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

Firefox 77

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Firefox 77

#111

Post by sfink »

bzb3 wrote: post #27
have_faith wrote: post #13

> ...some of the best stories on the web, will appear on the Firefox new tab... Why is FireFox trying to get into article recommendations? I can only assume it allows some method of monetisation once users get used to it being there. Feels a bit off.

Call them what they are: ads. They are ads, and they were added by default to the home page of Firefox.

I disagree. The main recommendations are not ads, they are recommendations. Formerly known as clickbait, but without the full negative connotations that the term has gathered. But still clickbait in that it's a source of distraction, a mechanism for derailing your train of thought.

In small doses, I rather like them. Back when Firefox only displayed 3 or 4 on the new tab page, I even left them enabled. Now that it has the huge grid of options, with a row peeking out above the fold in the classic dark pattern that demands discovery, I have turned them off.

As for ads, yeah, you'll get those by default too. (But there's a checkbox still where you can turn off the sponsored content.)

I just think it's useful to distinguish true ads from stuff that's intended to provide value. (Sure, ads theoretically can occasionally provide value, but the difference is huge.)

Re: Firefox 77

#112

Post by huhtenberg »

pcx wrote: post #24

Everyone not happy with pocket recommendations, what is the alternate source of revenue? Not enough will pay for the product. On the other hand Mozilla has to compete with Apple, Google & Microsoft, all of whom are fighting hard for the Web. Mozilla is doing good overall. They are doing some fundamental work to get back the technical edge, still trying to keep the future of the platform open with WebAssembly and thei…

Hold on there for a second.

When Pocket was first introduced in Firefox, the official party line was that it was just something temporary donated by the good people of Pocket to plug a feature hole so that you, dear users, won't suffer much while we develop a proper replacement.

And now this has somehow transformed into a vitally important revenue stream?

Re: Firefox 77

#113

Post by sfink »

RandomBacon wrote: post #95

People keep recommending Brave, but I keep countering with Firefox. It's getting a lot harder to convince people when Firefox is doubling-down on BS like the expanding address bar, integrating articles/ads, telemetry, etc. When I see Brave recommendations, they're primarily because of it's built-in ad-blocking. People value sanity. Don't introduce more visual distractions (essentially what the average person gets fro…

I think a lot of people agree. And a lot of other people are pissed off about Firefox following Chrome's lead in stripping everything down visually.

There's a solution, though -- as it happens, I happen to have the best opinion on this. Like, always the best. So really the Firefox designers should just ask me. I would think they would appreciate being able to confidently say that they're always doing the right thing?

Re: Firefox 77

#114

Post by Wowfunhappy »

0x006A wrote: post #92

Why remove config options and force some UI that clearly people are not happy with? I can not type in a url without showing the most visited sites? At least let me press ctrl-l or click in the url bar and start typing before showing me helpful information, trying to enter a new URL, I really do not want to see the most common sites again and again and again and again! Is Firefox trying to kill the long tail of the in…

"Why remove [the] config [option]" is easily answered in this case. When Mozilla changed the address bar, they also rewrote a lot of overall address bar code, and the old about:config flag activated the old code pathway—it wasn't just a simple design tweak. You don't want to have all that old code sticking around in Firefox.

What we need is a new flag that changes the design specifically.

Re: Firefox 77

#115

Post by DangerousPie »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #54

And now my address bar expands on click, because browser.urlbar.update1 was removed from about:config. I knew this day was coming, but I'm still not happy it's here. The movement is distracting, and the alignment of the bar's expanded state is terrible. There's a reason most graphic design follows a grid system. We need a way to turn this off. I realize the old about:config flag was tied to a legacy code pathway, but…

After having lived with this turned on for about a month I am happy to report that it doesn't really bother me at all any more now. In the first week or two it just seemed pointless to me, but over time I actually started using the thing more and more.

It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance.

Re: Firefox 77

#116

Post by toper-centage »

DangerousPie wrote: post #115
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #54

And now my address bar expands on click, because browser.urlbar.update1 was removed from about:config. I knew this day was coming, but I'm still not happy it's here. The movement is distracting, and the alignment of the bar's expanded state is terrible. There's a reason most graphic design follows a grid system. We need a way to turn this off. I realize the old about:config flag was tied to a legacy code pathway, but…

After having lived with this turned on for about a month I am happy to report that it doesn't really bother me at all any more now. In the first week or two it just seemed pointless to me, but over time I actually started using the thing more and more. It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance.

There will always be people who swear they never get used to it. Truth is, our brains are experts at getting used to things. Specially little style tweaks. I don't love this one, but it honestly took me a day or two to stop caring.

Re: Firefox 77

#117

Post by Wowfunhappy »

DangerousPie wrote: post #115
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #54

And now my address bar expands on click, because browser.urlbar.update1 was removed from about:config. I knew this day was coming, but I'm still not happy it's here. The movement is distracting, and the alignment of the bar's expanded state is terrible. There's a reason most graphic design follows a grid system. We need a way to turn this off. I realize the old about:config flag was tied to a legacy code pathway, but…

After having lived with this turned on for about a month I am happy to report that it doesn't really bother me at all any more now. In the first week or two it just seemed pointless to me, but over time I actually started using the thing more and more. It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance.

> It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance.

I mean, it's not like I have a choice now.

Re: Firefox 77

#118

Post by DangerousPie »

tgv wrote: post #82
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #54

And now my address bar expands on click, because browser.urlbar.update1 was removed from about:config. I knew this day was coming, but I'm still not happy it's here. The movement is distracting, and the alignment of the bar's expanded state is terrible. There's a reason most graphic design follows a grid system. We need a way to turn this off. I realize the old about:config flag was tied to a legacy code pathway, but…

It's really obtrusive. It takes up too much space, perhaps only by 2 pixels on each side or so, but it's too much, the contrast is too large, the outline is too heavy, and the a m o u n t o f w h i t e s p a c e is plain annoying. Why do they persist in these ugly design shenanigans?

I suspect a lot of this is about making it easier to use with touch input. Which doesn't mean I like it, but I can understand why they're doing it.

Re: Firefox 77

#119

Post by Wowfunhappy »

DangerousPie wrote: post #118
tgv wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really obtrusive. It takes up too much space, perhaps only by 2 pixels on each side or so, but it's too much, the contrast is too large, the outline is too heavy, and the a m o u n t o f w h i t e s p a c e is plain annoying. Why do they persist in these ugly design shenanigans?

I suspect a lot of this is about making it easier to use with touch input. Which doesn't mean I like it, but I can understand why they're doing it.

How does this benefit touch input? It expands after clicking—the tap target hasn't changed.

Re: Firefox 77

#120

Post by DangerousPie »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #117
DangerousPie wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After having lived with this turned on for about a month I am happy to report that it doesn't really bother me at all any more now. In the first week or two it just seemed pointless to me, but over time I actually started using the thing more and more. It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance.

> It's definitely not a massive improvement and I'm not sure if I'd have added it if I had had the choice but it may be worth just giving it a chance. I mean, it's not like I have a choice now.

Yeah, it's definitely not worth dealing with weird hacks just to get rid of it. In the first week or so it bothered me too, then it seemed pointless but I didn't care and after I while I actually started using it.
Post reply on HN