throbber
Ed Mullen
throbber to take me to a page of my choosing. No longer works in FF
2.x. I think I've seen it here before but couldn't find it.
browser.throbber.url is still set in my profile to my preferred page but
the throbber click-link no longer works.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
A bird in the hand makes it difficult to blow your nose.
eisneun
"Ed Mullen" <e...@edmullen.net> wrote in message
news:446dnQU8opZ1pDHY...@mozilla.org...
> How does one re-enable the throbber link? That is, I had set my throbber
> to take me to a page of my choosing. No longer works in FF 2.x. I think
> I've seen it here before but couldn't find it.
>
> browser.throbber.url is still set in my profile to my preferred page but
> the throbber click-link no longer works.
use the throbber button extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2821/
a throbber url setting is also available in MR Tech Local Install:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/421/
--
How can ace be one and eleven? Huh?
What kind of god would allow that?
Ed Mullen
> "Ed Mullen" <e...@edmullen.net> wrote in message
> news:446dnQU8opZ1pDHY...@mozilla.org...
>> How does one re-enable the throbber link? That is, I had set my throbber
>> to take me to a page of my choosing. No longer works in FF 2.x. I think
>> I've seen it here before but couldn't find it.
>>
>> browser.throbber.url is still set in my profile to my preferred page but
>> the throbber click-link no longer works.
>
> use the throbber button extension:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2821/
> a throbber url setting is also available in MR Tech Local Install:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/421/
>
Much appreciate the reply. So, there is no way to re-enable the throbber
link except using an extension? Just curious, I only use FF for
testing. SeaMonkey still hasn't gone off the deep end regarding
throwing out the baby with the bath water. Or, uh, some other
less-than-profound metaphor.
A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> eisneun wrote:
>
>> "Ed Mullen" <e...@edmullen.net> wrote in message
>> news:446dnQU8opZ1pDHY...@mozilla.org...
>>
>>> How does one re-enable the throbber link? That is, I had set my throbber
>>> to take me to a page of my choosing. No longer works in FF 2.x. I think
>>> I've seen it here before but couldn't find it.
>>>
>>> browser.throbber.url is still set in my profile to my preferred page but
>>> the throbber click-link no longer works.
>>>
>> use the throbber button extension:
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2821/
>> a throbber url setting is also available in MR Tech Local Install:
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/421/
>>
>>
>
> Much appreciate the reply. So, there is no way to re-enable the throbber
> link except using an extension? Just curious, I only use FF for
> testing. SeaMonkey still hasn't gone off the deep end regarding
> throwing out the baby with the bath water. Or, uh, some other
> less-than-profound metaphor.
>
>
been (as you noticed) several (not to say "many") complaints about this
but, so the experts' replied, it was removed because according to the
"we know what's best for you" developers "nobody used/wanted it"!
So accept the fact that YOU are to blame..... :-P
reg
Ed Mullen
No problem accepting the blame, I do it all the time at home!
FYI, this is a fairly interesting read:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329601
If you can read this, I can slam on my brakes and sue you.
squaredancer
two quotes, to show *just how much they know*
QUOTE
Mike Beltzner 2006-03-07 06:45:00 PST
As mentioned elsewhere, unless someone can provide me with a *really good
reason* to keep this function, I say we toss it. No other major browser
seems
to do this anymore either.
Comment #3 Michael Kaply (IBM) (mkaply) 2006-03-07 07:36:04 PST
The CCK allows you to change the throbber image and have it link to another
page...not sure how useful that is - I just did it to copy from Netscape.
UNQUOTE
so - because "no other major browser...." and
because "not sure how useful that is...."
it has to go!
Assholes are useful!
reg
Ed Mullen
Well, um, YEAH! And not to mention that they totally ignored IBM (you
did catch that Mike Kaply is from IBM, eh?) which has a fairly
widespread internal distribution of a customized Firefox, and numerous
corporate-specific extensions, AND is an active open-source participant.
And IBM has long had strong internal support for Mozilla (going back
to Netscape days). Dumb, just dumb. As one of the posts in that bug
alluded, surely the devs had something more important they could have
spent their coding and discussion time on. Good grief. *Stop the
madness!!!* :-)
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein
Irwin Greenwald
Ah, the Marketeer in you is showing again <g>
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Ed Mullen
It's an illness. ;-)
If 7-11 stores are open 24 hours/7-days a week, why do they have locks
on the front door?
Chris Ilias
> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 16/01/2007 17:22, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen to
>> generate the following:? :
>>
>>
>> oh great! as I said - the "we know what's best for you" devs....
>>
>> two quotes, to show *just how much they know*
>> QUOTE
>> Mike Beltzner 2006-03-07 06:45:00 PST
>>
>> As mentioned elsewhere, unless someone can provide me with a *really good
>> reason* to keep this function, I say we toss it. No other major
>> browser seems
>> to do this anymore either.
>>
>> Comment #3 Michael Kaply (IBM) (mkaply) 2006-03-07 07:36:04 PST
>>
>> The CCK allows you to change the throbber image and have it link to
>> another
>> page...not sure how useful that is - I just did it to copy from Netscape.
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> so - because "no other major browser...." and
>> because "not sure how useful that is...."
>>
>> it has to go!
>
> did catch that Mike Kaply is from IBM, eh?) which has a fairly
> widespread internal distribution of a customized Firefox, and numerous
> corporate-specific extensions, AND is an active open-source participant.
> And IBM has long had strong internal support for Mozilla (going back to
> Netscape days). Dumb, just dumb. As one of the posts in that bug
> alluded, surely the devs had something more important they could have
> spent their coding and discussion time on. Good grief. *Stop the
> madness!!!* :-)
There are a number of things wrong with your argument:
1. Mike Beltzner (the quote that says "I say we toss it") also has an
affiliation with IBM.
2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.
3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined that
CCK users should implement it via extension.
4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does that
mean everyone else should be ignored?
Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back, how
about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber link
anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's just an
activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link anywhere? If
you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the bug), you'll see
that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it were a Firefox logo, I
could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I would rather turn it
into a stop button.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> As I said, if it were a Firefox logo, I
> could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I would rather turn it
> into a stop button.
I think it should be left up to the individual user on what his/her
throbber does.
--
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Peter_Potamus_Show.html
http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s_search=Potamus&Button_Update=Search&show_id=2778
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks
Chris Ilias
> I think it should be left up to the individual user on what his/her
> throbber does.
That's noble of you. I think it should be up to the user what the Back,
Forward, and Stop buttons do. :-P
Tony Mechelynck
OK, let's calm down, not insult or curse anybody, and try to reason this thing
out.
Obviously, there are _some_ people out there who used to find the throbber
link useful.
Now let's try to find the flip side of the coin: In what circumstances would
that link be a positive _nuisance_ to anyone? I've been thinking, but I can't
find any, especially since it can (well, could, when it existed) be disabled
without too much hassle, for instance by setting browser.throbber.url to the
empty string.
If some existing feature is a plus for some (even if only a few), and a minus
for nobody, I can't see why it should be removed.
Best regards,
Tony.
squaredancer
reg
squaredancer
Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
code (for the throbber) something else may well get quirked, that is
linked to that code... and strange things start to happen to the
"revised and improved" version... installer doesn't work properly,
bookmarks vanish... profiles get changed - all sorts of unpredictables.
If it ain't broke, don't mend it.... but go tell that to the devs!
reg
Chris Ilias
> Now let's try to find the flip side of the coin: In what circumstances
> would that link be a positive _nuisance_ to anyone?
It was actually explained in the original thread.
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/msg/daacbb9b2c86c525>
Tony Mechelynck
> _Tony Mechelynck_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 4:27 AM:
>> Now let's try to find the flip side of the coin: In what circumstances
>> would that link be a positive _nuisance_ to anyone?
>
> It was actually explained in the original thread.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/msg/daacbb9b2c86c525>
>
Let's copy that here:
<quote>
Well it has an action that is impossible to discover (it doesn't look
like a button), possible to invoke accidentally (by clicking on an
assumed dead area of the screen) and confusing if invoked ("where did
this website come from?") as at least a little harmful...
</quote>
That argument doesn't convince me:
- impossible to discover? How come people did discover it then, as shown by
the number of people asking on these NGs why it doesn't work anymore? Even if
_all_ of the people who use it discovered it by clicking the big N of Netscape
long before finding out that Mozilla (or Firefox) existed (which I don't
believe but let's assume it for the sake of argument), it's already a reason
to keep it.
- doesn't look like a button? On some themes it doesn't, on some themes it
does. That argument doesn't sway me.
- by clicking on a dead area? A revolving widget is hardly a dead area,
especially if hovering the mouse over it displays a tooltip with a URL. I
don't know if that tooltip in my Firefox installation comes from MR-Tech Local
Install or from Firefox, but regardless, it's one possible way to make the
link "discoverable" and the underlying area "obviously not dead". Another
possible way would have been to have the mouse pointer change from "pointing
arrow" to "pointing hand" since the latter means "you're on a link". Anyway,
when I want to click on a dead area, I look for some empty space with plain
background color and no foreground feature over it. Or maybe the titlebar,
whose only "action when clicked" AFAIK is to give its window focus.
- Confusing if invoked? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that (if about.config
wasn't changed) it used to links (or used to) to a Mozilla Firefox page (and
not to, let's say, a Google page), plus a little thinking back ("what did I do
just now?"), would IMO lead to its "discovery", thus negating the argument
according to which it is "impossible to discover".
Best regards,
Tony.
Chris Ilias
> - impossible to discover? How come people did discover it then, as shown
> by the number of people asking on these NGs why it doesn't work anymore?
Because it was much much bigger in Mozilla/Netscape.
> Even if _all_ of the people who use it discovered it by clicking the big
> N of Netscape long before finding out that Mozilla (or Firefox) existed
> (which I don't believe but let's assume it for the sake of argument),
> it's already a reason to keep it.
I don't agree with keeping a feature just for legacy purposes.
> - doesn't look like a button? On some themes it doesn't, on some themes
> it does. That argument doesn't sway me.
On the default theme, which is what all new users are on, it doesn't
look like a button.
> - by clicking on a dead area? A revolving widget is hardly a dead area,
Revolving, only when there's activity. Most of the time, it just sits
there not revolving; and that's usually the time when clicking is done.
> especially if hovering the mouse over it displays a tooltip with a URL.
If a user places the pointer over the throbber, and holds it there long
enough for a tooltip to show, that click ain't no accident.
> - Confusing if invoked? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that (if about.config
> wasn't changed) it used to links (or used to) to a Mozilla Firefox page
> (and not to, let's say, a Google page), plus a little thinking back
> ("what did I do just now?"), would IMO lead to its "discovery", thus
> negating the argument according to which it is "impossible to discover".
I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> _Tony Mechelynck_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 4:27 AM:
>> Now let's try to find the flip side of the coin: In what circumstances
>> would that link be a positive _nuisance_ to anyone?
>
> It was actually explained in the original thread.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/msg/daacbb9b2c86c525>
>
There's the problem right there. It was discuss in the "developers"
newsgroup. I think if it was discussed amongst the users and in the
support group, I think you would get a different answer.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 2:27 AM:
>> I think it should be left up to the individual user on what his/her
>> throbber does.
>
> That's noble of you. I think it should be up to the user what the Back,
> Forward, and Stop buttons do. :-P
That's irrational thinking because the "activity monitor" isn't labeled,
even when hovering over it and users relate it to the logo/throbber.
Yes, I noted the smiley. :-P
My own thought is that it should have been left as-is to appease those
that used it in previous versions of most anything produced by
Netscape/Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Firefox, etc. At the very least, there should
be an aboutconfig entry to let the user decide mainly because we've come
a very long way in user-available customization options so why take a
step backward in this adventure.
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> If some existing feature is a plus for some (even if only a few), and a minus
> for nobody, I can't see why it should be removed.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
I look at it as .. why remove something rather than leaving well enough
alone and concentrate more on ADDING something to give the user a more
hands-on approach?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"
Haven't we progressed to the point that we're supposed to be giving the
user - advanced OR casual - more user-customizable options and features
so that he/she can do what they please to make their experience more of
their own choosing?
To counter the argument that "it doesn't look like a button" or "it
doesn't do anything when it's not activated". To the user that's used to
seeing/using the logo/throbber "do something" it directly relates to the
former useage and is "supposed" to do something other than just be an
activity monitor, IMHO of course. 8-)
At the very least, give the user the option in about-config. That's why
the functionality is there, to give the user choices, let THEM decide.
Tony Mechelynck
> _Tony Mechelynck_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 5:16 AM:
>> - impossible to discover? How come people did discover it then, as
>> shown by the number of people asking on these NGs why it doesn't work
>> anymore?
>
> Because it was much much bigger in Mozilla/Netscape.
>
>> Even if _all_ of the people who use it discovered it by clicking the
>> big N of Netscape long before finding out that Mozilla (or Firefox)
>> existed (which I don't believe but let's assume it for the sake of
>> argument), it's already a reason to keep it.
>
> I don't agree with keeping a feature just for legacy purposes.
I believe in upwards compatibility, especially when it doesn't cost much, as here.
>
>> - doesn't look like a button? On some themes it doesn't, on some
>> themes it does. That argument doesn't sway me.
>
> On the default theme, which is what all new users are on, it doesn't
> look like a button.
All users are on the default theme, for at least a few seconds; but on the
very site from which they downloaded Firefox, they are urged to:
<quote>
√ <a
href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features.html#personalize">Personalize
Your Browser</a>
Choose from over a thousand useful add-ons that enhance Firefox. It’s easy to
personalize Firefox to make it your own.
</quote>
and from there they are resent to addons.mozilla.org via a prominent link near
the top of the "sales talk" at that URI.
Indeed one of the strongest points of Firefox IMHO (I almost said "strongest
selling arguments", except that its sale price is $0.00) is precisely its high
customizability, be it through the built-in Preferences UI, or through the
extremely many available themes, extensions and search engines (or, for more
experienced users, via about:config, userChrome.css and userContent.css in
that order). Developers should not rely on the hypothesis that new users will
stay with the default theme (or with plain-vanilla Firefox for that matter)
for any length of time.
The throbber on the Fx theme I'm currently using shows a Mozilla "m" logo (but
no larger than the default theme's throbber). I wonder what a representative
sample of all Fx users would show.
>
>> - by clicking on a dead area? A revolving widget is hardly a dead area,
>
> Revolving, only when there's activity. Most of the time, it just sits
> there not revolving; and that's usually the time when clicking is done.
Yeah, sure, but it's still not undecorated background; and changing from
revolving to static doesn't IMO change it from "live" to "dead".
>
>> especially if hovering the mouse over it displays a tooltip with a URL.
>
> If a user places the pointer over the throbber, and holds it there long
> enough for a tooltip to show, that click ain't no accident.
Of course it isn't. Don't you look where your mouse pointer happens to be when
you want to click "on a dead area"? I do.
>
>> - Confusing if invoked? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that (if
>> about.config wasn't changed) it used to links (or used to) to a
>> Mozilla Firefox page (and not to, let's say, a Google page), plus a
>> little thinking back ("what did I do just now?"), would IMO lead to
>> its "discovery", thus negating the argument according to which it is
>> "impossible to discover".
>
> I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"
Typo: the above ought to have been: ...changed) it links (or used to)...
When something doesn't behave as expected (and sooner or later something will,
even when staying with Notepad, IE and OE, not to mention W32 and its
blue-screens-of-death), I believe that the healthy thing to do is to ask
oneself "What did I do just now, which could have caused that behaviour?"
Isn't that the behaviour expected from Bugzilla reporters? They could be any
users of Mozilla products -- well, any users who happen to have been told
about Bugzilla and decided to act upon it. I don't remember how I found out
about Bugzilla but I do remember that I hadn't been using Firefox for very
long -- or was I maybe still with Netscape 6.0?
Anyway, that Fx2 throbber is small enough (in most themes including most
particularly the default theme) and far enough out of the way (unless moved by
"customizing" the toolbars), that I don't believe it will be "clicked by
mistake" at any significant frequency.
Well, it's too late now. The throbber link has been scrapped from
plain-vanilla Firefox, and AFAICT it's not going to come back any time soon.
At least MR-Tech Local Install (which I use for many other reasons) reinstates
it, so even if I used it (which I don't, or not much, but I believe in choice
-- and maybe I'm going to use it some more now), I would still have it.
Best regards,
Tony.
Sailfish
Once they decided to go with the bland ball-bearing throbber which
dropped any visual association to Firefox or Mozilla (a thus its use as
a branding tool), the continued use for its display became questionable.
Having it available as a user pref (or even an extension) seems
reasonable, imo.
--
Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.com/
Mozilla Themes: http://www.projectit.com/freestuff.html
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
I searched Mozilla.support.* in google groups about throbbers and here's
what I've come up with the following:
-- What is it and what does it do?
-- how do I change the look of it?
-- how do I change the url location?
-- and just recently, one person didn't like it and wanted to know how
to remove it.
-- nobody has every complained that when they clicked on it, they were
taken to some site, and why did it happen?
-- Nobody ever complained or said the throbber looks like a button.
So, as I said, it should be a users choice of what they want done with
it. After all, its the users who are using the program the most, is it
not?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> So, as I said, it should be a users choice of what they want done with
> it. After all, its the users who are using the program the most, is it
> not?
>
Glad you agree.
Ed Mullen
Not too likely, more probably Jim Beam or Makers Mark. :-)
Chastity is curable if detected early.
Ed Mullen
So?
>
> 2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
> represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.
Never said anything of the sort.
> 3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
> you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined that
> CCK users should implement it via extension.
See below.
>
> 4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
> campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does that
> mean everyone else should be ignored?
That is really silly. I never suggested anything of the sort.
> Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back, how
> about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber link
> anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's just an
> activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link anywhere? If
> you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the bug), you'll see
> that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it were a Firefox logo, I
> could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I would rather turn it
> into a stop button.
First, I didn't curse anyone. Not sure where that came from. Second,
I'm not doing anything behind anyone's back: this is a public forum.
A lot of people DO use the throbber. Some organizations have built
in-house versions of Moz products that take advantage of it. It's been
a long-standing part of Moz software.
Yes, almost anything can be taken out of a Moz product and put back via
an extension. The question in this case is why? Wasn't hurting anyone.
I did read all of the bug and I don't agree with the arguments. Oh,
and I DO use the throbber all the time (with a customized link) and have
for years.
Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and
I don't care. - William Safire
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
reg
squaredancer
Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
when it comes to user-friendliness!
reg
Irwin Greenwald
<snip>
> Well, it's too late now. The throbber link has been scrapped from
> plain-vanilla Firefox, and AFAICT it's not going to come back any time
> soon. At least MR-Tech Local Install (which I use for many other
> reasons) reinstates it, so even if I used it (which I don't, or not
> much, but I believe in choice -- and maybe I'm going to use it some more
> now), I would still have it.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
It's a great shortcut for about:config for which I have used it for
about a year now, both before and after it was "decommitted".
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
> when it comes to user-friendliness!
>
> reg
C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.
Ed Mullen
> On 17.01.2007 15:02, squaredancer wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
>> when it comes to user-friendliness!
>>
>> reg
>
> C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
> are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
> discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.
>
Bravo!
Here's my take on it FWIW.
I admire the Open Source model and the Mozilla dev community. And as
long as it was "for testing purposes" I figured I could comment and
complain but had no expectation of anyone listening except those of us
in these groups.
However, as soon as Mozilla decided to market its products, they become
fair game for criticism. and mine is that it seems that development
takes place sans active solicitation (or even active observation) of
ordinary user input. There are dev newsgroups and user/support
newsgroups. If devs read these it is not evident to me. Hence, the
appearance is that they don't monitor in any meaningful way their own
customer base. Which seems to lead me to the conclusion that the devs
are devving for themselves, not a market (read: customers).
Now, hey, I'm the first to say: "Well, it's free, you get what you pay
for." ... or some spin-off of that. My point is that if Mozilla wants
these products to be taken seriously, to develop a loyal customer base,
they need to adopt a much more responsive and traditional-like
operational methodology. Or not.
When I ran businesses I spent a great deal of time (and traveled 100k
miles a year) meeting with customers to find out what they wanted. Then
arguing with (er, uh, "discussing with") engineering and manufacturing
to explain that: "No, if you build it with two left handles, I won't
agree to sell it because the market won't buy it. And, by the way, most
of the customers I've met with want a left handle and a right handle.
And they also want a functional throbber because the last 15 versions of
the product have had one!!! (You dolts!)" :-D
Consciousness - the annoying time between naps.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 17.01.2007 15:02, squaredancer wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
>>> when it comes to user-friendliness!
>>>
>>> reg
>>
>> C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
>> are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
>> discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.
>>
>
> Bravo!
>
> Here's my take on it FWIW.
>
> I admire the Open Source model and the Mozilla dev community. And as
> long as it was "for testing purposes" I figured I could comment and
> complain but had no expectation of anyone listening except those of us
> in these groups.
>
> However, as soon as Mozilla decided to market its products, they become
> fair game for criticism. and mine is that it seems that development
> takes place sans active solicitation (or even active observation) of
> ordinary user input. There are dev newsgroups and user/support
> newsgroups. If devs read these it is not evident to me. Hence, the
> appearance is that they don't monitor in any meaningful way their own
> customer base. Which seems to lead me to the conclusion that the devs
> are devving for themselves, not a market (read: customers).
>
Those that develope SM, I know that some devs are in the SM newsgroups.
But for FF and TB, I have no idea. Maybe one that I know of -- Mike
Cowperthwaite of Quality Assurance does, once in a while, though.
Chris Ilias
I'm going to reply to everyone in this post, to try keep this thread
from exploding into multi-sub-thread madness.
First off, my apologies to Ed, if my last paragraph seemed like it was
only directed at him. The insulting and cursing arbitrary devs is
primarily coming from reg. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Ed, you mentioned Mike Kaply's association with IBM, stated that he was
ignored, then mentioned IBM's support for Mozilla. If you didn't mean to
imply that his opinion should be given more weight because of IBM, what
/was/ the purpose of stating all that?
Just because this newsgroup is public does not mean you are not calling
devs dumb behind their back. If I insult you in a usenet newsgroup like
alt.antiques.delaware or some unpopular web-based forum, it's behind
your back. If you want to criticize Firefox development decisions, do it
in the Firefox development newsgroup. If you get the impression they
aren't reading this group, and think they should, go to m.d.a.firefox,
and tell them.
Organizations that have built in-house versions can add the throbber
functionality back during their customization process.
The answer to why some functions are taken out (to be extensions), and
others aren't is that Firefox is designed for novice users to understand
'out of the box'. Linking an activity indicator to a website is
illogical. This is further evident by the number of people changing the
link. It's just another bookmark. If the activity indicator should link
anywhere, where should it link to?
Jay, out of the box, text labels are off. The average user can predict
the actions of Back, Forward, Reload, Stop, and Home. An activity
indicator linking to a Mozilla web page is not predictable.
Any user who wants to the throbber to link somewhere can decide to link
it somewhere, by extension. But the only ones that are even going to
think of it are not new users.
gwtc, this newsgroup is not indicative of the entire user base; but if
you want to use it as a measuring stick, find out how many of us use the
default throbber URL. And I mean actually use it, not just leave it
alone. ;-)
Tony, if a user has gone far enough to install a different theme, they
would know about extensions. If a user has to think "What did I just do
now?", then they didn't *want* to click on the dead area. If a user
consciously clicks on a dead area, that's not accidental. That's
experimenting. Yes, sometimes things don't behave as expected, but that
shouldn't be by design. Presumably bug reporters are forced to think
"What did I just do now?", because they ran into a bug, and are
reporting that bug.
Everyone: in the words of Mike Shaver, "...once you've shown someone
that a feature is possible, and there, some subset of people will cling
onto that, as though it can save their life; and will not easily let you
remove it later, when you decide it doesn't suit your goals as a whole."
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> gwtc,
this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at this.
Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR ANYONE
ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!
Ed Mullen
Mike's concerns were given, IMHO, short shrift in that bug discussion.
And, my point was that /any/ institutional user which customizes a
Mozilla product is an entity that should be given, from a marketing
standpoint, a great deal of consideration, even deference. Adoption of
the product is desired, yes? Any organization that has customized the
product as IBM has should not have impediments placed in its path like
this. It's simply silly. I speak from a standpoint of one who has had
a long career in business, product development, sales, and marketing.
The attitudes expressed by the comments of the devs in that discussion
indicated to me, based on my experience, a total lack of market awareness.
I don't know how many other institutional users took advantage of the
throbber feature as IBM did. I don't speak for IBM, but I have used the
IBM customized Mozilla products going back many years, into the Netscape
products. IBM isn't being hurt by this, individuals within the
organization who spend their free (Open Source) time promoting Mozilla
products are. I follow internal IBM newsgroups about this and I suspect
you have no idea how much support for Mozilla products there is in that
company. It is utterly silly to me that this decision was made,
especially considering that it is trivial in any benefit to the product.
This is not a techical issue: It's perception, it's marketing, it's
image. And it's, at best, ill-conceived.
> Just because this newsgroup is public does not mean you are not calling
> devs dumb behind their back. If I insult you in a usenet newsgroup like
> alt.antiques.delaware or some unpopular web-based forum, it's behind
> your back. If you want to criticize Firefox development decisions, do it
> in the Firefox development newsgroup. If you get the impression they
> aren't reading this group, and think they should, go to m.d.a.firefox,
> and tell them.
This is the problem with your strategy of "replying to everyone." You
are replying to my message, I'm reading it, I can't help but think you
are directing this to me personally. I did not insult anyone. I offered
my opinion. I didn't rant, I didn't go off on any tangent, my comments
were to the point.
As to the notion of "behind the back" ... if I get your argument, you're
saying that if I comment in this venue about a Bugzilla discussion it is
"behind their back." Ok. I reject your logic. It's silly. I'm not
hiding here. I'm in the open. Anyone who feels I've unfairly treated
them "behind their back" can feel free to tell me. Sheesh.
> Organizations that have built in-house versions can add the throbber
> functionality back during their customization process.
Yes they can. Mozilla can change the product in any way they want; it's
their product. That doesn't make it a smart decision. Yes, customers
have recourse. My point is that the design decision made puts the onus
on the customer for no good reason in this instance. Sure, there are
ways to un-break the customized versions, but why should loyal customers
have to do that? That is just silly.
The historical fact is that Mozilla products have had the throbber
function a certain way. It intruded into no one's use of the product.
Despite your rationale, I've never seen anyone say: "Oh God! I clicked
on that little thingie up there by accident and I went to a Web page
without knowing it!!!" C'mon. Your, and the arguments in the
referenced Bug discussion, are specious at best, circularly
self-serving, and, at worst, unsupportable considering that:
- no harm is done by leaving a legacy (and useful) feature in
- no significant benefit is gained by removing it
- breaking a historically available feature puts the onus to fix it on
users which is totally not market friendly
-
I'm sorry. This is so Marketing 101 I am beside myself.
That's a hell of an ambition, to be mellow. It's like wanting to be
senile. - Randy Newman
Ed Mullen
>> gwtc,
>
> this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at this.
> Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR ANYONE
> ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!
>
Golly! I, for one, don't care. I react and respond to each post
regardless of origin. And I don't have any inclination to go sniffing
out IPs to try and figure out who is who. If you start to exhibit any
characteristics of gwtc, Andreas, etc. I'm sure I'll react accordingly.
So far you haven't and all is well.
By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
hide and why?
I have no choice but to believe in free will. - Randy Wayne White
Chris Ilias
> By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
> don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
> impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
> above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
> hide and why?
Folks, this discussion has nothing to do with Firefox. Please take it to
either email or mozilla.general.
Follow-up set to mozilla.general.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> gwtc,
>>
>> this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at
>> this. Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR
>> ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!
>>
>
> Golly! I, for one, don't care. I react and respond to each post
> regardless of origin. And I don't have any inclination to go sniffing
> out IPs to try and figure out who is who. If you start to exhibit any
> characteristics of gwtc, Andreas, etc. I'm sure I'll react accordingly.
> So far you haven't and all is well.
>
> By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
> don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
> impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
> above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
> hide and why?
>
I believe I already said who I am:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/165d53c60050b0b8
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 18/01/2007 1:19 AM:
>> By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People
>> who don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
>> impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
>> above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
>> hide and why?
>
> Folks, this discussion has nothing to do with Firefox. Please take it to
> either email or mozilla.general.
> Follow-up set to mozilla.general.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay, out of the box, text labels are off. The average user can predict
> the actions of Back, Forward, Reload, Stop, and Home. An activity
> indicator linking to a Mozilla web page is not predictable.
Throbber activity is quite predictable if the function is still there as
is in all previous versions. I've never seen a text label for the
throbber, therefore it IS predictable behavior.
> Any user who wants to the throbber to link somewhere can decide to link
> it somewhere, by extension. But the only ones that are even going to
> think of it are not new users.
Why take something away as common as the throbber and replace the
functionality with an extension? Why not just put the line back in
about-config?
If that were the case (extension), the user:
1. Wonders what happened to the throbber function - re-installs, etc etc
2. Searches for a related tech-support venue
3. Is told that it's no longer functional as a throbber
4. User gets mad, creates a horrendous thread :-)
5. Is told that there is an extension
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just have the line available in
about-config and at the same time return the activity thingy back to
it's original state?
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 1:42 PM:
>>
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>
> -
>
> I'm sorry. This is so Marketing 101 I am beside myself.
>
>
"stupid", I say stupid (whereas you call things a polite "silly") -
which is why I wrote - and stand by - my comment to Tony's post.... and
please read *ALL* the words and not stop reading after "brain dead"...
QUOTE
aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
when it comes to user-friendliness!
UNQUOTE
I also have the feeling that Chris feels trodden upon because he
supported a dev-decision - and has been proven to have made a wrong
decision! Instead of making the decision on our- the users -behalf his
actions in that decision would have been more understandable if he had
used his position *here* to say...
"Let's wait a while and I'll put the question to the FF-NG users, to see
just how that feature is required and utilised"
But, as in Forrest Gump.... shit happens!
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 17/01/2007 05:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen to
>> generate the following:? :
>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>> Ah, the Marketeer in you is showing again <g>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's an illness. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> possibly bought on by canadian Whisky ??
>
> Not too likely, more probably Jim Beam or Makers Mark. :-)
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mechelynck
OK, let him do that; and you, Chris, find out how many are positively annoyed
that the throbber should link somewhere. Not content to leave it alone, not
even content if it were disabled by default but available through
about:config, no: how many are determined that no one at all should have the
right to use it as a link without going through the hoops of finding,
installing and configuring the right extension for it. I'm betting that his
count will be much higher than yours.
>
> Tony, if a user has gone far enough to install a different theme, they
> would know about extensions.
"Know about" the fact that extensions exist, yes, definitely. Know *which*
extensions exist and what the're good for, that's less certain. I'd bet many
of these users would dig into themes first, because "skinning yor browser"
seems more harmless (less chance of f***ing things up in a major way, and
easier and faster to determine which one you like best) than adding an
extension to change the _behaviour_ of the browser.
> If a user has to think "What did I just do
> now?", then they didn't *want* to click on the dead area. If a user
> consciously clicks on a dead area, that's not accidental. That's
> experimenting.
Of course; and if you're experimenting and something unforeseen happens, it's
not a bug, it's something you've just learned through experimentation. And,
BTW, if a user "consciously" clicks on any recognizable area, and something
happens as a result of that click, then it wasn't a "dead" area by any
definition I can conceive.
> Yes, sometimes things don't behave as expected, but that
> shouldn't be by design. Presumably bug reporters are forced to think
> "What did I just do now?", because they ran into a bug, and are
> reporting that bug.
What is or isn't expected? The way I read it, this whole thread seems to prove
that "some" people did expect the throbber to be a link. So, *for these
people*, your argument works in reverse: the expected behaviour, *for them*,
is for the throbber to link somewhere. It does nothing. Worse: it is *by
design* that it doesn't behave as a link anymore. By your reasoning (and I
agree with that part), that shouldn't be so (at least, not with their existing
profiles). As for what *new* users expect, there are a lot of grey areas.
There are also areas that are not grey: for example I suppose it's not
unreasonable to suppose that they would expect that the buttons on the left
should mean left-arrow = go back, right-arrow = go forward, turning arrow =
reload, big X = stop, house = go home. But OTOH I'm not convinced that they
should have expectations (and *uniform* expectations at that) about what the
throbber should or shouldn't do when clicked (unless maybe they come from
Netscape or such, but in that case they are not really "new" to the Mozilla
family of browsers). IMHO we're in the "experimenting" range here, not in the
"must do as expected" range.
>
> Everyone: in the words of Mike Shaver, "...once you've shown someone
> that a feature is possible, and there, some subset of people will cling
> onto that, as though it can save their life; and will not easily let you
> remove it later, when you decide it doesn't suit your goals as a whole."
Ho ho, so the removal was maybe done with a further intention in mind. I for
one would much like to know what those "goals as a whole" are, for which the
removal of the throbber link was an absolutely necessary prerequisite, that
couldn't even be met by leaving everything as-is (and the browser throbber
link code in place -- be it C code, XUL code, or whatever), except maybe
changing the factory default setting for browser.throbber.url to the null
string (but even that should IMHO have been left unchanged, or changed in a
"predictable" way such as sending to some different mozilla.com page,
concerning the new version of the browser).
And yes, once you've learnt that a feature is there, once you've used it and
found it useful, then if suddenly that feature is removed without warning and
with no obvious indication of how to put it back, then of course you get
frustrated at the least, maybe even angry. Who wouldn't?
Hey, didn't someone on this thread say that a customizable throbber link was
just one more bookmark? Maybe it was even you. I think I've found the exact
right URL to have that throbber point to (well, the right one for me at least;
YMMV):
http://talkback-public.mozilla.org/search/start.jsp
So if something "unexpected" happens to me (such as a crash) I'll know what to do.
Best regards,
Tony.
Tony Mechelynck
[...]
> I'm not as polite at putting things as you are, Ed! If something is
> "stupid", I say stupid (whereas you call things a polite "silly") -
> which is why I wrote - and stand by - my comment to Tony's post.... and
> please read *ALL* the words and not stop reading after "brain dead"...
>
> QUOTE
> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
> when it comes to user-friendliness!
> UNQUOTE
>
> I also have the feeling that Chris feels trodden upon because he
> supported a dev-decision - and has been proven to have made a wrong
> decision! Instead of making the decision on our- the users -behalf his
> actions in that decision would have been more understandable if he had
> used his position *here* to say...
> "Let's wait a while and I'll put the question to the FF-NG users, to see
> just how that feature is required and utilised"
>
> But, as in Forrest Gump.... shit happens!
>
> reg
Ed and I are polite, maybe because we've been brought up that way (back when),
but also, at least in part, because we have learned by experience that being
polite is one of the ways to make oneself listened to (and no wonder diplomats
are reputed to have elevated politeness to the level of the fine arts). If you
start throwing around epithets like "stupid", "braindead" and more, some
people will be hurt by the invectives and not listen to what you actually
mean. Even people at whom you are not directly throwing them may feel hurt if
they feel that you are not showing due respect to people who, in *their*
opinion, deserve such respect, even if for other reasons than what provoked
your ire. By being consciously polite (however much effort it may cost us), Ed
and I are showing a conscious determination not to hurt the feelings of people
who may be of a different opinion than we are: so they listen to us a little
longer maybe, and as long as they listen, the contact isn't broken, and we
stand "some" chance to bring our interlocutors around to our point of view --
or to be convinced by their arguments (to which we also listen) in case we
might decide that they weren't as stupidly braindead as that after all.
Now go ahead, go on throwing bad language left and right, but don't be
surprised if after some time you get plonked. Good luck.
Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other side
of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
;-)
Best regards,
Tony.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
> Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other
> side of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
> ;-)
Hah! -- I'll need to remember that one:
'My esteemed colleague is devoid of a fundament . . .
' . . . al understanding of the issue at hand.'
:-D
/b.
--
People are stupid. /A/ person may be smart, but /people/ are stupid.
--Stephen M. Graham
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
> On 2007-01-18 20:15 (-0700 UTC), Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
>> Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the
>> other side of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of
>> fundament..."
>> ;-)
>
> Hah! -- I'll need to remember that one:
>
> 'My esteemed colleague is devoid of a fundament . . .
>
> ' . . . al understanding of the issue at hand.'
>
> :-D
>
> /b.
>
squaredancer
Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/01/2007 05:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>
>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the Marketeer in you is showing again <g>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's an illness. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> possibly bought on by canadian Whisky ??
>>>
>> Not too likely, more probably Jim Beam or Makers Mark. :-)
>>
>>
> Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/
>
>
reg
squaredancer
Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
> squaredancer wrote:
> [...]
>
<<snipped>>
>
> Now go ahead, go on throwing bad language left and right, but don't be
> surprised if after some time you get plonked. Good luck.
>
> Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
>
> Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other side
> of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
>
and there you see the difference!
JFK called speaking your mind "civil courage"
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
squaredancer
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2007 00:24, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
>> Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
>>
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/01/2007 05:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen
>>>>> to generate the following:? :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, the Marketeer in you is showing again <g>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an illness. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> possibly bought on by canadian Whisky ??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not too likely, more probably Jim Beam or Makers Mark. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> errrr-ummmmm I thought that was a *handgun* ???
>>
>> reg
>>
> actually that's euphemism for Mogan-David 2/20 (a Type of wine) ;-)
>
>
Dirty Harry Calahan ??
reg
Chris Ilias
> I *knew* it had something to do with champus & Magnum - or was that
> Dirty Harry Calahan ??
Please take this OT discussion to email or mozilla.general.