MozillaZine

More preference window tweaks landed on trunk

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Waldo

User avatar
 
Posts: 596
Joined: July 29th, 2003, 8:21 am
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 3:23 pm

I've landed another round of preference window fixes on trunk. The changes are in some senses fairly significant in that a lot of UI changes, but in another sense many of the changes are fairly trivial. Most of the changes were the result of a discussion after last week's Firefox 2 status meeting.
(Make sure to download the builds dated around today. :-) )

Known issues:
  • Feeds UI is dependent upon another patch which hasn't yet landed, so it probably doesn't work right
  • Days of visited history UI is still wonky -- I'll be fixing that soon

Things still aren't final, and there's a lot more work to be done, but this should represent a significant improvement over the previous round of commits. Any and all testing and feedback is highly appreciated. Thanks!

chob
 
Posts: 4278
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 12:05 pm
Location: London, UK

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 3:57 pm

What is the reasoning behind the Tools > Options > Advanced > Encryption settings? Specifically the ability to disable SSL3 and/or TLS1? Is there any reason why one would want to disable these? It's just every time I see these options I think of that Gary Larson cartoon where Ted the airline passenger unwittingly causes a disaster by flipping his "wings stay on" switch to "wings fall off".

Image

But apart from that, i really like this rationalization! Nice work, fella.
Last edited by chob on July 21st, 2006, 5:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

a;skdjfajf;ak

User avatar
 
Posts: 17002
Joined: July 10th, 2004, 8:44 am

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 4:04 pm

I still see this error in Advanced->Updates: click 'show update history'
Error: this._buttons has no properties
Source file: chrome://global/content/bindings/dialog.xml
Line: 81

Security->Passwords: Click Exceptions:
Error: preference has no properties
Source file: chrome://global/content/bindings/preferences.xml
Line: 1133

I suspect these are probably the same ones as reported during your last update, if so - disregard.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060721 Minefield/3.0a1,Firefox ID:2006072112 [cairo]

wgianopoulos

User avatar
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: July 23rd, 2003, 8:15 am

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 4:16 pm

I would really like to see the return of the ability to clear the cache. A "Clear Now" button next to where the cache size is configured on the Advanced -> Network tab. I currently have the clear private data function set up to clear the cache only to get by without this. Web developers really need to be able to clear the entire cache at once to debug issues as well as to time applications starting from an empty cache.

pal-moz
 
Posts: 5933
Joined: September 23rd, 2005, 5:40 pm
Location: Tokyo , Japan

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 5:24 pm

Waldo wrote:[*]Feeds UI is dependent upon another patch which hasn't yet landed, so it probably doesn't work right

is this ?

Feed Preview is broken.
<a href="http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=feedgf1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9907/feedgf1.th.jpg" border="0" alt=""></a>
Last edited by pal-moz on July 22nd, 2006, 11:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 5:27 pm

That's looking much better.

I still think you should kill the security warning UI and the advanced JavaScript options UI, though.

I also still think that you should kill the cache option - why would anyone ever change this from 50mb? If a different amount is better, the default should change. Once it's killed, embed the network settings within that tab instead of launching them with a button.

I don't understand why the safe browsing options exist in such an explicit way. Surely the provider of the list is completely irrelevant when stored locally and all (if more than one) should be used if safebrowsing is enabled. Checking online may actually require a choice, but again, I don't see how the user is in a position to make one. How do I know if Google's anti-phishing list is better than one provided by Yahoo or Microsoft?

For feeds, it'd be lovely if the icon used is a big orange RSS icon.

Chris07
 
Posts: 25
Joined: June 29th, 2006, 1:36 am

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 7:29 pm

Here's the list of things I'd improve:

= Tabs =
The two radio box choices for "New pages" don't seem to fit in. If there's only two choices, it could be a checkbox.

Something like:
[x] When I open a webpage from outside Firefox, open it in a new tab.

= Content =
Could change "Block pop-up windows" and "Load images automatically" to "Enable pop-up blocker" and "Enable images" to fit with Java/Script. I also second removal of the advanced options. Advanced users that would want to configure them could get the JavaScript Options extension.

= Feeds =
Different icon, perhaps an RSS-type icon as already suggested.

= Security =
As mentioned already, I also don't see the reason why someone would configure the "Warning messages" section. Users just click OK on the dialog when entering a secure site, and I don't see much use in putting any of the prompts back on if they're off already.

= Advanced =
I agree with what has been said above about taking off the cache option. Is it really needed that people can configure their cache size? I don't see why people would disable SSL 3 or TLS either.

Overall, it's very good work. Much better than the 1.5 panel by far.

Elder Young

User avatar
 
Posts: 545
Joined: June 9th, 2004, 8:24 pm

Post Posted July 21st, 2006, 8:11 pm

Main:
This looks pretty good, and I think the option to open with a blank page would clutter things up too much.


Tabs:
The radio buttons are there because radio buttons only allow one option or another. Check boxes are used when more than one option is allowed at the same time.

I think the wording of the tab/window options is pretty good. There is too much spacing between "A new tab" and "Warn me when I close a window with multiple tabs." That's a very minor issue though.


Content:
I still think that the wording "Load images automatically" is kind of weird. I think people would understand Display Images or Show Images. Sure there's a technical difference between loading and displaying, but most users don't care about the difference.

The advanced JavaScript options probably doesn't need to be shown. If the defaults are good, then most people won't change them.


Feeds:
Well, other than the feeds and content icons should be different, this is a big improvement. I agree with using the orange feeds icon for consistency.


Privacy:
This looks good to me. I had been using the option for accepting cookies for originating site, but I don't even know how much of an effect it has in the first place so it doesn't bother me to get rid of it.


Security:
This looks good to me, other than the bottom of the border for warning messages is cut off. Is this a known issue? I like the option to choose the phishing site lists and websites, but I don't know how much most users will use it.


Advanced:
General - Looks ok.

Network - I agree with Cusser that there's not a lot of reason to change the cache size. Plus, Cache isn't related to Networks; it's a local setting.

Update - Still looks good to me.

Security - I can't see most people touching any of these settings, but I guess that's why they're under the advanced section.


***General Comments/Questions: Why do some pages have borders and other's don't? I know that some are very specific, but I wonder if it would look better to have borders on all pages?

I've been opening and closing the options panel (using cancel) and it's crashed Minefield a couple times. Talkback never launched so I don't have an ID's to give you.

Overall, it's much cleaner and easier to understand than the 1.5 Options. Keep up the good work.
System: Core 2 Quad Q9650, 8GB RAM, Sapphire 5870 Toxic, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, Flash 10.1.53.64, Java 1.6U21 B04

chob
 
Posts: 4278
Joined: May 17th, 2003, 12:05 pm
Location: London, UK

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 7:33 am

wgianopoulos wrote:I would really like to see the return of the ability to clear the cache. A "Clear Now" button next to where the cache size is configured on the Advanced -> Network tab. I currently have the clear private data function set up to clear the cache only to get by without this. Web developers really need to be able to clear the entire cache at once to debug issues as well as to time applications starting from an empty cache.

Me too. Sometimes firefox can screw up wrt it's cache and clearing the cache can fix the problem. It's much easier to talk a user through clicking the 'clear now' button on the network cache tab than talking them through setting up their sanitize options only to clear cache, hitting the 'clear now' button, then resetting their sanitize settings back to whatever they were.

I'm also still for UI to be able to change your cache size. It's a personal thing really. If you can afford the HD space then you will want a larger cache to speed up your browsing. If you want to conserve space you'll set it slow.

Cusser wrote:I don't understand why the safe browsing options exist in such an explicit way. Surely the provider of the list is completely irrelevant when stored locally and all (if more than one) should be used if safebrowsing is enabled. Checking online may actually require a choice, but again, I don't see how the user is in a position to make one. How do I know if Google's anti-phishing list is better than one provided by Yahoo or Microsoft?

I'm sure people will start lauding one list over another once the feature gets more use. But I think the primary reason to allow different companies to provide anti-phishing lists is to stop ppl crying that google is taking over firefox, or firefox is no longer impartial or other stuff like that. If yahoo wanted to make a distro of firefox but couldn't change the anit-phishing list from google they wouldn't do it. But since it can be changed easily, it keeps firefox as a 'fair' browser.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 7:45 am

chob wrote:I'm also still for UI to be able to change your cache size. It's a personal thing really. If you can afford the HD space then you will want a larger cache to speed up your browsing. If you want to conserve space you'll set it slow.

Nobody has a computer where 50mb is a realistic limitation on hard disk space. It's doubtful that a larger cache noticeably increases browsing speed, given that a larger cache leads to a longer retrieval time anyway. In either case, no normal person is going to need to change this. Not now, not ever. Just like every other relatively unhelpful option, it should be relegated to about:config. If there's a case for changing it to a different value, it should be investigated and the default should change.

The only time people currently need such an option (that I can think of) is to increase response times and increase the lifespan with their USB memory stick installations. Anyone going that far should either be able to switch the preferences themselves or use a tool that does it for them.

chob wrote:I'm sure people will start lauding one list over another once the feature gets more use. But I think the primary reason to allow different companies to provide anti-phishing lists is to stop ppl crying that google is taking over firefox, or firefox is no longer impartial or other stuff like that. If yahoo wanted to make a distro of firefox but couldn't change the anit-phishing list from google they wouldn't do it. But since it can be changed easily, it keeps firefox as a 'fair' browser.

I'm not objecting to the lists. I just don't see why the user should have to choose between locally stored lists. Ideally, if multiple phishing site lists are available, they should all be used.

However, it's only really viable (in terms of trust and likely response times and suchlike) to check one single list online. I have no problem with that drop-down. But again, I don't understand how the user can make an educated choice on this issue.

Personally, I think the online-lookup is a flawed idea. It should be scrapped and the local list(s) should be updated periodically alongside standard Mozilla updates. That way:

1) The user gets up-to-date lists from multiple vendors
2) There is no added network overhead / time involved in checking the sites visited
3) No privacy issue - you're downloading lists of untrusted sites, not checking each site you visit against a remote lis
4) The user isn't forced into making a choice that they probably don't want to and probably aren't qualified for.

wgianopoulos

User avatar
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: July 23rd, 2003, 8:15 am

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 8:09 am

Chris07 wrote:I don't see why people would disable SSL 3 or TLS either.
The way https is implemented, it always tries TS first and then, depending on what error the server returns, attempts to figure out if it should just return an error or revert to an attempt sith TLS dsabled. Sometimes a server does something this code does not expect and therefore there are some HTTPS sites that use SSL3 that cannot be accessed if TLS is enabled. So, unless this code is changed to always try with TLS disabled if it gets any unexpected response, the TLS checkbox is kind of necessary or there will be some HTTPS sites that just cannot be used with Firefox. As long as you are going to have the TLS checkbox the other one does not take much extra space.

loadbang

User avatar
 
Posts: 872
Joined: November 3rd, 2003, 12:18 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK.

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 9:25 am

We need cache options. It needs to move to Privacy, it has nothing to do with networks. You can then get rid of the settings button in Advanced->Network, save on mouse clicks.

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.


Change the name for 'feeds' to RSS. RSS one day will be big and something we will use all the time, we need to get users used to RSS.


What I would suggest is you read the guideline that Apple give to how to set out a UI for apps on OS X, this will make the user more happy. Also, go and look at other apps (sorry, again ones designs for OS X would be useful) and extensions to get inspiration. The new UI is far less user-friendly and uses too much user intervention.

http://developer.apple.com/referencelib ... index.html

Thumper

User avatar
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 5:42 pm
Location: Linlithgow, Scotland

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 11:38 am

SimonTheSoundMan wrote:Change the name for 'feeds' to RSS.


Feeds are not just RSS.

- Chris

ehume

User avatar
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: November 17th, 2002, 12:33 pm
Location: Princeton, NJ, USA

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 2:13 pm

Cusser wrote:I also still think that you should kill the cache option - why would anyone ever change this from 50mb?

For feeds, it'd be lovely if the icon used is a big orange RSS icon.

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.

As for the icon, I agree - I build my own version of that in an SVG file, so it was easy to spit out an icon for SphereGnome.
Firefox: Sic transit gloria mundi.

BenBasson
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 13661
Joined: February 13th, 2004, 5:49 am
Location: London, UK

Post Posted July 22nd, 2006, 2:36 pm

SimonTheSoundMan wrote: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.

SimonTheSoundMan wrote: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?

ehume wrote: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.

Return to Firefox Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests