Aurora 16 is out — Unprefixing time !

[Sailfish]

REF: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/07/aurora-16-is-out/

[excerpt quote="
*Other notable changes*

o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd digit of our
versioning system.
o Incremental GC, a major part in our effort to revamp our Garbage
Collector, is now enabled by default.
o Opus, a low-latency codec aimed at real-time communication, is enabled
by default.
o By default, we do not accept anymore MD5 hashes in X.509 certificates.
o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link�� item and
combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.

See more details in the release notes and in Firefox 16 for developers.
" /]

Whoa, boy! That first item is sure to generate a fair amount of
caterwauling around the support groups, methinks. :)

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/24/2012 3:22 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/07/aurora-16-is-out/
>
> [excerpt quote="
> *Other notable changes*
>
> o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd digit of our
> versioning system.
> o Incremental GC, a major part in our effort to revamp our Garbage
> Collector, is now enabled by default.
> o Opus, a low-latency codec aimed at real-time communication, is enabled
> by default.
> o By default, we do not accept anymore MD5 hashes in X.509 certificates.
> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link�� item and
> combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.
>
> See more details in the release notes and in Firefox 16 for developers.
> " /]
>
> Whoa, boy! That first item is sure to generate a fair amount of
> caterwauling around the support groups, methinks. :)
>

So, now how can we send a link to someone? Now we have to cut and paste
from the URL to our email client. So much for convenience.

[WLS]

Well, I now have an 'Email Link..' in the context menu. They always
forget to completely document the change. :)

--
openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Thunderbird Beta with Lightning

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
7/24/2012 5:16 PM:

While I haven't loaded Fx16 yet, my interpretation of that point is that
it only applies to the context menu. I never use that but, instead,
using the File submenu for Send link.

[WLS]

Just double checked mine, and it is File > Email Link, with no Send Link
in the context menu. Terminology is so confusing at times.

[Ron Hunter]

OK, that'll work.

[Ron Hunter]

Just checked, and while 'email link' is in the file menu, 'send link' is
NOT in the context menu. Sigh. Not that I ever used the context menu,
but I am sure many people DO.

[Ron Hunter]

Yep. But at least they didn't have it one way in the file menu and
another in the context menu.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

7/25/2012 12:13 AM:

I'd guess that very few, percentage-wise, used the context menu option
and, thus, the reason they removed it.

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:
> REF: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/07/aurora-16-is-out/
>
> [excerpt quote="
> *Other notable changes*
>
> o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd digit of our
> versioning system.
> o Incremental GC, a major part in our effort to revamp our Garbage
> Collector, is now enabled by default.
> o Opus, a low-latency codec aimed at real-time communication, is enabled
> by default.
> o By default, we do not accept anymore MD5 hashes in X.509 certificates.
> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link�� item and
> combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.
>
> See more details in the release notes and in Firefox 16 for developers.
> " /]
>
> Whoa, boy! That first item is sure to generate a fair amount of
> caterwauling around the support groups, methinks. :)
>

Almost since FF 4.0.1 came out (was there one??), I've wondered about
the use of the second digit!! With a new version (i.e. first digit)
coming out every six weeks or so and the occasional security version
changing the third digit, what had to happen to change the middle digit??

--
Daniel

[Greywolf]

On 25/07/2012 3:35 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>
> I'd guess that very few, percentage-wise, used the context menu option
> and, thus, the reason they removed it.

Um, I suspect your comment is based on your (necessarily limited) sample
of users. I personally prefer context menus. My own, equally limited,
sample of ordinary-users-I-happen-to-know confirms my preference. So I'd
say the devs made a mistake.

It's easy to make mistakes in program design and re-design. The devs
rely on feedback to their pages (bug reports, etc). Unfortunately, this
feedback is limited and skewed, for obvious reasons.

The best way to find out how most users of TB and FF work is to do a
random survey. These are usually done by phone, and thus are also skewed
(most people just refuse to participate, so the odds of statistical
artifacts are significant). But they are much less skewed than feedback
on the bug report pages, etc. They are also much more expensive.

Generally speaking, market research is as much art as science.
Statistical methods are inherently limited by the meaning of the data.
Badly designed questions, over-friendly focus groups, inadvertent
demographic selection, etc all skew the data. No amount of statistical
massaging can compensate for that.

Anecdote: I recently went on line to answer a brief customer
satisfaction survey (the bait was "Win...") First question: "Were you
greeted?" No, and I'm happy about that. I _hate_ being pounced on by a
"greeter". But the questionnaire didn't ask me how I felt about being
greeted. It assumed that "greeting" is A Good Thing. Thus the chain in
question got a bit of misleading data from me. Pity.

--
Best,
Wolf K.

[clay]

The File menu(s) is the *last* place I will go to perform a task.
If there isn't a context or keystroke option...

So, what? The context area getting too full?
Looking to change something just for the sake of change?
Context 'Send link' interfering with the normal operation of Firefox?

There is no way I can look at this decision as an improvement.

I _can_ imagine the Moz devs slapping each other on the back,
celebrating the implementation of this 'feature', after weeks of careful
deliberation.

Reminiscent of the recent discussion in the dev group about renaming
newly opened, blank tabs, something other than 'New Tab'.

I really do admire the enormous time and effort the devs put into
resolving these critical, showstopping bugs.

[clay]

On 07/25/2012 1:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 7/25/2012
> 9:13 AM:
>> ...

>>> Just checked, and while 'email link' is in the file menu, 'send link' is
>>> NOT in the context menu. Sigh. Not that I ever used the context menu,
>>> but I am sure many people DO.
>>>
>>
>> The File menu(s) is the *last* place I will go to perform a task.
>> If there isn't a context or keystroke option...
>>
>> So, what? The context area getting too full?
>> Looking to change something just for the sake of change?
>> Context 'Send link' interfering with the normal operation of Firefox?
>>
>> There is no way I can look at this decision as an improvement.
>>
>> I _can_ imagine the Moz devs slapping each other on the back,
>> celebrating the implementation of this 'feature', after weeks of
>> careful deliberation.
>>
>> Reminiscent of the recent discussion in the dev group about renaming
>> newly opened, blank tabs, something other than 'New Tab'.
>>
>> I really do admire the enormous time and effort the devs put into
>> resolving these critical, showstopping bugs.
>

> This is really a trivial context-menu item to re-enact. If there's a
> need, I'm certain someone will add it back in form of an add-on. Here's
> the actual XUL entry that was removed from
> chrome://browser/content/browser.xul:
>
>
> <menuitem id="context-sendlink"
> label="&sendLinkCmd.label;"
> accesskey="&sendLinkCmd.accesskey;"
> oncommand="gContextMenu.sendLink();"/>

Then there's always:
F6>Ctrl+c>Alt+Tab>Ctrl+n(type-tab-type-tab)Ctrl+v>Ctrl+Enter

>
> Myself, I'm all for cleaning up seldom used old cruft, er, stuff
>

I'm with you there!

[Dr J R Stockton]

In mozilla.general message <ypadnQwFI69pnpLN...@mozilla.org
>, Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:22:15, Sailfish <REMOVECAPSsailfish@REMOVECAPSunf
orgettable.com> posted:

>o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd digit of our
>versioning system.

Is that the third digit of 14.0.1?

If so, it is 0, and problems will appear in about 86 * 1.5 months -
about All Fools' Day 2023.

Or is it the third field, 1, that it is intended to mean?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:27:11 -0700
Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> This is really a trivial context-menu item to re-enact. If there's a
> need, I'm certain someone will add it back in form of an add-on.
> Here's the actual XUL entry that was removed from
> chrome://browser/content/browser.xul:
>
>
> <menuitem id="context-sendlink"
> label="&sendLinkCmd.label;"
> accesskey="&sendLinkCmd.accesskey;"
> oncommand="gContextMenu.sendLink();"/>
>

> Myself, I'm all for cleaning up seldom used old cruft, er, stuff

I'm for it, too. And can't context menu items be added with just some
userChrome.css, with no extension needed? (As long as the functionality
itself hasn't been removed, of course.) I seem to recall doing that at
some time in the past.

[Ron Hunter]

So, when you go into a restaurant, you want to be ignored, and let sit
in the lobby without being shown to a table? Or do you just patronize
the 'family' type restaurants where you seat yourself and wait until a
busy server notices you, 30 minutes later? Everyone to his own thing, I
guess.

[Ron Hunter]

Any sarcasm there? Grin.
I agree that they sometimes make arbitrary decisions that result in a
less 'usable' product, and that the current trend to 'simplification' of
the interface has gone WAY too far.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/25/2012 3:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 7/25/2012
> 9:13 AM:

> This is really a trivial context-menu item to re-enact. If there's a
> need, I'm certain someone will add it back in form of an add-on. Here's
> the actual XUL entry that was removed from
> chrome://browser/content/browser.xul:
>
>
> <menuitem id="context-sendlink"
> label="&sendLinkCmd.label;"
> accesskey="&sendLinkCmd.accesskey;"
> oncommand="gContextMenu.sendLink();"/>
>
> Myself, I'm all for cleaning up seldom used old cruft, er, stuff
>

Seldom used? By whom? Me, yep, you, apparently, but a testpilot run on
it would have been wise before removing it.

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 7/25/2012
> 3:09 AM:

> Good question. I suppose they still want to keep the
> Version.Release.Maintenance (V.R.M) format for when/if they decide to
> revert back to a previous development model?
>

Would require a pretty drastic problem to be discovered to have to
revert from V 16.0.0 to V 3.0.1 or so!!

--
Daniel

[Greywolf]

On 26/07/2012 4:33 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> So, when you go into a restaurant, you want to be ignored, and let sit
> in the lobby without being shown to a table? Or do you just patronize
> the 'family' type restaurants where you seat yourself and wait until a
> busy server notices you, 30 minutes later? Everyone to his own thing, I
> guess.

A restaurant is not a retail store.

Duh!

--
Best,
Wolf K.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 4:03 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 1:37 AM:

>> On 7/25/2012 3:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 7/25/2012
>>> 9:13 AM:
>>>> On 07/25/2012 12:13 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 7/24/2012 8:07 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>>>>> 7/24/2012 5:16 PM:
>>>>>>> On 7/24/2012 3:22 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>>> REF: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/07/aurora-16-is-out/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [excerpt quote="
>>>>>>>> *Other notable changes*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd digit
>>>>>>>> of our
>>>>>>>> versioning system.
>>>>>>>> o Incremental GC, a major part in our effort to revamp our Garbage
>>>>>>>> Collector, is now enabled by default.
>>>>>>>> o Opus, a low-latency codec aimed at real-time communication, is
>>>>>>>> enabled
>>>>>>>> by default.
>>>>>>>> o By default, we do not accept anymore MD5 hashes in X.509
>>>>>>>> certificates.

>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage ‘per tab’.
>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the ‘Send link…’ item and
>>>>>>>> combining the ‘Stop’ and ‘Reload’ ones.

> My understanding of Test Pilot is that it is used to study new prototype
> ideas. I believe they already have in place the mechanism to record
> various UI usage stats. Not every UI change deserves a formal study
> before deciding to change it.
>
Ahhh, but just because no on on the developer panel uses a function,
context menu, or key combination, doesn't mean many, or even MOST users
don't, and test pilot DOES provide that information.
If you run it through test pilot, at least you discover that actual
usage. Look at all the effort that went into the tab grouping
development, to please less than 3% of users (according to test pilot).
They put the thing in there to get this kind of information, so they
should use it.

[Ron Hunter]

It's not? What IS it then? I guess you are very happy that Walmart got
rid of their 'greeters'. One of my brothers was a greeter at Walmart,
and he said they were, basically, security people. So now, when someone
shoplifts, they walk out without any problem. Can't be good for prices.

[PhillipJones]

>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link�� item and

>>>>>>>>> combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.

Probably end up like feedback thing they in SM and Ff for years. turned
out they removed it because developers refused to look at it from day
one. So it was removed. All the reports from it were going in bit
bucket by design. It was just put in to placate users, making them
think they were contributing something.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com

[Greywolf]

On 26/07/2012 10:41 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 7:31 AM, Greywolf wrote:
>> On 26/07/2012 4:33 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> So, when you go into a restaurant, you want to be ignored, and let sit
>>> in the lobby without being shown to a table? Or do you just patronize
>>> the 'family' type restaurants where you seat yourself and wait until a
>>> busy server notices you, 30 minutes later? Everyone to his own thing, I
>>> guess.
>>
>> A restaurant is not a retail store.
>>
>> Duh!
>>
> It's not? What IS it then?

A place where you get to sit down and eat. ;-0

> I guess you are very happy that Walmart got
> rid of their 'greeters'.

Did they? I wouldn't know, I never went back to Walmart after my first
visit.

> One of my brothers was a greeter at Walmart,
> and he said they were, basically, security people. So now, when someone
> shoplifts, they walk out without any problem. Can't be good for prices.

If Walmart has a major problem with shoplifting, they can hire more
"staff". You know, the people who are supposed to know where everything
is, and all about the products, and are happy to answer your questions. ;-)

Bottom line: I don't like people greeting me as soon as I walk into a
retail store. One of my quirks, I guess. If I want help, I'll ask for
it. So far, that's worked very well for me. Staff are happy to answer
questions, or else find someone who can.

--
Best,
Wolf K.

[PhillipJones]

I didn't know a restaurant was a wholesale house or provided a service
for free?

[WLS]

>>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage ‘per tab’.
>>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the ‘Send link…’ item and

>>>>>>>>>> combining the ‘Stop’ and ‘Reload’ ones.

Huh?

My Firefox 17.0 Nightly still has Submit Feedback under Help, and they
do read it. Here is one from this weeks meeting notes.

http://blog.mozilla.org/meeting-notes/archives/1023

"Favicon

The removal of Favicons from the awesome bar is receiving generally
negative feedback [12]. It is difficult to be precise since the
descriptions can vary greatly. Might need to do more focused research."

[12] http://tinyurl.com/codplzg

Believe what you want.

--
Thunderbird Earlybird (64-bit) with Lightning

[Ron Hunter]

My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but they
didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.

[WLS]

See the "Believe what you want.", and "Might need to do more focused
research" above.

Did you submit feedback? Do you expect them to ask each of the several
million users before they make a change?

I see no purpose for favicons at all, but it was somebodies bright idea.
Bah!

--
openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Thunderbird Beta with Lightning

[clay]

On 07/26/2012 11:04 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:

> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since most
> set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous favicon display.
>

what's a favicon?

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 1:00 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 7:39 AM:

> They put it in there to get some type of information, however, I
> disagree that it was intended for THIS type of information. Mozilla
> development is NOT a democracy. If Mozilla tried to conduct a Test Pilot
> survey for every UI change they make, the release schedule would grind
> to a halt. Additionally, the workaround is even easier than the existing
> context-menu item, i.e., alt+f+e or just as simple with File>Email Link.
>
> tempest -> teapot
>
I think a LOT of people would be happier about seeing the UI change a
LOT slower. We just adapt our operation to another method of doing
things, or find replacements to deleted features, and another bunch
comes along. Worse, most of them don't seem to make anyone happy. I am
coming to agree more and more that the decline in percentage against
Google is mostly because of disenchantment with this kind of small change.

[Ron Hunter]

THe point is that there exists a method for checking many of the
features they have changed, to see who uses a context menu, or a file
menu item, and how many times. According to earlier messages, it wasn't
USED. Yes, it would slow development, but it would also avoid THIS kind
of discussion.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 1:04 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:

> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since most
> set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous favicon display.
>

I can recognize the favicon for my usual sites, and the URL is RIGHT
THERE, for those who like text. I use the favicons on the bookmarks
toolbar so I can get a LOT of sites on my toolbar. The justification
was that some sites were sending favicons that looked like 'lock icons',
and misleading users as to the security of the site. A valid issue, but
simply moving the secure site icon back where it was eons ago, and sites
couldn't influence, would have made better sense, at least to me.

[PhillipJones]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link��
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.

a favicon is the little image beside a url that tells t galnce what the
url is all about. Some here would rather just look at another d*** list
and have to figure out what the heck the site is about.

[Ron Hunter]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage ‘per tab’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the ‘Send link…’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combining the ‘Stop’ and ‘Reload’ ones.

Gee, Phil, for once we agree. I find the favicons very useful, and they
can save a LOT of space on a bookmarks toolbar.

[»Q«]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:41:52 -0500
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I guess you are very happy that Walmart got rid of their 'greeters'.
> One of my brothers was a greeter at Walmart, and he said they were,
> basically, security people.

The fiction that they were there to put a friendly face on things was
maybe the most annoying thing about the so-called greeters. Calling
them "hasslers" would at least have been more honest.

> So now, when someone shoplifts, they walk out without any problem.

I find it hard to believe that shoplifters can walk out without any
problems, but I'm glad that customers can walk out without any problems,
which hasn't been the case for many years.

> Can't be good for prices.

I wonder how much the shrinkage increase offsets the savings from not
paying the hasslers.

[»Q«]

I believe there was TestPilot data showing few people use it, but I've
lost the bug number. And I could be misremembering.

[WLS]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage ‘per tab’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the ‘Send link…’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combining the ‘Stop’ and ‘Reload’ ones.

That is what the URL is for, and HTML requires a Title tag, that is
supposed to display the title of the site in a tab, or title bar of the
window. Then there is the page heading or banner.

You old like me. Don't you remember when favicons didn't exist? I do, or
is it I never paid attention to them then, and don't now.

[»Q«]

I just posted that I thought there was TestPilot data on it, but I
think that was wrong. But I do do think they based it on usage data,
not just usage of devs.

[WLS]

Ah, usage difference. I don't even notice they exist, and you use them.

[»Q«]

They're not removed from bookmarks. Or tabs. I have no idea what
"d*** list" Phillip's talking about.

[»Q«]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:04:10 -0700
Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:

> > My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but
> > they didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.
> >

> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since
> most set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous
> favicon display.

Also, this was about security, making spoofing more difficult. I hope
they won't revert it no matter how much negative feedback they get.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 5:19 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 2:32 PM:

> Ergonomically, I disagree. The old way required that I move my eyes from
> the URLbar down to the status bar to determine if the lock was engaged.
> Now, it's right there with the URL. Much better, no?
>
> Also, the favicons are still there in the bookmarks list and on their
> respective tabs.
>
You assume that everyone USES tabs. Some of us don't use tabs for days
at a time. About the only time I actually have more than one tab active
is when I am using the add-ons tab, so I don't keep the tab bar visible
all the time. Ergo, no favicon. Again, everyone uses the program
differently.

[Ron Hunter]

Oh, they are still there, just wandering around the store offering to
help with finding things, or whatever they can find to do.
I have NEVER been 'hassled' in any way by a greeter in Walmart.

[Ron Hunter]

Not sure when they started being used, but I am sure I predate them.
But I find them very useful, now that I have them for most sites.

[Ron Hunter]

I think someone mentioned that they didn't think it was significant
enough to actually check on who was using them, and how. Egocentric.

[Ron Hunter]

Yep, that is why the program offers different ways of doing many things.
That's a good thing, in my not so humble opinion.

[Ron Hunter]

FYI, even though the favicon is not displayed, if you drag the generic
security icon to the bookmarks toolbar, a favicon appears next to the
text of the site. Surprise.

[Ron Hunter]

Why not move the security icon to the right of the favicon. That way
there would be no confusion.

[clay]

On 07/26/2012 2:58 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 4:46 PM, PhillipJones wrote:
>> clay wrote:

>>> ...

>>>>>
>>>> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>>> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
>>>> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since most
>>>> set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous favicon
>>>> display.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what's a favicon?
>>
>> a favicon is the little image beside a url that tells t galnce what the
>> url is all about. Some here would rather just look at another d*** list
>> and have to figure out what the heck the site is about.
>>
> Gee, Phil, for once we agree. I find the favicons very useful, and they
> can save a LOT of space on a bookmarks toolbar.
>

It was a /rhetorical question/ intended to convey how little favicons
mean to me. *g*

That little picture tells me nothing, except some coder figured out how
to put a couple dozen colored pixels where HTTP should be.

I use folders on my bookmarkbar (with subfolders in them) so all I need
is a dozen or so across...

[»Q«]

The problem would remain as long as sites were allowed to put lock
icons in the urlbar.

[clay]

Here's a solution...
Just show the damn HTTPS!

[Dave Warren]

In the last episode of <e-GdnUfy3J4peozN...@mozilla.org>,

Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> said:

>I have NEVER been 'hassled' in any way by a greeter in Walmart.

One day I plan on applying for a greeter job at Walmart and seeing how
long I can use "Welcome to Walmart, get your shit and get out" before I
get fired.

[Dave Warren]

In the last episode of <JuudnTLKDdQyy4zN...@mozilla.org>,

Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> said:

>Ahhh, but just because no on on the developer panel uses a function,
>context menu, or key combination, doesn't mean many, or even MOST users
>don't, and test pilot DOES provide that information.
>If you run it through test pilot, at least you discover that actual
>usage. Look at all the effort that went into the tab grouping
>development, to please less than 3% of users (according to test pilot).
> They put the thing in there to get this kind of information, so they
>should use it.

And they are! Take the "Send link" menu item, that is used by 0.89% of
users -- A prime candidate for removal.

[Dave Warren]

In the last episode of <l82dnWKhTukHYZLN...@mozilla.org>,
Greywolf <wek...@sympatico.ca> said:

>The best way to find out how most users of TB and FF work is to do a
>random survey.

No, it really isn't. Surveys tell you what people think or want, not
what they actually use.

>Generally speaking, market research is as much art as science.
>Statistical methods are inherently limited by the meaning of the data.
>Badly designed questions, over-friendly focus groups, inadvertent
>demographic selection, etc all skew the data. No amount of statistical
>massaging can compensate for that.

Rather than relying on skewed data, we could instead rely on looking at
what people actually use. Statistically speaking, people don't use the
menu item.

I realize that looking at reality will give market researchers seizures,
but it happens to work well for things that are trackable like software
usage. In this case, we have actual data.

http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/applying-hicks-law-to-the-firefox-context-menus/
discusses this, specifically, "only 0.89% of users clicked on the 'Send
Link...' menuitem"

[»Q«]

That wouldn't solve the problem either, of course. But you can have
the protocol show by setting browser.urlbar.trimURLs to false if you
want.

[»Q«]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:58:29 -0500
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

> I have NEVER been 'hassled' in any way by a greeter in Walmart.

They've *never* tried to insist on inspecting your receipt as you tried
to leave a store?

[»Q«]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:45:18 -0700
Dave Warren <dave-...@djwcomputers.com> wrote:

> http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/applying-hicks-law-to-the-firefox-context-menus/
> discusses this, specifically, "only 0.89% of users clicked on the
> 'Send Link...' menuitem"

Thanks very much for the link.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:38:27 -0700
Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 7/25/2012
> 7:10 PM:

> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:27:11 -0700
> > Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is really a trivial context-menu item to re-enact. If there's
> >> a need, I'm certain someone will add it back in form of an add-on.
> >> Here's the actual XUL entry that was removed from
> >> chrome://browser/content/browser.xul:
> >>
> >>
> >> <menuitem id="context-sendlink"
> >> label="&sendLinkCmd.label;"
> >> accesskey="&sendLinkCmd.accesskey;"
> >> oncommand="gContextMenu.sendLink();"/>
> >>
> >> Myself, I'm all for cleaning up seldom used old cruft, er, stuff
> >

> > I'm for it, too. And can't context menu items be added with just
> > some userChrome.css, with no extension needed? (As long as the
> > functionality itself hasn't been removed, of course.) I seem to
> > recall doing that at some time in the past.
>
> Hmm, quite possibly, using a binding overlay via an @import
> statement. I haven't tried it but it seems like it might work. I may
> play with it when install Fx 16.0a2.

Ah, I think I was just moving something from one context menu to
another one, so whatever needed including was already there somewhere.

[Tarkus]

On 7/26/2012 3:19 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> Ergonomically, I disagree. The old way required that I move my eyes from
> the URLbar down to the status bar to determine if the lock was engaged.
> Now, it's right there with the URL. Much better, no?
>
> Also, the favicons are still there in the bookmarks list and on their
> respective tabs.

Agreed.

[Tarkus]

On 7/26/2012 4:38 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 7/26/2012
> 4:14 PM:

> +1

+2

[WLS]

+3

--
openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Thunderbird Beta with Lightning

[Greywolf]

On 26/07/2012 9:45 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> In the last episode of<l82dnWKhTukHYZLN...@mozilla.org>,
> Greywolf<wek...@sympatico.ca> said:
>
>> The best way to find out how most users of TB and FF work is to do a
>> random survey.
>
> No, it really isn't. Surveys tell you what people think or want, not
> what they actually use.

That depends on the questions. Most surveys I've answered, whether live
or computerised, have obvious biases and assumptions, which
automatically skews the data. IMO, survey writers are as a group
singularly lacking in imagination. They are so focussed on "what the
client wants to know" that they have trouble thinking about the client's
customer's might want the client to know.

>> Generally speaking, market research is as much art as science.
>> Statistical methods are inherently limited by the meaning of the data.
>> Badly designed questions, over-friendly focus groups, inadvertent
>> demographic selection, etc all skew the data. No amount of statistical
>> massaging can compensate for that.
>
> Rather than relying on skewed data, we could instead rely on looking at
> what people actually use. Statistically speaking, people don't use the
> menu item.
>
> I realize that looking at reality will give market researchers seizures,
> but it happens to work well for things that are trackable like software
> usage. In this case, we have actual data.

Source? BTW, data tracking is just another kind of survey.

> http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/applying-hicks-law-to-the-firefox-context-menus/
> discusses this, specifically, "only 0.89% of users clicked on the 'Send
> Link...' menuitem"

Tracked how? Do you mean that FF sends usage data? I thought I turned
that off.

FWIW, links I share are always to pages, not items on pages. I see
little point in sharing only one or two items on a page. That lifts them
out of context, which is something I try to avoid.

And IMO, that comment is worth a good deal more than "actual data",
since it supplies a reason for (not) using Send Link. Someone with the
ability to understand another person's POV would see the obvious: that
Send Link for the address bar would make a lot of sense for me, and I
suspect a lot of other people, too.

And what do you mean by "reality"? Keep in mind what what people
actually do with a machine depends on what they've figured out how to
do, or have found worth doing. Measuring usages is pointless if you
don't know why people do one thing rather than another, or avoid doing
some things.

As I implied in earlier posts: data are just data, meaningless without
some context, ie, what users "think or want."

--
Best,
Wolf K.

[WLS]

On 07/26/2012 11:18 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 7/26/2012
> 7:25 PM:

> It would be nice if it was still there and just had a "display: none"
> style to it but they removed the actual XUL statement. btw, the XUL
> above is for pre-16.0. Now it's something like:
>
> <menuitem id="context-sendLink"
> label="&emailPageCmd.label;"
> command="Browser:SendLink"/>
>
> I manually added it to the Fx 16.0 browser.xul file and the context menu
> displayed and worked after restarting Fx. Now, if I can just figure out
> if I can do this with a binding overlay in userChrome.css :)
>

Just a thought. Why not make it consistent, and change Send Link to
Email Link?

[Greywolf]

On 26/07/2012 9:45 PM, Dave Warren wrote:

> And they are! Take the "Send link" menu item, that is used by 0.89% of
> users -- A prime candidate for removal.

OK, I went to the Test Pilot page, found that it invites people to
participate:

"As a Test pilot, not only will you try before anyone else the newest
features and coolest user-interface ideas, you could also learn how
those study results may contribute to future designs."

Newest? Coolest? Before anyone else?

Just what slice of FF users are you appealing to?

The concept behind Test Pilot is so irrelevant to ordinary users of FF
that it isn't even wrong. It's too bad that the data it generates is
being used to guide design decisions.

--
Best,
Wolf K.

[Daniel]

Greywolf wrote:

<Snip>
> Bottom line: I don't like people greeting me as soon as I walk into a
> retail store.

People being paid just to say "Good morning, Sir", "Good afternoon, mam"
(how does one spell the shorter version of "madam"??), not actually
making the "shopping experience" any better for me, just causing me to
have to pay higher prices, if I do purchase anything!

> One of my quirks, I guess. If I want help, I'll ask for
> it. So far, that's worked very well for me. Staff are happy to answer
> questions, or else find someone who can.
>
--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Ron Hunter wrote:

<Snip>
> THe point is that there exists a method for checking many of the
> features they have changed, to see who uses a context menu, or a file
> menu item, and how many times. According to earlier messages, it wasn't
> USED. Yes, it would slow development, but it would also avoid THIS kind
> of discussion.
>

Hey, you know, car bumper bars are a fairly useless things, just sitting
there either end of a car. Maybe they could be removed ... save a bit of
weight ... save a bit of money.

But, maybe, the car designers & manufacturers will improve other car
safety features *before* they do that!!

Similar, FF/TB/SM devs should fix current "features" and implement other
needed functions *before* worrying about removing "unused" features.

IMHO, of course!

--
Daniel

[»Q«]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:52:26 +1000
Daniel <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

> Similar, FF/TB/SM devs should fix current "features" and implement
> other needed functions *before* worrying about removing "unused"
> features.

I don't think you have to worry much about this kind of thing with
SeaMonkey -- if I had to name one defining characteristic of SM, it
would be that it retains as much UI clutter as possible. ;)

[Daniel]

»Q« wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:04:59 -0500
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2012 6:14 PM, »Q« wrote:

>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:04:10 -0700
>>> Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>>> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:
>>>
>>>>> My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but
>>>>> they didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.
>>>>>
>>>> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>>> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity.
>>>> I'm glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this
>>>> since most set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the
>>>> previous favicon display.
>>>
>>> Also, this was about security, making spoofing more difficult. I
>>> hope they won't revert it no matter how much negative feedback they
>>> get.
>>

>> Why not move the security icon to the right of the favicon. That way
>> there would be no confusion.
>
> The problem would remain as long as sites were allowed to put lock
> icons in the urlbar.
>

If sites were using security locks as their favicons and the FF/SM
security padlock were up just to the left of the address bar, then:-

Security padlock locked and favicon padlock locked...site secure.
Security padlock *unlocked* and favicon padlock locked...site *insecure*
Security padlock *unlocked* and favicon padlock unlocked...site *insecure*

Easy fixed!!

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:

<Snip>
> It does already but for most people https conveys as much meaning l@#la
>

No, I think most/many would interpret "l@#la" as swearing, so it is useful!

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 7/26/2012
> 11:52 PM:

> Some, like myself, believe that removing unused features go part&parcel
> with fixing current features.
>

If you have to remove the unused function to enable the new function
.... well, o.k. then.

--
Daniel

[Daniel]

Do I detect sarcasm in your smiley, Q??

--
Daniel

[»Q«]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:10:13 +1000
Daniel <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:

> > The problem would remain as long as sites were allowed to put lock
> > icons in the urlbar.
>
> If sites were using security locks as their favicons and the FF/SM
> security padlock were up just to the left of the address bar, then:-
>
> Security padlock locked and favicon padlock locked...site secure.
> Security padlock *unlocked* and favicon padlock locked...site
> *insecure* Security padlock *unlocked* and favicon padlock
> unlocked...site *insecure*
>
> Easy fixed!!

Oh, yeah, a mix of locked and unlocked icons in the address bar is a
great idea!

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 8:16 PM, clay wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 2:58 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 4:46 PM, PhillipJones wrote:
>>> clay wrote:
>>>> ...

>>>>>>
>>>>> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>>>> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
>>>>> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since most
>>>>> set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous favicon
>>>>> display.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> what's a favicon?
>>>
>>> a favicon is the little image beside a url that tells t galnce what the
>>> url is all about. Some here would rather just look at another d*** list
>>> and have to figure out what the heck the site is about.
>>>
>> Gee, Phil, for once we agree. I find the favicons very useful, and they
>> can save a LOT of space on a bookmarks toolbar.
>>
>
> It was a /rhetorical question/ intended to convey how little favicons
> mean to me. *g*
>
> That little picture tells me nothing, except some coder figured out how
> to put a couple dozen colored pixels where HTTP should be.
>
> I use folders on my bookmarkbar (with subfolders in them) so all I need
> is a dozen or so across...
I also use folders, with some nested 3 deep, but for those things I use
several times a day, it is much faster to NOT have to navigate through
the folders, so I move them to the bookmarks toolbar as single items,
with only the favicon showing. I currently have 18 of the individual
favicons on my bookmarks toolbar, and about 3 inches of free space on
the toolbar. I doubt the site name would allow that many, in addition
to the 4 top level folder names I have. This works well for me.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 8:19 PM, »Q« wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:04:59 -0500
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2012 6:14 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:04:10 -0700
>>> Sailfish <REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>>> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:
>>>
>>>>> My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but
>>>>> they didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.
>>>>>

>>>> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>>> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity.
>>>> I'm glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this
>>>> since most set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the
>>>> previous favicon display.
>>>

>>> Also, this was about security, making spoofing more difficult. I
>>> hope they won't revert it no matter how much negative feedback they
>>> get.
>>
>> Why not move the security icon to the right of the favicon. That way
>> there would be no confusion.
>

> The problem would remain as long as sites were allowed to put lock
> icons in the urlbar.
>

Only for people too stupid to understand that the area was for a
favicon, NOT a security indicator.

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 8:38 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 7/26/2012 5:56 PM:

>> On 7/26/2012 5:19 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

>>> 7/26/2012 2:32 PM:

>>>> On 7/26/2012 1:04 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>>>> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:

>>>>>> On 7/26/2012 10:57 AM, WLS wrote:

>>>>>>> On 07/26/2012 11:31 AM, PhillipJones wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2012 4:03 AM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

>>>>>>>>>> 7/26/2012 1:37 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2012 3:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/25/2012
>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:13 AM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/25/2012 12:13 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2012 8:07 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with on

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/24/2012 5:16 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2012 3:22 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REF: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/07/aurora-16-is-out/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [excerpt quote="
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Other notable changes*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o We slightly changed our UA string not to display the 3rd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> digit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o Incremental GC, a major part in our effort to revamp our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Garbage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Collector, is now enabled by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o Opus, a low-latency codec aimed at real-time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o By default, we do not accept anymore MD5 hashes in X.509
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certificates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o about:memory is now displaying memory usage �per tab�.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o We tweaked the context menu, removing the �Send link��
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combining the �Stop� and �Reload� ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See more details in the release notes and in Firefox 16
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " /]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whoa, boy! That first item is sure to generate a fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caterwauling around the support groups, methinks. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, now how can we send a link to someone? Now we have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cut and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paste from the URL to our email client. So much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I haven't loaded Fx16 yet, my interpretation of that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it only applies to the context menu. I never use that but,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the File submenu for Send link.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just checked, and while 'email link' is in the file menu,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'send
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link' is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT in the context menu. Sigh. Not that I ever used the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> menu,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I am sure many people DO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The File menu(s) is the *last* place I will go to perform a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> task.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there isn't a context or keystroke option...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what? The context area getting too full?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking to change something just for the sake of change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Context 'Send link' interfering with the normal operation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way I can look at this decision as an improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I _can_ imagine the Moz devs slapping each other on the back,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> celebrating the implementation of this 'feature', after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful deliberation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reminiscent of the recent discussion in the dev group about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newly opened, blank tabs, something other than 'New Tab'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really do admire the enormous time and effort the devs put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolving these critical, showstopping bugs.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is really a trivial context-menu item to re-enact. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> need, I'm certain someone will add it back in form of an
>>>>>>>>>>>> add-on.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual XUL entry that was removed from
>>>>>>>>>>>> chrome://browser/content/browser.xul:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <menuitem id="context-sendlink"
>>>>>>>>>>>> label="&sendLinkCmd.label;"
>>>>>>>>>>>> accesskey="&sendLinkCmd.accesskey;"
>>>>>>>>>>>> oncommand="gContextMenu.sendLink();"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Myself, I'm all for cleaning up seldom used old cruft, er,
>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Seldom used? By whom? Me, yep, you, apparently, but a testpilot
>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>> on it would have been wise before removing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My understanding of Test Pilot is that it is used to study new
>>>>>>>>>> prototype
>>>>>>>>>> ideas. I believe they already have in place the mechanism to
>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>> various UI usage stats. Not every UI change deserves a formal
>>>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>>>> before deciding to change it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ahhh, but just because no on on the developer panel uses a
>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>> context menu, or key combination, doesn't mean many, or even MOST
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> don't, and test pilot DOES provide that information.
>>>>>>>>> If you run it through test pilot, at least you discover that
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>> usage. Look at all the effort that went into the tab grouping
>>>>>>>>> development, to please less than 3% of users (according to test
>>>>>>>>> pilot).
>>>>>>>>> They put the thing in there to get this kind of information, so
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> should use it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably end up like feedback thing they in SM and Ff for years.
>>>>>>>> turned
>>>>>>>> out they removed it because developers refused to look at it
>>>>>>>> from day
>>>>>>>> one. So it was removed. All the reports from it were going in bit
>>>>>>>> bucket by design. It was just put in to placate users, making them
>>>>>>>> think they were contributing something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My Firefox 17.0 Nightly still has Submit Feedback under Help, and
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> do read it. Here is one from this weeks meeting notes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://blog.mozilla.org/meeting-notes/archives/1023
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Favicon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The removal of Favicons from the awesome bar is receiving generally
>>>>>>> negative feedback [12]. It is difficult to be precise since the
>>>>>>> descriptions can vary greatly. Might need to do more focused
>>>>>>> research."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [12] http://tinyurl.com/codplzg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Believe what you want.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but they
>>>>>> didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>>>> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity. I'm
>>>>> glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this since most
>>>>> set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the previous favicon
>>>>> display.
>>>>>

>>>> I can recognize the favicon for my usual sites, and the URL is RIGHT
>>>> THERE, for those who like text. I use the favicons on the bookmarks
>>>> toolbar so I can get a LOT of sites on my toolbar. The justification
>>>> was that some sites were sending favicons that looked like 'lock
>>>> icons', and misleading users as to the security of the site. A valid
>>>> issue, but simply moving the secure site icon back where it was eons
>>>> ago, and sites couldn't influence, would have made better sense, at
>>>> least to me.

>>>>
>>> Ergonomically, I disagree. The old way required that I move my eyes from
>>> the URLbar down to the status bar to determine if the lock was engaged.
>>> Now, it's right there with the URL. Much better, no?
>>>
>>> Also, the favicons are still there in the bookmarks list and on their
>>> respective tabs.
>>>

>> You assume that everyone USES tabs. Some of us don't use tabs for
>> days at a time. About the only time I actually have more than one tab
>> active is when I am using the add-ons tab, so I don't keep the tab bar
>> visible all the time. Ergo, no favicon. Again, everyone uses the
>> program differently.
>>
> That's a fairly remote edge case there. Anyway, what's the need of a
> favicon if you only have one site open?
>
What's the need of it on a tab, if you rarely have more than 3 tabs open?

[Ron Hunter]

On 7/26/2012 8:40 PM, clay wrote:

> On 07/26/2012 6:19 PM, »Q« wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:04:59 -0500
>> Ron Hunter<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2012 6:14 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:04:10 -0700

>>> > Sailfish<REMOVECAP...@REMOVECAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
>>> >> 7/26/2012 10:44 AM:
>>> >

>>> >>> My response to removing the favicon was decidedly negative, but
>>> >>> they didn't ask me, nor do they, apparently, care.
>>> >>>
>>> >> I like the new method over a favicon advert. Now, the URLbar icon
>>> >> actually conveys something useful in terms of a site's identity.
>>> >> I'm glad they didn't waste time going out with a survey on this
>>> >> since most set-in-their-ways users would have voted for the
>>> >> previous favicon display.
>>> >

>>> > Also, this was about security, making spoofing more difficult. I
>>> > hope they won't revert it no matter how much negative feedback they
>>> > get.
>>>
>>> Why not move the security icon to the right of the favicon. That way
>>> there would be no confusion.
>>
>> The problem would remain as long as sites were allowed to put lock
>> icons in the urlbar.
>>
>

> Here's a solution...
> Just show the damn HTTPS!

There are several icons for the various security levels. http/https
doesn't really tell you the whole story.