"Chris Ilias" <nm...@ilias.ca
| I want to correct some misinformation in your post, because I don't want
| users thinking that what you're saying is correct:
That seems a bit unfair. Most of what you're saying is
a matter of opinion, not fact.
settings are no longer in the UI. So what you're saying
amounts to saying that whether script is enabled or not
is of no concern to the end user. Nor geo-location. Nor any
of the other myriad options that are specced in about:config.
If only Mozilla developers are meant to access those
settings then why are they there?
If I couldn't disable script I wouldn't even go online
except for critical things like downloading tax forms. It's
simply not safe. And script-enabled pages are far too
| * The large majority of developers don't write end-user documentation.
| There is a separate community for that.
Yes. That's basically what I said. But the docs
"community" should be considered part of doing
the whole job. I'm a Windows developer. I write
docs. That's part of the product. If I didn't write
them, or find someone to do it, how could I release
the product in good conscience?
| * If you're wondering why particular setting was removed, start a new
| thread listing them, and we'll try find the specific answer.
| * Regarding third-party images, I don't know what pref you're referring
1-accept all images. 2-block all images. 3-no 3rd-party images.
It's the only "permissions" category pref. It used to have
another name with different settings values, though I don't
have those details at hand. When it was removed was also
when the name and values were changed, making it very
difficult for anyone but hardcore tweakers to block 3rd-party
I think there are really two issues here. One is the
option to block 3rd-party images. (That's still available
in the UI of SeaMonkey, by the way.) The other issue
is whether to enable images at all.
Your friend Mr. Limi apparently doesn't know any blind
people. Any website should be accessible, without images,
to people using a screenreader. For them, images only
add unnecessary complexity and load time. A setting
to enable/disable images is for people like that. I very
much doubt that confusion about that setting has
caused problems for other people.
I'd say Mr. Limi is a very good example of programmer
arrogance -- the attitude that "civilians" shouldn't be
able to control things, for their own good. He even
that position because he can't book travel online without
no problems. We don't all use the Web in the same way.
But this is also what I was saying above: The Mozilla
people, and all programmers, are in an awkard position.
"One button, no directions" means ease of use and people
can't screw it up. So the product will get a reputation for
dependability. (The Apple approach.) But then the people
who want more control are unhappy and flexibility is lost.
There's no perfect approach for everyone and for all
Of course FF was not designed for corporate customers,
but the Netscape prefs come out of that. Stability
through obscurity. Corporate customers are a big slice
of the market and they won't use a browser if it prevents
them controlling employee behavior. Surely you don't
think the Netscape prefs system was designed for end
One of the reasons IE became so popular is because
Microsoft catered to corporate IT. The settings are
poorly documented and too confusing for most people
to use. Even if people do figure out those settings,
there's a master switch in the Registry, in the HKEY_
LOCAL_MACHINE version of the same settings, that allows
a sys admin to secretly override personal settings choices.
IE can be controlled at current-user level or at machine
level. IE can be whatever the IT people decide they want
it to be.
| * I'm not sure what you mean by "commerce-friendly".
Much of what happens online is now commercial --
either selling things or making money through ads.
Google is probably the #1 ad company online. If
a significant number of people block ads their business
model, and that of many ad-supported sites, is
called into question. So that's all I meant: The Web
has become commercialized to a great extent and
the major players depend on that. There are even a
growing number of people who actually believe the
Web can't survive without ads. (See the presentation
by the people who make the Brave browser.)
But people use the Web differently, and many
important things are not ad-supported or even
commercial. It seems to me that Firefox has always
been in the position of being the "peoples' browser".
But that's an awkward position to be in these days.
I'm not blaming Mozilla. Their browser needs to work
for everyone. I'm just saying that commercial pressure
is one of the factors that comes into play.