Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 64 Released

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 527 posts

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#291

Post by Izkata »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #286
kissickas wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried out TreeStyle Tabs? It has all of the stacking features I saw in that video, but doesn't have the preview features (maybe you can use it alongside another extension that provides that). https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

I was about to suggest this too. It's like a more general version of stacking, since you have multiple levels, and much more automatic (but you can drag the tabs into a different tree structure if you want). I think it would solve the GP comment's problem better too. There's not so much need to use multiple windows if you can just use multiple trees in the same window. As a bonus there are many plugins for the plugin…

> I think it would solve the GP comment's problem better too. There's not so much need to use multiple windows if you can just use multiple trees in the same window.

Even if you do want a new window - drag the common parent tab to a new window and it takes its children along for the ride.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#293

Post by PavlovsCat »

JohnFen wrote: post #245
PavlovsCat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same person who managed to make the text and background color not clash will also be able handle two scrollbar colors responsibly. Take e.g. a textarea that gains focus and has the both scrollbar and border change color, what's so terrible about that?

Those controls are not part of the content, they are part of the application or operating environment itself, and I have configured them the way that I want them. As such, they should be off limits to web designer's whims. As an aside, my experience with web sites over the years (particularly recently) doesn't exactly give me a great deal of confidence that they would make appropriate choices for the appearance of th…

> Those controls are not part of the content, they are part of the application or operating environment itself, and I have configured them the way that I want them.

Depends on the browser, but e.g. text area colors can be styled anyway (and therefore made unusable, how irresponsible that CSS allows for this), and whether scrollbars show up in the first place is CSS, too. You can override that with user stylesheets if you want, but no need to hardcode that for everybody.

> doesn't exactly give me a great deal of confidence that they would make appropriate choices for the appearance of these controls.

You're now the third person to say this, and the second to do so while ignoring what I responded to that point, so again:

If you can't read the text, why do you care about the scrollbar? If you can read the text, why do you worry about the scrollbar? In what conceivable practical scenario do you gain anything? The very same people who picked all the other colors might also color the scrollbar, but how is going to make a default scrollbar make an otherwise unusable site usable?

We can already hide scrollbars, but coloring them differently, that's a problem? I don't buy it, as they say. How is an ugly scrollbar, or one that uses the same color twice and is unusable that way, worse than none?

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#294

Post by dilap »

dredmorbius wrote: post #247
dilap wrote: post #60

Still no bounce scroll on mac makes this dead in the water for me. Folks, the UI look and feel stuff really matters. You can't treat a platform like a second-class citizen and hope to gain widespread adoption.

What is bounce scroll?

(Also called rubber-band scroll or elastic-scrolling)

macOS feature adopted from iOS where when you try to scroll past the end of a document, rather than just doing nothing, it sort of stretches/bounces/rubber-bands past the bounds and then snaps back.

It's nice because (1) it feels believable and physical (2) it gives you feedback that you really are at the end of the document, rather than just the computer lagging.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#295

Post by Perceptes »

I'm afraid I'm a bit of a one-issue voter when it comes to web browser, and the reason that I haven't switched to Firefox from Chrome (even though ideologically I want to) is this workflow that I use for clicking links in other apps. I open an incognito/private browser window in the foreground, then click the link in the other application. In Chrome, this opens the link in the incognito window. In Firefox, this opens the link in a normal browser window. In order to open the link in a private browser window, I have to manually copy paste the link between applications into the private window. I follow this workflow when the link is some site that I don't generally visit, or don't recognize, and hence don't want to access any cookies associated with my regular browser window, and importantly, also don't want to show up in my browsing history.

I recall there being an issue on Mozilla's bug tracker where someone brought this up and it was closed as a wontfix. Unless there is something about Firefox's container system that obviates my workflow, I'm still reluctantly sticking with Chrome.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#296

Post by acdha »

rosser wrote: post #266
acdha wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconding your last point — almost every time I've had someone complain about generic Firefox or Chrome performance the problem went away as soon as they restarted it without extensions. There are certainly exceptions but misattribution is common enough that I'm not surprised to see browser vendors adding the UI to make it easier to discover.

This specific problem is one of those exceptions. This is a known issue, and has been around since at least v57. There are multiple Bugzilla issues on it. The cause is known. It isn't extensions. The fix is just invasive, and apparently ongoing.

That’s true but not what this thread was about. The person I responded to above was making a very broad claim, which is wrong, and jillesvangurp agreed with the observation and added a general point which is correct. There is a specific issue affecting a subset of people with less common configurations but that doesn’t make the sweeping claim true or the recognition that browser performance issues are notoriously poorly attributed untrue.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#297

Post by verall »

Perceptes wrote: post #295

I'm afraid I'm a bit of a one-issue voter when it comes to web browser, and the reason that I haven't switched to Firefox from Chrome (even though ideologically I want to) is this workflow that I use for clicking links in other apps. I open an incognito/private browser window in the foreground, then click the link in the other application. In Chrome, this opens the link in the incognito window. In Firefox, this opens…

Depending on the apps you're clicking links on you might be able to drag the link onto the incognito window. Still more annoying that it default opening incognito but nicer than copy/pasta.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#298

Post by meruru »

tripzilch wrote: post #285
andersha wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I am using firefox with duckduckgo. Firefox + DDG = Ctrl+L - Type "!yt apples", press enter https://duckduckgo.com/bang

yeah, that's what I love most about DDG for my default search engine, it's just like having a zillion custom keyword searches preconfigured.

It would be cool if Firefox itself had those keyword searches preconfigured. That way you wouldn't have to send all your queries through DDG.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#299

Post by ukyrgf »

zeotroph wrote: post #204
acqq wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is completely unnecessary It is completely necessary for me to have “move one page up on click.”

But, that is what PgUp/PgDown are for on the keyboard, no? When you are navigating in these discrete steps why use the mouse, which is excellent for continuous input. If I click on something, I want to go THERE, not in the direction of it. "But we have always done it in this (imo illogical) way" is just being stubborn.

It's not stubborn to design your application to work as users have come to expect.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#300

Post by JohnFen »

drbawb wrote: post #265
daleharvey wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I introduced the change to 0,1,2. Not sure what happened when we first introduced autoplay but the change to 0,1,2 was so we could let users switch between enabled, disabled and ask the user. Original plan was to ask the user by default. We did some user testing with this change and it looks like we will be changing it to block by default based on feedback Not sure what this has to do with any companies ad revenue, o…

Block by default, and not ask by default? That seems unfortunate to me, and will definitely break one of my services for Firefox users. I have a site which coordinates watching videos amongst a party of people. To the browser heuristics it looks like "autoplay" (the host starts the video manually, and some scripting on the page kicks it off for everyone else and works w/ the backend to maintain something resembling s…

"I realize autoplay gets a lot of flak due to large corporations using it to further their aggressive marketing campaigns"

Not just because of that, although that is the most egregious example. Personally, I find any autoplay at all to be objectionable. It doesn't matter if it's an ad, a YouTube video, or anything else.

Post reply on HN