Tooltips showing URL
Fred Holmes
mouse pointer over a link in a document (web page) will cause a
tooltip to appear showin the link's URL in full. Will Mozilla do
this? If so, how do I activate the feature? If not, how do I make an
input to the "wishlist"?
Thanks,
Fred Holmes
Ed Mullen
You would want to submit a RFE - Request For Enhancement.
First, search to see if your request has already been submitted.
Second, read that page carefully especially the reporting guidelines.
--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz_sidebar.html#mozbar
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal.
Martin Groepl
> Fred Holmes wrote:
>
>
>>One of the nice things about my Opera browser is that hovering the
>>mouse pointer over a link in a document (web page) will cause a
>>tooltip to appear showin the link's URL in full. Will Mozilla do
>>this? If so, how do I activate the feature? If not, how do I make an
>>input to the "wishlist"?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Fred Holmes
Here is a solution:
Since you are used to Opera you probably want to install "mouse
gestures" anyway: Choose the "All-in-One Gestures", not the normal
"Mouse gestures" :
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#aio
uncheck "Depress Shift key to show" in
Firefox/Tools/Options/Extensions/All-In-One-Gestures/Options/GeneralPreferences
Now you should see the "URL tooltip".
FYI (If you are using the "All-in-One Gestures"):
In order to define separate mouse gestures for
"open in new background page"
and
"open in new foreground page"
you need the "Tabbrowser Extensions" in addition.
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#tbe
Martin Groepl
doug robbins
Don't you see the full link in the status bar?
--
Doug
Martin Groepl
But the status bar wastes too much area. Therefore I switched it off :-)
Martin
doug robbins
To each his own :)
I find the statusbar, progress bar, popup icon and security icon at the
bottom of screen to be an integral part of the browser.
--
Doug
Ed Mullen
This message, while helpful to the original question(s), brought to mind
just why I don't like the concept of separate slimmed-down browser and
mail/news clients vs. an integrated suite.
As it is being developed so far, I see this sort of thing constantly.
"Yes, you can do that, install the 101 Extension! And if you also want
the framus to work, you do need to also install the 204 Extension!" And
who is doing QA on these extensions that are being developed
independently of the base code? How is there any realistic hope of
having a well-thought out integrated design; even for a single
component, let alone the browser and mail/news together? And how can the
hundreds of extensions and themes developed by an equal number of
independent sources ever be expected to work "nicely" together? You
install Ext105 and it works. You then add Ext302 and it /seems/ to work
except for that funky corruption of favicons in the browser tabs and
bookmark sidebar. Add Ext619 and, whoa! How come the program is doing
THAT all of a sudden?
Honestly, it's one of the first things we ask in the support forums: Do
you have any extensions or themes installed?
Add to that the lack of integration or reliable way to have these
applications cooperate and launch each other in a variety of situations,
the functionality that's been stripped out of each vs. the Suite, and
I'm not feeling too warm and fuzzy about these programs. I'm left
wondering, other than an updated visual appeal and moving toward a more
standard Windows UI look, what it's all about.
There has been talk in the past that the impetus for developing separate
applications was to address the code bloat problem. I, for one, see
little advantage in total disk or memory footprint in running Firefox
and Thunderbird together vs. Mozilla Suite. And with today's huge fast
hard drives, fast processors, and cheap memory, neither speed nor
footprint are really much of an issue.
Sorry for the off-topic ramble.
--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz_sidebar.html#mozbar
What happened to Preparations A through G?
Martin Groepl
I fully agree that it is almost impossible to assure quality with all
these uncoordinated developments.
But nevertheless:
I'm sure that Firefox would NOT be my default browser WITHOUT these
"dangerous extensions". They are worth the risk.
About the bloat problem:
Disk space is indeed not so important.
I don't ask whether a browser requires 3MB or 30MB space on the HD.
Speed is an issue and definitely a weakness of gecko.
Click on "back" in IE and the page is loaded in 1 second.
Click on "back" in Opera and the page appears in milliseconds (I think
the "history-back"-page is just hidden, is not rendered again).
Click on "back" in Mozilla and wait until the WHOLE page is loaded again
from the web server. This is probably not related to the code size of
Mozilla.
Martin
Ed Mullen
I see the same performance locally using IE, Mozilla and Firefox. I do
see IE taking much longer to initially load many pages than Moz or FF.
> Click on "back" in Opera and the page appears in milliseconds (I think
> the "history-back"-page is just hidden, is not rendered again).
Yes, Opera does a "back" op faster than anything. It still takes longer
to initially render some pages. But, hell, we could all find a page
example that would stump whatever browser we wanted to target. At some
point, given a fast system and broadband, I just don't care. The
difference to me in usability terms is negligible, insignificant, not
noticeable nor important in my life.
So, at that point what matters is how I interact with the program, how
little it intrudes into my use patterns, how well it facilitates my
achievment of my online activities. And how little stress it burdens me
with in trying to make it work. Mozilla Suite is there for me, IE
isn't, Opera isn't (although, in fairness, that may be a learning curve
thing for me, I just don't find anything so appealing about Opera that I
want to spend the time to get to know it better), Firefox is like a
really pretty girl with a great body and bad breath. I do want to love
her. Honest. Same deal with Tbird. The potential is there but, dang,
hire a beauty consultant or something. This gal ain't gonna make it on
American Idol.
> Click on "back" in Mozilla and wait until the WHOLE page is loaded again
> from the web server. This is probably not related to the code size of
> Mozilla.
>
> Martin
>
Honest, with 3.5 Mb/s broadband cable download, a reasonably fast
machine, fast hard drive, lots of RAM and disk space, and a decent cache
size, I'm not seeing anything that makes me scream: "Omigod! That's
horrible!" At some point, reloading the last page I saw in .2 seconds
vs. .9 seconds is pointless. Hey, maybe if I had 6 Starbucks triple
grande lattes in an hour, but other than that, my metabolism just
doesn't care.
What I care about is feature set, features that work, a program that is
reliable, and decent performance. I like Mozilla Suite in those
regards. I currently use the following extensions, I do not use any themes:
- http live headers
- preferences toolbar
- jslib
- Tagzilla
I do have other configurations installed for testing but, honestly, you
don't wanna hear about those. I stress them and that's why I said what
I did above: this is not a good model for software development. The
conflicts are rampant and no one knows what all the interactions are.
Except for those poor users who install all those cute extensions and
themes and all of a sudden have a totally unstable software environment.
--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
http://edmullen.net/Mozilla/moz_sidebar.html#mozbar
"Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for
further developments," - Roman engineer Julius Sextus Frontinus, A.D. 10.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell,
Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
"All the easy stuff's already been invented." - my brother-in-law, PhD.
in physics, 1988
"Phil Hühn (TL)"
Moz suite, that's a reason not to use Ffox and Tbird IMHO. Surely the
solution - if people are worried about bloat - is to have the standard
product then have a 'mega' pack of the most popular extensions that have
been QA'd as working well together. (This may also avert any malicious
or destructive extension, an issue which always concerns me.) Those that
like all the extra bits can put with the few extra CPU cycles (I'd be
happy to).
I've myself pencilled down 3 different extensions to create, so I can
see the scope for conflict will only increase ;-)
doug robbins
Agreed 100%.
The /concept/ of extensions is good. But the practise of moving existing
features (in Mozilla) out of the core browser (Firefox) into third-party
extensions isn't (IMO).
In a perfect world, all extension writers would design things that added
new capabilities to Mozilla (yes, some current extensions do that)
rather than re-inventing the wheels.
--
Doug
Martin Groepl
If you ask 10 different people about what's important for them you will
get at least 7 different answers.
You installed http live headers, preferences toolbar, jslib and tagzilla
and you obviously like these extensions.
Others don't care about "http live headers"
but ask for "Mouse Gestures", "Tabbrowser Extensions", "Adblock" and
other things which you don't need.
It's a pity that people run into problems because there is NO
information at all about the KNOWN problems with some extensions and
extension-combinations at
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/
It is an overreaction to doom the extensions as a whole.
Add a small section "known problems" at each extension. That's it.
About the "super-slimmed-down browser":
I agree with you. It is better to KEEP functionality inside the core
program than to MOVE it to extensions.
Stan Brown
>One of the nice things about my Opera browser is that hovering the
>mouse pointer over a link in a document (web page) will cause a
>tooltip to appear showin the link's URL in full.
Its not quite the same, but Moz shows the target link in the status
bar. Is that adequate to meet your needs?
Personally I hope Moz does _not_ pop up a tooltip. There's a way for
page authors to indicate an appropriate tooltip (TITLE="...") but
just popping up every URL I would find distracting.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"An expense does not have to be required to be considered
necessary." -- IRS Form 1040 line 23 instructions
Anon
It's probably related to your moz cache settings or else the page
in question contains a no-cache tag which moz is honoring...