MozillaZine

Fx 2.0 / Cookies management

Discussion of features in Mozilla Firefox
Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 999
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 3:01 am

rtmjr50 wrote:maybe it will be added back to FF3 .... one of the goals for FF3 is a "site basis" control for each website.
This is was is currently doing Opera 9.

rtmjr50 wrote:for the "advance user" ... lets leave the pref and those folks can turn it back on (or create a new extension)
All depends on what is an "advanced user" especially if you are not a developer with JS, xul, xml skills.
Creating an extension ?? hahaha !!! (should try it and give feedback ! )
I am not sure advanced users are all able to create extensions, and have time to recreate things already existing in Fx1.5.

rtmjr50 wrote:Marketing 103 .... wait for Firefox 3 ...
May be you are right: Fx 1.5 users will stick to Fx1.5, until Fx3, and new Firefox users will likely choose Fx2.0 thinking it is newer then probably better than previous version.
The new skin will help for that.

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20745
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 8:55 am

Frank Lion wrote:
Diorser wrote:I don't find these detailed cookies options in Fx 2.0 (available in Fx 1.5).
Are they simply removed ? If so, why ?

Bloat.


Diorser wrote:
rtmjr50 wrote:for the "advance user" ... lets leave the pref and those folks can turn it back on (or create a new extension)
All depends on what is an "advanced user" especially if you are not a developer with JS, xul, xml skills.
Creating an extension ?? hahaha !!! (should try it and give feedback ! )
I am not sure advanced users are all able to create extensions, and have time to recreate things already existing in Fx1.5.


You haven't really thought all this stuff through, have you?

Diorser wrote:If somebody needs this "Quick find" bar as a special request, may be better use an extension to not bloat Fx 2.0.
.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 999
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 9:20 am

You should not mix two different things: removing & adding a feature.

1. removing a feature with no user complaint from Fx1.5, and requesting users to make an extension to compensate is not user oriented; (hahaha... funny game creating an extension / but I did not play so long);
Better directly explain the marketing background of third cookies instead of turning around;

2. adding a confusing "Quick find" feature in Fx2.0 (although technically argumented as a bug correction) can be perceived as bloat if not adding value.

I would have preferred to keep the 3rd cookie management via option panel, and no new extra find feature.
But two different subjects => two different threads.

Hope it is clear enough.

Frank Lion

User avatar
 
Posts: 20745
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 9:32 am

Diorser wrote:But two different subjects => two different threads.

Hope it is clear enough.

No, I'm afraid it isn't. Threads may change, but logic doesn't.

It appears that something is a desperately essential feature when it suits you and 'bloat' when it does not.

Not very convincing at all.
Metal Lion latest SeaMonkey & Thunderbird Themes - Sea Monkey and Silver Sea Monkey
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)

Diorser

User avatar
 
Posts: 999
Joined: June 22nd, 2005, 6:57 am

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 9:49 am

The logic of users coming from Fx 1.5 to Fx 2.0 will not be the same as the logic of users discovering Fx2.0 and comparing to Opera9 or IE7.

As simple as that.

oldtimer
 
Posts: 827
Joined: July 9th, 2004, 1:48 pm

Post Posted August 30th, 2006, 4:19 pm

I'm afraid I have to agree I'm glad this feature was removed. It really was confusing to a lot of people and I'm not even sure it was necessary [when they designed it as a branch option] except for us paranoia freaks. I have to say it really pissed me off when I set that pref after allowing cookies, then disallowing cookies altogether when visting a site that I completely didn't want to leave cookies, then having to reselect 'for originating site only' EVERY TIME when I reallowed cookies!

I must of done it a 1,000 times. I'll be the first to admit that was a lot of wasted clicks. Sure, it might have got the job done during casual surfing but it ended up not being worth it in that situation I described above. Also, just like rtmjr50 said, a lot of people are not going to realize that a site is not loading images or allowing you to progress b/c they have that setting on - unless they're greeted by a error page telling them they need to enable cookies. Then they'll think for a second - but, yeah cookies ARE turned on... so what could it be? Then they'll fiddle around until some combo works. Or, if impatient and frustrated, they'll just dump the browser and move to IE or something once they find out it loads up fine there.

Anyway, great move for Firefox - that stupid pref and 'unless I have removed cookies set by the site' was holding it back as well as making lots of people scratch their heads. I used it every damn build I had so I'm not coming from a 'cold' corner of reason. Just let it go man. Yeah an extension is bothersome but cookie controls need to be remodeled more anyway... so maybe they will do just that - nothing is set in stone as that has just been proven to us. In comparision to our rival, I don't even like IE 6's current cookie controls; hate the whole browser, but we're talkin' UI's specifically.

Maybe some radio buttons with specific rules similar to IE:
Current: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b2pre) Gecko/2007112000 Minefield/3.0b2pre
For kicks: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6

ga_tom
 
Posts: 1
Joined: October 3rd, 2006, 9:03 pm

Post Posted October 3rd, 2006, 10:36 pm

It makes no sense to remove or bury previous functionality. It was a mistake to remove the <b>"unless I have removed cookies set by the site"</b> option in Firefox 2.0.

Okay, so I tweaked the user preferences via about:config and got back that functionality. Most people won't know how to do that, or even that it's possible.

I wonder what other questionable Firefox design decisions are being made as MS gets set to release IE 7. Doesn't bode well for Firefox's market share momentum going forward.

CobraA1
 
Posts: 39
Joined: August 12th, 2003, 1:00 pm

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 12:17 am

I'm not sure I agree with everybody here. This has been in all browsers since practically the beginning of the Internet. Who is really confused by it?

"Bloat" is that spellcheck just added. I'm sure it's a gazillion lines longer than 3rd party cookie checking, and I really wouldn't mind if it were an extention instead of being built in. I personally don't see what's so bloated about something that has been a part of the Internet since the early days - and, honestly, is considered much more basic functionality than a spellcheck.

teoli2003
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 2:54 am

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 4:40 am

CobraA1 wrote:I'm sure it's a gazillion lines longer than 3rd party cookie checking


Unfortunately, no. The code for the spellchecker was already in Fx1.5 (and Fx1.0 probably) but not hooked. It was there since ages because of the spellcheck needs in Thunderbird.

Shining Celebi
 
Posts: 17
Joined: November 30th, 2005, 5:11 am

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 9:43 am

Huh? Confusing?

This is an option that's been around in a lot of browsers for years and years, and it does exactly what it says it does. All one needs is a very basic understanding of cookies (little files sites place on your computer) and a reason to use the option (my adware/spyware scanner detects tracking cookies, which I discovered were always third-party cookies) to have a reason to use the option. If this option is "too hard" for the mythical Target User, so is just about everything else in the options dialogue.

I'm sure I can figure out the about:config thing, but it's a lot more complicated than clicking a checkbox, and more troublesome to do each install. Now it really will be true that only "advanced" users use the option.

I guess it'd be okay if there were some kind of legitimate reason, but saying that it's too hard to understand for normal people is just crazy,

chob
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 12:05 pm
Location: London, UK

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 9:56 am

<a href=\"https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349680#c14\">Mike Connor in bug 349680 comment 14</a> wrote:As dveditz noted in Bug 324397, this option doesn't really work due to iframes/redirects, and the methods they're using can't effectively be stopped without breaking the web in general. We've been through this before, and there really isn't a good way to make this effective.

As much as it would be nice to have it just work, it doesn't, and there's unfixable ways around it, so the UI is either pointless (barely works) or damaging (users perceive the app as broken).

CobraA1
 
Posts: 39
Joined: August 12th, 2003, 1:00 pm

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 2:21 pm

The code for the spellchecker was already in Fx1.5


And the code for rejecting third-party cookies has been in since the beginning. Your point?

As dveditz noted in Bug 324397, this option doesn't really work due to iframes/redirects


Don't need them to. The people who are concerned about frames and redirects use Adblock anyways.

chob
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 12:05 pm
Location: London, UK

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 2:26 pm

CobraA1 wrote:
As dveditz noted in Bug 324397, this option doesn't really work due to iframes/redirects

Don't need them to. The people who are concerned about frames and redirects use Adblock anyways.

Well such concerned people can use an extension to block 3rd party cookies too then, right?

CobraA1
 
Posts: 39
Joined: August 12th, 2003, 1:00 pm

Post Posted October 6th, 2006, 2:29 pm

I suppose.

I am a bit surprised, though, that this is so difficult to resolve.

How do IE and older versions of Netscape handle the problem?

neveruseIE
 
Posts: 1
Joined: October 13th, 2006, 7:13 pm

Post Posted October 13th, 2006, 7:33 pm

The code for rejecting third party cookies is still in IE 7, so why was it removed from FF 2.0 rc2? And the workaround of "Network.cookie.cookiebehavior" does not bring it back in the rc2 version. This sucks. I have been using FF for a really long time, now I am thinking about switching to something else because of this "removed" feature. Why change things just for the sake of change. Seems there were lots of things that got "improved, changed or removed" in the new FF that are getting on alot of peoples nerves. Why FF, WHY???

Return to Firefox Features


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest