not take too much time, but I so far haven't seen any good design proposals to follow...

[hkazemi]

We need cache options. It needs to move to Privacy, it has nothing to do with networks.

Err, unless you can read data as it exists in-memory, it has nothing to do with privacy either.

User needs to be able to set their size, and to be able to purge the cache. Option to switch cache on/off for both disc and memory would be useful too.

No they don't. What possible purpose is there for normal people to fine-tune this stuff? Do you even know how that will affect your performance?

I personally have 1GB of RAM, so I set my disk cache to zero so my system will not slow down trying to access this slow form of memory.

My point isn't what you do. I asked my mother earlier if she would like an option to change her cache size. She looked at me blankly. I then explained what a cache does, and she asked why would she want to change it. I explained the hit:miss theory and she stopped caring. Normal people aren't going to get this far. They don't need an option. about:config relegation would serve advanced users just fine.

It looks like there is a fairly strong push to 'simplify' the options UI.

I'm an advanced user and I like point-click advanced settings options because:
1.) I don't need to remember the option's name in about:config (and not all options have a setting in about:config by default, so knowing part of the name isn't enough to find it) (poor discoverability for advanced users). (Also mentioned at http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8004 "Nothing is perfect, alas; about:config shows only preferences that already have been set or specified anywhere. It doesn't show preferences that have meaningful uses, which appear nowhere in the about:config list."
2.) options in about:config don't have descriptions other than their own name and don't have supporting help (besides websites)
3.) options in about:config don't give you a list of valid values, nor do they enforce valid data values (other than data type)

What I would like to see is a 'TweakUI for Firefox' (extension?) (or 'enable advanced options' checkbox) that exposes all these occasionally needed options with descriptions and valid settings.

In Windows terminology: about:config is like the Registry, an Advanced Options extension/enabling checkbox would be like TweakUI, and the default 'simplified UI for novices' would be like XP Luna's eye candy and 'simple file sharing'.

(I also would like to see it possible to merge in about:config style options, like Windows .REG files merge into the Registry. This ability would reduce the need for a TweakUI for Firefox tool because I could then create my options file once and merge in the changes after a clean Firefox install.)

[RaiseMachine]

(I also would like to see it possible to merge in about:config style options, like Windows .REG files merge into the Registry. This ability would reduce the need for a TweakUI for Firefox tool because I could then create my options file once and merge in the changes after a clean Firefox install.)

You can already do this by adding to the prefs.js/user.js files in your profile when FF is not running.

[BenBasson]

Pref descriptions in about:config might not be a bad idea, actually. I wonder if there's a reasonable way of doing that.

[ehume]

I'm an advanced user and I like point-click advanced settings options because:
1.) I don't need to remember the option's name in about:config (and not all options have a setting in about:config by default, so knowing part of the name isn't enough to find it) (poor discoverability for advanced users). (Also mentioned at http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8004 "Nothing is perfect, alas; about:config shows only preferences that already have been set or specified anywhere. It doesn't show preferences that have meaningful uses, which appear nowhere in the about:config list."
2.) options in about:config don't have descriptions other than their own name and don't have supporting help (besides websites)
3.) options in about:config don't give you a list of valid values, nor do they enforce valid data values (other than data type)

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Pref descriptions in about:config might not be a bad idea, actually. I wonder if there's a reasonable way of doing that.

There is. It's called Advanced Options. Newbie users generally stay away from those unless and until they know what they are doing - or think they do.

[BenBasson]

They should stay away entirely. The only reason I would like pref descriptions is because it would save me looking up the obscure ones on the MozillaZine KB every once in a while.

[Thumper]

Pref descriptions in about:config might not be a bad idea, actually. I wonder if there's a reasonable way of doing that.

Yay. Of all the things about:config desperately needs, it's to evolve into gconf-editor. (this may be sarcasm.)

Newbie users generally stay away from those unless and until they know what they are doing - or think they do.

1997 called, it wants its attitude back.

- Chris

[Waldo]

Pref descriptions in about:config might not be a bad idea, actually. I wonder if there's a reasonable way of doing that.

There are too many prefs to make it feasible as part of the default download, and they're hidden precisely because they get less back-end (or front-end) support than exposed features. Also, there's an extension which documents hidden preferences (but not in about:config last I heard), tho I don't remember the name.

[Waldo]

Also, I landed the prefwindow on branch -- testing appreciated! The remaining trunk issues are going to be issues on branch, but if you see new dysfunctionality I'd really like to know about it.