Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
Hi Devlin,
I like the change in most respects.
Will users still be able to hide icons through its context menu?
Secondly, this still seems to be flawed: an app can still have a transparent icon like LANSchool Helper, and the space is invisible to the user.
Finally, would it not be a good idea to create this as a default choice rather than something forced, akin to the google play "add icon to home screen (for new apps)" choice? This means that those of us with 10s of extensions don't gave a micro sized omnibox.
Thanks and keep working hard!
Dylan
--
Sent from myMail app for Android
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensions@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAFnkeJUhNnjzib11V%3De66ABHX2hk-CFOQS1GtunHG5z%2BOLyo7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Will users still be able to hide icons through its context menu?
They will, but "hiding" becomes overflowing the icon to the wrench menu. There won't be a way to fully hide an icon.
Secondly, this still seems to be flawed: an app can still have a transparent icon like LANSchool Helper, and the space is invisible to the user.
Even with a transparent icon, there will still be a focusable/hoverable button, and things like right click will identify the extension. While a transparent icon will make it a little more hidden, the extension would be far from truly invisible.
Finally, would it not be a good idea to create this as a default choice rather than something forced, akin to the google play "add icon to home screen (for new apps)" choice? This means that those of us with 10s of extensions don't gave a micro sized omnibox.
Unfortunately, this isn't really an option we're looking at right now, for security purposes. On the upside, overflowing the icons to the wrench menu works pretty well - it can fit dozens of icons easily (with support for showing hundreds, in the extreme case). So for those of us with 10+ extensions, I would expect the majority to be overflowed in the wrench menu, keeping the toolbar relatively clean.
Thanks for the feedback!
Cheers
- Devlin
so basically, every installed extension will have toolbar icon
1) and only way to hide them is to move it to hamburger menu??
2) what kind of functionality those icons will have?... or they gonna just sit there as info
3) are you canceling page actions with this ?... as far as I understand (from SS), page action will be moved to toolbar, what about functionality (page action click)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAFnkeJU9guw4i_v%2BFi8Q8vjzaHC8h2AJ3j-uWoxa9mSy1JRMiw%40mail.gmail.com.To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
Whoops, dropped the list from the reply.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Devlin Cronin <rdevli...@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [crx] Upcoming UI Change
To: Wolf War <wolf...@gmail.com>
1) and only way to hide them is to move it to hamburger menu??
Yes.
2) what kind of functionality those icons will have?... or they gonna just sit there as info
From an extension standpoint, there will be limited functionality if the action wouldn't previously be visible. However, there will still be functionality for the user (in the form of the context menu).
3) are you canceling page actions with this ?... as far as I understand (from SS), page action will be moved to toolbar, what about functionality (page action click)
Page actions will be moved to the toolbar. On pages that the action wouldn't normally be visible, it will be greyed out, and clicks will not be forwarded to the extension. On pages where it would normally be visible, it will be fully colored, and clicks will be forwarded normally. So clicking on a page action (that is set to visible) will work the same as it did before.
....but looks much better in address bar :))))
...ok, thanx again for answer, I was thinking something similar (on both, coloring and browser action)
cheers
Hi Devlin ,
This change will require another asset for the disabled state of the browser action or this is something what google will handle ?
How will the icon be specified for extensions without browser or page actions?
Shrinking down the regular icon won't look good, you'll want a 19x19 icon.
Or will these icons not be 19x19?
Shrinking down the regular icon won't look good, you'll want a 19x19 icon.
Or will these icons not be 19x19?
Bogdan:
This change will require another asset for the disabled state of the browser action or this is something what google will handle ?
The disabled state will be a greyed out version of the icon, which Chrome will do automatically. You could also choose to have your own disabled/enabled state, so that you can choose how the icon looks, and still receive left clicks even when "disabled" (I think AdBlock is an example of this).
How will the icon be specified for extensions without browser or page actions?
Currently, we will use the icon of closest size, and scale it. If the extension doesn't have any icon (e.g., an unpacked extension), then we will generate a grey box with the first letter of the extension name in white font (if you're familiar, I think we also do this for favicons in a few contexts - one of the extensions in the images from the first post is an example [the S]). In the long-term, I would probably recommend adding an extension action, because if you have the UI surface, might as well do something with it. :)
I also forgot to mention that you can choose to enable this feature locally by going to chrome://flags/#enable-extension-action-redesign.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Devlin Cronin <rdevli...@chromium.org> wrote:In the long-term, I would probably recommend adding an extension action, because if you have the UI surface, might as well do something with it. :)
I believe there used to a restriction for one user interface surface per extension, as well as one purpose per extension. This seems to contradict that (I understand that the reality dictates otherwise), so you better update the guidelines somewhere, if such exist that mention this.
☆PhistucK
This seems to contradict that
I don't think it does. Each extension still only has a single UI surface (which is now persistent). And I'm not suggesting that, in adding an action, you add a second purpose - but many extensions could still show something useful to the user (status? Frequently used options? Obviously very extension-dependent). The documentation should be updated to mention the persistent icon, but the guidelines regarding UI presence and single purpose stand.
in Canary since today (I think),
there is no more "hide from toolbar" option on extension icon right click (browserAction)
is that just a temporarily... going back to old way...or something compliantly new?
can't test pageAction behavior right now to see if it will be shown in address bar or on toolbar...
...and additionally, not all extensions are presented on toolbar (active or grayed)
I see only hide option and new button on chrome://extensions to show toolbar icon
sry, I reinstalled canary and totally forgot about flags :)
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:26:56 PM UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:
sry, I reinstalled canary and totally forgot about flags :)
Was about to mention that that sounded a lot like behavior without the flag. :) Glad it's worked out!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/19b2a003-6d31-4235-800e-e2853b91052c%40chromium.org.
This change will require another asset for the disabled state of the browser action or this is something what google will handle ?The disabled state will be a greyed out version of the icon, which Chrome will do automatically. You could also choose to have your own disabled/enabled state, so that you can choose how the icon looks, and still receive left clicks even when "disabled" (I think AdBlock is an example of this).
It's a shame if your icon is black and white 8-(
A 19x19 black and white icon doesn't look much different when it's greyed out...
How do you specify an icon for the disabled state?
How do you specify an icon for the disabled state?
One common approach would be to keep track of the enabled state and set your icon based on that. You also don't necessarily have to use chrome.browserAction.disable - you could have your own custom disabled look and behavior.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/38f9f450-013f-414d-a372-e328c685b702%40chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
I don't like this change, primarily because of inevitable user confusion.
"What's this on my toolbar? The extension (I know about) now shows an icon that inconveniences me by being there? How dare they!"
1. Let's bug-report it to the developer / let's demand that the developer changes it.
2. Let's rate this extension 1-star, because obviously 1-star reviews solve every problem and I might actually not forget to reverse it later.
3. Let's hide this icon, because there is no way this page-action extension will not function now - I except it to appear in the usual spot.
4. Let's uninstall it, because this is an affront to my sensitivities to show an icon.
Conclusion: This change requires a very carefully worded explanation to the user on first launch that is not easy to dismiss that explains that Chrome is to blame, not the extension (think unpacked extensions dialog). Is something like that in place?
Problem #3 is especially bad (and thus the harm to page actions is the worst), so you'll need to communicate that a hidden page action icon won't work, or you'll need to make it work (for example, by highlighting the hamburger menu when a hidden action is "shown").
Finally, what's the projected time to update the documentation?
And two more questions:
1. Is the collapsed-into-hamburger status going to be synced with Extension Sync enabled, or will users have to do it all over again on every device?
2. Considering that with the new paradigm pageAction.show() and pageAction.hide() do not, in fact, show or hide the icon - do you plan to add new methods (to keep consistency with browserAction, .enable() and .disable()) and deprecate the old ones?
The extension API documentation should be updated to include this feature regression (https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/pageAction)
This is going to cause so much confusion with our users. :-(
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Sean <ifon...@gmail.com> wrote:
--The extension API documentation should be updated to include this feature regression (https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/pageAction)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/347f6f54-a824-4a41-ad1e-b17cc4f4db52%40chromium.org.
Hi Guys, Is there any way to stop this feature ? Some extensions in toolbar looks stupid ...
I can't believe this made it to stable. Others have pointed out how many issues there are with this change, so I won't bother. This is worse than the bookmarks manager fiasco, except that there's no way to revert to the old behavior. Expect a great deal of user frustration over the next few days.
Now that this is in stable, I can answer a couple of my own questions.
* Is something shown to the user the first time?
Yes, a short popup from the toolbar saying "All your extensions are here!" and a suggestion that they can be hidden.
* Is it explained?
There is no motivation given for this, and no link to learn more.
* Is it hard to dismiss?
No, any click outside will cause it to close, no just the "Got it" button.
* Are page actions screwed if they are hidden?
Yes, mostly.
There is zero explanation regarding the change in how Page Actions operate. As such, a user is compelled to hide the new-and-confusing icon in the hamburger menu.
If they do, there is no visual indication a page action has triggered unless the hamburger menu is opened.
Then, and only then, Chrome draws a small dot over the icon if it is "shown" for the current tab.
But the user has no way to discover that this is the case - the hamburger menu is not in any way marked as requiring attention.
Very disappointing, Chrome team. This is a big change breaking user experience more so than developers' experience, and I do not think you communicate it well enough to users.
You are right man, the new extensions iconsplacement sucks me on like shit. For instance the Country Flags Extensions Flag Icon is on right side , not in the Domain area like before. Think Dev's was on cocain or under sugar as this came into her mind. Is there a commandline Flag to restore old behaviour?????? If not Die and go to Hell Dev's. My Favorits Ordner is now missordered to. After the 49 update is is not sorted by addingtime anymore, but after Domain. This is inacceptable Shit and its often that i have to spent my lifetime to undo these stupid unanounced Changes, after a chromeupdate.
Keep it civil.
☆PhistucK
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:33 PM, anton leiter <leite...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Am Donnerstag, 3. März 2016 11:02:17 UTC+1 schrieb Xan:Now that this is in stable, I can answer a couple of my own questions.* Is something shown to the user the first time?Yes, a short popup from the toolbar saying "All your extensions are here!" and a suggestion that they can be hidden.* Is it explained?There is no motivation given for this, and no link to learn more.* Is it hard to dismiss?No, any click outside will cause it to close, no just the "Got it" button.* Are page actions screwed if they are hidden?Yes, mostly.There is zero explanation regarding the change in how Page Actions operate. As such, a user is compelled to hide the new-and-confusing icon in the hamburger menu.If they do, there is no visual indication a page action has triggered unless the hamburger menu is opened.Then, and only then, Chrome draws a small dot over the icon if it is "shown" for the current tab.But the user has no way to discover that this is the case - the hamburger menu is not in any way marked as requiring attention.Very disappointing, Chrome team. This is a big change breaking user experience more so than developers' experience, and I do not think you communicate it well enough to users.You are right man, the new extensions iconsplacement sucks me on like shit. For instance the Country Flags Extensions Flag Icon is on right side , not in the Domain area like before. Think Dev's was on cocain or under sugar as this came into her mind. Is there a commandline Flag to restore old behaviour?????? If not Die and go to Hell Dev's. My Favorits Ordner is now missordered to. After the 49 update is is not sorted by addingtime anymore, but after Domain. This is inacceptable Shit and its often that i have to spent my lifetime to undo these stupid unanounced Changes, after a chromeupdate.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/19a9ac98-627a-4d30-b44e-333b7ff63ad3%40chromium.org.
Assuming Devlin (and other devs) read this, I'd lick to bring this bug to attention: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=161618
Distorted icons are not helping when this transition is already traumatic for page actions.
Hi Devlin,
I think that with the new approach, usability of clickable page action icons is greatly hampered when the user, accidentally or not, hides the icon extension to the Chome menu.
I think that Chrome should determine if the page action icon is already visible and, if it is not visible, Chrome should make it appear within the address bar as in the past. Obviously, I agree that showing two icons for a page action is a clumsy UX but since Chrome has all information on what is visible in the UI, it should ensure that, for a page action extension, at least one icon appears wither withing the address bar or outside.
This removes support calls to us if, for example, the user accidentally drags the right edge of the address bar, effectively hiding the icons to the Chrome menu, when furiously moving and clicking his mouse right and left as batteries are draining.
Finally, please note that this proposal of ensuring that an active page icon is visible further reinforces your goal of security by user awareness and, overall, greatly improves usability for clickable page action icons.
I hope you consider the solution of ensuring that page actions are visible, for both security and usability's sake.
Pep.
I think that with the new approach, usability of clickable page action icons is greatly hampered when the user, accidentally or not, hides the icon extension to the Chome menu.
I think that Chrome should determine if the page action icon is already visible and, if it is not visible, Chrome should make it appear within the address bar as in the past. Obviously, I agree that showing two icons for a page action is a clumsy UX but since Chrome has all information on what is visible in the UI, it should ensure that, for a page action extension, at least one icon appears wither withing the address bar or outside.
This removes support calls to us if, for example, the user accidentally drags the right edge of the address bar, effectively hiding the icons to the Chrome menu, when furiously moving and clicking his mouse right and left as batteries are draining.
Finally, please note that this proposal of ensuring that an active page icon is visible further reinforces your goal of security by user awareness and, overall, greatly improves usability for clickable page action icons.
I hope you consider the solution of ensuring that page actions are visible, for both security and usability's sake.
Pep.
If the goal is to have users be aware of the extensions, wouldn't it be as effective (if not more effective) to open the extensions page with a message to remove unwanted extensions on any major update?
This would accomplish the goal of getting users to consider what they have installed without killing pageAction.
This change provides no additional awareness of what pages an extension is actually running on since extensions can still interact with the a page and not show as active in the browserAction. Everyone is just going to hide the extensions in the chrome menu and then they're just as buried as they ever were.
Now that I have tested it, I can report that Extension Sync does not help, and users have to do it all over again on every device. I suppose for every new extension install, as well.
At this point this is just hostile.
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:41:38 AM UTC+1, Xan wrote:
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 1:41:38 AM UTC+1, Xan wrote:
And two more questions:1. Is the collapsed-into-hamburger status going to be synced with Extension Sync enabled, or will users have to do it all over again on every device?
I agree with Teddy Garland that true user awareness can be achieved just as well with opening the chrome://extensions page.
The way page actions work needs to be redone as well. Pep's solution is what I was thinking about as well: when a page action extension is hidden, it should appear as before.
Finally, it has been released into Stable into an incredibly buggy state. Case in point:
The menu does not show anything at all, and my toolbar has been filled with a random assortment of hidden and non-hidden extensions (apparently all developer mode ones).
I suspect that having two notices at once (developer mode, showing all extensions) was too much for Chrome.
Bring previous page actions back!
They were much more convenient there in address bar than on the browser action panel.
I don't want to see every extension with page action all the time, I want to see them only when extension chooses to show the button (when RSS feeds are available etc), and I want to see them where they should be: in the page, not in the whole browser.
Looks like this change was not thought out as it should be. You practically killed the page action behavior which was very useful for actions applicable only to the current pagee, but that aren't applicable to all pages. It would be more sensible to retain showing the page action icon in the address bar. You can still show it in the Chrome menu if you somehow think this benefits the user. But please keep it also in the address bar, so the page actions can be instantly available and helpful again.
I saw that bug as well, but it fixed itself after a minute somehow.
☆PhistucK
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/72ebdce9-eb55-44c0-a4ef-8d2d1df67e14%40chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
It fixes itself after a browser restart
(as there are no longer 2 dialogs to show).
I'm not sure if it's worth a bug report even, considering it's been pushed to stable and reproduces once per install at most.
I'm not sure if it's worth a bug report even, considering it's been pushed to stable and reproduces once per install at most.
pageAction was also tide up to tabId
once set, no need to test id on onActivated (for changing state or so...)
pls don't kill the whole API... it looks like it's going to be deprecated
Quick question, why do some extension icons get out from the burger menu even though I've manually hid them through the context menu? This is annoying.this happens in my case if I disable (or enable) some of the extensions
and, I guess, internal order (which one is hidden, and which one not) is messed
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:18:19 PM UTC+1, kurtextrem wrote:Quick question, why do some extension icons get out from the burger menu even though I've manually hid them through the context menu? This is annoying.
Seems like an issue that needs to be fixed.
Seems like an issue that needs to be
reported, and the issue ID linked here (for hopefully faster
triage and tracking by interested parties)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/193003c8-f113-41b5-8e9b-3c9dd75c9cd3%40chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Apparently it was: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=578051
This is a major UX degradation and I can't believe the developers did not see it coming? Why do I need to see 20 useless icons at once just to know that those extensions exist?
What's wrong with adding icons on install only and letting the user choose the old behavior for extensions she acknowledges? Where is chrome://flags/#disable-extension-action-redesign ?
Was any UX A/B testing done on this? If so, fire anyone responsible.
What's next, are you going to remove the address bar to 'protect users' from themselves?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mindaugas J. <4mr...@gmail.com> wrote:What's wrong with adding icons on install only and letting the user choose the old behavior for extensions she acknowledges? Where is chrome://flags/#disable-extension-action-redesign ?
Think about it - if the user can, so can the malware, which beats the point of this feature.
It may not sit well with you, but this is probably the reason.
☆PhistucK
This is false dichotomy. This mechanism is not exposed to javascript, is it? And if malware can hijack chrome's internals the battle is lost already.
That is the whole point of the changes over the last two years - to battle installed malware, not JavaScript.
☆PhistucK
Do you mean malware on the computer, or a malicious chrome extension?
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 12:48:02 PM UTC-5, PhistucK wrote:
That is the whole point of the changes over the last two years - to battle installed malware, not JavaScript.☆PhistucKOn Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Mindaugas J. <4mr....@gmail.com> wrote:This is false dichotomy. This mechanism is not exposed to javascript, is it? And if malware can hijack chrome's internals the battle is lost already.2016-03-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com>:On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mindaugas J. <4mr....@gmail.com> wrote:What's wrong with adding icons on install only and letting the user choose the old behavior for extensions she acknowledges? Where is chrome://flags/#disable-extension-action-redesign ?Think about it - if the user can, so can the malware, which beats the point of this feature.It may not sit well with you, but this is probably the reason.☆PhistucK
Let's say malware on the computer able
to manipulate Chrome profile, registry, Chrome launch shortcut,
but not significantly compromise the Chrome binary itself.
That's why Chrome only allows 3rd-party installs from CWS so that it can be centrally blacklisted, has cryptographically signed preference file and signed hashes of all extension files, and constantly warns about unpacked (read: unsigned) extensions.
I believe those are, among other things, what PhistucK referred to.
(apologies for people receiving my replies twice - I repeatedly reply to people directly instead of the list)
That's why Chrome only allows 3rd-party installs from CWS so that it can be centrally blacklisted, has cryptographically signed preference file and signed hashes of all extension files, and constantly warns about unpacked (read: unsigned) extensions.
I believe those are, among other things, what PhistucK referred to.
(apologies for people receiving my replies twice - I repeatedly reply to people directly instead of the list)
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/176a44c6-14e3-4ffb-838f-a29d7dd7cb32%40chromium.org.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
I have to agree, this change is terrible, all in the name of a few idiots who can't remember that they installed?
This change RUINS page actions (and with ZERO explanation to the user that it did) unless you're willing to have a ton of ugly wasted space on them on the toolbar, which I certainly don't want. This is a major regression and should be rolled back.
Oof, this update has been really bad for my users. I've got new users who can no longer figure out how to use my extension, and longtime users wondering why it suddenly got "uninstalled".
I understand both the motivation and the tradeoffs involved in the solution, but I'm not sure why page actions were also removed from their typical location. Changing that is a tremendous backwards-incompatible ux change that was poorly explained to users, and seems to go against the motivation of making extensions more visible to users -- it makes them less visible once they inevitably get hidden.
Why not make it so that the user can select via an extension icon's context menu to allow for page-action extensions to behave as previously (moving the icon to the address bar)? This would address the "make user aware of unwittingly installed extensions" aspect by requiring an explicit user action but still enable the UX advantages of the way things used to be for more tech-savvy people.
I'm afraid that the reasoning from
Google would be the same as for unpacked extensions warning - if
you can dismiss it once setting some preference/flag/switch,
malware can do it for you.
This "you the malware writers" may be the most memorable quote from Chrome bugtracker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=337734#c4
This is not a good reason though. Especially considering the preference files are by now cryptographically signed.
This "you the malware writers" may be the most memorable quote from Chrome bugtracker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=337734#c4
This is not a good reason though. Especially considering the preference files are by now cryptographically signed.
On 05.03.2016 8:40, Marco Götze wrote:
Why not make it so that the user can select via an extension icon's context menu to allow for page-action extensions to behave as previously (moving the icon to the address bar)? This would address the "make user aware of unwittingly installed extensions" aspect by requiring an explicit user action but still enable the UX advantages of the way things used to be for more tech-savvy people.--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/c1528822-f039-4f53-bc6d-8615b69673c1%40chromium.org.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
The more I think about it, the more Pep Condal's solution appeals to me.
Even if the hamburger menu was to somehow indicate that there are activated page actions, it still doesn't provide that information at a glance.
One of the bigger complaints from the user perspective is that permanently having an icon on the toolbar eats into the toolbar space that they prefer to keep neat. That's why from the user perspective, hiding that button is preferable. And again, Chrome doesn't warn that it will stop page actions from functioning like they did.
So let's make the most logical and yet minimal change: let page actions appear like they did - if and only if their main button is hidden.
1. This massively cuts down on user confusion when they hide the icon.
2. This lets the Chrome team maintain their visibility goal if the icon is still shown (in the hamburger menu) at all times.
3. This enables some of the more exotic workflows like the one mentioned by Theo Ropstah work normally.
4. This empowers the users to clean up their permanent toolbar without cutting functionality.
5. It's not like you're removing the supporting code for icons in the omnibar (star is still there).
Regards,
Alexander.
P.S.
1. I did not fully explain why marking the hamburger menu as requiring attention would be a poor solution.
a. Often, the mere presence of the page action icon indicates something, sometimes without significant additional functionality. It's a visual indicator, and highlighting that there IS one doesn't show the same information at a glace.
b. In case a user has more than one page action installed, this probably doesn't tell which is activated. Hypothetically, if one activates often and another activates rarely, the user will be prone to dismiss the marking as the often-activated one.
2. In case this change isn't universally reverted, it would be great if the API provided visibility status of the icon (to instruct the user accordingly). Unclear whether it should go to browserAction/pageAction API (so to benefit, one MUST declare one) or into runtime/extension API since icons are now present for all extensions.
Yeah, I thought I had malware, and that was the reason for all these icons.
The docs, of course, are lying:
They should say "deprecated", btw. Page Actions no longer exist.
-s
They do, technically, as their behavior
now still differs from Browse Actions. Crippled? Yes. No longer
existing? No.
But the documentation needs to be updated.
But the documentation needs to be updated.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/a67f294a-1109-4498-a2a7-8b91f127549a%40chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
This change basically changed all page action based extensions to browser action based . Even though page action still exists, the mix of UI removes all differences between these two distinctive components. It does not improve security whatsoever, but only create confusions for users and introduces more troubles for developers.
This change definitely needs more discussion with the developers, since it is such a huge UI change and will break more than half of the extensions on the webstore.
I look forward for this change to be reverted.
Yes, that is why I said page actions are deprecated. They became browser actions, but with worse UI. All the "detection" type page actions are now color based browser actions, that I no longer notice.
What I do notice, is that the Bookmarks is still in the URL area like a page action. Surely, it should move out to the toolbar with all the others???
-s
I wonder if every site that has a serviceworker installed will get the same treatment...
how can i disable this feature ?
You cannot.
☆PhistucK
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amir Tal <amirt...@gmail.com> wrote:
--how can i disable this feature ?You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/a61bb074-b842-4b89-b972-8fd7c972fc8d%40chromium.org.
if i hide all icons, and then drag the edge of the address box, all the icons are returned.
there is no option for permanent hiding ?
as a user, i am able to understand that not all features and buttons are displayed on the screen at all times.
this is just silly, see attached screenshot.
(no edit function here ?)
this "feature" also removes the functionality of icons inside the URLbar.
is this intended? should we expect to get at least this functionality back?
All of the above is intended, unfortunately.
You can re-order the icons, that may help a bit.
☆PhistucK
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/2714a60c-9336-4108-8687-8c8434cdb9e2%40chromium.org.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
Since it gets sent as email, there is
no edit functionality.
I encourage you to take time to read the whole thread. The points you raise have been discussed already. Not to say that repeating tyhe concerns is useless, but you should see the answers so far.
We (users & developers) are powerless to stop this if Google won't listen. As such, we should not "expect" this.
But on the off-chance they do listen, restoring page action functionality is the bare minimum of damage control they can do without compromising their goals/reasoning.
I encourage you to take time to read the whole thread. The points you raise have been discussed already. Not to say that repeating tyhe concerns is useless, but you should see the answers so far.
We (users & developers) are powerless to stop this if Google won't listen. As such, we should not "expect" this.
But on the off-chance they do listen, restoring page action functionality is the bare minimum of damage control they can do without compromising their goals/reasoning.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/2714a60c-9336-4108-8687-8c8434cdb9e2%40chromium.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
But if I need my extension in adress bar, how I can back this extensions on point?
понедельник, 5 октября 2015 г., 22:37:27 UTC+3 пользователь Devlin Cronin написал:
понедельник, 5 октября 2015 г., 22:37:27 UTC+3 пользователь Devlin Cronin написал:
Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
yes i see the same point are being raised by multiple people, some of them are extension publishers.
but reply from google staff is incomplete, non-existent or un acceptable.
this browser has many millions of users, we deserve better solutions.
also, there seems to be an update here every few minutes.
i guess whenever someone new finds out about this stupid decision we get the same set of updates here.
how is it that every service that becomes popular and knocks off any competition automatically becomes worst?
(like microsoft, firefox, facebook)
already waiting for version 50....
but reply from google staff is incomplete, non-existent or un acceptable.
this browser has many millions of users, we deserve better solutions.
also, there seems to be an update here every few minutes.
i guess whenever someone new finds out about this stupid decision we get the same set of updates here.
how is it that every service that becomes popular and knocks off any competition automatically becomes worst?
(like microsoft, firefox, facebook)
already waiting for version 50....
An acceptable solution could be a duplication - every page action would have an additional browser action button. The main purpose of the browser action button is to show that the extension is installed (since page action do not always show up), but the page action user interface will continue to be shown as well, providing the obvious value to the user.
While this seems (to me) like a good compromise (the user can set the browser action aside by moving it into the menu), my guess is that page actions became an attack vector - perhaps page actions used a lock icon and pretended that everything is secure (even though the page action is displayed at the right end of the omnibox, users are also used to user interface changes, especially those that they do not understand or care about too much).
☆PhistucK
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Adam Schwartz <adam.fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Devlin,--Thanks for explaining the changes. I completely understand the desire to ensure users understand what extensions they have installed. However, not allowing page action icons to appear within the omnibox when active is a huge functional loss.As many others have pointed out, page actions are commonly (if not primarily) used for status indication. Imagine if the green SSL lock icon in the omnibox could only be seen after opening the Chrome menu. As Chrome extensions provided options for page actions separate from browser actions, clearly you understood this. Removing this functionality means that Chrome extensions will now need to render their status within the DOM of the page overlapping, or appearing within the content of the page. Clearly this is a major regression in functionality.Given these changes I believe you have a duty, again as others have pointed out, to either acknowledge that page actions have essentially been deprecated (and potentially come up with a new alternative), or reinstate the functionality that active page actions can be displayed in the omnibox, even when the user has decided to hide them within the Chrome menu normally.Thanks,AdamYou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/0f97d214-8354-41f1-b1f4-b3f17a3a3082%40chromium.org.
I like this suggestion.
Though it may be too late. I already started deleting extensions that provide page actions.
Steven Roussey
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABc02_L0t8fMfdFnTWOYxW6SH93WmVjV7LMJ65X-u%3DTuKLx%3Dgw%40mail.gmail.com.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
Yes, for example, extension for add to favorits, it need to be display in adress bar, extension like Recent History - small down arrow for simple open closed tabs, and etc, feedly extension for subscribe for update... and more, I don't need this extension buttons out of adress bar, I need it in adress bar 'coz it's useful.
воскресенье, 6 марта 2016 г., 18:10:54 UTC+2 пользователь Amir Tal написал:
воскресенье, 6 марта 2016 г., 18:10:54 UTC+2 пользователь Amir Tal написал:
I honestly don't think that this
(omnibar icons are "more trustworthy") was the reasoning. I
believe the Chrome team thought that one UI surface at most is
enough, see
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/nZtTQ7PGCQAJ
. Which is reasonable, but not when we look at how page actions
are actually used.
I think the duplication should only happen when the toolbar button is hidden. It may be less obvious to the user (that they need to hide the main icon to show the page action) but at least it's a solution that keeps the functionality where we want it.
The security lockdown has to stop somewhere. All extension APIs have abuse potential, and with effective limitation to Chrome Web Store in place Google has reasonable control already.
What we have here is a very significant change that wasn't communicated well enough, and as such not discussed enough before release into Stable. Next time something like this happens, I'm afraid this mailing list (which has tons of noise in it - I don't follow it for this reason, for instance) is not sufficient. Google could email all extension developers registered on CWS to enable representative discussion. But that didn't happen, probably because Google underestimated (and still didn't acknowledge) the impact.
I think the duplication should only happen when the toolbar button is hidden. It may be less obvious to the user (that they need to hide the main icon to show the page action) but at least it's a solution that keeps the functionality where we want it.
The security lockdown has to stop somewhere. All extension APIs have abuse potential, and with effective limitation to Chrome Web Store in place Google has reasonable control already.
What we have here is a very significant change that wasn't communicated well enough, and as such not discussed enough before release into Stable. Next time something like this happens, I'm afraid this mailing list (which has tons of noise in it - I don't follow it for this reason, for instance) is not sufficient. Google could email all extension developers registered on CWS to enable representative discussion. But that didn't happen, probably because Google underestimated (and still didn't acknowledge) the impact.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org. To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABc02_L0t8fMfdFnTWOYxW6SH93WmVjV7LMJ65X-u%3DTuKLx%3Dgw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
You know, I never thought the Chrome team could do anything to make me switch back to Firefox, but this might be it. I don't need toolbar buttons for all the various ANTP addons I use, and I definitely don't need all the crap that's now cluttering up the top of my Chrome menu instead of just appearing in the omnibox when in use. Instead of mollycoddling your most ignorant users with this dreadful UX change, why not encourage them to be less stupid with a periodic reminder (once a month, perhaps?) to check their extensions, with a button to go straight to chrome://extensions? Sure, I'd still be a little annoyed by the reminder popping up, but it'd be infinitely preferable to this mess.
Hell, while we're at it, why not put the Extensions button back in the main Chrome menu, instead of hidden under More Tools where the average idiot isn't going to look?
There does not need to be duplication for page actions. Chrome could determine if the page icon is already visible next to the address bar and, if not, show it within the address bar.
This approach reinfoces the "security by user awareness" goal and does not cause severe usability issues for clickable page actions.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABc02_L0t8fMfdFnTWOYxW6SH93WmVjV7LMJ65X-u%3DTuKLx%3Dgw%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi Devlin, I understand how this can help but, most people (such as my self) will have page actions and other things we just rather not have shown or hidden and just be left alone, so instead of forcing everything include a setting to enable (default) and Disable and allow it to be as it was, I have a lot of page action's and other items I just need on that site(Ex a bookmark manager that allows me to bookmark a page) please this such thing would help, since chrome removed the notifcation center on windows, os x, and linux it's been a pain, I think users should how the freedom to enable and disable such things.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 2:37:27 PM UTC-5, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
This feature is so stupid, most users will just think it's a bug and expect it to go back to normal.
In fact, that's what I thought, when I frustratingly tried to recover the bookmark button in the address bar this "feature" removed, for hours.
I updated Chrome, googled for help, tried different flags and finally removed the bookmarks manager extension from Google itself (who could have thought), which restored the bookmark button.
Sadly I cannot use the far superior bookmark manager anymore without my browser interface becoming unbearably ugly.
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:26:56 PM UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:
The reason for this is to protect our users. [...] Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
You want to increase user visibility, but you don't care about what your users want.
Most of them prefer the way it was before.
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 6:26:56 PM UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks
You didn't even try!
So long and thanks for the fish nobody asked for
Everyone
This has got to be one of the worst UI design decisions I've seen Google make in a very long time. It's utterly insane. The user benefit is barely justifiable, and to most users, even those it benefits, it will simply seem a gross inconvenience. The user experience is disgustingly bad. Who thought this was a good idea? Loading every chrome extension into the toolbar is a shocking experience -- most users will think something is wrong. Hiding the chrome extensions is a poor alternative too: browser extensions with page actions only now have yet another click barrier in the way of interacting with them, reducing the chance that users will interact with them at all (since they are hidden in a hamburger.) Worst of all, extensions with no actions clutter the space and, frankly, makes this space look like garbage. Roll it back guys; this is an utter fail.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 12:37:27 PM UTC-7, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
Yep, it's true, Google decided not absolutely correct decision and developers made a mistake, would do even warning that came into effect innovation, I like an idiot fought almost half a year thinking it was a bug, 'coz my 5 computers were different browser behavior. Hell.
Would it not be better if the greyed out icons were consolidated to the 3-menu automatically? they have no purpose anyway. then they would re-apear when you're on the certain page ofcourse.
No I have to adjust the adressbar so it hides the icons I don't need.
On Monday, 5 October 2015 23:15:43 UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 23:15:43 UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:
Whoops, dropped the list from the reply.---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Devlin Cronin <rdevlin...@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [crx] Upcoming UI Change
To: Wolf War <wolf...@gmail.com>1) and only way to hide them is to move it to hamburger menu??Yes.2) what kind of functionality those icons will have?... or they gonna just sit there as infoFrom an extension standpoint, there will be limited functionality if the action wouldn't previously be visible. However, there will still be functionality for the user (in the form of the context menu).3) are you canceling page actions with this ?... as far as I understand (from SS), page action will be moved to toolbar, what about functionality (page action click)Page actions will be moved to the toolbar. On pages that the action wouldn't normally be visible, it will be greyed out, and clicks will not be forwarded to the extension. On pages where it would normally be visible, it will be fully colored, and clicks will be forwarded normally. So clicking on a page action (that is set to visible) will work the same as it did before.On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Wolf War <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote:so basically, every installed extension will have toolbar icon1) and only way to hide them is to move it to hamburger menu??2) what kind of functionality those icons will have?... or they gonna just sit there as info3) are you canceling page actions with this ?... as far as I understand (from SS), page action will be moved to toolbar, what about functionality (page action click)2015-10-05 22:11 GMT+02:00 Devlin Cronin <rdevlin...@chromium.org>:To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAFnkeJU9guw4i_v%2BFi8Q8vjzaHC8h2AJ3j-uWoxa9mSy1JRMiw%40mail.gmail.com.Will users still be able to hide icons through its context menu?They will, but "hiding" becomes overflowing the icon to the wrench menu. There won't be a way to fully hide an icon.Secondly, this still seems to be flawed: an app can still have a transparent icon like LANSchool Helper, and the space is invisible to the user.Even with a transparent icon, there will still be a focusable/hoverable button, and things like right click will identify the extension. While a transparent icon will make it a little more hidden, the extension would be far from truly invisible.Finally, would it not be a good idea to create this as a default choice rather than something forced, akin to the google play "add icon to home screen (for new apps)" choice? This means that those of us with 10s of extensions don't gave a micro sized omnibox.Unfortunately, this isn't really an option we're looking at right now, for security purposes. On the upside, overflowing the icons to the wrench menu works pretty well - it can fit dozens of icons easily (with support for showing hundreds, in the extreme case). So for those of us with 10+ extensions, I would expect the majority to be overflowed in the wrench menu, keeping the toolbar relatively clean.Thanks for the feedback!Cheers- Devlin--On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Dylan Myers <dylanmy...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Devlin,
I like the change in most respects.
Will users still be able to hide icons through its context menu?
Secondly, this still seems to be flawed: an app can still have a transparent icon like LANSchool Helper, and the space is invisible to the user.
Finally, would it not be a good idea to create this as a default choice rather than something forced, akin to the google play "add icon to home screen (for new apps)" choice? This means that those of us with 10s of extensions don't gave a micro sized omnibox.
Thanks and keep working hard!
Dylan
--
Monday, 05 October 2015, 08:37pm +01:00 from Devlin Cronin <rdevlin...@chromium.org>:
Sent from myMail app for Android--Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensions@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAFnkeJUhNnjzib11V%3De66ABHX2hk-CFOQS1GtunHG5z%2BOLyo7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
I am not sure this is a good idea - it will not only happen between navigations, but also when going to another tab.
It would cause an adverse user interface appearance change (a "jump") every time it is toggled (the omnibox will be narrower or wider). This is not ideal and confusing.
☆PhistucK
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/f94c1296-299e-4943-98e3-f0e68e2c6683%40chromium.org.
That would be more terrible indeed.
I understand why the change is made. I think it would have done better. I miss the page action icons though. :p
Op do 10 mrt. 2016 om 10:52 schreef PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com>:
--
Met vriendelijke groeten
+Johan Deknudt
from Inbox by Gmail.
While it seems that everybody is against this update, I didn't find it too confusing - until I saw my Bookmark Manager extension right to the address bar.
I mean, even if you guys consider safety more important than user experience, should there still be a set of "Safety Guaranteed" extensions that can be allowed to display their icons in the address bar? As the Bookmark Manager extension is created by Google itself, I can't see any safety concerns to let it out of the address bar. It was an alternative extension of a removed update in bookmark managing, and for those who appreciate the new material-designed bookmark managing, like me, this extension is to replace the original bookmark manager. And now you tell me that I can only place it beside the address bar, which I cannot understand.
To create a whitelist-only exception to
this once-public functionality would be extremely
developer-hostile.
On 10/03/16 14:18, Harry Zhang wrote:
--While it seems that everybody is against this update, I didn't find it too confusing - until I saw my Bookmark Manager extension right to the address bar.I mean, even if you guys consider safety more important than user experience, should there still be a set of "Safety Guaranteed" extensions that can be allowed to display their icons in the address bar? As the Bookmark Manager extension is created by Google itself, I can't see any safety concerns to let it out of the address bar. It was an alternative extension of a removed update in bookmark managing, and for those who appreciate the new material-designed bookmark managing, like me, this extension is to replace the original bookmark manager. And now you tell me that I can only place it beside the address bar, which I cannot understand.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/cea61e25-83c9-493f-8fd4-8553aa7b5aac%40chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Just so. Every concern I've seen so far would be resolved by letting the user manage this whitelist herself, i.e. approve extensions that she finds trustworthy/reasonable/expected-to-be installed. This 'approval' would be accomplished with another entry in the extension context menu and would essentially reverse the horrible change introduced here for the chosen extension only. Conversely she would uninstall unwanted extensions.
Basically, what I propose is to limit this disaster to newly installed extensions only, a sort of 'staging area' if you will.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/56E174B7.9010806%40gmail.com.
And the cycle continues - if the user has a choice, it has to be stored somewhere. If it is stored somewhere, the attacker can modify it without the consent of the user, making its malicious extension hidden again.
This feature protects the user from old as well as new extensions. The user may not know they already have a malicious extension installed.
☆PhistucK
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAC5F_pNuqDj1CiEevO0vXhZAWLP0W9oTnM1v0McHu57mUaK%3D0A%40mail.gmail.com.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
Why is this? As in some ways a developer, I can't catch your point. Should creating a whitelist of extension signatures and checking them while installing be difficult? With so great computing resources Google has, I don't think this is necessarily developer-hostile. Maybe it do need some effort to implement, but this is the only way I could think of that suits both needs best.
Sigh... Again with the 'every developer is malicious', 'every user is stupid' approach.
1) Is chrome in the AV business? If your Windows is infected with binary malware capable of doing that you have bigger problems than a malicious extension that runs JAVASCRIPT, of all things.
2) What is this I hear about encrypted settings in Chrome?
3) Nobody said every installed extension before this change should be automatically whitelisted. I argue conversely. Give them all in my face but LET ME CHOOSE.
I do not mean that it's hostile to
Chrome developers. It's hostile to extension developers, that, in
most cases, won't get a chance of being whitelisted - all while
previously this feature was available.
First off, whitelists in Chrome are normally maintained in the source code of Chrome itself. So adding a new extension to the whitelist requires a new Chrome version. This makes it reserved to a literal handful of exceptions. That's how private APIs operate, for instance. But suppose for a moment that it's implemented differently, maybe like CRLs.
Second, what kind of guidelines would be required for the extension to be whitelisted? Will Google dedicate enough resources to screen candidates? Each extension update potentially invalidates the certification, as well, unless Google has exceptionally high trust in the developer. Again, this means a tiny handful of exceptions.
We are already in a tense situation where a feature was essentially deprecated (well, radically changed to the point of loss of functionality) with very little forewarning. Giving it back as a rare privilege is going to alienate developers further.
First off, whitelists in Chrome are normally maintained in the source code of Chrome itself. So adding a new extension to the whitelist requires a new Chrome version. This makes it reserved to a literal handful of exceptions. That's how private APIs operate, for instance. But suppose for a moment that it's implemented differently, maybe like CRLs.
Second, what kind of guidelines would be required for the extension to be whitelisted? Will Google dedicate enough resources to screen candidates? Each extension update potentially invalidates the certification, as well, unless Google has exceptionally high trust in the developer. Again, this means a tiny handful of exceptions.
We are already in a tense situation where a feature was essentially deprecated (well, radically changed to the point of loss of functionality) with very little forewarning. Giving it back as a rare privilege is going to alienate developers further.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/e6191b6c-3ccc-4124-b17b-bb1de5678901%40chromium.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Well, if this is what you think... I have to disagree that a change in whitelist dose not require a version change, we can have a authentication server. Besides, I may imagine the whole validating business working as Google Play, while signature only being the private key of RSA or something like that. Chrome can also have permissions like Android, and by now the permissions of the camera and microphone works perfectly, don't they? Even if Chrome aims to be the safest navigator in the world, users should still have permissions that can be controlled by themselves - not forced by the program, while whitelist can give the permissions by default, which can provide a higher convenience.
Look, as far as I know, this is what these features and protections are trying to prevent.
If you disagree with the fundamental idea (of a popular browser trying to prevent the consequences of malware on it as much as it can), perhaps start a new thread (perhaps somewhere else, like security-dev? I do not know) and discuss your disagreement with that fundamental idea.
The assumption here is that this fundamental protection makes sense and that is needed, or else Google would not develop it.
Now, assume this protection is needed and continue discussing this thread (suggest other ways to do it, bearing in mind the aforementioned assumption, for example). Otherwise, this is simply off topic.
☆PhistucK
Real nice work to SCREW us over. I have a few dozen extensions, many are page-action activated, now that they are all laying there, the URL bar is near to invisible.
How was it possible that this was made out public so irresponsibly? And no option to disable this? Real great work of some unbelievable minds!
Pretty disgusted by the recent the recent changes (e.g. startup popup about "developer extensions"), they're trying their best to scare away all "proficient" users and developers by artificially locking them down.
Personally, I also think that this particular change simply goes too far, security to this level is something that should not be handled by the browser, but by some other layer of security. Giving up the customization opportunities is absolutely unjustified just to *try* to marginally decrease security risks for users who already have a way more severe security threat that requires immediate action or users who apparently don't care about the overall security by not using malware and virus protection.
I commented before warning about backlash but it was removed. I don’t see there being a better place to discuss this — the issue reports are being ignored, and I imagine another thread would be ignored — so I will put my comments here.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 12:37:27 PM UTC-7, Devlin Cronin wrote:
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
And what if the user is color blind? Or the icon is already grayscale/BW or otherwise hard to distinguish from "greyed out"? As is the case for quite a lot of extensions.
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:53:41 AM UTC-8, PhistucK wrote:An acceptable solution could be a duplication - every page action would have an additional browser action button. The main purpose of the browser action button is to show that the extension is installed (since page action do not always show up), but the page action user interface will continue to be shown as well, providing the obvious value to the user.
I see no value in a page action notification that requires looking through a million extensions in different places, or having to navigate through several menus trying to find the right one. Page actions need to be restored to the omnibox.
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 8:53:41 AM UTC-8, PhistucK wrote:While this seems (to me) like a good compromise (the user can set the browser action aside by moving it into the menu), my guess is that page actions became an attack vector - perhaps page actions used a lock icon and pretended that everything is secure (even though the page action is displayed at the right end of the omnibox, users are also used to user interface changes, especially those that they do not understand or care about too much).
Then ban those extensions. Chrome has an approval/review process for a reason.
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:21:13 AM UTC-8, Johan Deknudt wrote:That would be more terrible indeed.I understand why the change is made. I think it would have done better. I miss the page action icons though. :pOp do 10 mrt. 2016 om 10:52 schreef PhistucK <phis...@gmail.com>:I am not sure this is a good idea - it will not only happen between navigations, but also when going to another tab.It would cause an adverse user interface appearance change (a "jump") every time it is toggled (the omnibox will be narrower or wider). This is not ideal and confusing.
This is literally already happening in the current design. Have you never interacted with an extension hid within the hamburger menu? They 'jump' out while you interact, hidden underneath the menu until you click out, and stay until you click it away and then jump back into the menu. Terrible indeed!
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:53:56 AM UTC-8, PhistucK wrote:Look, as far as I know, this is what these features and protections are trying to prevent.If you disagree with the fundamental idea (of a popular browser trying to prevent the consequences of malware on it as much as it can), perhaps start a new thread (perhaps somewhere else, like security-dev? I do not know) and discuss your disagreement with that fundamental idea.The assumption here is that this fundamental protection makes sense and that is needed, or else Google would not develop it.
I addressed this above. Discussion is happening here because it won’t happen anywhere else.
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:53:56 AM UTC-8, PhistucK wrote:Now, assume this protection is needed and continue discussing this thread (suggest other ways to do it, bearing in mind the aforementioned assumption, for example). Otherwise, this is simply off topic.
Okay, I already have elsewhere. See my mockup outlined here, comments 28-31:
add an extensions/addons menu next to the hamburger menu, that shows all 'inactive' extensions (not out by the omnibar) just like they are shown now, except it's split into three sections (separated by small gap or horizontal rule or similar):
1) top — favorites -- they get pulled out onto the bar when the extensions bar is dragged out, just like now. These can only be non-pageActions extensions, and can be dragged between this and the next section.
2) middle — non-pageActions extensions, except favorites. Can be dragged to favorites or extension bar.
3) bottom — ALL passive i.e. pageActions extensions are shown here, always. ALSO reinstated to their rightful place in the omnibar, but now you know exactly which ones have pageActions functionality, and can always access all extensions with right click or whatever.
when you initiate an action with an extension in the proposed menu, the addons menu icon could be temporarily replaced with the 'active' extension's icon, so that your whole chrome bar doesn't get shuffled around for now reason.
An alternative would be sections like this:
1) non-pageActions extensions with menus/actions, i.e. all that would have appeared in the bar before the update.
2) non-pageActions extensions without associated action, i.e. all addons that would have been hidden completely before.
3) all pageActions extensions, showed just like now, except they are also shown in the omnibox when in use / actionable.
I've also pointed out elsewhere that extensions cannot currently be rearranged within the hamburger menu on OS X. Yep, terrible.
The translation functionality is not an extension, it is a built in feature.
☆PhistucK
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Theo Ropstah <thero...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any update from Google on this? Why are extensions like Google Translate allowed to use the address bar but why can't other developers?
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:37:27 PM UTC+2, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/1b4442dd-72f1-47ee-8f87-12cd32315bc6%40chromium.org.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
However, this highlights one thing: the
support in the Chrome code for icons in the address bar is not
going away.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org. To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CABc02_JM1iifnjr57iCp2NoayMuy2%3DEHJ6ESTq3nMzxMe9h3Cg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
This change is horrible UX. When it launched, I thought my browser was being buggy and needed to be relaunched or something. Then I though "surely this is a glitch or bug caused by an extension as no intelligent person would do this on purpose". But nope, a simple search shows me this was intentional.
Now I have browser real estate taken by things that used to show on a single site like they should. I can't hide them or they won't show when needed. They can't show in the url bar to indicate they are active for that url. Whoever thought spamming my interface and menus with always on grey icons that do absolutely nothing was a good idea should get in their time machine and go back to 1995 where they belong. Please revert this ridiculous change.
If you want users to know an extension is installed that they may not be aware of there are countless better ways to do it than destroying the user experience and making steps backwards in usability. Here is a quick example for free: If a new extension is installed require they hit an acknowledge button once on new browser/tab launch... that then never shows again for that extension. Hard to miss, easy to deal with, and not frustratingly clunky like this current nonsense.
Several people at work (like me) are simply not letting Chrome restart. Be sure to leave a tab open that will complain and stop a shutdown. You could also find an older version or Chrome for Work or something.
-s
This is a really bad advice. Chrome 48 has many known security issues now and you are simply putting yourself at a very high risk (and higher as time goes by).
☆PhistucK
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/2fbd35b6-f83f-475c-8813-38d62ada8bd0%40chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
I don’t get what the problem is here, because the “Hide” feature is easy to find and works.
I publish an extension which has a background page only. It is for bookmarks syncing, and works in OS X only.
Upon first launch of Chrome 49, or upon installing my extension, my extension appears as a gray “B” icon in what I call the “toolbar”, to the right of the omnibox. Upon clicking this icon, a contextual menu offers the option to “Hide in Chrome Menu”. If I click that menu item, the icon disappears from the toolbar. And it remains disappeared after subsequent relaunches.
I suspect that most of my users have clicked the icon and found the “Hide…” command immediately, as I did. So it appears to be just a one-time annoyance. My extension apparently has a modest user base of about 700 users, but I have had zero complaints.
Am I doing something wrong? The only problems I see are two minor incongruities:
(1) This “Hide” feature seems to be undocumented.
(2) It says “Hide in Chrome Menu” when it is in fact in the toolbar. This is a non-issue because, in my experience, most users don’t know the difference :))
Jerry Krinock
I publish an extension which has a background page only. It is for bookmarks syncing, and works in OS X only.
Upon first launch of Chrome 49, or upon installing my extension, my extension appears as a gray “B” icon in what I call the “toolbar”, to the right of the omnibox. Upon clicking this icon, a contextual menu offers the option to “Hide in Chrome Menu”. If I click that menu item, the icon disappears from the toolbar. And it remains disappeared after subsequent relaunches.
I suspect that most of my users have clicked the icon and found the “Hide…” command immediately, as I did. So it appears to be just a one-time annoyance. My extension apparently has a modest user base of about 700 users, but I have had zero complaints.
Am I doing something wrong? The only problems I see are two minor incongruities:
(1) This “Hide” feature seems to be undocumented.
(2) It says “Hide in Chrome Menu” when it is in fact in the toolbar. This is a non-issue because, in my experience, most users don’t know the difference :))
Jerry Krinock
The 'problem' here is that you are not using page actions and/or do not care about them. Other people do.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/52EAB493-E1F1-4424-87DD-A59A9CAEFB50%40sheepsystems.com.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Thank you, J. I just checked and indeed you are correct. Indeed, my extensions do not use any “page actions”.
> On 2016 Mar 19, at 01:42, Mindaugas J. <4mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The 'problem' here is that you are not using page actions and/or do not care about them. Other people do.
Oops, I hope that I have not “alerted” the Chrome team to a security “hole”.
Dear Chrome team: Please do not remove or cripple the “Hide in Chrome Menu” feature, nor make it non-persistent. It you want to correct the title so it says “Hide in Chrome Toolbar”, and/or document this feature in the developer documentation, that would be nice :)
Jerry
You are not understanding the hide in menu action. They are removing the ability for an extension to only show it's icon when in use. Instead it shows always, no matter that. If you click "Hide in chrome menu" it does not hide it in your toolbar as you are saying. It moves it off of your toolbar and shows it inside of the dropdown menu (hamburger icon). It still shows, just hidden inside the menu instead of on the toolbar. That makes for an ugly cluttered menu full of useless grey icons instead of an ugly cluttered toolbar full of useless grey icons. Even that is not the true problem though. If you hide an icon that is active on some pages but not all in the menu, you will not know when it activates unless you open the menu. Before this change icons could get out of the way when not in use and then when you go to a page where they have a real function they could show in either the toolbar or the url bar (which made it very clear they were working because of the current url). One example is an extension called "The Camelizer" which shows the price history of the Amazon item you are currently viewing. Obviously that is useless unless you are on Amazon, so the author set it so the icon only shows when you are actually at amazon and shows in the url bar area to let you know that it is active and you can click it to get price history. THe other 99% of the time it stays hidden and out of your screen real estate like a good program should. Now, thanks to this change it is one of many icons that are forced to sit there in your toolbar or as a useless grey hunt of ugly screen real estate and if you decide to hide it in your menu then it will still be hidden even when on Amazon.com. You have to know as a user that it should be active and then look for it in the menu instead. So we went from a clean interface with extensions that behave themselves and give informative proactive information when needed to a cluttered interface where the only half solution is to move the clutter from one place in the UI to another where it hides any proactive information from you. here is some user reaction: https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/48kxix/why_are_disabled_extension_icons_showing_up_in/
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:38:09 PM UTC-5, Jerry Krinock wrote:
I don’t get what the problem is here, because the “Hide” feature is easy to find and works.....
(1) This “Hide” feature seems to be undocumented.
(2) It says “Hide in Chrome Menu” when it is in fact in the toolbar. This is a non-issue because, in my experience, most users don’t know the difference :))
Jerry Krinock
so the consensus is that this is a bad change.
until this is reverted i have resorted to manually re-installing chrome version 48, and disabling automatic updates.
after a reboot, all my icons are shown as with the v49 update.
i have confirmed i am still running version 48 (on help - about page)
how did this change? i did not accept any changes.
there is a name for applications that behave this way...
how can this change be avoided ?!?
Amir.
until this is reverted i have resorted to manually re-installing chrome version 48, and disabling automatic updates.
after a reboot, all my icons are shown as with the v49 update.
i have confirmed i am still running version 48 (on help - about page)
how did this change? i did not accept any changes.
there is a name for applications that behave this way...
how can this change be avoided ?!?
Amir.
It is probably a field trial, which means it is enabled for some users and can be disabled sort of remotely (no remote access), without a new version.
Any non-current version puts you at a very high risk due to known security holes, so this is strongly not recommended.
☆PhistucK
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/f01b858a-e3df-475d-bcba-dbe8a2eceb24%40chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
When you have so many users abandoning the latest secure version due to a poorly designed forced UX change, maybe it is time to reconsider that change. Remember Windows 8?
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:17:38 AM UTC-7, PhistucK wrote:It is probably a field trial, which means it is enabled for some users and can be disabled sort of remotely (no remote access), without a new version.Any non-current version puts you at a very high risk due to known security holes, so this is strongly not recommended.☆PhistucKOn Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Amir Tal <amirt...@gmail.com> wrote:so the consensus is that this is a bad change.
until this is reverted i have resorted to manually re-installing chrome version 48, and disabling automatic updates.
after a reboot, all my icons are shown as with the v49 update.
i have confirmed i am still running version 48 (on help - about page)
how did this change? i did not accept any changes.
there is a name for applications that behave this way...
how can this change be avoided ?!?
Amir.
That's apples to oranges. Windows 7 continued to get security updates, so there was absolutely no harm in deferring the upgrade or rolling back to Windows 7.
With Browsers, the threats are much more immediate, and at least in chromes dev model, there is no ESR you can hold fast to. (If there is, I haven't seen one.)--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/0c4929df-8628-49fa-a9fc-ca19feba358f%40chromium.org.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
> On 2016 Mar 19, at 15:47, Dallas Frank <simply...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are not understanding the hide in menu action. … It still shows, just hidden inside the menu instead of on the toolbar.
Thank you, Dallas. You are correct. I’d never looked into that hamburger thing because I only have two extensions personally, and in OS X we still have a real menu bar at the top of the screen :)
Yes, I agree, for anyone who has enough extensions and uses that menu, it’s pretty annoying for an extension such as mine, which has no user interface because it operates entirely in the background.
> That makes for an ugly cluttered menu full of useless grey icons instead of an ugly cluttered toolbar full of useless grey icons.
To the Chrome team: The users you are targetting with this feature, the users who don’t know what extensions they have installed are, by definition.users who are not very tech-savvy. This type of user is not likely to guess what a gray icon means. I would suggest instead: Pop open the Extensions window once a week and over it, in a sheet with a scary graphic warning of the dire consequences of maliscious extensions, and reminding the user to please review their extensions. You should use a different scary graphic every week to reduce the likelihood that users will get accustomed to dismissing it. This would be much more effective to your target users, and less annoying to everyone.
Sign. Let's just remove extensions API and be done with it. After all, they are all sooo malicious and all users are sooo stupid.
It's a crueler thing to maim a beast and pull out it's claws than kill it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-extensions/7As9MKhav5E/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CDD4EAA1-F1E6-43CC-92ED-FAF86A1A0A11%40sheepsystems.com.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/optout.
Hi Jerry
What you are missing is that the "hide" functionality is broken. Clicking "hide" on an extension icon does not in fact hide it, it merely moves it from the toolbar to the menu. You end up with a whole mess of icons sitting at the top of your menu, most of which you don't want to see (you just want them to keep on doing their job unobtrusively) ... but it looks an absolute mess. What we complainers want is our "hide" functionality back. Google has removed this functionality, hence the update is a regressive one. I'm a devoted Chrome user who is really angry about the lack of freedom being allowed to users here, and about the lack of any aesthetic sensibility in this update.
This post is directed at the devs not at you, Jerry :-) !
Francis
After however many weeks since this change went live, I finally figured out why I've felt like Chrome has been broken. This is a really puzzling change and I hope it gets reverted. I have between 10 and 20 extensions that only exist to provide a page action, and only in specific contexts (HTTP2 indicator, pages that link to podcasts, plugin blockers, etc). It's completely ridiculous to now need to have all of those icons in the toolbar all the time to get any value out of them.
I actually started uninstalling extensions (that I absolutely wanted; not forgotten cruft) that I thought just weren't working any more, because after they were moved into the toolbar I hid them, not knowing they wouldn't show up anywhere else. On top of being a poor decision from a functional aspect, this was not communicated well. If I couldn't figure out what was going on for weeks, I can only imagine how confusing it'd be for someone who isn't a webdev that lives and dies by their browser configuration.
I really hope this gets reverted, or at least becomes an option.
I stopped paying attention to Canary builds a while ago, and I'm once again regretting that decision. I'd have spoken up a lot sooner if I'd seen this thread before 49 was pushed out to Stable.
I have a lot of extensions installed that use pageActions to display icons only on relevant sites. Many only show on a single domain. As of updating to 49, they're all moved to the browserAction area, making it more difficult to find the browserActions I actually want to use. If I hide them, I no longer have access to their information on the pages where they are relevant. There was a perfectly valid set of guidelines for when a pageAction is relevant vs when a browserAction is relevant, and the extensions I used generally followed them, and they made sense. Forcing a grayed out icon on my screen that does nothing isn't helping anyone.
As a developer, this is an annoying change, but it doesn't break my code so I'll manage. As an end user, I don't see it as a benefit at all: it's an infuriating removal of a useful browser feature that makes Chromium less pleasant to use. If you want to make the security argument, fine; the big list in the menu is ugly but livable. But why kill pageActions? They still have a clearly defined purpose that is distinct from browserActions, and I don't see how crippling their functionality helps to keep users safe.
CANNOT AGREE MORE!!
This is such a stupid change that it neither reminds users about the extensions nor make it easier to manage. This just causes more confusion and make it harder for users to use. For example, my extension need users to click on the page action icon on some certain page for interaction. It used to be very convenient and straight-forward that when you have the right URL you can see the page action icon and click it. Now, users need to find it in a row of black-white or colored icons in the browser action bar. Users don’t know about this update keep emailing me about “you have a bug that the icon in the address bar don’t show!” I replied then get reply that “The browser designer is a SB”. I do feel the same way. 做这个决策的人真的脑子有洞
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:46:06 PM UTC-5, Hunter Horsman wrote:
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:46:06 PM UTC-5, Hunter Horsman wrote:
I have to agree, this change is terrible, all in the name of a few idiots who can't remember that they installed?This change RUINS page actions (and with ZERO explanation to the user that it did) unless you're willing to have a ton of ugly wasted space on them on the toolbar, which I certainly don't want. This is a major regression and should be rolled back.
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:53:55 PM UTC-5, Evol E. wrote:Bring previous page actions back!They were much more convenient there in address bar than on the browser action panel.I don't want to see every extension with page action all the time, I want to see them only when extension chooses to show the button (when RSS feeds are available etc), and I want to see them where they should be: in the page, not in the whole browser.
I guess it may be a little late for feedback on this now, but I'd like to say as a both a user and extension developer that while I do like the way hidden icons are now accessible in the hamburger menu, this really feels like a step backwards in the case of page actions.
The nice thing about the old version of page actions was that they stayed out of my way until they were available for me to interact with. With these changes my options are to either have a bunch of useless, grayed-out icons cluttering up my screen during the 90% of the time when no page actions are available, or to hide those icons behind a hamburger menu and never be alerted when an action actually *is* available for me to use.
I'd like to propose that page actions once again be made to appear on the address bar, but only when their persistent icon is hidden in the hamburger menu. That way there are no duplicate icons appearing, you can still get the security benefits of having all extensions always easily visible to the user, and users can hide those useless, grayed out icons in the hamburger menu without having to open that menu anytime they want to see if any page actions are available.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 2:37:27 PM UTC-5, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
The extensions have always been visible to the user if they need them--on the extensions page. If you were worried that some users were unaware of what extensions they had installed, all you had to do is make sure there's easy access to the extensions page. Stop hiding it in a submenu. Maybe even put it front and center.
There is no compromise here. You didn't talk to developers and users to figure out what they would want. You didn't even leave the flag avaialble to shut it off, and then find out how many people prefer it to be shut off. You just decided what you think is best, and screw anyone else.
There is no compromise here. You didn't talk to developers and users to figure out what they would want. You didn't even leave the flag avaialble to shut it off, and then find out how many people prefer it to be shut off. You just decided what you think is best, and screw anyone else.
I just started using Chrome. I have already filled a whole row of my menu, plus 5 icons on the outside. And one of those extensions is TamperMonkey, which has 17 userscripts. Why? Because the whole point of Chrome is that it is lean and fast, so you have to add addons to get missing features.
And, guess what? Seeing that many buttons tells me nothing. I don't even know what all of them are. Where do I go if I need to? The Extensions page, which actually has this thing called a list, which actually gives you information.
I could easily sneak another addon in. I could easily make an addon that has the icon of another addon, and attach a payload to it. You aren't helping anyone. You're just inconveniencing people who use addons.
And that's the real purpose. You want to discourage people from using addons. It's the same reason you refuse to allow multiple rows of tabs--you want to discourage people from loading many tabs. You mislead people about your real purpose.
Again, if making sure people knew which extensions they installed was the purpose, all you had to do was have an Extensions button. Maybe even with a number on it to tell people how many there were.
But, no, you'd rather treat your power users like babies.
But, no, you'd rather treat your power users like babies.
i like the icon format, but it tries to tell me every time i open the browser where my icons are and has me click that i get it whenever i open chrome. do you know if this is an abnormal glitch or if there's a way of preventing it from confirming the popup box?
thanks for any help
Bryan
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:02:17 AM UTC-6, Xan wrote:
Now that this is in stable, I can answer a couple of my own questions.* Is something shown to the user the first time?Yes, a short popup from the toolbar saying "All your extensions are here!" and a suggestion that they can be hidden.* Is it explained?There is no motivation given for this, and no link to learn more.* Is it hard to dismiss?No, any click outside will cause it to close, no just the "Got it" button.* Are page actions screwed if they are hidden?Yes, mostly.There is zero explanation regarding the change in how Page Actions operate. As such, a user is compelled to hide the new-and-confusing icon in the hamburger menu.If they do, there is no visual indication a page action has triggered unless the hamburger menu is opened.Then, and only then, Chrome draws a small dot over the icon if it is "shown" for the current tab.But the user has no way to discover that this is the case - the hamburger menu is not in any way marked as requiring attention.Very disappointing, Chrome team. This is a big change breaking user experience more so than developers' experience, and I do not think you communicate it well enough to users.
FWIW I also agree this is a regression in the Chrome experience, both for users and developers.
For users this decision shows ALL of their chrome icons ALL of the time, instead of some "periodic check" (or easy access to the extension page, like others mentioned).
For developers another issue is that kiosk-like extensions for which the purpose is to restrict the user (in places where users expect them to be restricted) can now be too easily uninstalled.
I hope too that the Chrome team reconsiders this and reverts this feature, or finds a better alternative.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 10:37:27 PM UTC+3, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action
While I do agree that this is a feature regression for both users and developers, your "kiosk" example has had a better solution for a while: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/188453
Using either of the two installation methods described on that page, it will be impossible for a user to uninstall your extension either by right-clicking its icon or by going to chrome://extensions. Relying on the hope that users don't know how to (or are prevented from) accessing the main extensions page isn't the greatest way to prevent a required extension from being removed. Group policy or the master_preferences file is the correct way to do this. That said, this does still result in the annoyance you mentioned where the user will always have to see a useless icon in the Chrome menu.
The reason this is a feature regression for developers is that it cripples the functionality of Page Actions, which in turn makes some extensions less pleasant to use, resulting in uninstalls. I know I personally ditched a few extensions after updating Chrome to 48 because they are no longer able to stay out of my way when I don't need them. If I wanted a cluttered browser, I'd install Windows XP and use the Ask toolbar in IE.
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-5, Ron Merom wrote:FWIW I also agree this is a regression in the Chrome experience, both for users and developers.For users this decision shows ALL of their chrome icons ALL of the time, instead of some "periodic check" (or easy access to the extension page, like others mentioned).For developers another issue is that kiosk-like extensions for which the purpose is to restrict the user (in places where users expect them to be restricted) can now be too easily uninstalled.I hope too that the Chrome team reconsiders this and reverts this feature, or finds a better alternative.
Thanks Dan for the thoughtful answer. While the group policy/master_preferences option might work for Windows, in our case the machines run Ubuntu. Moreover, in the specific use case I'm dealing with, I'm not worried about a techie user disabling or removing the extension - it's a trusted environment. I just want it not to be so easy as it is now for anyone to uninstall the extension in a click (especially after it's been running for a while successfully).
Strong +1 for the Page Action regression with this new feature.
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-Extensions-Announce" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extensions+unsubscribe@chromium.org.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/dd97eff4-4937-4851-9411-d3972343e7a7%40chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/.
This is an extremely poor thought out action. If you use an extension manager to turn on and off extensions the hidden extensions bounce back into view and one has to manually hide them again. If you disable extensions to ensure that an issue is not with an extensions you have to manually 'show' extensions that you need to have visible.
Just how much work would it have been to make the old system with a check box on the extensions page a flags option?
When I see changes such as these it makes me wonder whether Chrome programmers actually use Chrome themselves.
Just how much work would it have been to make the old system with a check box on the extensions page a flags option?
When I see changes such as these it makes me wonder whether Chrome programmers actually use Chrome themselves.
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 3:37:27 PM UTC-4, Devlin Cronin wrote:Hey All,
Soon, we will begin to roll out a UI change that will enforce that each extension the user has installed has a persistent UI surface. By default, this will be in the toolbar to the right of the omnibox (where browser actions are now) [1], and the user can choose to hide ("overflow") these actions in the Chrome menu [2].
The reason for this is to protect our users. We've heard too frequently that many users are unaware of the extensions they have installed, whether this is due to sideloading, installation by phishing, or simply the user forgetting how many and which are installed. Unfortunately, extensions consume computing resources, and may have significant security, privacy, and performance impacts. Because of this, we've decided we need to increase user visibility.
What this means for your extension:
If the extension has a browser action: Nothing! (Apart from the slightly different hide/overflow functionality.)
If the extension has a page action: The extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. On pages where the extension's page action wouldn't normally be visible, the action will be greyed out, indicating that it doesn't want to act. On pages it does want to act, it will be fully-colored. [3]
If the extension has no action: Similar to page actions, the extension will be given a persistent icon in the toolbar. It will be shown with the greyed-out look all the time.
Displaying the action persistently, even in the cases of a previously hidden page action or an extension with no action, is necessary because the presence of an action doesn’t always correlate with the extension acting. We also can’t show the action conditionally on, e.g., a per-tab basis, because there are many actions that are not correlated with any tab. In order to ensure users are aware of the extensions they have installed that could be affecting their browser, we need to ensure each extension is visible.
We've done our best to limit the functionality this breaks, and hope you understand the trade-off between developer inconvenience and user benefit. Thank you for understanding as we keep our users safe!
Cheers,
Devlin
[1] Initial placement of actions
[2] Extensions overflowed into the Chrome menu
[3] Inactive vs Active Page Action