Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu
Biju
Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About
Dialog.
This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
Peter Lairo
> Alex/UI team...
>
> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About
> Dialog.
>
> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
I have been using the trunk builds for over a decade, and I couldn't
find the "Check for Updates" function. I looked in several places (incl.
the new and old Menus), but would never have thought to look in the Help
About dialog...
Please put "Check for Updates" *directly* in the sub-menu of either
"Help", "Options", or "Developer". Thank you.
PS. The recent "Minefield" menus are now sufficiently usable to me (with
the above change). I like them much better now. :-)
PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar!
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Bugs I think are important:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250539
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391057
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436259
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446444
Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Anthropogenic Global Warming skepsis: http://tinyurl.com/AGW-Skepsis
Ron Hunter
> On Fri. 17.09.2010 5:32, Biju wrote:
>> Alex/UI team...
>>
>> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About
>> Dialog.
>>
>> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
>
> I have been using the trunk builds for over a decade, and I couldn't
> find the "Check for Updates" function. I looked in several places (incl.
> the new and old Menus), but would never have thought to look in the Help
> About dialog...
>
> Please put "Check for Updates" *directly* in the sub-menu of either
> "Help", "Options", or "Developer". Thank you.
>
> PS. The recent "Minefield" menus are now sufficiently usable to me (with
> the above change). I like them much better now. :-)
>
> PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar!
I agree that moving the 'check for updates' to the 'about' dialog was a
bad move, but trying to convince certain people of that is about as
effective as trying to convince them that they shouldn't eliminate the
status bar. In short, about like the proverbial snow flake in hell. Sigh.
Justin Dolske
> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About
> Dialog.
>
> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
I don't think this is an issue for final-release builds. Firefox updates
itself, the updates are fairly infrequent, and I'd be surprised if
people on these builds were using that menu very much.
It is a bit of a pain for nightly builds, though, since updates are
daily, and the update mechanism doesn't seem to check very aggressively
relative to that.
Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check
hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem
reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike
wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
Justin
Mike Beltzner
> Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check
> hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem
> reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike
> wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
Sounds like a job for Nightly Tester Tools!
cheers,
mike
alex_mayorga
If you could talk Mossop into updating these ;-)
As he "was ceasing work on my extensions in my spare time."
http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2010/05/Where-is-the-updated-Nightly-Tester-Tools
Thanks!
Alex
alex_mayorga
>
> PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar!
That's a bit against HTML spec that states:
"The TITLE element is not considered part of the flow of text.
*It should be displayed, for example as the page header or
window title*. Exactly one title is required per document."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.2
Reason enough to turn https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583905
into a blocker IMHO}
Alex
Mike Beltzner
> If you could talk Mossop into updating these ;-)
> As he "was ceasing work on my extensions in my spare time."
> http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2010/05/Where-is-the-updated-Nightly-Tester-Tools
No need. Bob Moss, Clint Talbert, Heather Arthur and others will be
taking it over in the coming months.
cheers,
mike
Biju
Mike,
Alternate suggestion make "Update firefox" as hidden menu item on
Firefox menu.
And let nightly testers set their userChrome.css to make it visible.
kamathln
For God's sake, its a computer program. And a dynamic one at that. Let
it just check if its a beta or not, and if automatic updates are
disabled, then make tools>update or whatever the item is, visible.
Some about:config option can also be nice to make it always off (0) ,
automatic (1), always show (2). What say?
Ron Hunter
> On 2010-09-27, at 2:24 AM, Biju wrote:
>
>> Alternate suggestion make "Update firefox" as hidden menu item on
>> Firefox menu.
>> And let nightly testers set their userChrome.css to make it visible.
>
>
> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without intervention, as quickly as possible.
>
> cheers,
> mike
>
I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be
unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security
conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only,
perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
Asa Dotzler
> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on
>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more
>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there.
>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without
>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>
>> cheers,
>> mike
>>
> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be
> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security
> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only,
> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already
thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and
user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this
project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update system
has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
- A
Ron Hunter
====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without
Asa Dotzler
I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users
will have no control over the setting" ?
- A
Ron Hunter
What does that say?
Asa Dotzler
I've read it and it does not say "and users will have no control over
this."
Are you really not getting this? Do you really believe that without your
vigilance we're going to start forcing software on peoples computers
without giving them the opportunity to opt out? What in our record makes
you believe that we think users should have no control about what
software is installed on their systems? Did you miss the whole Apple
Updater ruckus where none other than Mozilla's CEO called Apple out for
the behavior you're basically accusing us of pursuing? Is it just your
default stance to assume the worst of the people building Firefox?
I feel like I'm being trolled.
- A
Mike Beltzner
It's either that or he's caught us in a conspiracy, yes.
cheers,
mike
Matt Brubeck
> intervention, as quickly as possible.
...and we can meet that goal without taking away users' control or
transparency, for example by requiring them to opt in to automatic
updates the first time ("check this box to always install updates"),
notifying them in an unobtrusive way when updates are applied, and
letting them opt out again at any time. I'm sure you can think of
other ways that fast, easy updates might be reconciled with user
control.
Ron Hunter
Good, but the implication is clearly an intent to do updates without
'user intervention'. Sounds like lack of user control to me. Thanks
for clearing up the intent.
Ron Hunter
No intention of being a troll. The wording seemed to me to imply that
the eventual intent was to do updates without the user being aware, or
consulted. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding.