Firebug 1.4 - A step backwards?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Fotiman
Aug 13, 2009, 1:25:53 PM8/13/09
to Firebug
I'm using Firefox 3.0.13 with Firebug 1.4.2. I recently upgraded from
the 1.3 version to 1.4, and with that I noticed behavior that is far
from desirable. Now it seems that I have to open Firebug BEFORE
viewing a page in order to have the Net panel capture any
information. If I open it after the page has loaded, I see "Net panel
activated. Any requests while the net panel is inactive are not
shown." But often times, I don't know that I want to see the Net
panel information until AFTER the page has already loaded (and I don't
want to refresh). Previous versions of Firebug did not behave this
way.
My assumption is that this is a change to attempt to reduce memory
usage and improve system performance, which I can certainly
understand. However, I think that there should be a boolean flag that
determines whether or not the Net panel should always be "activated"
or whether it is only activated when you open the Firebug panel. That
way, those who don't care about the memory consumption and who want
the Net panel to be always active can have it their way, and those who
like the new behavior can have it their way.
I hope you will consider adding this to 1.4.
Thanks.
the 1.3 version to 1.4, and with that I noticed behavior that is far
from desirable. Now it seems that I have to open Firebug BEFORE
viewing a page in order to have the Net panel capture any
information. If I open it after the page has loaded, I see "Net panel
activated. Any requests while the net panel is inactive are not
shown." But often times, I don't know that I want to see the Net
panel information until AFTER the page has already loaded (and I don't
want to refresh). Previous versions of Firebug did not behave this
way.
My assumption is that this is a change to attempt to reduce memory
usage and improve system performance, which I can certainly
understand. However, I think that there should be a boolean flag that
determines whether or not the Net panel should always be "activated"
or whether it is only activated when you open the Firebug panel. That
way, those who don't care about the memory consumption and who want
the Net panel to be always active can have it their way, and those who
like the new behavior can have it their way.
I hope you will consider adding this to 1.4.
Thanks.
Nicolas Hatier
Aug 13, 2009, 1:54:48 PM8/13/09
to fir...@googlegroups.com
v1.3 was automatically refreshing the page when you opened it. v1.4 does
not.
not.
If you want the Net panel to always be active, select "On for all pages"
in the firebug icon menu. The Firestarter extension may help you
"blacklist" a few pages you don't want Firebug at all on.
NH
johnjbarton
Aug 13, 2009, 1:55:02 PM8/13/09
to Firebug
On Aug 13, 10:25 am, Fotiman <foti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm using Firefox 3.0.13 with Firebug 1.4.2. I recently upgraded from
> the 1.3 version to 1.4, and with that I noticed behavior that is far
> from desirable. Now it seems that I have to open Firebug BEFORE
> viewing a page in order to have the Net panel capture any
difference you are seeing is do to some setting you had in 1.3 and you
have not found the equivalent in 1.4.
I guess that as soon as you open Firebug you need to reload. Then you
have the same as 1.3?
> information. If I open it after the page has loaded, I see "Net panel
> activated. Any requests while the net panel is inactive are not
> shown." But often times, I don't know that I want to see the Net
> panel information until AFTER the page has already loaded (and I don't
> want to refresh). Previous versions of Firebug did not behave this
> way.
reload. So in 1.3 we automatically and silently reloaded on
activation, which is perhaps why you thought it was active before the
load.
By "I don't want to refresh" did you mean "I don't want Firebug to
connect to the server again"? Then 1.4 does what you want.
But if you mean "I don't want to have to press control-R", then see
below.
>
> My assumption is that this is a change to attempt to reduce memory
> usage and improve system performance, which I can certainly
> understand.
you have to reload manually.
> However, I think that there should be a boolean flag that
> determines whether or not the Net panel should always be "activated"
> or whether it is only activated when you open the Firebug panel. That
> way, those who don't care about the memory consumption and who want
> the Net panel to be always active can have it their way, and those who
> like the new behavior can have it their way.
>
> I hope you will consider adding this to 1.4.
it in 1.4.
>
> Thanks.
Fotiman
Aug 13, 2009, 2:10:46 PM8/13/09
to Firebug
Of course, 10 minutes after posting this, I found exactly what I was
looking for.
Right clicking on the Firebug icon in the Firefox status bar shows the
options:
"Off for All Web Pages"
"On for All Web Pages"
I think the new "Off" button is confusing. It's location is such that
it seems it could mean "close the Firebug panel", but that is not the
actual functionality. Instead, it disables Firebug for the current
site (which also closes the Firebug panel). The "minimize Firebug"
button should be in the location that the "Off" button is in (at
least, as a Windows user, that's where I would expect it to be
located, since minimize essentially equals close the panel). I would
probably move that Off button to somewhere where it won't be confused
as a close/minimize Firebug button.
In addition, the "Off for All Web Pages" and "On for All Pages"
selection should also exist in the Firebug "Options" menu. That was
where I went looking initially.
Thanks.
looking for.
Right clicking on the Firebug icon in the Firefox status bar shows the
options:
"Off for All Web Pages"
"On for All Web Pages"
I think the new "Off" button is confusing. It's location is such that
it seems it could mean "close the Firebug panel", but that is not the
actual functionality. Instead, it disables Firebug for the current
site (which also closes the Firebug panel). The "minimize Firebug"
button should be in the location that the "Off" button is in (at
least, as a Windows user, that's where I would expect it to be
located, since minimize essentially equals close the panel). I would
probably move that Off button to somewhere where it won't be confused
as a close/minimize Firebug button.
In addition, the "Off for All Web Pages" and "On for All Pages"
selection should also exist in the Firebug "Options" menu. That was
where I went looking initially.
Thanks.
johnjbarton
Aug 13, 2009, 2:40:23 PM8/13/09
to Firebug
On Aug 13, 11:10 am, Fotiman <foti...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> In addition, the "Off for All Web Pages" and "On for All Pages"
> selection should also exist in the Firebug "Options" menu. That was
> where I went looking initially.
Yes, in 1.5 I guess we will have no Off for all pages, just "Clear All
> selection should also exist in the Firebug "Options" menu. That was
> where I went looking initially.
Activations" as a button (not an option). And no On for all pages,
just "On by Default" in the options as you say.
jjb
dan_m2k
Aug 14, 2009, 5:11:38 AM8/14/09
to Firebug
I'd agree. Though the latest build has solved a lot of the problems
that I've found of late, the lagest Firebug does feel like it's fallen
backwards - the activation model being one of the main bugbares.
The firebug icon (colored/greyed out) is counter intuitive as it often
fails to respond to the 'enable all panels' or 'no panels' options -
therfore giving no meaningful feedback, and likewise there is no
intuitive way to find out you've accidentally enabled for everything,
until, say, you find that gMail has issues loading as it's going thru
Firebug.
The various other issues relating to console logging being hit and
miss, the inspector failing to highlight the selected node/failing to
keep it selected, and the net tab, make the end user experience very
frustraiting.
A side note to other users - I did have some performance improvements/
less glitches by completely removing Firefox and all application
support, library folders and so-forth from my Mac before doing a
reinstall of FF and Firebug. YMMV.
that I've found of late, the lagest Firebug does feel like it's fallen
backwards - the activation model being one of the main bugbares.
The firebug icon (colored/greyed out) is counter intuitive as it often
fails to respond to the 'enable all panels' or 'no panels' options -
therfore giving no meaningful feedback, and likewise there is no
intuitive way to find out you've accidentally enabled for everything,
until, say, you find that gMail has issues loading as it's going thru
Firebug.
The various other issues relating to console logging being hit and
miss, the inspector failing to highlight the selected node/failing to
keep it selected, and the net tab, make the end user experience very
frustraiting.
A side note to other users - I did have some performance improvements/
less glitches by completely removing Firefox and all application
support, library folders and so-forth from my Mac before doing a
reinstall of FF and Firebug. YMMV.
johnjbarton
Aug 14, 2009, 10:07:00 AM8/14/09
to Firebug
On Aug 14, 2:11 am, dan_m2k <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd agree. Though the latest build has solved a lot of the problems
> that I've found of late, the lagest Firebug does feel like it's fallen
> backwards - the activation model being one of the main bugbares.
>
> The firebug icon (colored/greyed out) is counter intuitive as it often
> fails to respond to the 'enable all panels' or 'no panels' options -
> therfore giving no meaningful feedback, and likewise there is no
> intuitive way to find out you've accidentally enabled for everything,
> until, say, you find that gMail has issues loading as it's going thru
> Firebug.
mean "I set On for All Web Page" then forgot I had set it because the
UI does not change when this option is set?
>
> The various other issues relating to console logging being hit and
> miss, the inspector failing to highlight the selected node/failing to
> keep it selected, and the net tab, make the end user experience very
> frustraiting.
> A side note to other users - I did have some performance improvements/
> less glitches by completely removing Firefox and all application
> support, library folders and so-forth from my Mac before doing a
> reinstall of FF and Firebug. YMMV.
problems, it almost never works. The reason is simple: the problems
are almost always in the Firefox configuration settings ('profile')
and uninstalling or reinstalling does not change these settings.
The most effective way to reset your browser is to create a new
Firefox profile.
jjb
nroussi
Aug 14, 2009, 3:42:21 PM8/14/09
to Firebug
I have been using Firebug for a very long time and this version forced
me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
audience is. Dont get me wrong, I appreciate a free product and I
appreciate the work behind firebug. It is a shame though to not be
able to use it anymore.
If there is anyone that installed firebug 1.3 on Firefox 3.5 please
let me know as I dont want to use Opera.
Regards
me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
audience is. Dont get me wrong, I appreciate a free product and I
appreciate the work behind firebug. It is a shame though to not be
able to use it anymore.
If there is anyone that installed firebug 1.3 on Firefox 3.5 please
let me know as I dont want to use Opera.
Regards
Josh Nathanson
Aug 14, 2009, 4:35:20 PM8/14/09
to fir...@googlegroups.com
Huh? You don't HAVE to use always on/ always off. Just enable Firebug on
the sites you want to use it on by clicking the bug. On sites you don't
want to use it on, don't click the bug.
-- Josh
the sites you want to use it on by clicking the bug. On sites you don't
want to use it on, don't click the bug.
-- Josh
johnjbarton
Aug 14, 2009, 4:58:52 PM8/14/09
to Firebug
On Aug 14, 12:42 pm, nroussi <nrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been using Firebug for a very long time and this version forced
> me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
things you would like in Firebug.
> want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
> enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
> always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
Such a thing wasn't done. So its not a bad idea, its just somehow your
Firebug is broken or its not working how you expect.
> memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
> audience is.
> Dont get me wrong, I appreciate a free product and I
> appreciate the work behind firebug. It is a shame though to not be
> able to use it anymore.
ebusyness
Aug 15, 2009, 2:36:16 AM8/15/09
to Firebug
> If there is anyone that installed firebug 1.3 on Firefox 3.5 please
> let me know as I dont want to use Opera.
For development I switched back to firefox 3 portable with firebug 1.3
> let me know as I dont want to use Opera.
this works fine for me.
The workaround with the new profile helps a bit but still the old
version is much faster.
regards,
sst
goodtest
Aug 15, 2009, 11:11:58 PM8/15/09
to Firebug
Even I switched back to Firefox 3.0.13 and am using firebug 1.3 -
To me, if Firebug 1.3 is like "Windows XP" and Firebug 1.4.x is like
"Vista", but vista and FF1.4 sucks.
To me, if Firebug 1.3 is like "Windows XP" and Firebug 1.4.x is like
"Vista", but vista and FF1.4 sucks.
goodtest
Aug 15, 2009, 11:13:06 PM8/15/09
to Firebug
Even I switched back to Firefox 3.0.13 and am using firebug 1.3 -
To me, if Firebug 1.3 is like "Windows XP" and Firebug 1.4.x is like
"Vista", but vista and FF1.4 sucks.
To me, if Firebug 1.3 is like "Windows XP" and Firebug 1.4.x is like
"Vista", but vista and FF1.4 sucks.
On Aug 14, 2:11 am, dan_m2k <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
tnt
Aug 16, 2009, 6:38:50 AM8/16/09
to Firebug
On 14 Aug., 22:35, "Josh Nathanson" <joshnathan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huh? You don't HAVE to use always on/ always off. Just enable Firebug on
> the sites you want to use it on by clicking the bug. On sites you don't
> want to use it on, don't click the bug.
clicking on the bug-icon Firebug opens. Then when I reload the page,
Firebug disappears!
I'm using it also in MacOs and Windows and this for a long time (I
think the first version I used was something with 0.9) and I must say
1.4 is by far the most frustrating version I ever used.
Regards, T.
johnjbarton
Aug 16, 2009, 12:33:04 PM8/16/09
to Firebug
On Aug 15, 8:11 pm, goodtest <goodtest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even I switched back to Firefox 3.0.13 and am using firebug 1.3 -
> To me, if Firebug 1.3 is like "Windows XP" and Firebug 1.4.x is like
> "Vista", but vista and FF1.4 sucks.
component that has a rare bug.
jjb
johnjbarton
Aug 16, 2009, 12:34:25 PM8/16/09
to Firebug
On Aug 16, 3:38 am, tnt <nos...@banza.net> wrote:
> On 14 Aug., 22:35, "Josh Nathanson" <joshnathan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh? You don't HAVE to use always on/ always off. Just enable Firebug on
> > the sites you want to use it on by clicking the bug. On sites you don't
> > want to use it on, don't click the bug.
>
> In Firefox 3.5.2 Linux/Firebug 1.4.2 when I 'enable' Firebug by
> clicking on the bug-icon Firebug opens. Then when I reload the page,
> Firebug disappears!
confirmed reports that problems similar to your problem are now fixed.
jjb
ebusyness
Aug 17, 2009, 5:50:05 AM8/17/09
to Firebug
Thanks, Firebug 1.5a21and a new profile did the job...
nroussi
Aug 17, 2009, 9:44:45 AM8/17/09
to Firebug
Well, I am glad to see that it is not just me that is frustrated on
this issue. I thought I was being difficult. The comparison of 1.3 to
XP and 1.4 to Vista actually went through my mind too :) even though I
used FB mostly on OSX.
Please read comments:
On Aug 14, 4:58 pm, johnjbarton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 12:42 pm, nroussi <nrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been using Firebug for a very long time and this version forced
> > me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
>
> We would be interested in your experience, especially if you see
> things you would like in Firebug.
>
I would like to be able to do what I could do in 1.3. Disable FB for
gmail lets say in one tab and enable it for the sites that I am
working on in another tab.
> > want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
> > enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
> > always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
>
> I don't know what you are saying here. What is "always on/always off"?
> Such a thing wasn't done. So its not a bad idea, its just somehow your
> Firebug is broken or its not working how you expect.
>
Well I installed from scratch and using OSX with FF3.5. When I click
on the bug icon and it opens up, it stays on for all sites. If I click
off, it is still on when the page is refreshed
> > memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
> > audience is.
>
> I don't think so. What makes you say that?
>
I had read somewhere on a forum posting that the reason the feature of
a per site on or off was removed to save memory and memory should not
be an issue.
this issue. I thought I was being difficult. The comparison of 1.3 to
XP and 1.4 to Vista actually went through my mind too :) even though I
used FB mostly on OSX.
Please read comments:
On Aug 14, 4:58 pm, johnjbarton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 12:42 pm, nroussi <nrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been using Firebug for a very long time and this version forced
> > me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
>
> We would be interested in your experience, especially if you see
> things you would like in Firebug.
>
gmail lets say in one tab and enable it for the sites that I am
working on in another tab.
> > want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
> > enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
> > always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
>
> I don't know what you are saying here. What is "always on/always off"?
> Such a thing wasn't done. So its not a bad idea, its just somehow your
> Firebug is broken or its not working how you expect.
>
on the bug icon and it opens up, it stays on for all sites. If I click
off, it is still on when the page is refreshed
> > memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
> > audience is.
>
> I don't think so. What makes you say that?
>
a per site on or off was removed to save memory and memory should not
be an issue.
dan_m2k
Aug 17, 2009, 10:28:44 AM8/17/09
to Firebug
I'm interested by johnjbarton's reponses.
I share the frustration shared by, nroussi, amongst others.
I feel that the take-away for this is that the activation model
clearly doesn't meet the majority of user's expectations in how it
works, in that a lot of users (myself included) feels that it doesn't.
It isn't a bug as such, it seems to be a flaw in the usability in the
latest "Vista" release of Firebug. My rationale for this is that
seasoned Firebug users simply don't get how it works. I'm still at a
loss how to enable this for some sites and not others.
As per john's specific comments -- my suggestion would be to go back
to an activation model that works in way that users understand.
And finally, given my success of cleansing Firefox and any library,
profile data (After backing up of course) I stand by it as a method to
fix all of these niggles as per my experience.
I share the frustration shared by, nroussi, amongst others.
I feel that the take-away for this is that the activation model
clearly doesn't meet the majority of user's expectations in how it
works, in that a lot of users (myself included) feels that it doesn't.
It isn't a bug as such, it seems to be a flaw in the usability in the
latest "Vista" release of Firebug. My rationale for this is that
seasoned Firebug users simply don't get how it works. I'm still at a
loss how to enable this for some sites and not others.
As per john's specific comments -- my suggestion would be to go back
to an activation model that works in way that users understand.
And finally, given my success of cleansing Firefox and any library,
profile data (After backing up of course) I stand by it as a method to
fix all of these niggles as per my experience.
johnjbarton
Aug 17, 2009, 11:51:38 AM8/17/09
to Firebug
On Aug 17, 6:44 am, nroussi <nrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am glad to see that it is not just me that is frustrated on
> this issue. I thought I was being difficult. The comparison of 1.3 to
> XP and 1.4 to Vista actually went through my mind too :) even though I
> used FB mostly on OSX.
>
> Please read comments:
>
> On Aug 14, 4:58 pm, johnjbarton <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 12:42 pm, nroussi <nrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have been using Firebug for a very long time and this version forced
> > > me to install Opera with dragonfly. I design and develop pages and I
>
> > We would be interested in your experience, especially if you see
> > things you would like in Firebug.
>
> I would like to be able to do what I could do in 1.3. Disable FB for
> gmail lets say in one tab and enable it for the sites that I am
> working on in another tab.
That's all you have to do.
>
> > > want to be able to disable it for specific sites like gmail and also
> > > enable it for specific sites (like the ones I am working on). This
> > > always on/always off is a really bad idea. If it was done to save
>
> > I don't know what you are saying here. What is "always on/always off"?
> > Such a thing wasn't done. So its not a bad idea, its just somehow your
> > Firebug is broken or its not working how you expect.
>
> Well I installed from scratch and using OSX with FF3.5. When I click
> on the bug icon and it opens up, it stays on for all sites. If I click
> off, it is still on when the page is refreshed
its a bug. Not a design problem, a software bug. Try 1.5a21, we think
this will fix it.
>
> > > memory then I guess the developers of Firebug forgot who their target
> > > audience is.
>
> > I don't think so. What makes you say that?
>
> I had read somewhere on a forum posting that the reason the feature of
> a per site on or off was removed to save memory and memory should not
> be an issue.
reading.
jjb
johnjbarton
Aug 17, 2009, 12:07:30 PM8/17/09
to Firebug
On Aug 17, 7:28 am, dan_m2k <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm interested by johnjbarton's reponses.
>
> I share the frustration shared by, nroussi, amongst others.
version of Firebug with a bug we cannot fix but everyone thinks the
problem is a Firebug design problem.
>
> I feel that the take-away for this is that the activation model
> clearly doesn't meet the majority of user's expectations in how it
> works, in that a lot of users (myself included) feels that it doesn't.
activation fails to work correctly. Changing the model won't help
because there is a bug in Firefox that prevents the user from getting
the correct result no matter what the model says.
I'm going to say the same thing here five differ ways:
Firebug 1.4 uses page annotation to store activations.
Firefox 3.* has a bug in page annotations, it forgets some.
Consequently Firebug 1.4 activation fails for some people all of the
time.
Firebug 1.5a21 stores page annotations in text files: it should work
all of the time.
> It isn't a bug as such, it seems to be a flaw in the usability in the
> latest "Vista" release of Firebug. My rationale for this is that
> seasoned Firebug users simply don't get how it works. I'm still at a
> loss how to enable this for some sites and not others.
The reason the activation fails for you has not a single thing to do
with usability, design, model, Vista, rationale, seasoned, user-
understanding or any of this other stuff.
The reason the activation fails for you is simple: a software bug.
You can easily prove my theory wrong: install Firebug 1.5a21, reset
the Firebug options (eg by Firebug Icon Menu > Options > Reset
Options). Then try activating a page (open Firebug on that page) or
deactivating on (Off button for that page).
> As per john's specific comments -- my suggestion would be to go back
> to an activation model that works in way that users understand.
you have been suffering from the page annotation bug.
jjb
sir_brizz
Aug 17, 2009, 5:04:07 PM8/17/09
to Firebug
I think all that ever needed to be said about how far backwards
Firebug went in usability and interface design has been said numerous
times and it isn't going to be changed. I'm of the opinion that, while
Firebug was originally (1.0-1.2) the standard for in-browser
javascript and event debugging, since then the debuggers in WebKit and
Opera have far eclipsed it in terms of speed, user experience,
usability, and design. They have lots of nice features that are not
implemented in Firebug, they work in (what seems to be) more sensible
way, and they are extremely fast.
That said, I still use Firebug in my day to day work. Every time I
install a new Firebug version, I browse to the UI xul file and move
the off button the left of the other buttons because I hate where it
is and I hate how it works. I'm looking forward to future 1.5 versions
that will hopefully have the On By Default option with Off
blacklisting sites, which will bring it much closer to the 1.2
functionality (which I, personally, view as the optimal model for
future versions of Firebug partially because I see it as the most user-
friendly and usable version of Firebug).
Now, I'm not trying to say that jjb and honza and others are ignoring
what people are concerned about here. They simply have a vision for
Firebug going forward that I am not (and probably never will be) in
alignment with.
Firebug went in usability and interface design has been said numerous
times and it isn't going to be changed. I'm of the opinion that, while
Firebug was originally (1.0-1.2) the standard for in-browser
javascript and event debugging, since then the debuggers in WebKit and
Opera have far eclipsed it in terms of speed, user experience,
usability, and design. They have lots of nice features that are not
implemented in Firebug, they work in (what seems to be) more sensible
way, and they are extremely fast.
That said, I still use Firebug in my day to day work. Every time I
install a new Firebug version, I browse to the UI xul file and move
the off button the left of the other buttons because I hate where it
is and I hate how it works. I'm looking forward to future 1.5 versions
that will hopefully have the On By Default option with Off
blacklisting sites, which will bring it much closer to the 1.2
functionality (which I, personally, view as the optimal model for
future versions of Firebug partially because I see it as the most user-
friendly and usable version of Firebug).
Now, I'm not trying to say that jjb and honza and others are ignoring
what people are concerned about here. They simply have a vision for
Firebug going forward that I am not (and probably never will be) in
alignment with.
johnjbarton
Aug 17, 2009, 6:12:59 PM8/17/09
to Firebug
On Aug 17, 2:04 pm, sir_brizz <bj.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think all that ever needed to be said about how far backwards
> Firebug went in usability and interface design has been said numerous
> times and it isn't going to be changed. I'm of the opinion that, while
> Firebug was originally (1.0-1.2) the standard for in-browser
> javascript and event debugging, since then the debuggers in WebKit and
> Opera have far eclipsed it in terms of speed, user experience,
> usability, and design. They have lots of nice features that are not
> implemented in Firebug, they work in (what seems to be) more sensible
> way, and they are extremely fast.
aspects of Firebug which seem too slow.
jjb
dan_m2k
Aug 18, 2009, 4:31:33 AM8/18/09
to Firebug
Let's see - I'll try it today and get back to you as soon as I have.
thank you for your response.
thank you for your response.
dan_m2k
Aug 18, 2009, 4:32:55 AM8/18/09
to Firebug
On Aug 17, 10:04 pm, sir_brizz <bj.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> blacklisting sites, which will bring it much closer to the 1.2
> functionality (which I, personally, view as the optimal model for
> future versions of Firebug partially because I see it as the most user-
> friendly and usable version of Firebug).
>
Agree.
> functionality (which I, personally, view as the optimal model for
> future versions of Firebug partially because I see it as the most user-
> friendly and usable version of Firebug).
>
sir_brizz
Aug 18, 2009, 12:14:01 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
Well, I haven't done any specific comparisons, they just SEEM to be
faster. It could just be that they are pretty much the same and I just
use Firebug more. One case where I've seen Firebug slow down the page
significantly is when running decodeURIComponent on a several thousand
characters long string... But it is possible that the other in-browser
debuggers would have the same problem, I don't know.
The thing with those in WebKit and Opera is that it seems like they
are always running in the background. WebKit, for example, has the
Activity Monitor (basically the "Net" tab) and it is always watching
for traffic. Additionally, you can see traffic for every site you have
open in the same window.
faster. It could just be that they are pretty much the same and I just
use Firebug more. One case where I've seen Firebug slow down the page
significantly is when running decodeURIComponent on a several thousand
characters long string... But it is possible that the other in-browser
debuggers would have the same problem, I don't know.
The thing with those in WebKit and Opera is that it seems like they
are always running in the background. WebKit, for example, has the
Activity Monitor (basically the "Net" tab) and it is always watching
for traffic. Additionally, you can see traffic for every site you have
open in the same window.
johnjbarton
Aug 18, 2009, 12:39:01 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
On Aug 18, 9:14 am, sir_brizz <bj.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I haven't done any specific comparisons, they just SEEM to be
> faster. It could just be that they are pretty much the same and I just
> use Firebug more. One case where I've seen Firebug slow down the page
> significantly is when running decodeURIComponent on a several thousand
> characters long string... But it is possible that the other in-browser
> debuggers would have the same problem, I don't know.
>
> The thing with those in WebKit and Opera is that it seems like they
> are always running in the background. WebKit, for example, has the
> Activity Monitor (basically the "Net" tab) and it is always watching
> for traffic. Additionally, you can see traffic for every site you have
> open in the same window.
from different sites.
jjb
goodtest
Aug 18, 2009, 12:53:31 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
I tried Firebug 1.5a21 again on FF 3.5.2 and I still have issues with
it.
One of the issues I hit is that in my application, we open a popup of
different site(different domain) when user clicks a link. Now when I
try to debug that click action, firebug which was ON just before the
new window was opened, becomes disabled soon after.
it.
One of the issues I hit is that in my application, we open a popup of
different site(different domain) when user clicks a link. Now when I
try to debug that click action, firebug which was ON just before the
new window was opened, becomes disabled soon after.
johnjbarton
Aug 18, 2009, 1:13:15 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
If you have a test case please post to the issue list:
http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list
jjb
http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list
jjb
nroussi
Aug 18, 2009, 1:52:00 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
I agree fully with sir_brizz. I really never understood why people
just dont get the cliche "If it is not broken, dont fix it." Maybe the
developers have a vision for FB and I too am not in alignment right
now with that. I thank whoever mentioned webkit. I have installed that
and now I can remove the annoying Vista version of FB.
Thanks
just dont get the cliche "If it is not broken, dont fix it." Maybe the
developers have a vision for FB and I too am not in alignment right
now with that. I thank whoever mentioned webkit. I have installed that
and now I can remove the annoying Vista version of FB.
Thanks
Trevan Richins
Aug 18, 2009, 1:54:54 PM8/18/09
to fir...@googlegroups.com
I actually like the new 1.4. I felt it was a great step forward. 1.5 is even better as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: fir...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fir...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of nroussi
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Firebug
Subject: Re: Firebug 1.4 - A step backwards?
-----Original Message-----
From: fir...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fir...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of nroussi
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Firebug
Subject: Re: Firebug 1.4 - A step backwards?
sir_brizz
Aug 18, 2009, 4:30:40 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
They don't mix it together, they load it under a heading which is the
title or url of the page that loaded. This isn't exactly Firebug's
area of expertise, though. The Net tab is different. But it would be
nice to have either a simpler version of the Net tab or an extension
that just shows you what resources are attempting to load on the
current page. In the debugger it looks quite a bit different.
I think Firebug definitely has the upper hand on the Net tab UI.
As far as script debugging and in-debugger resource tracking, those do
have to be enabled on each page. Overall the debugger just acts a lot
more like 1.2 with some features of 1.3 and some features that Firebug
just doesn't have at all (like being able to open the scrip panel on
any section) which is probably why I am drawn to it.
I would like to point out that the "x" on that window and the attached
panel do nothing more than hide the debugger, though :)
title or url of the page that loaded. This isn't exactly Firebug's
area of expertise, though. The Net tab is different. But it would be
nice to have either a simpler version of the Net tab or an extension
that just shows you what resources are attempting to load on the
current page. In the debugger it looks quite a bit different.
I think Firebug definitely has the upper hand on the Net tab UI.
As far as script debugging and in-debugger resource tracking, those do
have to be enabled on each page. Overall the debugger just acts a lot
more like 1.2 with some features of 1.3 and some features that Firebug
just doesn't have at all (like being able to open the scrip panel on
any section) which is probably why I am drawn to it.
I would like to point out that the "x" on that window and the attached
panel do nothing more than hide the debugger, though :)
sir_brizz
Aug 18, 2009, 4:32:47 PM8/18/09
to Firebug
Scott Shumaker
Aug 19, 2009, 12:11:16 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
I've installed the latest firebug (1.5a21). I think I finally
understand it's behavior, now that the annotation bug is fixed. But
the UI is really weird.
First off, you have to make sure that NEITHER 'on for all webpages'
NOR 'off for all webpages' is checked. Yes, checking one unchecks the
other, but you can uncheck both, too.
Secondly, you'll notice that if you click the little bug in the lower
right hand corner of the status bur when it's greyed out, will turn it
on and expand the firebug window. However, clicking the bug again
will only minimize it, not turn it off. Yes, it's a bad design
practice. But bear with me.
When you click the bug, you've enabled firebug for that domain, as far
as I can tell. If you want to turn it off, you need to click the
little 'off' button you can see once it's expanded.
One additional weirdness - if you change tabs, firebug stays open, but
it's still really attached to the first tab. This can often confuse
you into thinking you're debugging some other tab, but you're not.
understand it's behavior, now that the annotation bug is fixed. But
the UI is really weird.
First off, you have to make sure that NEITHER 'on for all webpages'
NOR 'off for all webpages' is checked. Yes, checking one unchecks the
other, but you can uncheck both, too.
Secondly, you'll notice that if you click the little bug in the lower
right hand corner of the status bur when it's greyed out, will turn it
on and expand the firebug window. However, clicking the bug again
will only minimize it, not turn it off. Yes, it's a bad design
practice. But bear with me.
When you click the bug, you've enabled firebug for that domain, as far
as I can tell. If you want to turn it off, you need to click the
little 'off' button you can see once it's expanded.
One additional weirdness - if you change tabs, firebug stays open, but
it's still really attached to the first tab. This can often confuse
you into thinking you're debugging some other tab, but you're not.
johnjbarton
Aug 19, 2009, 12:21:28 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
On Aug 18, 1:30 pm, sir_brizz <bj.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> As far as script debugging and in-debugger resource tracking, those do
> have to be enabled on each page. Overall the debugger just acts a lot
> more like 1.2 with some features of 1.3 and some features that Firebug
> just doesn't have at all (like being able to open the scrip panel on
> any section) which is probably why I am drawn to it.
...
> have to be enabled on each page. Overall the debugger just acts a lot
> more like 1.2 with some features of 1.3 and some features that Firebug
> just doesn't have at all (like being able to open the scrip panel on
> any section) which is probably why I am drawn to it.
Being able to open the script panel on any section? What does it mean?
jjb
johnjbarton
Aug 19, 2009, 12:36:43 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
On Aug 18, 9:11 pm, Scott Shumaker <sshuma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've installed the latest firebug (1.5a21). I think I finally
> understand it's behavior, now that the annotation bug is fixed. But
> the UI is really weird.
>
> First off, you have to make sure that NEITHER 'on for all webpages'
> NOR 'off for all webpages' is checked. Yes, checking one unchecks the
> other, but you can uncheck both, too.
>
> Secondly, you'll notice that if you click the little bug in the lower
> right hand corner of the status bur when it's greyed out, will turn it
> on and expand the firebug window. However, clicking the bug again
> will only minimize it, not turn it off. Yes, it's a bad design
> practice. But bear with me.
repeated over and over and over again here, is to open firebug, then
repeat cycles of minimize, open, minimize, open. This pattern has
been always been true of Firebug and across different kinds of users.
That is why the Status bar icon works the way it does. If it activated
firebug on one click, then deactivated on the next click, that would
wire the uncommon case to the button.
I agree that this behavior is slightly unexpected, but once you try
it, I guess you may agree that it does make sense.
>
> When you click the bug, you've enabled firebug for that domain, as far
> as I can tell. If you want to turn it off, you need to click the
> little 'off' button you can see once it's expanded.
not accidentally by clicking the status bar icon a second time.
(This is the root of many discussions on this group because unknown to
us some users operate like this:
Status bar On, Minimize icon [_], statusbar open, Minimize [_], ...
In 1.4 we changed these icons and moved the minimize to the left two
places, and to add insult to the damage, we put the Off button in the
position of the old minimize. These users were (are) quite unhappy
because they use this sequence a lot and find that they hit Off by
accident).
>
> One additional weirdness - if you change tabs, firebug stays open, but
> it's still really attached to the first tab. This can often confuse
> you into thinking you're debugging some other tab, but you're not.
the only way we have of resolving this is to ask for a test case, ask
you to trace your install, or ask you to install Firebug in a new
Firefox profile (which will fix your problem).
jjb...
Scott Shumaker
Aug 19, 2009, 1:23:41 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
Ok, here's an alternate suggestion (just some art fixes, really):
Place a minimize button (horizontal bar) and an x (close) button in
the upper right hand corner - more consistent with the way most OS's
work. Minimize would keep it active, whereas the x would close it
(turning it off for this website). So you're basically swapping the
down arrow with a minimize icon, and the off button with an x icon.
I'd also move the 'open in new window' button to the left of the other
two buttons, and change it to a different icon.
Place a minimize button (horizontal bar) and an x (close) button in
the upper right hand corner - more consistent with the way most OS's
work. Minimize would keep it active, whereas the x would close it
(turning it off for this website). So you're basically swapping the
down arrow with a minimize icon, and the off button with an x icon.
I'd also move the 'open in new window' button to the left of the other
two buttons, and change it to a different icon.
dan_m2k
Aug 19, 2009, 6:14:40 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
I've just followed your instructions regarding installing Firebug
1.5a21 and resetting options.
It *may* have worked, you know. However: I set 'off for all pages',
right? Then I go to the page I'm developing in a tab, enable all
panels - alongside X number of non-work related tabs. Then I'll switch
to another tab e.g. gmail and there Firebug is, still, enabled for the
second tab where I didn't enable it for. Urm....?
1.5a21 and resetting options.
It *may* have worked, you know. However: I set 'off for all pages',
right? Then I go to the page I'm developing in a tab, enable all
panels - alongside X number of non-work related tabs. Then I'll switch
to another tab e.g. gmail and there Firebug is, still, enabled for the
second tab where I didn't enable it for. Urm....?
sir_brizz
Aug 19, 2009, 10:30:20 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
Sorry, I meant the Console .
johnjbarton
Aug 19, 2009, 11:10:25 AM8/19/09
to Firebug
On Aug 19, 3:14 am, dan_m2k <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just followed your instructions regarding installing Firebug
> 1.5a21 and resetting options.
>
> It *may* have worked, you know. However: I set 'off for all pages',
> right?
> Then I go to the page I'm developing in a tab, enable all
> panels - alongside X number of non-work related tabs. Then I'll switch
> to another tab e.g. gmail and there Firebug is, still, enabled for the
> second tab where I didn't enable it for. Urm....?
bug or if something you have installed is breaking Firebug. The simple
test is to ask you to install Firebug in a new Firefox profile and
verify it works correctly. It could be another extension including a
Firebug extension.
See for hints: http://groups.google.com/group/firebug/web/faq-about-firebug
jjb
nroussi
Aug 19, 2009, 3:50:13 PM8/19/09
to Firebug
John, let me just make it very clear (at least for my case)
2 tabs - 1 gmail, 1 whatever.com
I want whatever.com on and gmail off
I press off in the tab for gmail and FB turns off. Next page refresh
it pops open again. It NEVER stays off.
Most posts here are experiencing the same thing. They want the option
"Disable Firebug for this domain". Is that so difficult to do? It was
available before 1.4...
2 tabs - 1 gmail, 1 whatever.com
I want whatever.com on and gmail off
I press off in the tab for gmail and FB turns off. Next page refresh
it pops open again. It NEVER stays off.
Most posts here are experiencing the same thing. They want the option
"Disable Firebug for this domain". Is that so difficult to do? It was
available before 1.4...
johnjbarton
Aug 19, 2009, 7:16:47 PM8/19/09
to Firebug
Let me be equally clear: this is not how 1.4 was designed, it is not
how 1.4 works for us, and it is not how it should work for you.
First try firebug 1.5a21. We reimplemented the storage of the
activaton list. Does it help?
Second install 1.5a21 in a new firefox profile. After you see that
firebug works, add extensions one at a time.
jjb
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages