BRING SIDETABS BACK

[Fred]

See first 100 posts here:

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100319

[Dylan]

+1 Me too.

If I'm working on a project I'll often have many tabs open for
references. It's useful to be able to read their names.

[Fred]

Yes, I'm currently running 58 tabs, which is about average; the UI in
this state is unusable and I'm gritting my teeth using it. If it
wasn't so unstable, I'd be back to Firefox the day side tabs were
over.

[Capy]

I assume the average user rarely opens more than 10 tabs, which are
handled nicely by the default UI. I bet the the designers wanted to
maintain a common Chrome look. Perhaps an extension API would be the
best solution for the relative few who want this feature.

[Fred]

I'd be happy with that, but the current extension limitations won't
allow for something nearly as usable or elegant as side tabs.

[SeaFern]

Actually, I only moved to Chrome when I found that I could enable Side
Tabs, which I had been using on Firefox. Even if I have only 5 or 6
tabs open, with my widescreen monitor I find side tabs essential to my
work, especially with multiple windows open.

I have reluctantly moved back to Firefox (which at least doesn't seem
to crash as often as before) and won't be using Chrome until they
enable Side Tabs. It is a deal breaker for me.

On Feb 13, 12:00 am, Fred <fredkilbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be happy with that, but the current extension limitations won't
> allow for something nearly as usable or elegant assidetabs.
>
> On Feb 12, 5:24 pm, Capy <codyku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > I assume the average user rarely opens more than 10tabs, which are

> > handled nicely by the default UI.  I bet the the designers wanted to
> > maintain a common Chrome look.  Perhaps an extension API would be the
> > best solution for the relative few who want this feature.
>
> > On Feb 12, 5:16 pm, Fred <fredkilbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > Yes, I'm currently running 58tabs, which is about average; the UI in

> > > this state is unusable and I'm gritting my teeth using it.  If it
> > > wasn't so unstable, I'd be back to Firefox the daysidetabswere
> > > over.
>
> > > On Feb 12, 7:52 am, Dylan <dylan.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > +1 Me too.
>

> > > > If I'm working on a project I'll often have manytabsopen for

[JC]

On Feb 13, 8:49 am, SeaFern <buddhisti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have reluctantly moved back to Firefox (which at least doesn't seem
> to crash as often as before) and won't be using Chrome until they
> enable Side Tabs.  It is a deal breaker for me.

I noticed an upgrade notice for Firefox today which said "it doesn't
crash as much as it used to!". Very disappointed that I'll have to be
switching back to it from Chrome now that side tabs are officially
dead here.

[Ben]

I made an extension, but it's very "simple" and not a complete
implementation, nor is it at all integrated with the browser.

Just search "Side Tabs" on the Web Store, it should be one of the first
results.

[iipavlov]

Nice effort Ben. However as you say in the description of the
extension it never could be same as an integrated feature.
And also for me one of the most important purposes of the side tabs is
to remove the horizontal tabs an free some more vertical space, which
would not be possible without changes in the core Chrome code.

[PhistucK]

You could switch to full screen mode, though (on Macintosh is still has some toolbar, though).

(But then you will lose the Windows task bar)

☆PhistucK

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[Fred]

So, is there going to be any actual discussion about the viability of
this as an option, or is it going to be ignored just the same way it
was on the issue tracker?

On Feb 17, 5:06 am, PhistucK <phist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You could switch to full screen mode, though (on Macintosh is still has
> some toolbar, though).
> (But then you will lose the Windows task bar)
>

> ☆*PhistucK*

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:00, iipavlov <iipav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice effort Ben. However as you say in the description of the
> > extension it never could be same as an integrated feature.
> > And also for me one of the most important purposes of the side tabs is
> > to remove the horizontal tabs an free some more vertical space, which
> > would not be possible without changes in the core Chrome code.
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:28 am, Ben <benjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I made an extension, but it's very "simple" and not a complete
> > > implementation, nor is it at all integrated with the browser.
>
> > > Just search "Side Tabs" on the Web Store, it should be one of the first
> > > results.
>
> > > On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 20:23 -0800, JC wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 13, 8:49 am, SeaFern <buddhisti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I have reluctantly moved back to Firefox (which at least doesn't seem
> > > > > to crash as often as before) and won't be using Chrome until they
> > > > > enable Side Tabs.  It is a deal breaker for me.
>
> > > > I noticed an upgrade notice for Firefox today which said "it doesn't
> > > > crash as much as it used to!". Very disappointed that I'll have to be
> > > > switching back to it from Chrome now that side tabs are officially
> > > > dead here.
>
> > --

> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Fred]

On that note, is there an admin who can please post a comment in the
closed issue tracker: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100319
directing people here? I'm sure there are many there who won't come
across this thread.

[David Phillips]

It feels like we're spitting in the wind on the Chrome side tabs
issue. With mega millions to spend on advertising Chrome on national
TV, why should Google care about a handful of disgruntled users?

[Quill]

>why should Google care about a handful of disgruntled users?

Because maybe they could be nice guys and add features some people
request, like and use, instead of being greedy cunts and care only
about advertisements and market shares.

[Lisa]

the issue: Chrome devs breaking my browser (yes broken, as in, far
less usable) without good reason..

Well, I am not entirely sure why I'm bothering to join the group to
discuss since everything so far has basically been of the tone "too
bad, so sad."

Nevermind that it's inconvenienced everyone who did manage to find it
on the flags page and used it to solve two of the most fundamental
hard-to-work-around issues with the current vanilla chrome: issues for
some with vertical space and issues for others who keep large numbers
of tabs open while browsing.

Quick recap:

I am not entirely sure how long side tabs were in, since, I, as with
many others, found it through exploring the "chrome://flags" page
being that the feature was entirely unadvertised. There were some
blogs and other articles that explained how to get them, as well. An
example: (now with an update saying tabs have been removed):
http://www.techerator.com/2010/07/how-to-enable-vertical-tabs-in-google-chrome/
, dated 23 JUL 2010. So lets just be generous and say this feature was
in for, at a minimum, a year and a half.

Then, without ever notifyng anyone they were available, we were told
the feature was removed due to... ahem... "lack of interest." (Yes, no
interest, e.g., https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/
: Tree Style Tab, 83,422 users.) Besides, as if interest could have
ever built when it was never even placed on the main configuration
page.

At this point 117 people have starred and there are, let's say, ~75
comments on the issues on a bugtracker issue
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=104937 regarding
the matter, prior to which we also had others (check the first issues
link there's a post with other links to things showing the support for
keeping sidetabs) and this one:

-----------------------------------

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=99332#c25

"Comment 25 by gl...@chromium.org, Oct 14, 2011
I'm the 'Glen' referred to in thakis' original posting, and I feel we
owe you some explanation.

As an experiment, side tabs weren't a success - a small number of
people really passionately loved them, but they ended up not being
compelling enough to make the cut. We torture ourselves over stuff
like this - it comes down to painful decisions about keeping Chrome
lightweight - we know that a feature like this is really important to
some number of users (and Chrome developers!), but at the same time we
have to continually cut and trim things, knowing that those cuts will
annoy people, so that Chrome doesn't turn into bloatware that
satisfies no-one.

We do hope to have a better solution to the "I have too many tabs"
problem someday soon, but side-tabs wasn't it. I'm really sorry that
we let the experiment linger too long - it meant that many of you
became dependent on it, making the end of the experiment an even
bigger pain than we wanted it to be. "

-----------------------------------

Yep yep, was cut and trimmed, there was a decision taken to remove
them, 'cause it could possibly stop working, maybe, so really why
leave it in for more than the year and a half, I mean, of course it
was just a chrome://flags option, so we can remove them at any time.
Nevermind that it's what kept many people using chrome in the first
place, since it makes browsing much more convenient, especially with
large numbers of tabs or widescreen aspect monitors, the developers
have control to remove it so why listen to "a few" users that are
switching to firefox or freezing their Chrome at the last sidetab
enabled version? (Oh and BTW, side tabs actually was the solution for
many people, and not just for too many open tabs, so your statement is
simply an assertion and a wish, not anything based in reality....

FTFY: "We do have a fantasy that some day we may provide a way to fix
the "I have too many tabs" problem (although it's not like it's even
in the plan at the moment so we can't give you dates on it) but I'm
gong to ignore the other obvious big problem that has no solution,
users needing a way to save vertifcal space, and just make a clearly
false statement ("side-tabs wasn't it") that you should accept without
questioning, but what I really mean is "I didn't like the purity of
the code with side-tabs in it, so I'm deciding that it isn't going to
be a solution for the issue because I'm taking it out and all you
people that use it be damned."

What is said implicitly by standing by this decision: "Hell, who needs
customers when there may someday be a bug in an experimental feature
which actually hasn't had one develop in over a year and which may or
may not ever *actually* develop one, when there is a small small
chance that it will, and then the decision would be justified. Oh,
and nevermind we could make the decision at that point in time instead
of arbitrarily, now, prior to implementing the promised "much better
feature" that will replace side tabs, eventually, probably. Who cares
if 'a few' people are inconvenienced so much they can't use our
browser anymore, amirite?"

Then, another thread was opened which people came to voice support of
the feature over, which was marked as being untriaged! So, we thought
perhaps, maybe, someone told the developers that they should at least
listen to people and perhaps consider re-enabling sidetabs. Oops,
nope, wontfix:

-----------------------------------

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100319 with this
message

"My hope is that ultimately we will add extension-controllable
detachable surfaces or similar under the auspices of bug 51084. At
that point it will be more feasible to implement a feature like this
that has a small but devoted following as an extension.

Until that time, we don't have any plans to re-implement side tabs.
There are a number of higher-impact features we're busy working with.

Bugs in our database are not a good place to discuss and debate
feature decisions. They're a work tracker for the engineering team to
quickly make triage decisions and then either close or schedule the
work. I'm sorry no one did that any sooner on this bug and gave all
of you folks who were waiting some clarity -- if we weren't going to
do this, it would have been good to say so sooner and not give a few
hundred people the misimpression that if only they posted enough
supportive comments we'd change our minds.

I am closing this bug to further non-committer comments. I suggest
that people who wish to discuss this issue use the chromium-discuss
mailing list which is a more appropriate forum for that.

I know this is a disappointing and/or frustrating message, and I'm
sorry about that, but it's better for us to be clear about our plans
than say nothing."

-----------------------------------

In other words: "Shut up, we're removing them, doesn't matter that
nothing was buggy about them in the first place, we're not going to
put them back, and besides we're looking at ways to someday, maybe,
possibly, put a feature in that might allow theoretical extension to
actually imitate the behavior that was already working and simply
removed on the theory that there might someday someway be a problem.
Sorry you're f'ed, but at least we told you that we plan to f you hard
instead of letting you think we might decide not to f you after all,
so drop your pants and close your mouth. At any rate we're closing
this for comments so you can't make your voice heard because it's
bugging the developers even some who might actually care about you, so
f u about that too."

Wow.

Finally, here's a post from Linus Torvalds regarding a recent patch
that was made that broke existing software depending on the kernel,
which as far as i'm concerned is equivalent in this case to breaking
the functionality that existing users were depending on in Chrome:
[N.B.: warning, very strong language!]

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/495

"From Linus Torvalds <>
Date Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:40:26 -0800
Subject Re: [PATCH] sysfs: Optionally count subdirectories to support
buggy applications

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebie...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth
> doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility

Stop right there.

This is *not* about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility".

This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES.

So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
stop making excuses, and stop blathering.

End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of
your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making
excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely.

Seriously. Binary compatibility is *so* important that I do not want
to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand
that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show
yourself to be unreliable. Don't do it.

Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top
priorities. The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the first
place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own.
Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly
bad that was - is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer
can do.

Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some
research project. We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole
and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some
crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing.

Really.

Linus"

Or, my rework for Chrome: (apologies to Linus, hmm, a derived work,
that's probably ok right? ;D)

"> But the feature might some day get some sort of bugs in it
> and then you'll whine about it. Plus it sucks and we'll probably
> add extension functionality that will let someone write one
> someday that will do what you need... probably.

Stop right there.

This is *not* about whether the feature might possibly have bugs due
to some
unspecified future changes that don't exist yet and may never.

This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BROWSERS for your
customers.

So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
stop making excuses, and stop blathering.

End of story. Maintaining functional compatibility with features that
have
been available, experimental or not, for well over a year, and not
simply
removing them because of theoretical problems that haven't even
happened
yet is more important than any of your arrogant developer bullshit. If
anyone
had control over the release schedule and feature-set other than the
developers, I'd damn well hope they would make sure that you never
had
a chance to fuck over your users ever again.

Seriously. Maintaining functionality that is not only a convenience,
but
a *necessity* for many users (many of whom in this case have already
switched back to Firefox and will likely never be back due to your
arrogant
attitude and non-responsiveness in fixing the problem (that you
*broke
their browser!*) is *so* important that I do not want to have anything
to do
with Chrome developers who don't understand that importance.

If you continue to make lame excuses and come up with arguments
implying
metrics that, if I had to guess, had never actually even been taken,
but were
used as a tactic to shut down the users sine they don't have access to
know
you're lying about them, then you only show yourself to be
unreliable.

Don't do it.

Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
understand that not totally screwing over our users, even if it's a
small
subset of them that found that feature vital and used it and relied on
it
to be in our browser, is one of the absolute top priorities, and lame
excuses about how the hidden extension didn't have enough support
or how it's on the experimental feature list just don't cut it. If it
was
going to be removed, you needed to do it before so many people came
to rely on the feature, and if you wanted to see how much support it
would
have gotten you should have damn well made it enabled by default for
a
few cycles (since it's still an option, even so) to see whether your
assertions that it's such a small subset that would use it are really
true,.

The *only* reason for a browser existing in the first place is to
serve
the web needs of the user. The browser has no relevance unless it is
making the life of the people that use it better than it would have
been
if it had otherwise not been available. Breaking existing features
(that
have been around long enough to show that they are vital to a certain
subset of users, regardless of whether they are on the experimental
list and therefore "technically" can be removed without debate) on
your own bullshit reasons - and then not acknowledging how horribly
bad that was and how badly you fucked your users - is just about the
*worst* offense any browser development can commit in my opinion.

Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
of the browser is after all. We're not masturbating around with some
research project. We never were. Even when Chrome was young, the
whole and only point was to make a *usable* fast, small, smart browser
unlike the alternatives available beforehand. That's why it's not some
crazy drug-induced "Opera" or other random crazy thing.

And I'm just kidding about Opera, they too care more about their
customers than you appear to. Just get over your damn self.

Really.

Chelle"


---

NOTE:

After writing this message and reviewing what is only even a
smattering of the developer responses, I have decided the the
developers in charge of removing side-tabs have made a decision that
their view of 'purity' of the system is more important than the fact
that the lucky users that even managed to find the feature are now
forced to use what is clearly a sub-standard UI are totally screwed
and have no equivalent options, even though the supposed reasons for
taking it out don't seem to actually exist. Nor were we ever given any
indication that the invisible metrics used to determine how costly the
feature was to keep in the system actually exist except in the minds
of these few developers.

Let's see how popular it is when it's actually part and parcel of
Chrome (e.g. advertise it, and move it from chrome://flags to a normal
wrench menu items); then maybe the claims that the feature isn't very
widely used will hold water, although I imagine that, instead, you'll
find almost every user who ever has more than a few tabs open (or who
has limited vertical real-estate but plenty of horizontal real-estate)
will be using the feature.

So, given that I am less important to the developers of the software
than hypotheticals and the possible future fixes for the fact that
they *broke my browser*, I have decided I am no longer going to
continue to use this outdated version of Chrome, and I will instead be
switching immediately to Firefox with the tree tabs extension;
besides, over the past two years I have seen Chrome go from the
fastest browser in the west to one that is (despite the cries of how
bloated the sidetabs feature might be making the browser) much
clunkier and slower, and takes up a HUGE memory footprint.

I will likely use it from time to time for particular purposes, but
from this point forward you have entirely lost a good advocate for
your browser: I have in the past installed Chrome for friends/family
or suggested they install it because of the advantages over IE or FF,
but as far as I can tell, not only has FF mostly caught up in
performance (and is headed the right direction), but Chrome is headed
the wrong way down that road, and in addition the developers care
little enough about their users that they are willing to remove
features vital to the use of their browser for those people. So, I
now care about Chrome similarly.

kthxbai... (Chrome, not this group...) I look forward to using a
browser that seems to head the right direction (e.g. performance,
memory footprint, RE: broken version changes/plugins issue finally
fixed) even if it may take a while rather than the wrong direction, on
purpose, with full knowledge that it throws at least a small subset of
their users on the fire to do so.

Chelle

[David Phillips]

Lisa, thank you for the lengthy, thoughtful, interesting tirade. :) Now here's the thing that puzzles me. 83K+ users of Firefox Tree Tabs! That was interesting. And even with the delightful Tree Tabs design, users still had to recognize that they had a problem -- lack of space for readable tab names -- and then go find a solution. So, how come none of the technical press have picked up this issue? Surely someone or more of us in this small but exceeding angry group knows some one or more people that could make something out of this?

For that matter, why isn't moving tabs to the side for all browsers a meme. With today's wide monitors in particular, it makes great sense for improved usability.

  --David

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Lisa <chelle....@gmail.com> wrote:

the issue: Chrome devs breaking my browser (yes broken, as in, far

less usable) without good reason. . .

[Robert]

They will close this one like the others, with no reason at all, hoping we will stop trying and forget about this. 

Chrome (and frankly any other browser without sidetabs support) suck at handling many tabs, even on a 30 inch monitors, devs should understand that this is an important feature and must be added back.

We have two options, fork chrome and add sidetabs support or use firefox or any other alternative.

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

--
Software Developer

[David Phillips]

I wonder what the plans are for SRWare Iron browser, a Chrome fork with privacy as its highest value? I'm using its version 13 to retain side tabs in a close to Chrome browser.

[PhistucK]

Here is something to read about SRWare Iron...

http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html

☆PhistucK

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 17:33, David Phillips <da...@qxo.com> wrote:

I wonder what the plans are for SRWare Iron browser, a Chrome fork with privacy as its highest value? I'm using its version 13 to retain side tabs in a close to Chrome browser.

[David Phillips]

Interesting read that certainly affects my impression of Iron. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
  --David

[Prabal]

I would like to point out one minor thing - Facebook, the world's most
popular social networking site (just saying it to emphasize it!) - has
put it's chat in a sidebar (which you can always turn off). If the
world's most 'loved' site can do it and hundreds of millions of people
are accepting/using it on a daily basis, why can't something like that
work on Chrome? I know that a sidebar and sidetab is different...but
the basic concept is same and the point I want to make is people are
willing to accept it as long as you have something to turn if off.

Just my two $0.02

[Fred]

Glad that people are starting to find their way here. Feels like
chrome is just making people who actually care about this jump through
hoops to make their point heard. I think they are drastically
underestimating the popularity of this feature as well, especially
since it was so obscured, it's not like anybody non-techie really got
to try it.

There lies the other flaw in their thinking. They are pissing on the
tech users, the ones who loved Firefox when it came on the scene, the
ones who advocated it to all their non-tech friends because it's
better than Intenet Explorer. These were then the same people who
started moving the masses to Chrome and who will move all their
friends on to the next great thing.

Please Chrome, don't stop being the next great thing, I fear it may
already be happening!

Everyone get the word out, lets try and get the same attention in this
obscure feature request Google group that we had on the issue tracker.

~ Fred

On Mar 25, 12:24 am, Prabal <prabal....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to point out one minor thing - Facebook, the world's most
> popular social networking site (just saying it to emphasize it!) - has
> put it's chat in a sidebar (which you can always turn off). If the
> world's most 'loved' site can do it and hundreds of millions of people
> are accepting/using it on a daily basis, why can't something like that
> work on Chrome? I know that a sidebar and sidetab is different...but
> the basic concept is same and the point I want to make is people are
> willing to accept it as long as you have something to turn if off.
>
> Just my two $0.02
>
> On 3/24/12, David Phillips <da...@qxo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Interesting read that certainly affects my impression of Iron. Thanks for
> > bringing it to my attention.
> >   --David
>

> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM, PhistucK <phist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Here is something to read about SRWare Iron...
> >>http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
>
> > --

> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[virtualAdmin]

Just wanted to throw in and say that you're killing the developers
(and power users) with this move. A couple months back when I got the
Chrome update that killed sidetabs, I immediately started evaluating
other browsers for my heavy lifting use, like at work. None are as
good as Chrome in general, but dammit when you have two dozen open
tabs in a top-tabbed browser you just can't read the titles any more.
This is how many of us work and play, and when it comes to work we
can't just compromise. I know Chrome development has to appeal to
everyone, but I'm getting really fed up with having to choose between
tiny toptabs or Opera.

This sort of reminds me of the Windows 8 Metro interface. It sounds
awesome - for a tablet. But I really doubt it will be used for
serious things. I mean, Chrome developers - don't you guys multitask?

I might consider running a concurrent fork of Chrome - something like
patching the latest stable build with the sidetabs code. But I've
heard it takes hours to build Chrome, and it sounds like a lot of
work. I've already got a day job and a bunch of hobbies. It's just
sort of depressing. Speaking of day job... good night.

[Capy]

I use multiple windows for 20+ tabs because all 20+ tabs rarely relate
to the same thing. I think the regular UI looks cleaner because there
is chrome in only one region (horizontal bar rather than horizontal
bar and vertical bar). I can see the appeal to the power user though.

Also, the closest standard multitasking element I see is FF's
Panorama. What power users usually use?

[Stephen]

Since arguably a minor subset of (it seems vocal) users like side
tabs, it makes more sense to me, to have this feature as an extension
rather than in the browser proper.

Everyone has their pet option, however my impression is that
Google-Chrome is mostly for the mainstream regular user. That user
would unlikely find side tabs useful.

> --
> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
>    http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

--
Best Regards,
Stephen Allen

[PAEz]

> Everyone has their pet option, however my impression is that
> Google-Chrome is mostly for the mainstream regular user. That user
> would unlikely find side tabs useful.

How could anyone know considering it was only ever experimental and
the "regular user" would have never got to try it.
Ive had many regular users tell me they cant use Chrome because of the
tiny tab problem and I think its a shame considering how much I love
Chrome.

> Since arguably a minor subset of (it seems vocal) users like side
> tabs, it makes more sense to me, to have this feature as an extension
> rather than in the browser proper.

If only we could, but there is no good way to implement it with an
extension with the way things are now.

[Stephen]

There are quite a few tab extensions and if none suit your need,
scratch your own itch and make an extension yourself. That's what this
open source development is all about. ;-D

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/tabs?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon

[Fred]

True as that may be, most look like a child's artwork compared to real
side tabs. The API for plugins doesn't allow for the necessary GUI
modifications to actually make this work. I'm sure most people here
who want side tabs back so badly would be happy with an enhancement of
the chrome API so we can just do it ourselves, but that hasn't been an
option either thus far.

~ Fred

On Apr 17, 7:33 am, Stephen <stephen.d.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are quite a few tab extensions and if none suit your need,
> scratch your own itch and make an extension yourself. That's what this
> open source development is all about. ;-D
>

> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/tabs?utm_source=chrome-ntp-...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:19 AM, PAEz <cdkp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone has their pet option, however my impression is that
> >> Google-Chrome is mostly for the mainstream regular user. That user
> >> would unlikely find side tabs useful.
> > How could anyone know considering it was only ever experimental and
> > the "regular user" would have never got to try it.
> > Ive had many regular users tell me they cant use Chrome because of the
> > tiny tab problem and I think its a shame considering how much I love
> > Chrome.
>
> >> Since arguably a minor subset of (it seems vocal) users like side
> >> tabs, it makes more sense to me, to have this feature as an extension
> >> rather than in the browser proper.
> > If only we could, but there is no good way to implement it with an
> > extension with the way things are now.
>
> > --

> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Stephen]

I've never seen anyone ask where the side tabs are, granted that's in
my little world, as I'm sure your anecdotal statement "many regular
users" are. :-D Even hundreds wishing it, in the scope of such a large
project is hardly representative of the user base.

Larger companies like Google, know exactly what their users want.
They're constantly using methods to ascertain such -- The question
here is; How mainstream is side tab use? None of the adherents for
this feature have ever been able to say that a certain % of the
millions of Chrome users want this.

This probably is why it will never be in the project. Resources are
limited and I'm sure Google wishes to use these resources prudently.
Doing so on a feature that a very minimal set of users use isn't a
good use of developer resources.

I'm not a Google employee nor associated with the Chromium project
other than as a user.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Fred <fredki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How could anyone know considering it was only ever experimental and
>> > the "regular user" would have never got to try it.
>> > Ive had many regular users tell me they cant use Chrome because of the
>> > tiny tab problem and I think its a shame considering how much I love
>> > Chrome.

--
Best Regards,
Stephen Allen

[David Phillips]

If most individuals and companies operated the way that Stephen Allen suggests they do, waiting until some significant percentage of their existing users are clamoring for a feature before introducing it, then we wouldn't even have Google as a company, much less a Chrome browser, or browser wars.

People are driven to compete, improve, excel, differentiate, gain an edge. Companies often introduce innovative features before users as a whole even have an idea that such a thing is possible or more desirable than the status quo.

If the number of users who, like me, consider Chrome a better browser, but feel they can no longer function effectively with horizontal tabs, to such an extent that they revert to Firefox with its highly effective Tree Tabs display, while complaining bitterly about the loss in Chrome, is microscopically small it still speaks to a large and significant opportunity. Further, expanding Chrome API capabilities to encompass an extension such as vertical tabs (positionable at either side, or in a dockable window) would open up all kinds of innovations which users and developers might have not even a glimmer of how useful they could be.

[Stephen]

The argument to appease the vocal minority via emotional blackmail. Good job.

--
Best Regards,
Stephen Allen

[Andre-John Mas]

I suppose the alternative solution would be for some third party to provide this feature via a fork or patch? That is the beautiful thing with open source, though it does depend on being able to code in that language. Anyone wanting to step up to the challenge?

In certain cases emotional blackmail will work, but when you already have your plate full, as the developer, or have a different philosophical point of view it won't.

André-John

Sent from my phone. Envoyé depuis mon téléphone.

> --
> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org

[David Phillips]

"Emotional Blackmail," wow! I wouldn't have thought my words could have that effect or weight. I'd be impressed, except I doubt that a hard-nosed business manager or software developer doing triage on resources versus opportunities would get emotional.

I wouldn't want to see a software fork, and I doubt the Chrome Developers would either. Better to put all your eggs into one basket and make that basket beautiful.

The reason I, and I presume for many others of the Chrome Killed Side Tabs Critics, feel so emotional is the appearance that developers killed a feature that was to all appearances working perfectly fine and performing a valuable service. Chrome developers have yet to describe how the side tabs feature impeded their work, and the suspicion lingers that they were gratuitously stripping out code that they personally didn't value.

  --David

[Stephen]

David there is already forks. We're referring to Chromium not Chrome.

[David Phillips]

Thank you, Stephen. Yes, I sometimes use the SRWare Iron fork so that I can keep side tabs, but I mostly use FireFox and the Tree Tabs add-on.

I'm not clear on the distinction between Chromium and Chrome with respect to the side tabs issue. Chromium.org says, "The Chromium projects include Chromium and Chromium OS, the open-source projects behind the Google Chrome browser and Google Chrome OS, respectively."

  --David

[Andre-John Mas]

Is there any reason side tabs could not be made as an add-on for Chrome too?

[Stephen]

There is also RockMelt http://goo.gl/yk4sf

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM, David Phillips <da...@qxo.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Stephen. Yes, I sometimes use the SRWare Iron fork so that I can
> keep side tabs, but I mostly use FireFox and the Tree Tabs add-on.

--
Best Regards,
Stephen Allen

[Archie]

When side tabs are available in Chrome, I will be happy to use it
because I like its other features, memory usage, and speed. Until
then, back to to Firefox.

On Mar 24, 6:37 am, Lisa <chelle.libe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the issue: Chrome devs breaking my browser (yes broken, as in, far
> less usable) without good reason..
>
> Well, I am not entirely sure why I'm bothering to join the group to
> discuss since everything so far has basically been of the tone "too
> bad, so sad."
>
> Nevermind that it's inconvenienced everyone who did manage to find it
> on the flags page and used it to solve two of the most fundamental
> hard-to-work-around issues with the current vanilla chrome: issues for
> some with vertical space and issues for others who keep large numbers

> oftabsopen while browsing.
>
> Quick recap:
>
> I am not entirely sure how longsidetabswere in, since, I, as with

> many others, found it through exploring the "chrome://flags" page
> being that the feature was entirely unadvertised. There were some
> blogs and other articles that explained how to get them, as well. An

> example: (now with an update sayingtabshave been removed):http://www.techerator.com/2010/07/how-to-enable-vertical-tabs-in-goog...

> , dated 23 JUL 2010. So lets just be generous and say this feature was
> in for, at a minimum, a year and a half.
>
> Then, without ever notifyng anyone they were available, we were told
> the feature was removed due to... ahem... "lack of interest." (Yes, no

> interest, e.g.,https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/

> : Tree Style Tab, 83,422 users.) Besides, as if interest could have
> ever built when it was never even placed on the main configuration
> page.
>
> At this point 117 people have starred and there are, let's say, ~75
> comments on the issues on a bugtracker issuehttp://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=104937regarding
> the matter, prior to which we also had others (check the first issues
> link there's a post with other links to things showing the support for
> keeping sidetabs) and this one:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=99332#c25
>

> "Comment 25 by g...@chromium.org, Oct 14, 2011

> I'm the 'Glen' referred to in thakis' original posting, and I feel we
> owe you some explanation.
>

> As an experiment,sidetabsweren't a success - a small number of

> people really passionately loved them, but they ended up not being
> compelling enough to make the cut. We torture ourselves over stuff
> like this - it comes down to painful decisions about keeping Chrome
> lightweight - we know that a feature like this is really important to
> some number of users (and Chrome developers!), but at the same time we
> have to continually cut and trim things, knowing that those cuts will
> annoy people, so that Chrome doesn't turn into bloatware that
> satisfies no-one.
>
> We do hope to have a better solution to the "I have too manytabs"

> problem someday soon, butside-tabswasn't it. I'm really sorry that

> we let the experiment linger too long - it meant that many of you
> became dependent on it, making the end of the experiment an even
> bigger pain than we wanted it to be. "
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Yep yep, was cut and trimmed, there was a decision taken to remove
> them, 'cause it could possibly stop working, maybe, so really why
> leave it in for more than the year and a half, I mean, of course it
> was just a chrome://flags option, so we can remove them at any time.
> Nevermind that it's what kept many people using chrome in the first
> place, since it makes browsing much more convenient, especially with

> large numbers oftabsor widescreen aspect monitors, the developers

> have control to remove it so why listen to "a few" users that are
> switching to firefox or freezing their Chrome at the last sidetab

> enabled version? (Oh and BTW,sidetabsactually was the solution for
> many people, and not just for too many opentabs, so your statement is

> simply an assertion and a wish, not anything based in reality....
>
> FTFY: "We do have a fantasy that some day we may provide a way to fix

> the "I have too manytabs" problem (although it's not like it's even

> in the plan at the moment so we can't give you dates on it) but I'm
> gong to ignore the other obvious big problem that has no solution,
> users needing a way to save vertifcal space, and just make a clearly

> false statement ("side-tabswasn't it") that you should accept without

> questioning, but what I really mean is "I didn't like the purity of

> the code withside-tabsin it, so I'm deciding that it isn't going to

> be a solution for the issue because I'm taking it out and all you
> people that use it be damned."
>
> What is said implicitly by standing by this decision: "Hell, who needs
> customers when there may someday be a bug in an experimental feature
> which actually hasn't had one develop in over a year and which may or
> may not ever *actually* develop one, when there is a small small
> chance that it will, and then the decision would be justified.  Oh,
> and nevermind we could make the decision at that point in time instead
> of arbitrarily, now, prior to implementing the promised "much better

> feature" that will replacesidetabs, eventually, probably.  Who cares

> if 'a few' people are inconvenienced so much they can't use our
> browser anymore, amirite?"
>
> Then, another thread was opened which people came to voice support of
> the feature over, which was marked as being untriaged! So, we thought
> perhaps, maybe, someone told the developers that they should at least
> listen to people and perhaps consider re-enabling sidetabs. Oops,
> nope, wontfix:
>
> -----------------------------------
>

> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100319with this

> Or, my ...
>
> read more »

[Jason Simone]

I've have most of my spirits crushed on this and almost didn't reply, but I want my name added to the list of very disappointed users who want this feature. I am now faced with deciding how long I will keep running version 16.0.899.0 (as I still am currently) vs. abandoning Chrome almost entirely.

I primarily use side tabs at work where fit is a huge asset to my researching behaviors. I leave tabs open while I am working on topics that pertain to those articles, and close them only when I am finished with them, or have added the most valuable links  to a personal notebook, like Springpad.

On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:13:11 PM UTC-8, Fred wrote:

See first 100 posts here:

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100319

[Vladimir Lazarenko]

Well, then I'll add myself into the list as well, just for the record. :)

Give us the side tabs back :)

[xaos]

I'm going to add my name to this list. I resent the "a small minority of users" comment when the Tree Style Tabs extension on FF has over 80K users. Maybe if the side tabs option in chrome hadn't been a command line switch, it might have had more users.

[ws]

I utterly agree... When the devs said "We do hope to have a better solution", I can only assume that either:

1) They are too stupid to recognize the value and desire for side tabs

or

2) They really meant "We did a horrible job of writing "side tabs" the first time, creating a mess of spaghetti code.  We hope to be able to do it right in the future, but with how we designed Chrome, it just isn't possible to make side-tabs without writing spaghetti code. Maybe we'll figure it out in the future... but for now, we're just going to bury our heads and ignore all of you tens of thousands of users, since you don't pay us anything and we're getting paid anyway."

If #1 is the case, then even though it's fast, I don't want to use Chrome as a browser.

If #2 is the case, then I still don't want to use Chrome as a browser.

We should just all set up FireFox and Opera  and uninstall Chrome on every computer we help people with.  Just refuse to help them if they won't let us remove Chrome, because "we have found a better solution (firefox+tree style tabs) and only a small minority of users want to continue to use Chrome... You don't want me to have to come back and help again just because you insisted on continuing to use this archaic off-shoot of a web browser, do you?"

[Damian Torres]

+1   I concur.

Personally, I hate comparing Chrome to other browsers, especially MSIE; but in this case, MSIE allows you to customize your tabs at least to a point (address bar halfway, tabs on the same line OR address bar entire width, tabs on seperate line) and all your bars (bookmark bars and crappy 3rd party toolbars) you can unlock and move around.

What I would like to see is, having the tabs be its own bar, that's resizable and customizable.  Reason being, if you have some annoying bar at the top of your screen that hangs over all your windows, it covers the tabs.  I would like to be able to resize the tabs in a way that there is a bunch of blank space above them (without having to download and install a theme) so they don't get covered up by stupid corporate banners.

[muntoonxt]

Sidewise Tree Style Tabs extension to the rescue! It's far better than the original side tabs, anyways.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

Or this one:

TabsOutliner

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl

Both of them much better actually then the original side tabs.

[Mike Austin]

Well.. would love to use Chrome, but can't until they have side tabs.  I mean, can't it be done with extensions or something??

Mike

[Omnray]

They (extensions) cannot. That is the problem. Chrome does not allow such functionality for extensions.

So some resort to very buggy and not really practical emulations by opening the second window side by side and with active Chrome windows. But this have tons of the drawbacks and really not a sidebar.

But actually it is little overvalued. There is some approaches which many find much more usable, take look:

http://i.imgur.com/o8ZvIDH.jpg

not a sidebar, a separate window, and they not try to pretend that this is sidebar, and work very well this way.

also can unload you tabs

save them in case of crash

add comments to them

reorganize freely

and this is my own work : )

[Omnray]

And by the way, all the request to Chromium team about implementing ability  for extensions to utilize  sidebars is officially rejected.

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:06:46 AM UTC+2, Mike Austin wrote: