If anyone from Mozilla is reading, is it too much to ask to host apk's for the mobile version on your site and provide other update mechanisms apart from google app store? Like what Signal are doing.
Firefox 72.0
221–230 of 543 posts
Re: Firefox 72.0
#222Re: picture in picture - anyone else here think that this feature doesn't belong to a browser? It just seems so... erm... random, basically. Looks like something that was cloned from some other product and rather crudely shoehorned in. At the very least it should have been introduced after an update and given an option to opt-in to using it, rather than automatically enabling it without any notice.
It feels like one of those features that you'd be skeptical of until you use/need it. Using an embedded youtube or other video player that doesn't let you resize? Pop it out! Want to put a youtube vid in a corner while you do other stuff? Pop it out, switch tabs, and go about your business!
If anyone wants to try PiP for elements in Chrome, here's Google's extension for it: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/picture-in-picture...
For example, I love it for Netflix so that I can watch a show while doing other things on my laptop.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header. DNT is pretty dead, and IMHO was never a good idea in the first place. Opt-outing of invasive and unethical tracking is just weird. What about people who don't know about it? Or don't fully understand what it means? It's almost like the Hitchhiker's Guide : "Well, you should have visited the planning department in the disused lavatory with a sign 'beware of the leopa…
True, but is DNT the lesser evil compared to what we have now, which is only annoyance and effectively no control.
Well, if you're going to lobby for a change to the law then you might as well lobby for a change that's actually a good one, instead of a half-baked one that barely works.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slack has started disabling unrelated features if you disallow notifications. For instance, you can’t add channels to the “ignore @here” list if notifications are off. I’m sure this’ll get worse over time. FF needs a “disable notifications, but lie to the website and say they’re enabled” button.
I don't understand why browsers would ever not lie about this.
Maybe because of the privacy implications of web workers keeping connections/checking for new notifications in the background?
Re: Firefox 72.0
#225After the recent missteps by Chrome (mangling the display of URLs), I decided to switch to Firefox and DuckDuckGo a few months ago and I was pleasantly surprised at how fast Firefox is these days than what I found it to be 10 years ago. While I still consider DuckDuckGo to be in the "not bad" category, Firefox is in the "seriously awesome" category now. If you have been away from Firefox for a while like me, give it…
Are you a devtools user? How do the Firefox ones compare? I speak as someone who originally switched to Chrome (having been a Firefox user since the Phoenix days!) specifically for the devtools — it's pretty much the biggest factor in my browser choice.
I’ve always preferred Firefox’s dev tools compared to Chrome’s.
Really like the ability to outline flexbox and grid elements.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#226Here's my Firefox wishlist: - Open new windows more quickly. Firefox feels sluggish (on Mac) even though it isn't, simply because it opens new windows far more slowly than Safari or Chrome. - Use the platform native key store. I don't want my passwords stored unencrypted on disk. But I don't want to enter a separate master password either. I do want to use fingerprint/face unlock on mobile to reveal passwords. - Give…
Regarding the native key store, why not just use full disk encryption? The session-specific encryption never made much sense to me, unless you share the computer with others. How many processes do you really have that are not running under your user or root?
I do use full disk encryption, but when I'm logged in, any program that runs as me can access my files (subject to some partial restrictions that Apple introduced a while ago). And anyone gaining access to my unlocked computer can easily copy that password file.
You could say once malware is executed with my credentials it's game over anyway. But I disagree with that. Having a file full of passwords stolen is far worse than than anything else, including key loggers, because it's maximum damage in a minimum amount of time.
I want to make that as difficult as possible for any attacker.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#227After the recent missteps by Chrome (mangling the display of URLs), I decided to switch to Firefox and DuckDuckGo a few months ago and I was pleasantly surprised at how fast Firefox is these days than what I found it to be 10 years ago. While I still consider DuckDuckGo to be in the "not bad" category, Firefox is in the "seriously awesome" category now. If you have been away from Firefox for a while like me, give it…
Try https://www.startpage.com/ . It's uses Google. DDG (mainly) uses Bing (and it sucks).
Re: Firefox 72.0
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lesson is don't change for the sake of change.
If you think of a standard user: - Do they really need to see* http:// or https:// if immediately to the left is the icon which indicates secure/insecure (which is more than just "protocol is https or not")? - Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com which they expect to be as they make their purchase or log in? * noting that b…
> Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com
www.example.com == example.com is an assumption that has never been true and I have seen it screw over regular users countless times. Quietly rewriting the URL and hiding that fact will just make that worse.
As for m.example.com, that is even further from standardized. Me and and at least one person I know have personal websites with short aliases like mike.lastname.tld == m.lastname.tld, not to mention the plethora of sites that don't have matching paths on mobile vs desktop. Even if copying the URL quietly switches it out for the real one (which is bad on its own), that break the surprisingly common workflow of writing down the URL you see on a piece of paper.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lesson is don't change for the sake of change.
If you think of a standard user: - Do they really need to see* http:// or https:// if immediately to the left is the icon which indicates secure/insecure (which is more than just "protocol is https or not")? - Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com which they expect to be as they make their purchase or log in? * noting that b…
While somewhat a bad form for general web browsing, its definitely possible for www.site.com and site.com to be entirely different hosts. In newer versions of Chrome, you would never know which one you were actually on unless you select in the address bar.
Maybe dropping the protocol definition in the URL is debatable, as probably 99.99% of the time in Chrome a user is going to be either http or https, but dropping a part of the hostname is unacceptable in my book.
Would dropping .com be acceptable? All a user wants to see is that they went to Google, to an average user the .com could be seen as redundant clutter as well. Might as well have the address bar show "google" or "cnn" or "facebook" in it, as clearly that's what a user cares about.
Re: Firefox 72.0
#230> Firefox replaces annoying notification request pop-ups with a more delightful experience, by default for all users. The pop-ups no longer interrupt your browsing, in its place, a speech bubble will appear in the address bar when you interact with the site. This is fantastic! I had finally figured out I could turn this off in settings a while ago, glad it's now a default. I get so annoyed by this, annoying indeed!
Well, it's delightfully stupid. In a webapp where you present user a button to activate notifiactions, when the user clicks the button seemingly nothing happens in FF72 (user is focussed on a big enable notifiactions button in the web app and may not notice that some tiny gray icon wiggled a little in the address bar). On a big screen a button in the middle of the screen is so far away from the address bar, that you…
I receive these popups multiple times per day. It is rare that I actually want notifications from your web site (or mobile app). Messaging is one of the few use cases that comes to mind but even then I don't always want to be notified.
Do you mind me asking what your notifications are for?