Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Tabs-on-bottom mode: keep it.

3,883 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeremy Morton

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 7:55:47 AM8/28/12
to
Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593

Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
(Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.

I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
Firefox better.

I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
minority and we should count!)

--
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)

Martijn

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 8:18:52 AM8/28/12
to Jeremy Morton, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
I would hate it too when this option would go away.
One of Firefox's selling points is it's customizable UI.
If the tabs-on-top feature would be the only default option, this
would be greatly diminished.

Regards,
Martijn
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox



--
Martijn Wargers - Help Mozilla!
http://quality.mozilla.org/
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_QA_Community
irc://irc.mozilla.org/qa - /nick mw22

Asa Dotzler

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 2:26:09 PM8/28/12
to
On 8/28/2012 4:55 AM, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?

Beginning your request with suggestions that our UX leaders are
incompetent or working in bad faith may not be the ideal approach to
convincing said leaders the merits of your request.

- A

EE

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 3:00:14 PM8/28/12
to
The idea of forcing the tabs into the title bar in Macs is something I
do not want. I am hoping that the setting in about:config
"browser.tabs.drawInTitlebar" being set to false will prevent that.
There is enough stuff in the title bar that there would be a lot less
room for the tabs if you put them up there, plus the title of a page
would not be readable if there were several tabs there.
Just because Chrome did that, does it mean you absolutely have to copy it?

Jeremy Morton

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 3:36:05 PM8/28/12
to
Asa,

I'm afraid that's exactly what I believe. I have had my Bugzilla
account suspended in the past by you PERSONALLY because I said something
you didn't like. I have been kicked out of your IRC channel because I
said something you didn't like. Frankly, I'm through trying to persuade
you and your UX team to listen to users because I don't think you care
about many of them.

Who I'm appealing to here is other Firefox devs (and maybe the Firefox
management). I'm also stating some facts so that Firefox devs will know
what the consequences of this decision will be.

As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on YOU to convince ME that you give
a damn about what users' feedback is; and not just 51% of them -
significant minorities too.

Jeremy Morton

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 3:38:54 PM8/28/12
to
This isn't about tabs in titlebar, it's about "tabs on top". In other
words, all toolbar elements would be "contained" within a tab, rather
than being above your tabs.

Paul Rouget

unread,
Aug 28, 2012, 4:47:27 PM8/28/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Jeremy, please, let not start a "hate" thread again.
Please understand the problem here is your tone.

This topic is important. We need to talk about it, but it's impossible to start
any decent conversion when someone is aggressive like you are.

If you don't understand why we see you as being aggressive here, please just
leave this thread.

If you're willing to have a rational argument about "tabs-on-top", yeah, let's
discuss. With rational arguments, and not just with some
"I-know-better-than-you" or "you-need-to-convince-me" sentences.

Again Jeremy, please let's not start a hate thread.

(and really, no need to reply to this message, let's just move on and try to
understand what should be done or not-done)

-- Paul

jsma...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 29, 2012, 7:25:36 AM8/29/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:55:50 AM UTC-4, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode.

Count me in this group. I much prefer having my tabs "on the bottom".

Perhaps there are arguments for having tabs on top. But they are no reason to force everyone to comply.

I hope the developers will be more concerned with the interests of the users of Firefox than with their own interests of having Firefox reach some theoretical design "ideal".

--
John Small

B.J. Herbison

unread,
Aug 30, 2012, 6:04:39 AM8/30/12
to
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:25:37 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
>
> Perhaps there are arguments for having tabs on top. But they are no reason to force everyone to comply.

There certain are reasons to force tabs on top (or to otherwise limit flexibility). Fewer options mean:

- Easier to create UI designs that look good (standard and add-ons).
- Less code.
- The code is more likely to be correct.
- Fewer cases, so a higher percent of the cases can be tested.
- It's less likely that a new change will break something, because of the reasons above.
- Better performance.
- Easier to optimize.

The effect for each change is small, but cumulative.

I don't always agree when Firefox developers want to reduce options, but I do recognize there are advantages to simplifying.

Gavin Sharp

unread,
Aug 30, 2012, 12:55:08 PM8/30/12
to B.J. Herbison, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Thanks for pointing that out, B.J. It's a good list, and you're
absolutely right that the effect is often cumulative.

I think it's important for everyone to recognize that decisions like
these involve tradeoffs - they're really never as simple as it may
seem from an outside perspective. The relative importance of the
various factors in that tradeoff depend a lot on your perspective. For
a user, the impact to their use of the product will be the most
important factor, and it's easy to discount the maintenance cost or
the cost of the complexity to new users. For a developer who doesn't
use the feature, the cost of maintenance of the feature (i.e. most of
the things on B.J.'s list) will be the most important factor, and it's
easy to discount the impact the removal will have on users.

My job as Firefox module owner, and the job of the Firefox reviewers,
and the UX team, and the product team who help make these decisions,
is to recognize those different perspectives, and carefully balance
them using our judgement to make the best call that we can. It's
basically impossible to make any UI decisions that involve removing a
feature or functionality without upsetting someone, given the size of
the Firefox user-base (or even just the size of the vocal community
who knows that they can discuss such changes in this newsgroup), but
it's important that we continue to make those hard decisions, because
the alternative is a product that gets worse over time, rather than
better.

Gavin

Dao

unread,
Aug 30, 2012, 2:16:23 PM8/30/12
to
This is all true, but I've argued in bug 755593 that the maintenance
costs of tabs on bottom have been reasonably low and I don't see large
costs approaching us. So I think we can delay this decision until it
becomes relevant.

Gavin Sharp

unread,
Aug 30, 2012, 3:34:13 PM8/30/12
to Dao, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
My message wasn't intended as an argument for or against any
particular decision, I was just trying to make an observation about
the decision process in the most general sense.

Re: tabs-on-bottom specifically, there is clearly disagreement (even
just amongst developers, let alone users). As you suggest, it's
probably not useful to re-open the debate here, now.

Gavin

John Small

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 6:55:46 AM9/1/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:04:39 UTC, "B.J. Herbison"
<bjher...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:25:37 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps there are arguments for having tabs on top. But they are no reason to force everyone to comply.
>
> There certain are reasons to force tabs on top (or to otherwise limit flexibility). Fewer options mean:
>
> - Easier to create UI designs that look good (standard and add-ons).
> - Less code.
> - The code is more likely to be correct.
> - Fewer cases, so a higher percent of the cases can be tested.
> - It's less likely that a new change will break something, because of the reasons above.
> - Better performance.
> - Easier to optimize.

All of these, except the performance, are advantages primarily for the
developers, not for the users. To me, these arguments do not justify
forcing users to change from a mode they are comfortable with and find
more intuitive than "tabs on top".

P.S. I would find "tabs on top" more palatable if the bookmarks
toolbar, which I also prefer using, was "on top" of both the
navigation toolbar and the tabs.

--

John Small
(remove z's for email)

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 11:46:59 AM9/1/12
to
On 9/1/12 6:55 AM, John Small wrote:
>> - Easier to create UI designs that look good (standard and add-ons).
>> - Less code.
>> - The code is more likely to be correct.
>> - Fewer cases, so a higher percent of the cases can be tested.
>> - It's less likely that a new change will break something, because of the reasons above.
>> - Better performance.
>> - Easier to optimize.
>
> All of these, except the performance, are advantages primarily for the
> developers, not for the users.

Uh. Fewer bugs is an advantage for users. Basically, most of the items
above either lead to fewer bugs or directly lead to the "better
performance".

-Boris

Gavin Sharp

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 12:08:56 PM9/1/12
to jsm...@os2world.net, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:55 AM, John Small <jsm...@os2world.net> wrote:
> All of these, except the performance, are advantages primarily for the
> developers, not for the users. To me, these arguments do not justify
> forcing users to change from a mode they are comfortable with and find
> more intuitive than "tabs on top".

Advantages for developers translate indirectly into advantages for
users, because our development resources are finite - they're not
completely independent variables. Having to maintain old features
hampers our ability to develop new desirable ones (to attract new
users and hopefully improve the experience for existing users), and
also often hampers our ability to make maintainability improvements
that lead to performance, or stability, or security improvements - all
user benefits.

The "To me" part of your message illustrates perfectly the
"perspectives" point of my previous post. It's not unreasonable for
the tradeoff from your perspective to be biased heavily towards your
own usage, but it's useful in these discussions to recognize that
bias.

As you point out, it's also important for us to consider the costs of
"forcing users to change", and we try never to forget that. But
balancing that against the cost of being stagnant - which hampers our
ability to attract new users, or maintain those who are interested in
a cutting edge browser - is not trivial. Trying to minimize the
negative impacts of change and maximize the positive ones requires
looking at the "big picture", and factoring in as much information as
we can get about our entire existing user base (hundreds of millions
of users, with a very broad array of perspectives and desires) as well
as our potential future users (also a very diverse set, and even
harder to reason about).

Gavin

B.J. Herbison

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 2:57:45 PM9/1/12
to jsm...@os2world.net
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 6:55:47 AM UTC-4, John Small wrote:
>
> P.S. I would find "tabs on top" more palatable if the bookmarks
> toolbar, which I also prefer using, was "on top" of both the
> navigation toolbar and the tabs.
>
> John Small

There's an open bug on this issue, but going nowhere. I advocated in favor of your position in a comment.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=634560

Comment 18 provides a work-around, putting bookmarks in the menu bar.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=634560#c18

John Small

unread,
Sep 2, 2012, 7:57:48 AM9/2/12
to
The comment talks about putting bookmarks on the menu bar but does not
say how to do this.

B.J. Herbison

unread,
Sep 2, 2012, 9:08:24 AM9/2/12
to jsm...@os2world.net
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:57:48 AM UTC-4, John Small wrote:
>
> The comment talks about putting bookmarks on the menu bar but does not
> say how to do this.

Enable Menu Bar, enable Bookmarks Bar.
Right-click on Menu Bar and select Customize.
Drag "Bookmarks Toolbar Items" from the Bookmarks Bar to the Menu Bar.
Click Done.

(Or drag it to the Navigation Bar and get rid of both the Menu Bar and the Bookmarks Bar.)

kinem...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 1:25:31 PM9/4/12
to
I use Tabs on Top at work, because my browsing is extremely light, and I wanted to at least work with the feature to get a handle on it. There are a few quirks, but I don't do enough browsing for it to really matter.

I use Tabs on Bottom at home, because that's where I do all my serious browsing work, and Tabs on Top fails badly (I tried the Tabs on Top once several months ago; it was not pleasant). In general, in my experience, the more heavy lifting I do in the browser, the less suitable Tabs on Top is. Yes, Tabs on Top is nicer for more vertical real estate, but I find that if I'm even considering the need for that, I'm hitting F11, which makes the entire question moot.

If you remove Tabs on Bottom as a feature, entirely, then I would simply lock the browser onto the previous version, and not allow it to update after that. I wouldn't move to another browser (at least not entirely), partly because other browsers don't have Tabs on Bottom, and partly because I'm too invested in a number of Firefox extensions to be able to transition to any of the other browsers, however don't think for a minute that it's because you managed to keep my loyalty as a user.


As already pointed out, the above list is almost solely to the benefit of the developers. What's good for developers has a high correlation with what's good for users, but it is definitely not a cause>effect relationship.

Blair McBride

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 9:09:31 PM9/4/12
to kinem...@gmail.com, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On 5/09/2012 5:25 a.m., kinem...@gmail.com wrote:
> In general, in my experience, the more heavy lifting I do in the browser, the less suitable Tabs on Top is

Could you try to explain why?

- Blair

tril...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 10:12:19 PM9/4/12
to
Personally, I like tabs on top. I find it objectively better. But, I also recognize two important facts:

1. Firefox has always been about customizability. The user should be free to put the tab bar anywhere they like.

2. The last thing Firefox's reputation needs is the rage storm that this change will cause. Even removing the option from the menu was a mistake. If a silent update changes the browser chrome to Australius and moves everyone's tabs to the top without the option to fix it, you will cement the undeserved reputation that Mozilla no longer cares about what users want.

Both of these are good reasons not to remove the option for tabs on bottom.

Millwood

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 11:10:43 AM9/5/12
to
For me the answer seems obvious. The mouse motion I use most is select
another tab. On the bottom, I don't have to go as far.

Dave Townsend

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 11:45:13 AM9/5/12
to
But on the top the tab extends all the way to the top of the screen when
maximized, meaning you don't have to be as accurate with your mouse
movement to hit the tab, this can lead to it being faster to click the
tab even if it is further away.

kinem...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 2:23:15 PM9/5/12
to kinem...@gmail.com, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
1) Window is always maximized, so Tabs on Top means the tabs are in the title bar.
2) There is less space in the title bar than in the standard tab bar; roughly one less tab's worth.
3) Tabs in the titlebar removes the ability to place the page title in the titlebar (fixed Mozilla's removal with another extension).
4) The more tabs I'm using, the more difficult it is to read titles on the tab itself, necessitating the titlebar option. This is exacerbated somewhat by #2.
5) With tabs in the titlebar, the close button (which I keep on the right end of the tabs since I find that more convenient than having close buttons on each tab) is close enough to the window's min/max/close buttons that there's notable risk of hitting the wrong button. This has happened more than once.
6) Fairly often I accidentally select something that I don't actually want. The one place I can reliably go to to cancel such an action (or release something that was being dragged) that won't affect the browser in any way is the title bar. I can also often select a blank space within the viewing area if it's to cancel a click (but not cancel a drag), but there are a fair number of sites that like to put in full-page linked ads in the background space; if it's not a site I visit regularly enough to have built a Stylish rule to get rid of such things, that becomes a hazardous target. If tabs are at the top, I lose access to that safe area.
7) The more active I am in browser, the more the above issues come into play. The more tabs are open, the more the title issue comes up. The more 'stuff' I'm doing, dragging/clicking/whatever, the more the safe area is an issue. The more tabs I'm opening and closing, the more the close button becomes an issue.

8) Conceptually (and purely subjectively), Tabs on Top puts the focus of the various controls (location bar, bookmarks toolbar, etc) within the space of the current tab. That is, it creates a confining impression where all the controls are 'in here', and all the other tabs are 'out there'. Actual work process, however, is preferentially for all the tabs to be contained and compartmentalized (aided by things such as Tab Groups), where the controls are above and outside that. I know that they aren't actually doing anything different, but the mental impression is much more stifling.

Having the controls within the tab area implies that I'm doing all my browsing inside a single tab, when that's not what I want at all. I'm doing lots of things with lots of tabs; I'm doing very little that constitutes "within this tab", as far as the navigation controls are concerned.

This is related to the fact that I pretty much constantly have about 100 tabs open, broken into a couple windows, and about a half dozen tab groups per window. As I have to keep all of that organized for it to be at all useful, that subjective impression of control (or lack thereof) has a very definite impact on my general comfort level.

EE

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 3:40:21 PM9/5/12
to
I noticed a new setting in about:config: browser.tabs.drawInTitlebar. I
set that to false and put in into my user.js file. I see the "Tabs on
top" setting in the View menu greyed out now. Hopefully that will
prevent the tabs fron going into the titlebar in future versions of Mac
Firefox?

Asa Dotzler

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 3:44:45 PM9/5/12
to
On 9/5/2012 11:23 AM, kinem...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is related to the fact that I pretty much constantly have about
> 100 tabs open, broken into a couple windows, and about a half dozen
> tab groups per window. As I have to keep all of that organized for
> it to be at all useful, that subjective impression of control (or
> lack thereof) has a very definite impact on my general comfort
> level.

That's an impressive set-up. Fewer than 1/10th of one percent of our
users have anything close to your number of tabs. The 80% case is 5 or
fewer tabs and the 95% case is 10 or fewer tabs.

While it would be great to make the hundreds of tabs case easy to manage
and for users with that many tabs to feel totally in control, if a
trade-off must be made, the single digit tabs case has to be the focus
and the priority.

For extreme cases, like yours, I would hope that extensions would be
able to cover.

- A

Piscium

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 3:57:28 PM9/5/12
to B.J. Herbison, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
+1 to keep the option of tabs on bottom (which I use and prefer).

However if the FF developers that do the actual work think this makes
their life easier, I am not the one to object.

kinem...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 4:52:24 PM9/5/12
to
And I'm not arguing against tabs on top in general. For extremely light browser usage, with only single-digit tab counts, it seems perfectly fine, and if people are happy with it, good for 'em.

However, while I personally have a large number of active tabs, I will point out that it's primarily about the activity level of browser usage that I feel it doesn't scale well for, not just the tab count. I could still encounter these issues (aside from the tab title in the titlebar) with just a half dozen tabs, and the titlebar issue creeps in with just 10-15 tabs. So please don't try to marginalize the issue solely because of the tab count I keep open.

Issues with managing dozens or hundreds of tabs gets into the problems in Tab Groups, which is an entirely separate matter.

Chris Ilias

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:06:32 PM9/5/12
to
On 12-09-05 3:57 PM, Piscium wrote:
> +1 to keep the option of tabs on bottom (which I use and prefer).
>
> However if the FF developers that do the actual work think this makes
> their life easier, I am not the one to object.

These types of decisions are typically not put to a vote, especially in
a newsgroup. With 400 million users, the vote sample is just accurate.

Instead of people voicing opinions about what they prefer, how about
getting some data on how many people use tabs on bottom?

Stuart Cook

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 5:02:14 AM9/6/12
to
For me, the content area and the tab bar are the two most important
parts of the browser UI. Tabs-on-bottom mode allows me to keep them
adjacent, which in turn makes it very easy to transition between them,
or monitor one in my peripheral vision while interacting with the other.

Tabs-on-top takes the navigation bar and wedges it between these two
elements, even though I spend relatively little time looking at it. The
result is that there's a huge gulf of irrelevant space between the two
parts of the browser that I'm most interested in looking at. That might
not sound like much, but it's a constant source of friction in almost
every single interaction with the program.

Things get worse when I have a dozen or so tabs open, because then the
distance between content and the tab bar starts to approach the width of
the tabs themselves. That makes it even more of a hurdle to constantly
search for and reacquire my visual target.


Stuart

Martijn

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:53:40 AM9/6/12
to Piscium, Chris Ilias, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Piscium <gro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 22:06, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
>> Instead of people voicing opinions about what they prefer, how about getting
>> some data on how many people use tabs on bottom?
>
> Point taken. But how to get _reliable_ data?

I think that question was directed to Asa, not you.

Regards,
Martijn

> If FF were to report on tabs usage to some central server. Also
> maintainers in distros might comment out that code. A pop-up question
> after a version upgrade asking permission to report the current tabs
> status to some server would be be puzzling to a majority of users so
> they might just answer no so the sample would not be representative.
> It would seem to me there is no low cost way to get reliable data so
> any decision will be made on some other basis. Btw, I am just a FF
> user not a developer so I am likely missing some angles and technical
> possibilites.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox



--
Martijn Wargers - Help Mozilla!
http://quality.mozilla.org/
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_QA_Community
irc://irc.mozilla.org/qa - /nick mw22

kinem...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 2:23:15 PM9/5/12
to mozilla.dev....@googlegroups.com, kinem...@gmail.com, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:09:41 PM UTC-5, Blair McBride wrote:
1) Window is always maximized, so Tabs on Top means the tabs are in the title bar.
2) There is less space in the title bar than in the standard tab bar; roughly one less tab's worth.
3) Tabs in the titlebar removes the ability to place the page title in the titlebar (fixed Mozilla's removal with another extension).
4) The more tabs I'm using, the more difficult it is to read titles on the tab itself, necessitating the titlebar option. This is exacerbated somewhat by #2.
5) With tabs in the titlebar, the close button (which I keep on the right end of the tabs since I find that more convenient than having close buttons on each tab) is close enough to the window's min/max/close buttons that there's notable risk of hitting the wrong button. This has happened more than once.
6) Fairly often I accidentally select something that I don't actually want. The one place I can reliably go to to cancel such an action (or release something that was being dragged) that won't affect the browser in any way is the title bar. I can also often select a blank space within the viewing area if it's to cancel a click (but not cancel a drag), but there are a fair number of sites that like to put in full-page linked ads in the background space; if it's not a site I visit regularly enough to have built a Stylish rule to get rid of such things, that becomes a hazardous target. If tabs are at the top, I lose access to that safe area.
7) The more active I am in browser, the more the above issues come into play. The more tabs are open, the more the title issue comes up. The more 'stuff' I'm doing, dragging/clicking/whatever, the more the safe area is an issue. The more tabs I'm opening and closing, the more the close button becomes an issue.

8) Conceptually (and purely subjectively), Tabs on Top puts the focus of the various controls (location bar, bookmarks toolbar, etc) within the space of the current tab. That is, it creates a confining impression where all the controls are 'in here', and all the other tabs are 'out there'. Actual work process, however, is preferentially for all the tabs to be contained and compartmentalized (aided by things such as Tab Groups), where the controls are above and outside that. I know that they aren't actually doing anything different, but the mental impression is much more stifling.

Having the controls within the tab area implies that I'm doing all my browsing inside a single tab, when that's not what I want at all. I'm doing lots of things with lots of tabs; I'm doing very little that constitutes "within this tab", as far as the navigation controls are concerned.

Dr J R Stockton

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 3:04:07 PM9/6/12
to
In mozilla.dev.apps.firefox message <45qdnRsYfc5EI9rNnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@mo
zilla.org>, Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:06:32, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>
posted:
The premises behind this thread are silly.

There should be a potential tab row (I avoid "bar", to be generic) at
the top and one at the bottom, and at the sides as well. In each row
there should be an icon giving a four-tick menu to tick-select any of
the 16 possible combinations of on and off. Either "all off" should
give a preselected row on (chosen as in about:config), or it should give
all rows off with the icon moving to another existing control bar (or
there could be a copy of the icon permanently there).

Product designers should not (where reasonably avoidable) provide only
what they think will be the most popular or useful choice; that is the
communist way. They should instead provide full, easy, and obvious
freedom of choice --- and use their judgement to decide which will be
the initial default.


Also : I now use two operating systems and nine browser versions, and
other software too, and I have many other things to remember. ALL
controls should be labelled with the name used to refer to them. Menu
items are self-labelled, of course; web page controls are generally
labelled, formally or otherwise, but bars are generally, it seems, not
so labelled. A hover pop-up as is given by the HTML TITLE attribute
will serve; there is no need to use screen space. If Microsoft is
reading this, the same applied to the System Tray and other such named
areas. Unoccupied space could also be so labelled.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

Jeremy Morton

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 7:05:41 AM9/8/12
to
On 01/09/2012 17:08, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:55 AM, John Small<jsm...@os2world.net> wrote:
>> All of these, except the performance, are advantages primarily for the
>> developers, not for the users. To me, these arguments do not justify
>> forcing users to change from a mode they are comfortable with and find
>> more intuitive than "tabs on top".
>
> completely independent variables. Having to maintain old features
> hampers our ability to develop new desirable ones (to attract new
> users and hopefully improve the experience for existing users), and
...
> The "To me" part of your message illustrates perfectly the
> "perspectives" point of my previous post. It's not unreasonable for
> the tradeoff from your perspective to be biased heavily towards your
> own usage, but it's useful in these discussions to recognize that
> bias.
...
> balancing that against the cost of being stagnant - which hampers our
> ability to attract new users, or maintain those who are interested in
> a cutting edge browser - is not trivial. Trying to minimize the

I think _your_ post is full of biases towards your perspective that
you're not recognizing. You seem to be implying that tabs-on-bottom is
"old and obsolete", "undesirable", "stagnant", "doesn't attract new
users", and not "cutting edge". These descriptions only make any kind
of sense if people who use tabs-on-bottom are doing so purely because
they don't want to change. You seem to fail to realize that there are
actual advantages to tabs-on-bottom; most of us are happy to change to
new UIs that genuinely make old ones obsolete, but in this case, many of
us argue that what you're calling the "old" UI is functionally better.

Therefore I don't see why tabs-on-bottom couldn't continue to be a
useful feature that you market to new users as a useful piece of
functionality. You guys like to state that many "average" users use
tabs-on-top, but how sure are you that they use it because they have
evaluated it to be better, as opposed to using it because it's just the
default in Firefox and Chrome? What if you made tabs-on-bottom the
default again? How many average users would "just use it"?

swle...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2012, 10:29:41 AM9/14/12
to
To the great developers of Firefox: please do not remove this possibility! I have been using browsers with tabs at bottom all my life, and several of my Autohotkey scripts depend on it, not to mention my entire routine. I beg you! If this option is removed, I will have to stay with FF 15 forever, and eventually migrate away from Firefox to some fork. Would make me very, very sad. Please, don't force unnecessary changes upon us!

mikeha...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 9:01:39 PM9/21/12
to
I would like to add my voice to those who are opposing the removal of the "tabs on bottom" option.

As a power user, to me, Firefox's utmost strength over all of its competitors is its ability to be customized to the particular needs and wants of its user. I can do things with Firefox that I can do with no other browser.

It is inaccurate to characterize this removal as a "bold" removal of "cruft", as I saw one person do. It seems common nowadays for some people to characterize features that exist but that they do not personally use as "cruft".

Quite simply, I utterly hate the look of tabs on top. I do not want that look in my browser.

The more Firefox removes choice from the end user, the more it sabotages its own greatest strength, and the more it will begin to resemble a Chrome photocopy, as opposed to catering to its own unique strength.

Restricting users to tabs on top is a poor decision. Do not make this mistake.

ralf.l...@gmx.de

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 6:04:53 AM9/22/12
to
Am Dienstag, 28. August 2012 13:55:50 UTC+2 schrieb Jeremy Morton:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
It's not a bug, it's a feature. Keep "tabs-on-bottom" mode!

Michael Verdi

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 12:26:25 PM9/22/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
There's still a about:config pref to turn it on https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom

Reuben Morais

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 12:29:19 PM9/22/12
to Michael Verdi, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Sep 22, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Michael Verdi <mve...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> There's still a about:config pref to turn it on https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom

Right. This discussion is about removing that pref and the supporting code.

-- reuben

EE

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 2:31:09 PM9/22/12
to
I also think that Firefox should not shut out options to go back to
previous setups, including tabs on bottom. Just because Google Chrome
does it, must Firefox follow? Why can Firefox not just be itself,
rather than a Chrome clone?

steve...@btinternet.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2012, 7:57:56 AM10/5/12
to
I also would also be very much against not having the ability to have my tabs on the bottom.

For me, it is the logical place to have them, i can switch between tabs with the minimum of movement with my mouse. Plus, i just like it that way! The one thing that's always kept me with Firefox is the fact that i can control how the browser is layed out - i do not have to be stuck with a layout that some developer somewhere thinks is best for me. Losing the ability to customise the layout stinks of 'microsoft big brother' - "We know what's best, this is the way it will be"!

Maybe that's why virtually nobody i know uses Internet Explorer or Chrome. Choice is taken away from the user.

After each of the large changes concerning Firefox, or after a complete reinstall, i have always been able to get Firefox back to how i like it, sometimes i have had to dig around on the net to find out how to do that, but the important thing is that i have always been able to get things back to how i like them. This is the reason i have been loyal to Firefox for so many years now, it is the reason i have always recommended Firefox to countless friends and family. Firefox is simply the best because it gives the user so much control. Take that control away from the users and they WILL lose the main reason why they like, and why they stay loyal to Firefox.

From reading the above posts i understand that keeping the ability to have tabs on the bottom if we wish, means a bit more work for the developers, but surely that is what Firefox as always been about? The developers put in that bit of extra effort to make Firefox the best out there!

I hate it when software developers adopt the "We know what's best for you" attitude. Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against developers making the browser look sleek and modern by default that will, no doubt appeal to many of the younger users that love the dumbed down, simply to use 'app' look. But please do not take away the ability to modify the look, feel and layout for all of us loyal Firefox fans that switched to Firefox in the first place because of those reasons. If you do that i am afraid that Firefox WILL drop from the top of my browser list, and it will drop from the top of many of other users lists.

In the past i will admit to looking at other browsers like Chrome, but the simple fact that i could not change the layout to suit my own personal tastes put me off straight away, the browser was simply uninstalled within an hour or so of being installed. Simply reading that i may be facing similar problems in the future with Firefox is enough for me to start looking for an alternative, that is something i simply do not want to do. I am a big Firefox fan, but i would hate to see the developers take away the freedom of choice from it's users.

fiz...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 4:46:49 PM10/6/12
to
Il giorno martedì 28 agosto 2012 13:55:50 UTC+2, Jeremy Morton ha scritto:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
>
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
>
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>
> Firefox better.
>
>
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>
> minority and we should count!)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)

The very first thing on every new Firefox installation is to put tabs on the bottom.
I am really surprised about this discussion.
What are the reasons to cut nice options instead of add new ones?!
The default configuration of Firefox should be the classic one, far better than this, and let users to set options to Chrome style IF they want.

Regards
A firefox user (and webdev) from 1.5 ver

a.sup...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 2:30:32 PM10/9/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:55:50 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Morton wrote:
I also do not like the tabs on top. I use the speed dial add-on, with 16 tabs, 36 boxes each tab. Tabs on top puts my tabs in two different places.

I don't like, chrome, IE, safari, Opera is ok....but I really use my speed dial and I really like the freedom of customizing firefox. I just noticed that firefox 15 & 16 have lost the option to put tabs on the bottom. Unless install old and custom upgrade :(

Alex Jordan

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 3:17:57 PM10/9/12
to ralf.l...@gmx.de, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Just because its a "bug" doesn't mean its a bug. The bug tracking system is
used to track issues and requests, even those that aren't glitches.
Message has been deleted

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 5:14:47 PM10/9/12
to
On 09/10/2012 4:00 PM, icm148...@gmail.com wrote:
> Most people use the mouse to select another tab. So why would
> you want tabs on top? More change for change sake. UI design
> is about usability, and not about trying to make a piece of
> art work.
>

I prefer tabs on top in the desktop version of Firefox; however I
feel that those that prefer tabs on the bottom should be able to
keep that feature.

I'm not too crazy with the location of the tabs on the mobile
version I'm using on an android tablet - but consider myself
adaptable.

AW

e...@quackingduck.net

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 9:25:25 PM10/9/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:55:50 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
>
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
>
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>
> Firefox better.
>
>
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>
> minority and we should count!)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)

I'm in complete agreement with Jeremy. I'm a longtime user, not a developer, and I am flabbergasted that you developers would even *think* to remove tabs on the bottom. I think the tabs on top is the most impractical and visually jarring design decision ever made. The look and feel with the drab gray buttons was also awful. I am grateful for Jeremy's Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4+ which has made FF look good again. Now, you devs want to take away normal tabbing and my Firefox 3 theme ?! Absolutely not! I have already turned off updating FF and will remain at 15.0.1 for as long as possible. I will look into Sea Monkey as an alternative and look forward to a new branch of FF without these ridiculous "upgrades".
Thanks,
Eva

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 1:53:07 PM10/10/12
to
Stop aping Google Chrome, seriously! We use Firefox for it's ability to be customized, and we don't necessarily want FF to look like a Chrome kock-off.

Now, onto the subject of "Tabs On Bottom" being taken away, and more specifically Jeremy Morton (Jez)'s themes to restore the look of FireFox 2, FireFox 3, and FireFox 3 Aero.

I have a large family (mum, dad, 3 brothers, 1 sister) and NONE of them would know what to do with FF4+ visual changes, and menu rearranges such as tabs being moved on top, or the menu toolbar being moved into the orange firefox button. For my family and myself I use Jez's "FF3 for FF4+" theme. FireFox 16.0 has broken this theme's compatibility.

I don't want my family to be stuck on an old version of FF and not get the latest security benefits etc, but I won't subject them and myself to the headaches of dealing with FF's changes. So where do we go from here, FF user interface developers?

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 2:23:02 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 1:53 PM, viralpro...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Stop aping Google Chrome, seriously! We use Firefox for it's
> ability to be customized, and we don't necessarily want FF to
> look like a Chrome kock-off.
>
> Now, onto the subject of "Tabs On Bottom" being taken away,
> and more specifically Jeremy Morton (Jez)'s themes to restore
> the look of FireFox 2, FireFox 3, and FireFox 3 Aero.
>
> I have a large family (mum, dad, 3 brothers, 1 sister) and
> NONE of them would know what to do with FF4+ visual changes,
> and menu rearranges such as tabs being moved on top, or the
> menu toolbar being moved into the orange firefox button. For
> my family and myself I use Jez's "FF3 for FF4+" theme. FireFox
> 16.0 has broken this theme's compatibility.
>
> I don't want my family to be stuck on an old version of FF and
> not get the latest security benefits etc, but I won't subject
> them and myself to the headaches of dealing with FF's changes.
> So where do we go from here, FF user interface developers?

Even though they're turned off by default, most of the toolbars,
including the menu toolbar, can be turned back on if necessary,
even in FF 16. I'm sure your family could adapt to the changes
in the FFx GUI since FF3 if they were introduced slowly.

AW


viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 2:37:46 PM10/10/12
to
Not when they have bad eyesight. Have you seen what Windows Vista and Windows 7 do to the chrome at the top of the FF window? It's horrendous. Semi transparent or completely see-through 'aero glass', and any text such as 'File, Edit,' on the menu bar - if you choose to turn it back on has this horrible stained-glass/frost block behind it which makes it hard to read.

Not everyone wants FF to be glass-ified, or to look like Chrome's little brother. There are enough people being weened-onto Safari through iProducts, or following the Google brand over to Chrome. Don't alienate the people that have been with you since you were FF1 (like me and my family have), or before that even.

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 8:58:11 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 2:37 PM, viralpro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:23:03 PM UTC+1, Ann Watson
> wrote:

>> Even though they're turned off by default, most of the
>> toolbars,
>>
>> including the menu toolbar, can be turned back on if
>> necessary,
>>
>> even in FF 16. I'm sure your family could adapt to the
>> changes
>>
>> in the FFx GUI since FF3 if they were introduced slowly.
>>
>>
>>
>> AW
>
> Not when they have bad eyesight. Have you seen what Windows
> Vista and Windows 7 do to the chrome at the top of the FF
> window? It's horrendous. Semi transparent or completely
> see-through 'aero glass', and any text such as 'File, Edit,'
> on the menu bar - if you choose to turn it back on has this
> horrible stained-glass/frost block behind it which makes it
> hard to read.

I don't see much glass along the top of my Firefox Window and the
menu bar is definitely not semi-transparent or translucent, but
then I'm not using the defaulttheme. Most of the ones I choose
tend to be more solid. Same goes for Thunderbird.

There are add-ons that can help with some of the accessibility
issues.

AW

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 9:29:30 PM10/10/12
to dev-apps-firefox
2012/10/10 <viralpro...@gmail.com>:
> Have you seen what Windows Vista and Windows 7 do to the chrome at the top of the FF window? It's horrendous. Semi
> transparent or completely see-through 'aero glass', and any text such as 'File, Edit,' on the menu bar - if you choose to turn it back
> on has this horrible stained-glass/frost block behind it which makes it hard to read.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 both allow changing to the classic Windows theme.
There is even a short instruction video on YouTube on how to do that
(for Windows 7):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHnWy1ZfmXE

-M.

HarveyG

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 10:24:52 PM10/10/12
to
On 8/28/2012 06:55, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
> Firefox better.
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
> minority and we should count!)
>
I am posting here because one of your Firefox themes was automatically
disabled when I updated from FF15 to FF16 today:
Firefox 3 Theme for Firefox 4+
http://ffaddons.game-point.net/ff3ff4/
I am not familiar with the technical problems involved but I have used
that theme for a long time and was very disappointed. In your
explanation you mention that it has something to do with this tabs on
top/bottom development/design issue, which I don't claim to comprehend.
All I care about is being able to continue using that theme. To that end
I posted elsewhere and got enough hints how to fix it to work with FF16,
which I did, and have uploaded it for others if they're interested:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3xgfl0zhvfpe832/ffe_f...@game-point.net_HarveyG.xpi
To install, download and open manually with FF.
My only modification is in the install.rdf file where I set it to expire
with Firefox 99.0, which won't be around for awhile yet. :) Further info
posted at moz.gen and moz.sup.ff.

The Firefox 3 design & theme is far superior to the bland, colorless,
pale shades of gray, illegible, user-unfriendly, awkward Firefox 4+
theme(s) and layout(s), and I hope to keep it forever.

Thanks for your good efforts, really appreciated.
-- HarveyG

--
HarveyG

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 10:39:05 PM10/10/12
to dev-apps-firefox
I don't mean to be rude, but are you serious with that suggestion? I am 'not' using the Windows Classic theme, system-wide, just because Mozilla FireFox's user interface has turned disgustingly hard to read, and looks worse and worse every time FF tries to adopt the OS theme into their window dressing, and later when they try to change FF to look like a Google Chrome cheap imitation. Plus, if I recall correctly the upcoming Windows 8 doesn't even have a 'Windows Classic' theme. So please, suggest me something serious and I'm happy to listen?

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 10:44:46 PM10/10/12
to
So you have just defeated your own purpose. You do not use the default theme in FF4+. I can't imagine anyone would. The reason that I use "FF3 theme for FF4+" by Jez is so that FF remains easy for me and my entire family to use. We do not want that kind of simple customization to be ripped away from us due to broken compatibility, and we do not wish for things to be changed like "Tabs On Bottom" just to futher the Google-Chromification of FF. If we wanted to use Google Chrome, we would. But we don't.

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 1:18:23 AM10/11/12
to dev-apps-firefox
> I don't mean to be rude, but are you serious with that suggestion? I am 'not' using the Windows Classic theme, system-wide, just
> because Mozilla FireFox's user interface has turned disgustingly hard to read, and looks worse and worse every time FF tries to
> adopt the OS theme into their window dressing, and later when they try to change FF to look like a Google Chrome cheap imitation.
> Plus, if I recall correctly the upcoming Windows 8 doesn't even have a 'Windows Classic' theme. So please, suggest me something
> serious and I'm happy to listen?

There is Windows Basic :-)

And if it's hard to read, then there are options to either change the
font and font size in all of Windows, or you can use a large or custom
DPI setting for the display.

Oh, and no offence taken ^_^

-M.

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 2:40:08 AM10/11/12
to dev-apps-firefox
But again, that would be me altering the look of my entire system every time I used FF. The easier solution is to use a new theme for FF which is exactly what I have been doing with Jez's "FF3 theme for FF4+". Now, due to changes that Mozilla seem intent on forcing, such as tabs on top, that theme is looking to stop being developed-on.

The issue isn't just this theme, but this new mindset of aping Chrome and taking away customization options. If I wanted to be locked into 'one way or the highway' I'd use Safari. If I wanted to use Google Chrome I'd use that. But I like my firefox, which was previously customizable to my needs.

The user interface isn't FF's problem, please stop trying to fix what wasn't broken with your Chrome-ified changes. Fix other things such as Flash not working, pages freezing, and whatever else people bring up when they declare they've had enough of FF and are switching to Chrome. Because soon enough people are going to add 'I've had enough of FF taking away customization options from me and looking like Chrome's bitch - I might as well just use Chrome now'.

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 8:40:28 AM10/11/12
to
On 10/10/2012 10:44 PM, viralpro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:58:14 AM UTC+1, Ann Watson
> wrote:

>> "I don't see much glass along the top of my Firefox Window and
>> the menu bar is definitely not semi-transparent or
>> translucent, but then I'm not using the defaulttheme. Most of
>> the ones I choose tend to be more solid. Same goes for
>> Thunderbird.
>>
>> There are add-ons that can help with some of the
>> accessibility"
>>
>> So you have just defeated your own purpose.

Huh, what was my purpose other than to show that Firefox is still
customizable? That's one reason why I use Firefox - I don't have
to stick with the default theme. Sometimes my preferred theme
won't work with an upgrade but I can always find an acceptable
one that does work.

> You do not use the > default theme in FF4+. I can't imagine anyone would.
> Thereason that I use "FF3 theme for FF4+" by Jez is so that FF
> remains easy for me and my entire family to use. We do not
> want that kind of simple customization to be ripped away from
> us due to broken compatibility, and we do not wish for things
> to be changed like "Tabs On Bottom" just to futher the
> Google-Chromification of FF. If we wanted to use Google
> Chrome, we would. But we don't.

Most of the programs I've used consistently over the past decades
have changed their user interfaces with updates; change is
usually inevitable.

I do agree that those that prefer tabs on the bottom in Firefox
should be able to keep that option but then I don't know how
difficult it is to keep developing it.

AW

AW

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 8:51:55 AM10/11/12
to
Even on my mobile device, Firefox looks nothing like the stock
browser which is a stripped-down Chrome. It's still taking some
getting used to :-).

AW

aimhe...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 7:02:14 PM10/11/12
to
I have to echo the sentiment that making "tabs-on-top" a requirement would be a bad idea. I VASTLY prefer Firefox's tabs to be on the bottom, and think "tabs-on-top" looks ugly and counter-intuitive. I want my TOOLS and MENUS to be on the top, and CONTENT (and tabs ARE content) below!

jh.con...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 7:21:49 PM10/11/12
to
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:55:50 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
>
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
>
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>
> Firefox better.
>
>
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>
> minority and we should count!)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)

Agree with Jeremy, don't force FF users to adopt the tabs on top if they don't want them on top. Seems simple, what's the problem or reason for forcing the change on people?

HarveyG

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 10:20:29 PM10/11/12
to
Seems fairly popular, 77 downloads so far...

--
HarveyG

joosti...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 11:02:48 PM10/11/12
to
I really hope this change doesn't go through. I'm tired of devs (not just the mozilla ones) forcing changes that the majority doesn't like. From what I've read above (I didn't read all of it), this would make things a little easier for the developers.

But what about the users? Are they of no importance when compared to the developers? The UI changes you have made are generally disliked on the forums I've mentioned it in. To avoid your "improvements", people don't update, use themes to make the program simple again, or just switch to another browser. Is that really what you want?

I hope I'm not coming off as angry, I'm just very surprised by some of the decisions and hope you will consider what I've said.

bill...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 11:43:19 PM10/11/12
to
I've supported you when you were Netscape, and adamantly support Firefox. In other words, she's an old girl, been around the block for a while, had a few paint jobs, an overhaul or two, but I still love the way she looked when she was new. Do what ever you want "under the hood", but PLEASE, please keep her lines and shape the same. I don't want fins where the don't belong, but if you want to add some fuzzy dice, that's OK.

Sudhakar

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 2:41:47 AM10/12/12
to
I've been using Firefox almost exclusively since 2004. I really fell in love Firefox, the appearance, the customizability, from the beginning. In my opinion from an aesthetic point of view Firefox peaked somwhere between versions 2 and 3, and has been going down hill. But think I like about Firefox is that I can go in and change it to the way that suites me.

I feel that tabs on bottom is way more functional than tabs on top. I consistently switch to tabs on bottom when ever i reinstall firefox. This is an option that should be kept (and in my opinion should be the default view). The idea that Firefox developers are considering removing this option is extremely disappointing. The user should be the one deciding this.

Firefox should strive to offer more customizability, and more user choice. If taking away user choice is the path that Firefox will take, then I will seriously consider switching away from Firefox after 8 years. This is something I would expect from a company like Microsoft, not Mozilla. When organizations decide that they prefer to make the decisions over user preferences, that is the time I know its time to move on. I will do that with Windows (replacing start bar with metro theme), I will do that with Sim City (making the next game online mode only), and I will do it with Firefox if they get rid of tabs on bottom.

Alexander Skwar

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 1:40:32 AM10/12/12
to joosti...@gmail.com, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi

Am 12.10.2012 05:05 schrieb <joosti...@gmail.com>:
>
> I really hope this change doesn't go through. I'm tired of devs (not
just the mozilla ones) forcing changes that the majority doesn't like.

Gotta chime in here... What makes you think, that the majority wouldn't
like this change? Just because of the vocal few people that said something
in this thread? This can be quite misleading.

I for one would welcome this change. I'd prefer tabs on top. I also don't
quite get, why people are so angry. What's so bad about copying
features/behavior from eg Chrome?

> From what I've read above (I didn't read all of it), this would make
things a little easier for the developers.

This alone is an good enough reason.

> But what about the users? Are they of no importance when compared to the
developers? The UI changes you have made are generally disliked on the
forums I've mentioned it in.

Which doesn't mean much. In general, you'll find that especially those
people say something who dislike something. Those, that are in favor, they
say nothing.

To me, it sounds as if those that oppose this change seem to be afraid of
changes. Seem to want that there is a standstill. I really don't quite
understand the problems people imagine and hope, that the devs do NOT let
go of the changes and continue to improve Firefox just like they used to.

Alexander

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 10:39:05 PM10/10/12
to mozilla.dev....@googlegroups.com, dev-apps-firefox

viralpro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 2:40:08 AM10/11/12
to mozilla.dev....@googlegroups.com, dev-apps-firefox

Alexander Skwar

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 12:45:24 PM10/12/12
to dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi

Am 12.10.2012 05:05 schrieb <joosti...@gmail.com>:

>
> I really hope this change doesn't go through. I'm tired of devs (not
just the mozilla ones) forcing changes that the majority doesn't like.
Gotta chime in here... What makes you think, that the majority wouldn't
like this change? Just because of the vocal few people that said something
in this thread? This can be quite misleading.

I for one would welcome this change. I'd prefer tabs on top. I also don't
quite get, why people are so angry. What's so bad about copying
features/behavior from eg Chrome?

> From what I've read above (I didn't read all of it), this would make
things a little easier for the developers.

This alone is an good enough reason.

> But what about the users? Are they of no importance when compared to the
developers? The UI changes you have made are generally disliked on the
forums I've mentioned it in.

Which doesn't mean much. In general, you'll find that especially those
people say something who dislike something. Those, that are in favor, they
say nothing.

To me, it sounds as if those that oppose this change seem to be afraid of
changes. Seem to want that there is a standstill. I really don't quite
understand the problems people imagine and hope, that the devs do NOT let
go of the changes and continue to improve Firefox just like they used to.

Regards,
Alexander

Chris Ilias

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 2:56:52 PM10/12/12
to
On 12-10-11 2:40 AM, viralpro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:18:28 AM UTC+1, Mart Rootamm wrote:
<snip>
> The user interface isn't FF's problem, please stop trying to fix what wasn't broken with your Chrome-ified changes.

I get the feeling that you think Mart is a Firefox developer or Mozilla
employee. As far as I know, he's not. Neither is Ann.

Fra...@knology.net

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:15:31 PM10/12/12
to
This is just getting very frustrating with s/w developers acting like all users are just like them and forcing different individualism to either join the sheep <or> "get Lost". Removing tabs-on-bottom mode because the Google geek group is a 800-lb niche is sickening.

I have used computers for 40+ years as a powerful tool everyday so I can achieve more tasks efficiently. I don't use computers to be my "mother" and dictate how I should interface every second of the day with society.

Flexibility is the trait that makes computers useful for the greatest amount of people. (not just geeks) Slowly but surely just about all s/w development organizations has come up with the attitude that they know how we should the software so they act like we should change our MO and get with the program. Microsoft has always had this mentality. Just look at all the versions of s/w that they have forced upon us just to do mundane e-mail usage. The majority of ordinary users were just plain happy with Outlook Express. But NO ....ordinary users were just idiots and didn't know what was good for them-selves. Fortunately, Mozilla had Thunderbird and Firefox to improve on what "mother" Microsoft was dealing us. I've lost track of the many hours I have spend getting out of the Microsoft "quick-sand".

Now Mozilla is picking up some of the "evil-empire" tricks. I have tried taps on top and I hate it. I use tabs like a book writer uses periods. Tabs on the bottom works best for me by far. I realize that there may be some fancy methodology where this placement of tabs works better but why must I re-train myself periodically just because more "stuff" must be added to my essential computer tools ?? Having options to configure key features to match and not defeat user preferences appears like such a simple solution. Obviously, I must be a total idiot, but I know that I have plenty of company.

Thanks Mozilla for ruining my day/week/month/etc
Frank Giambalvo (retired s/w test engineer)

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:55:50 AM UTC-4, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
>
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
>
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>
> Firefox better.
>
>
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>
> minority and we should count!)
>
>
>

Michael Verdi

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:34:04 PM10/12/12
to Fra...@knology.net, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi everyone,
Just a note that it is still possible to put your tabs on bottom. The menu choice has gone away but the preference hasn't. You can find instructions in this article http://support.mozilla.org/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Verdi • support.mozilla.org • irc: verdi
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox

aols...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:39:21 PM10/12/12
to
I apologize, and I should have known better to comment on a bug tracking issue I did not see that a link was posted to this group right above my own comment.

However to bring this back on topic, there has been a desire to get more programmers willing to maintain this code, is there something specific that needs to be done in order to maintain this feature? I am willing to donate my time if there is a specific issue to maintaining this issue beyond a desire to change UX for UX sake.

Martijn

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:41:05 PM10/12/12
to Michael Verdi, Fra...@knology.net, dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Michael Verdi <mve...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Just a note that it is still possible to put your tabs on bottom. The menu
> choice has gone away but the preference hasn't. You can find instructions
> in this article http://support.mozilla.org/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom
>

Weird. For me, the menu choice is still there.

Regards,
Martijn


> Thanks,
> Michael
> --
> Michael Verdi • support.mozilla.org • irc: verdi
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Fra...@knology.net wrote:
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> > dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>



--
Martijn Wargers - Help Mozilla!
http://quality.mozilla.org/
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_QA_Community
irc://irc.mozilla.org/qa - /nick mw22

bche...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:41:58 PM10/12/12
to
On Friday, October 12, 2012 3:15:32 PM UTC-4, Fra...@knology.net wrote:
> This is just getting very frustrating with s/w developers acting like all users are just like them and forcing different individualism to either join the sheep <or> "get Lost". Removing tabs-on-bottom mode because the Google geek group is a 800-lb niche is sickening.
>
>
>
> I have used computers for 40+ years as a powerful tool everyday so I can achieve more tasks efficiently. I don't use computers to be my "mother" and dictate how I should interface every second of the day with society.
>
>
>
> Flexibility is the trait that makes computers useful for the greatest amount of people. (not just geeks) Slowly but surely just about all s/w development organizations has come up with the attitude that they know how we should the software so they act like we should change our MO and get with the program. Microsoft has always had this mentality. Just look at all the versions of s/w that they have forced upon us just to do mundane e-mail usage. The majority of ordinary users were just plain happy with Outlook Express. But NO ....ordinary users were just idiots and didn't know what was good for them-selves. Fortunately, Mozilla had Thunderbird and Firefox to improve on what "mother" Microsoft was dealing us. I've lost track of the many hours I have spend getting out of the Microsoft "quick-sand".
>
>
>
> Now Mozilla is picking up some of the "evil-empire" tricks. I have tried taps on top and I hate it. I use tabs like a book writer uses periods. Tabs on the bottom works best for me by far. I realize that there may be some fancy methodology where this placement of tabs works better but why must I re-train myself periodically just because more "stuff" must be added to my essential computer tools ?? Having options to configure key features to match and not defeat user preferences appears like such a simple solution. Obviously, I must be a total idiot, but I know that I have plenty of company.
>
>
>
> Thanks Mozilla for ruining my day/week/month/etc
>
> Frank Giambalvo (retired s/w test engineer)

As already said about other comments, your tone is aggressive and doesn't fit to the discussion of this topic. It reads more like a demand than clear reasoning against the change.

bche...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:50:32 PM10/12/12
to
I think the issue is deciding behavior between tabs on top compared to on bottom. UX designers have to create completely different looks that don't really match, as well as manage different functions.

As an example, one of the first problems in Firefox 4 was that double clicking the Aero Glass frame of the Tabs bar would maximize the window instead of create a new tab. Both behaviors are expected on Windows with Aero Glass. The end decision was to create keep the maximizing, but only with tabs on top. Users really shouldn't be dealing with different things happening based on where the tabs are. Additionally, designers/programmers shouldn't be figuring out which users expect more. Having two interfaces just begs for inconsistency.

**Keep in mind that I am still pro for keeping tabs on bottom as a toggle

Ann Watson

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 3:54:41 PM10/12/12
to
Ann is definitely just a long-time non-techie user of Firefox.

AW

HarveyG

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 4:59:14 PM10/12/12
to
Now 156 total downloads after 2 days:
http://i50.tinypic.com/34yscyd.png

So it seems popular despite the limited advertising - solely by a few
mentions on these mozilla newsgroups a couple of days ago. Word of mouth
travels fast.

One caveat...

When I installed the next version of Firefox (16.0.1), it phoned home
then said this add-on (theme) was incompatible and disabled it. To fix,
remove it, then reinstall manually by opening the .xpi file from Firefox.

If you haven't downloaded it yet, it's still available at:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3xgfl0zhvfpe832/ffe_f...@game-point.net_HarveyG.xpi

--------------------------------
WORKS FINE WITH FIREFOX 16.0.1
--------------------------------
;) :)


--
HarveyG

yggd...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 5:11:34 PM10/12/12
to
Thanks for posting this. Cannot stand the new crap interface.

Why is copying Chrome the new direction of Mozilla? If I wanted to use Chrome I would . . . use Chrome!

edh...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 8:17:33 PM10/12/12
to


I'm one of those mouse-only users. For me, having the tab next to the content area is the only sensible arrangement.

If there is an extension that does that, then I'll use the extension. If there is no alternative to tabs on top, then Firefox loses yet another advantage over other browsers. With the loss of the "Send Link..." context menu item (thanks, devs; sure makes my life . . . different), the loss of flexible Bookmarks window (remember that?) we end up with more and more usability issues dropped from Firefox and replaced with extensions.

But extension developers are mortal, and some extensions are not maintained. At some point Firefox lacks so many usability features it just becomes another IE (not not not Chrome: Firefox is nowhere near as fast as Chrome; we use Firefox because heretofore it was more usable). Tabs only on top? Hmm. Let's see what Opera looks like. It been a few years since I peeked . . .

I note that it is ten years ago this month that I began using Phoenix.

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 13, 2012, 4:53:32 AM10/13/12
to dev-apps-firefox
2012/10/12 Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>:
> I get the feeling that you think Mart is a Firefox developer or Mozilla
> employee. As far as I know, he's not. Neither is Ann.

I've been on the Internet since about Netscape 3.0, and no, I'm not a
Mozilla employee or developer.

-M.

Dmitry Semionin

unread,
Oct 13, 2012, 5:33:04 PM10/13/12
to
I've been using FF since the version 1.0, and this is the first time i'm going to complain about the developers' decision publicly.

Seeing what's going on with the browser development, i can only come up with a single reason why the devs are doing what they are doing. They just don't know any other way to make FF the number one non-Microsoft browser out there.
You see, FF has been here for a while, and it had its own moments of glory. Until a few years ago, it was the best open source browser, and for me it was the best browser overall.
But the time was going, and FF was getting more and more bloated. Eating more than 1Gb of RAM became a (not so) good tradition, as did failing to scroll some websites smoothly. But once you're used to the perks FF is offering, it's hard to lure you back into the IE's embrace, so the people were staying.

And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.

Unfortunately, the people who make decisions at Mozilla found no better way than to start blatantly copying everything that Chrome introduced. Even the version increment policy: i remember the talks like "How are we gonna explain the users that our Firefox 4.9 is as modern and potent as Chrome 12".
But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.
And now you're trying to take from me the one of the basic, i'd even say fundamental things that Firefox has, forcing me to use the tabs-on-top paradigm i always disliked (in Chrome too). And because of that, i'm losing the rest of the visual appeal that Firefox had to me, since the FF3 Aero theme is no longer working.

If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.
You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.

But for some reason i still didn't give up on FF. Moreover, i made it my default browser again, after more than a year of Chrome serving that purpose. You know why? Because i got tired of not having a convenient session management functionality, not being able to see the page titles somewhere other than the tab tooltip, not being able to repoen the closed tabs by middle-clcking the tab bar, the "reopen closed tabs" function putting them in the end of the tab bar instead of the place they were at before closing (oh wait, maybe it was because i also installed the extension to put the newly opened tabs in the end of the tab bar, oh well), the recent PepperFlash lags i experience in the flash games. Et cetera, et cetera...

You see, it's these little things that seem unimportant when considered alone, but together they create what one can call a user experience. Something that just makes using the product convenient. And something which can be worth switching to another product over.
Until now, Firefox was my #1 choice when the comfort of usage was considered. At some point i managed to configure everything just the way i liked it to be, and, for the years ensuing, i was only making minor tweaks to make everything perfect to me again if something was changing.

But now the only undeniable advantage of Firefox over ANY other browser - an almost infinite customizability - is in danger. Those who pull the strings seem to have decided to make a total Chrome clone out of Firefox, killing the main thing that keeps people using it. Because if there's no visual difference between these two, then why taking the slow and heavy one when you can have the faster and more lightweight thing with the same face.

You may think it's a good idea, and that people will most likely give in and accept anything you feed them. And for some time, you might be right, because it takes time to finally realize that there's nothing in Firefox that i would tolerate its disadvantages for. But once you cross this line and it becomes clear that it's easier to configure Chrome to fit my needs (more or less) than to keep Firefox be what it once were out of the box, i'll switch to the former and forget FF like a dream which started out nice but turned into a pale nightmare.

Please don't make this mistake. Don't fix what's not broken. Leave the FF face as it always was, don't change stuff just for the sake of the change. And please, don't treat any difference between FF and Chrome as FF's defect. It might just be otherwise.

PS: To those who think that some people here express their opinion too aggressively. You know, the civilized way was always to listen to one another and try to understand what everybody wants and needs. When you leave people with no choice but to either accept any changes to push on them or quit FF for good, it's you who puts us to stress. And when cornered, people start taking things personal. You never asked us if we wanted this change, so why acting all so surprised when you see how we dislike your idea?

PPS: To those whose position is "whatever makes development easier is THE right thing to do". Each time i download Firefox, its website tells me that i'm getting something "different by design", a "browser that's got your back". Ever wondered what this means? For me, it means that Firefox is being made with respect to its users, and with taking their opinion into consideration.
You call us the vocal minority whose voice can be ignored because we're just a drop in the bucket of the Firefox user community and the rest doesn't seem to give a damn. But you see, right now the people who you're trying to ignore are mostly the most devoted FF users, with years of FF experience behind their backs. They were with you from the beginning, they were a part of that Firefox miracle that once showed the world that there can be an alternative to Internet Explorer. Well, maybe we really are a drop in the bucket, but does it seem that the rest is gonna be so passionate and determined in defending your decision? Or maybe they just don't give a damn as well and use whatever there is to use.
Tomorrow Google pulls another trick off its sleeve, or launches yet even more powerful advertizing campaign, and will you be so sure that those people are gonna stay loyal to FF? I doubt so. But there will surely be much less hardcore Firefox fans who would be spending countless hours on the various forums trying to convince the hesitant ones that Firefox is still worth using.
Firefox main power was always the passion of the people who enjoy using it and contributing to it, not the ones who would quit on it in no time. Please don't make people think that there is no more stuff to love about Firefox.

PPPS: Sorry for this being such a long message. But for once in a long time it feels like there's something important to lose, and i think it's worth fighting for.

bche...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2012, 11:40:31 PM10/13/12
to
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Dmitry Semionin wrote:
> I've been using FF since the version 1.0, and this is the first time i'm going to complain about the developers' decision publicly.
>
> Seeing what's going on with the browser development, i can only come up with a single reason why the devs are doing what they are doing. They just don't know any other way to make FF the number one non-Microsoft browser out there.
>
> You see, FF has been here for a while, and it had its own moments of glory. Until a few years ago, it was the best open source browser, and for me it was the best browser overall.

I really feel like many people that come to this conclusion don't completely understand the reasons for changes such as these. I haven't seen any change or reasoning on Bugzilla that is "because other browsers do the same".

> But the time was going, and FF was getting more and more bloated. Eating more than 1Gb of RAM became a (not so) good tradition, as did failing to scroll some websites smoothly. But once you're used to the perks FF is offering, it's hard to lure you back into the IE's embrace, so the people were staying.
>
> And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
>
> I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.

Actually, no. There were many people that did not switch to Chrome because of the fact that its interface was new and alien. It did not really gain market share until this advertising started.

> Unfortunately, the people who make decisions at Mozilla found no better way than to start blatantly copying everything that Chrome introduced. Even the version increment policy: i remember the talks like "How are we gonna explain the users that our Firefox 4.9 is as modern and potent as Chrome 12".
>
> But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I thought the Firefox 4 mockups were beautiful when I first saw them. -> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/1/17/Firefox-4-Mockup-i06-%28Win7%29-%28Aero%29-%28TabsTop%29.png

I'll admit the end result didn't come out perfectly like mockups, but it was indeed an improvement in my opinion. I remember being largely against Tabs on Top until using it on the Firefox 4 betas for a week.

> And now you're trying to take from me the one of the basic, i'd even say fundamental things that Firefox has, forcing me to use the tabs-on-top paradigm i always disliked (in Chrome too). And because of that, i'm losing the rest of the visual appeal that Firefox had to me, since the FF3 Aero theme is no longer working.

Again, Mozilla hasn't forced you to use Tabs on Top. If you believe so, how have they done that? You're still entitled to change the browser as you wish.

> If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.

I'm typing this on a 7 year old machine with 2.0 GHz and 2GB of RAM. Firefox is running smooth as it always has for me. I'm going to go ahead and say that something is causing your install to not run as great as it can.

> You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.

Actually, it is. Since Firefox 7, it has been the most memory efficient browser, topping Chrome. Most users that claim Chrome has better memory are only counting one of its tabs, due to Chrome having a process for each tab (resulting in multiple chrome.exe)

If you don't believe me, please look at the following benchmarks. They were found from a simple search with "Firefox vs Chrome memory". They're a couple months outdated, so consider that Firefox 14 has been released since then addressing another memory issue.

http://lifehacker.com/5917714/browser-speed-tests-chrome-19-firefox-13-internet-explorer-9-and-opera-1164
http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/21/chrome-uses-way-more-memory-than-firefox-opera-or-internet-explorer/

Also, the claim that Firefox is insuperior in JavaScript is also not true. It's on par with Chrome.

http://arewefastyet.com/

> But for some reason i still didn't give up on FF. Moreover, i made it my default browser again, after more than a year of Chrome serving that purpose. You know why? Because i got tired of not having a convenient session management functionality, not being able to see the page titles somewhere other than the tab tooltip, not being able to repoen the closed tabs by middle-clcking the tab bar, the "reopen closed tabs" function putting them in the end of the tab bar instead of the place they were at before closing (oh wait, maybe it was because i also installed the extension to put the newly opened tabs in the end of the tab bar, oh well), the recent PepperFlash lags i experience in the flash games. Et cetera, et cetera...
>
> You see, it's these little things that seem unimportant when considered alone, but together they create what one can call a user experience. Something that just makes using the product convenient. And something which can be worth switching to another product over.
>
> Until now, Firefox was my #1 choice when the comfort of usage was considered. At some point i managed to configure everything just the way i liked it to be, and, for the years ensuing, i was only making minor tweaks to make everything perfect to me again if something was changing.
>
> But now the only undeniable advantage of Firefox over ANY other browser - an almost infinite customizability - is in danger. Those who pull the strings seem to have decided to make a total Chrome clone out of Firefox, killing the main thing that keeps people using it. Because if there's no visual difference between these two, then why taking the slow and heavy one when you can have the faster and more lightweight thing with the same face.

Maybe it's just me, but I still see a huge visual difference between Firefox and Chrome. And like you said before, functionality also matters, not just appearance and speed.

> You may think it's a good idea, and that people will most likely give in and accept anything you feed them. And for some time, you might be right, because it takes time to finally realize that there's nothing in Firefox that i would tolerate its disadvantages for. But once you cross this line and it becomes clear that it's easier to configure Chrome to fit my needs (more or less) than to keep Firefox be what it once were out of the box, i'll switch to the former and forget FF like a dream which started out nice but turned into a pale nightmare.
>
> Please don't make this mistake. Don't fix what's not broken. Leave the FF face as it always was, don't change stuff just for the sake of the change. And please, don't treat any difference between FF and Chrome as FF's defect. It might just be otherwise.

Wait. Every change has had user studies (collected from betas) and/or large evidence to back them up. The "don't fix what ain't broken" logic doesn't apply here when there's stuff to improve.

> PS: To those who think that some people here express their opinion too aggressively. You know, the civilized way was always to listen to one another and try to understand what everybody wants and needs. When you leave people with no choice but to either accept any changes to push on them or quit FF for good, it's you who puts us to stress. And when cornered, people start taking things personal. You never asked us if we wanted this change, so why acting all so surprised when you see how we dislike your idea?

That's a great point, but you're missing the part where these people (I included) are mostly not involved with Mozilla and thus, their decision. Mozilla hasn't forced Tabs on Top on anyone. The option to switch this is still there, so the "developers decide keep deciding what's good for users" and "Mozilla is preventing user choice" claims are invalid.

> PPS: To those whose position is "whatever makes development easier is THE right thing to do". Each time i download Firefox, its website tells me that i'm getting something "different by design", a "browser that's got your back". Ever wondered what this means? For me, it means that Firefox is being made with respect to its users, and with taking their opinion into consideration.
>
> You call us the vocal minority whose voice can be ignored because we're just a drop in the bucket of the Firefox user community and the rest doesn't seem to give a damn. But you see, right now the people who you're trying to ignore are mostly the most devoted FF users, with years of FF experience behind their backs. They were with you from the beginning, they were a part of that Firefox miracle that once showed the world that there can be an alternative to Internet Explorer. Well, maybe we really are a drop in the bucket, but does it seem that the rest is gonna be so passionate and determined in defending your decision? Or maybe they just don't give a damn as well and use whatever there is to use.

But the Mozilla community doesn't call these users the vocal minority they can ignore. This thread is proof of that. Developers that are actually responding is proof of that.

bche...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 13, 2012, 11:44:08 PM10/13/12
to
Replying to the user above this post makes me wonder myself if this thread is really doing something. So far, this has mainly been a place for users to express their opinions. Let's get the actual (rational) debate started. What are the real "development" costs? We've already seen the large outbursts a simple context menu item removal has caused. I have to agree with Dao that it is entirely worth supporting tabs on bottom a little while longer.

Jeremy Morton

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 5:50:59 AM10/14/12
to
On 14/10/2012 04:44, bche...@gmail.com wrote:
> Replying to the user above this post makes me wonder myself if this thread is really doing something. So far, this has mainly been a place for users to express their opinions. Let's get the actual (rational) debate started. What are the real "development" costs? We've already seen the large outbursts a simple context menu item removal has caused. I have to agree with Dao that it is entirely worth supporting tabs on bottom a little while longer.

Why "a little while longer"? There's no point in that. It's either a
long-term commitment or you might as well do away with it.

Dmitry Semionin

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 8:12:06 AM10/14/12
to
воскресенье, 14 октября 2012 г., 7:40:31 UTC+4 пользователь Brandon Cheng написал:

> I really feel like many people that come to this conclusion don't completely understand the reasons for changes such as these. I haven't seen any change or reasoning on Bugzilla that is "because other browsers do the same".

What would be your opinion on the reasons behind this particular change? Seriously, besides a clear wish to drop the functionality that some developers already consider obsolete, is there anything that makes removing tabs on bottom reasonable?

> > And then Chrome appeared. Sleek, minimalistic, inherently fast and shamelessly advertised. You started seeing offers to install Chrome on the Google's search page. It was really hard to avoid or miss. So the people started migrating on it. Including those who were pissed by the slobby form that FF has turned into.
>
> >
>
> > I guess that's when the Mozilla guys started to panic. It became obvious that Chrome was taking their share of the market as well.
>
>
>
> Actually, no. There were many people that did not switch to Chrome because of the fact that its interface was new and alien. It did not really gain market share until this advertising started.

Well, you see, it's always a game of choosing the lesser evil. FF is what you're used to, but it makes you unhappy with its performance (well, for example. some other people might be unhappy with something else just as well). Chrome is all so new and alien, but it seems to be doing some technical things better. And its JS engine was better than FF's when Chrome was released.
It doesn't matter when exactly the Chrome rise to power began. What matters is that Chrome was taking the Firefox's share too. Even if it was after the advertizing campaign. Google is good at that, i can give them that.

> > But the interface changes were the biggest mistake. First it was that ugly gray default theme of FF4 that only colorblind people could call appealing, killing the status bar and the tabs on top which never made much sense to me. So i had to stick to the 3.6 branch until the awesome guys like Jeremy Morton and the developers of nice add-ons like Status-4-Evar made it possible to actually enjoy using the newer versions.
>
>
>
> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I thought the Firefox 4 mockups were beautiful when I first saw them. -> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/1/17/Firefox-4-Mockup-i06-%28Win7%29-%28Aero%29-%28TabsTop%29.png
>
>
>
> I'll admit the end result didn't come out perfectly like mockups, but it was indeed an improvement in my opinion. I remember being largely against Tabs on Top until using it on the Firefox 4 betas for a week.

Well, that mockup you showed us isn't that bad. But this picture just doesn't represent the way i use my browser. No Aero glass for me, the window about three times this size, bookmark toolbar and no fancy wallpaper on a background. This way, even with this mockup having been implemented as a FF real face, it wouldn't be perfect for me.

You see, this is not a "the new design must burn in hell, it sucks" debate. I can totally understand people who actually like it. But it's a debate about being able to keep having what you're used to having.

People can be divided into two groups. The first one is the "progressive guys". They embrace ANY changes and think that no change equals to stagnation and stagnation is bad. Such people would definitely consider the UX change that FF4 has brought a good thing.
The second group can be called the "conservative guys", and i'm gonna advocate for them now =). We just have too much unwanted change around us already, and we would prefer to at least keep the things we value the most the way we are used to see them. For such people, no change is required until you either have something extra super terrific which is absolutely a must have but demands some changes so it can be developed and integrated, or some absolutely obvious flaw is found in the current implementation which nobody, and i mean nobody, is gonna argue about and there is an obviously good way to fix this flaw, the way that, again, nobody would be going to argue about as well.

The way i see it, FF4 neither included something amazingly and terrifically useful that required its interface changes nor fixed some insanely obvious flaws that, for the reasons nobody could fathom, were presented in Firefox before. It was just a change.
Well, maybe the guys who invented that change thought that they were adapting Firefox for use in the environments other than the classic desktop/notebook ones. Maybe they thought that the new style is better suited for the netbooks with their smaller screens (it's funny that a few years have passed and netbooks are already a dying breed, Asus deciding to stop producing their EeePc line in favor of the new trend - the tablet devices).
Anyway, there was not so much to fear back then, because i could still revert to the classic look, and nobody was telling me that it would one day be treated as something old and not worth supporting. Otherwise, i'd start protesting right away, and the situation we're now in might never happen in the first place.
But anyway, at that point it seemed that Firefox just gave its users another option to choose from. And more options is always better than less options, so i was happy, with help of Jez and other guys who let me have my options back in full.


> Again, Mozilla hasn't forced you to use Tabs on Top. If you believe so, how have they done that? You're still entitled to change the browser as you wish.

It hasn't YET. You see, we're being said that it's only a matter of time before the move to the tabs on top style is done completely, and then i will be literally forced into it.
I believe that the reason why a lot of other people and i have gathered here is to make sure this time never comes. Not rather later than sooner, but in fact never. We are trying to influence the situation until not all is lost. And obviously it will be so in some close time in the future if we just sit still and do nothing being happy that we're still not deprived of this functionality YET.

> > If you (the people behind that idea i mean) really think that the tabs on bottom are really your main obstacle on the way back to the world domination, please think again, because you're missing something. I'm typing this message in the answer form of the Google Groups webpage opened with FF 15.0.1, and i can clearly see the text being entered with lags sometimes. Not to mention the lags i experienced when pressing the "Answer" button on this page to open the answer form. And this is happening on a Core 2 Duo powered laptop which isn't busy with any significant jobs right now.
>
>
>
> I'm typing this on a 7 year old machine with 2.0 GHz and 2GB of RAM. Firefox is running smooth as it always has for me. I'm going to go ahead and say that something is causing your install to not run as great as it can.

Well, then you're a lucky guy. Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of. Or maybe it's the non-default theme that is doing it for me.
Anyway, i'm not the one to blame. The current FF profile was built from scratch just a year ago, along with a clean OS install. I only imported the bookmarks from my older profile, but it should not affect the way the text is being typed. Nor should my add-ons, which affect the different aspects of the browser usage.
I've always followed the installation instructions, i don't have my machine swarming with viruses or spyware, so if there's anything wrong with my FF performance, i think it has to do with the browser itself.
Or maybe you're using FF on Linux or MacOS, and my Windows Vista installation is inherently flawed. But then again, it's not a non-Chrome UI issue.


> > You see, the non-Chrome UI isn't what makes the people run from FF to Chrome. It's the slowness of your product. FF is nowhere near Chrome when it comes to the JS processing speed, memory management and security. It's their turf now, and i doubt that you guys have enough manpower to challenge Google on that.
>
>
>
> Actually, it is. Since Firefox 7, it has been the most memory efficient browser, topping Chrome. Most users that claim Chrome has better memory are only counting one of its tabs, due to Chrome having a process for each tab (resulting in multiple chrome.exe)

Memory management isn't only about allocating memory. It's also about freeing it in time. I am too used to have a single-window single-tab Firefox instance eat more than 1Gb of memory because i already closed the windows/tabs with the heavy stuff but FF just doesn't wanna clean up after itself.
With Chrome, the cleaning up is done by the OS. And while i agree that Chrome eats maybe even more memory cumulatively compared to FF (if we compare the same sets of windows/tabs), at least i could close the tabs or windows i don't want anymore and see the result right away.
It's even more crucial if you're using more memory than you physically have. When the swap usage overhead starts to bug me with Chrome, i close the unwanted tabs or quickly read through them and then close - so i'm back to the physical memory only. With FF, only an application restart might help.

> If you don't believe me, please look at the following benchmarks. They were found from a simple search with "Firefox vs Chrome memory". They're a couple months outdated, so consider that Firefox 14 has been released since then addressing another memory issue.
>
>
>
> http://lifehacker.com/5917714/browser-speed-tests-chrome-19-firefox-13-internet-explorer-9-and-opera-1164
>
> http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/21/chrome-uses-way-more-memory-than-firefox-opera-or-internet-explorer/
>
>
>
> Also, the claim that Firefox is insuperior in JavaScript is also not true. It's on par with Chrome.
>
>
>
> http://arewefastyet.com/

It's not the benchmarks that have meaning in my everyday life. It's the websites i use. If the Gmail window scrolls with lags for me, or my favorite social network's website based on the JS navigation works slow as hell, i can't just tell myself "but the benchmarks said that FF does it just as fast, i must be hallucinating". It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop: FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due more or less.
It of course can be related to something having gone wrong in my installation. But i'm not an FF insides guru, i'm just a user who knows some tricks but has never coded a single JS script in my life. And i don't wanna sit around and profile my FF installation just to find out the bastard who slows me down. I want it to work okay for me out of the box.
Hm, just to be more objective: i launched Firefox on a fresh profile. No add-ons, no themes, no other burdens. Logged into my Gmail account and tried to scroll the inbox. Lags are there. Definitely, there's something wrong. Because Chrome, with all its add-ons, scrolls around like there' no tomorrow.

> Maybe it's just me, but I still see a huge visual difference between Firefox and Chrome. And like you said before, functionality also matters, not just appearance and speed.

Well, like i also said above, it hasn't gone YET. But that visual difference is getting less and less. I just don't wanna wake up one day and see no visual difference between them at all.

> Wait. Every change has had user studies (collected from betas) and/or large evidence to back them up. The "don't fix what ain't broken" logic doesn't apply here when there's stuff to improve.

Like Jeremy said already, why is removing tabs on bottom considered an improvement? What is there to improve other than the internal development stuff?
Also, how many people of the "conservative" kind are actively using the betas? If they are happy with what they have and just don't need any unwanted changes, why would they break their habits and use the beta versions which are altered all the time?
Such people as me only see something only when it's released. And when it's released, it's usually too late to change something.
Luckily, Jeremy Morton made us realize what's going on before it's too late. He just decided not to update his theme, so when FF16 was released, i saw the change right away. My tabs are still there, but my colors are already gone. But at least it's not too late to turn everything back, that's why we're all here - because we all believe that our voices have some importance.

> That's a great point, but you're missing the part where these people (I included) are mostly not involved with Mozilla and thus, their decision. Mozilla hasn't forced Tabs on Top on anyone. The option to switch this is still there, so the "developers decide keep deciding what's good for users" and "Mozilla is preventing user choice" claims are invalid.

The option to switch is actually not there anymore. It's already hidden under the hood, so it's being clearly shown to the users that this solution is no longer endorsed.
The claims you're calling invalid may be so for now. But when Mozilla really leaves us no choice it will simply be too late to complain. So we're all complaining while it makes sense. Because we see that what's still invalid for today may become a sad truth very soon, unless we turn that around.

> > PPS: To those whose position is "whatever makes development easier is THE right thing to do". Each time i download Firefox, its website tells me that i'm getting something "different by design", a "browser that's got your back". Ever wondered what this means? For me, it means that Firefox is being made with respect to its users, and with taking their opinion into consideration.
>
> >
>
> > You call us the vocal minority whose voice can be ignored because we're just a drop in the bucket of the Firefox user community and the rest doesn't seem to give a damn. But you see, right now the people who you're trying to ignore are mostly the most devoted FF users, with years of FF experience behind their backs. They were with you from the beginning, they were a part of that Firefox miracle that once showed the world that there can be an alternative to Internet Explorer. Well, maybe we really are a drop in the bucket, but does it seem that the rest is gonna be so passionate and determined in defending your decision? Or maybe they just don't give a damn as well and use whatever there is to use.
>
>
>
> But the Mozilla community doesn't call these users the vocal minority they can ignore. This thread is proof of that. Developers that are actually responding is proof of that.

Like i said, that passage was directed towards the people whom i saw above saying stuff like i mentioned. I never said they were the Mozilla guys. And i really hope that no Mozilla guy would ever say anything like that.
Unfortunately, from what i've read in the Bugzilla discussion of the related "bug", some developers really think of tabs on bottom as of some nuisance that has to die. For them, it's only a matter of time. But like Jemery said, if one's gonna remove this feature anyway, let them do that now instead of prolonging the life of what's deemed to vanish. At least this way people would not be having any false hopes and would have time to prepare their migration to other products (be it Chrome or Opera or SeaMonkey or whatever) until their Firefox is not completely ruined.

HarveyG

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 4:11:31 PM10/14/12
to
Thanks for your feedback.

Now 335 downloads after 4 days!!
http://i49.tinypic.com/rcn9d1.png

--
HarveyG

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 4:58:42 PM10/14/12
to dev-apps-firefox
2012/10/14 Dmitry Semionin <dmitry....@gmail.com>:
> Or maybe you're using FF on Linux or MacOS, and my Windows Vista installation is inherently flawed. But then again, it's not a
> non-Chrome UI issue.

It's Windows Vista. I usually have indexing turned off. Make sure you
have at least 2 Gb of RAM, but 4 would be much better.

> Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of.

Would you be kind enough to list all the addons? I know there are some
toolbars that can be resource intensive. A complete list of all of the
plugins you have in Firefox would be nice, too.

> It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop: FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due
> more or less.

I assume the "Save energy mode" on your notebook reduces the CPU clock
speed, which directly affects performance.

Do you use Flashblock and NoScript?

-M.

rwal...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2012, 5:09:39 PM10/14/12
to
Please do not remove tabs on bottom. I really really hate it when companies change the UI on me when I do not want it to change.

I only recently upgraded from Firefox 3.6.28 because certain websites stopped loading correctly, and if you break this addon then I will stop using Firefox entirely.

Dmitry Semionin

unread,
Oct 15, 2012, 8:08:07 AM10/15/12
to dev-apps-firefox
Mart, thanks for your concern, but i kinda doubt that the reasons behind the lags i experience would be anything obvious. Otherwise i'd fix them already.

> It's Windows Vista. I usually have indexing turned off. Make sure you
> have at least 2 Gb of RAM, but 4 would be much better.

4 Gb it is. Indexing service turned off.
When i experience the scrolling lags (like, trying to scroll this very page), the CPU usage jumps up to the single core peak, so i guess it's where the bottleneck is.

> > Or maybe you're not constrained with the add-ons that i have 17 of.
>
>
>
> Would you be kind enough to list all the addons? I know there are some
> toolbars that can be resource intensive. A complete list of all of the
> plugins you have in Firefox would be nice, too.

You're welcome.

http://pastebin.com/hGrFvAHQ - here is the Firefox's Troubleshooting Information with the list of add-ons and other stuff you might require.
http://pastebin.com/4cEPAg9p - here's a copy-paste from the about:plugins page.


> > It's especially noticeable if i use the "Save energy" mode on my laptop:
> > FF becomes insanely slow, while Chrome makes due more or less.
>
>
>
> I assume the "Save energy mode" on your notebook reduces the CPU clock
> speed, which directly affects performance.

Well, of course it affects performance directly. My point was, FF's performance was affected in a much more severe way than Chrome's.


> Do you use Flashblock and NoScript?

I have Flashblock installed, you can see the information on it and the other add-ons i use on that Pastebin page which the first link i posted leads to.
Just in case, Chrome has Flashblock installed as well.

djsk...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 15, 2012, 1:34:03 PM10/15/12
to
I saw a post in the bugfix on this saying that they didn't think this change would be enough for someone to switch browsers because of it. I would have to disagree. If people have to change their workflow due to a change they are in a position to now evaluate making a larger change since they are forced into change to begin with. Firefox is currently "holding" on to market share. If this change would bring some sort of huge growth of new users to replace the ones that leave, I could see the reasoning. I don't really see that happening. I do predict a noticeable number of existing users switching to another browser because this change is enough of a change to make them think about that larger change. Why not switch to the competitor now if my current browser is going to remove the reasons I still use it to look like the others? Why wait around to work like the others when I can just go ahead and switch to one of the others? Taking away choices usually makes things easier, cheaper or both. It usually a pretty poor way to retain a customer base though.

-Bill

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 15, 2012, 6:06:36 PM10/15/12
to dev-apps-firefox
@Dmitry

> When i experience the scrolling lags (like, trying to scroll this very page), the CPU usage jumps up to the single core peak, so i
> guess it's where the bottleneck is.

I usually have smooth scrolling and other animations turned off,
especially if there are performance issues.

> I have Flashblock installed, you can see the information on it and the other add-ons i use on that Pastebin page which the first
> link i posted leads to.

I recommend you get yourself NoScript, too. By default, its whitelist
contains domains for most primary services that people use, but
outside these NoScript will need to be 'trained'. NoScript is by
extension a bit more 'intelligent' than Flashblock, and is great at
disabling many of the pesky scripts that can cause trouble.

> http://pastebin.com/hGrFvAHQ - here is the Firefox's Troubleshooting Information with the list of add-ons and other stuff you might
> require.

Extensions:
If you're really not using Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant for
anything, then I recommend you disable it.

Graphics:
Your nVidia GeForce driver version is 8.17.12.8562, driver date is
10-15-2011. Apparently, nVidia have released a newer driver:
http://www.nvidia.ru/object/notebook-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-306.97-whql-driver-ru.html
Do keep in mind that your computer manufacturer might have provided an
updated driver of their own for your computer and its graphics
adapter.

(I searched at the below page by selecting GeForce, then "GeForce 9M
series (for notebooks)", then "Windows Vista 64-bit" and then the
language. The advanced search yielded the same result.
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us )

Before updating the driver, I recommend you create a restore point in Windows.

Plugins:
> http://pastebin.com/4cEPAg9p - here's a copy-paste from the about:plugins page.

I have the Google Update plugin disabled in Firefox.

Neither to _I_, personally, find much use for the Unity Player.

Firefox has had lots of issues with Flash Player this year, especially
on Windows Vista and Windows 7, because Flash uses hardware
acceleration more than ever before. I recommend updating the graphics
driver.

If that doesn't help, disable protected mode in Flash Player 11.4; and
if that doesn't help, then downgrade Flash Player to version 11.2 —
the most recent one for Windows is 11.2.202.238, and is available
here:
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html

Mind you, Firefox prefers the 32-bit Flash Player Plugin.

-Mart.

2012/10/15 Dmitry Semionin <dmitry....@gmail.com>:

Dmitry Semionin

unread,
Oct 16, 2012, 9:37:22 AM10/16/12
to
вторник, 16 октября 2012 г., 2:06:42 UTC+4 пользователь Mart Rootamm написал:

> I usually have smooth scrolling and other animations turned off,
> especially if there are performance issues.

Turned the smooth scrolling off, lags are still there.
You see, i believe that such little thing as scrolling can be done painlessly on my laptop's hardware. I don't wanna strip down all the nice little things i'm used to - just to avoid the general problems resulting from some product's internal flaws.
If all my software was bugging me like this, i might assume that it's time to upgrade my computer. But you see, the same Chrome can scroll both smooth and fast. It has no problem with the last year's GPU drivers or whatnot, it just does its job on my OS and my hardware. So it's a living proof of what can be done with those resources if they are to be used properly.

> I recommend you get yourself NoScript, too. By default, its whitelist
> contains domains for most primary services that people use, but
> outside these NoScript will need to be 'trained'. NoScript is by
> extension a bit more 'intelligent' than Flashblock, and is great at
> disabling many of the pesky scripts that can cause trouble.

I tried using NoScript before, wasn't happy with the way it was behaving.

> If you're really not using Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant for
> anything, then I recommend you disable it.

You may notice that this extension is already disabled. I just don't know how to remove it completely.

>
> Your nVidia GeForce driver version is 8.17.12.8562, driver date is
> 10-15-2011. Apparently, nVidia have released a newer driver:
> http://www.nvidia.ru/object/notebook-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-306.97-whql-driver-ru.html

Thanks for that, i'll try the newer driver.
I just had some issues with upgrading the nVidia drivers in the past, the newer versions giving me less functionality to set up the color settings, so i kinda try not to fix what's not broken for sure. Also, for some reason, the Restore Points don't quite restore everything that i expect. Sometimes when a faulty installation takes place and i use the Restore Point to revert it, some of the changes remain. I assume it happens when the changes are being stored in the user home folders, which are not affected by the Restore Points.

> I have the Google Update plugin disabled in Firefox.

I was quite surprised that one can disable plugins now. When i looked there the last time, it seemed like those couldn't be disabled at all.

> Neither to _I_, personally, find much use for the Unity Player.

Well, i do =). Some good browser games are based on this technology.

> Firefox has had lots of issues with Flash Player this year, especially
> on Windows Vista and Windows 7, because Flash uses hardware
> acceleration more than ever before. I recommend updating the graphics
> driver.

While it might be relevant in some cases, i'm quite sure that the scrolling lags on this or Gmail's pages have nothing in common with Flash. Also, i don't experience problems with Flash per se when i use it explicitly (i.e. playing Flash games or watching the Flash videos), so it's highly unlikely that right now i'm having issues with it.
Finally, Flash plugin in Firefox is launched as a separate process, and if it is what consumes my CPU, i'd see that. Instead, i see the firefox.exe process doing that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for your help, i am. And maybe all my issues are specific to my platform. For example, i have Firefox on another, much older PC with a single core CPU and just 2Gb of RAM running Windows XP. Scrolling Gmail inbox there consumes 100% of the CPU, but gives no lags.

But my initial point about the Firefox performance issues wasn't to gain attention to my personal problems. It was to show that Firefox has them more than Chrome does. And that trying to win over the audience by removing the tabs on bottom isn't very smart because there are the things that are much more important to the people when they decide what browser to use.

lilst...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 16, 2012, 10:04:36 PM10/16/12
to
When you are in 'Tabs On Top' mode, you cannot double-click the empty space on the tab bar to create a new tab. That sucks!

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 17, 2012, 12:16:18 AM10/17/12
to dev-apps-firefox
> Turned the smooth scrolling off, lags are still there.

Hm, how many e-mails a time do you see in your inbox? I have this set to 25
in GMail.

The hardware I'm using is about five or six years old; a Celeron M 410 @
1.46 GHz, 1Gb of RAM, and Mobile Intel 945GM Express for graphics.

How I use Firefox sometimes puts the computer to its limits, because I have
hundreds of tabs ready to be loaded at Firefox startup.
OTOH, this kind of hardware is not good anymore for running the latest
Angry Birds via Google Chrome.

> I tried using NoScript before, wasn't happy with the way it was behaving.

NoScript does have a learning curve, but it can spare you a lot of trouble
going forward; using it requires that you allow necessary domains for
scripting. Granted, I've had trouble with some more obscure sites that use
multimedia or heavy AJAX (Washington Post comes to mind), but then it
turned out that their scripting was bad in the first place and wouldn't
work in Firefox even if NoScript allowed everything.

> While it might be relevant in some cases, i'm quite sure that the
scrolling lags on this
> or Gmail's pages have nothing in common with Flash.

I might agree with you here. Yet GMail does invoke the Flash Player, but I
also have it allowed via Flashblock

> And maybe all my issues are specific to my platform. For example, i have
Firefox on another,
> much older PC with a single core CPU and just 2Gb of RAM running Windows
XP.
> Scrolling Gmail inbox there consumes 100% of the CPU, but gives no lags.

Scrolling my GMail inbox of 25 items per page for a few seconds has the
Firefox process hovering at around 50-60% CPU-wise (I have Windows XP).

I'm thinking if this discussion about lags with GMail scrolling in Firefox
might need its own thread.

-Mart.

robert...@btopenworld.com

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 4:56:05 AM10/19/12
to
I have a very strong preference for tabs-on-bottom, it is more logical and easier to use. The tab is intimately associated with the web page it refers to rather than lost above everything else and is quicker and easier to access. One of the main reasons for originally choosing to use Firefox, when it first appeared, was the layout. If tabs-on-top only is enforced ihave two options, to stop Firefox updates and keep the last tabs-on-bottom compatible version or move to another browser.

tom.mau...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 19, 2012, 3:53:36 PM10/19/12
to
> --
>
> HarveyG

I just did, thank you sir.

Having tried Google Chrome, I uninstalled it after a week because tabs on top doesn't work for me at all. David Smith has already summed up most of my own complaints about the tabs on top option, but there's one even more egregious reason:

I use Stardock ObjectDock and have it attached to the top of my screen, auto-hiding when not used. It's basically a more customizable Windows clone of OSX's Application Switcher for those who aren't familiar with it. Since ObjectDoc is auto hidden at the top, trying to open a tab at the top of the screen almost always led to the ObjectDoc bar popping out, preventing me from actually clicking the tab.

I could of course place ObjectDock somewhere else on the screen (as would probably be suggested to me), but I'm using my computer for more than browsing. Over the years I've perfected my work flow so I need tabs and boxes from other programs to be arranged in very specific places around the desktop. This actually allows me to be fast and efficient across all of the programs I use, not just some. So appeasing Firefox by moving ObjectDock isn't an option (I realize this is just the need of one out of 400 million users, but if it's not voiced no one will know who might take it into account.)

Back when tabs on top became the default in Firefox, I read a few arguments by the UI design team about faster and more intuitive usage as the reason why it was introduced. Well, I have to take a large variety of programs into account for my entire workflow, and Firefox is only one cog in the machine.

Tabs on bottom is actually faster for my own workflow not just because ObjectDock messes with the tabs on top option. Over the years other programs have introduced tabs (on bottom! - e.g. Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) or have had them all along (e.g. Notepad++). If the option to keep tabs on the bottom in Firefox is taken away, that'll seriously impact my work experience in general.

As an aside, it's ironic that Adobe of all companies has managed over the years to increase users' options to customize their interfaces, and the plucky Mozilla (Firefox) that I started using when it was called Netscape Navigator 3 is looking to take customization away from its users.

If there were a viable alternative to Firefox with tabs on bottom support, I would be tempted to switch if this option were to be taken away from Firefox users. So far that hasn't happened, and I'm really hoping you guys will reconsider. I'd rather not have to resort to disabling security updates for whatever last FF version supports tabs on bottom, but it would become a necessity if there was no alternative. My own workflow must take precedence to the needs of a single program or its programmers and designers.

br....@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 12:18:07 PM10/20/12
to
I have already disabled updates, because the developer of Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4 has stopped updating his theme until this issue is resolved. That's how much I care even for the Firefox 4 look and feel, let alone the tabs on top!!!

gun...@email.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 3:21:13 PM10/20/12
to
On Tuesday, 28 August 2012 17:25:50 UTC+5:30, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Currently there is a bug for removing tabs-on-bottom mode:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755593
>
>
>
> Several people have voiced concern about this proposal because, well, a
>
> bunch of people use tabs-on-bottom mode. And not because they "just
>
> need to realize that the UX team is right and tabs-on-top are better"
>
> (Chrome does it, so hey, who are Firefox to go against the way the wind
>
> is blowing). Look, what's the point in calling yourselves a different
>
> browser if your whole raison d'etre is to go along with other browsers?
>
> It might cause some extra overhead to maintain tabs-on-bottom, but so
>
> be it! It's worth it for the great extra functionality.
>
>
>
> I propose that this bug be closed with WONTFIX. I use tabs-on-bottom
>
> because I *prefer it that way*. I like the tabs to be there, right next
>
> to the document being displayed. For me, it's much nicer for usability.
>
> Firefox is the only major browser that offers this? GOOD! It makes
>
> Firefox better.
>
>
>
> I (and I suspect quite a few others) would have to seriously consider
>
> switching to a combination of Seamonkey and Chrome if this bug were
>
> implemented. I urge you now to close this bug and not implement the
>
> suggestion. You need to decide whether Firefox development is going to
>
> be the latest whims of the UX team, or actually giving a damn about the
>
> users (yes OK we're in a minority, but we are still a significant
>
> minority and we should count!)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeremy Morton (Jez)

I would never update Firefox if I couldn't retain the FF 4.0 look. :/ Large and colorful icons are MUCH MORE easier to use and tab on bottom are easier to switch, MUCH MORE easier.

Making icons monochromatic and tiny, hinders with my ability to intuitively browse. The new, tabs-on-top and smaller & mono-colored may look minimalistic, which some people may like, but it isn't any good for heavy, multi-tab browsing.

Firefox provided THE best browsing experience, and it would be great if it continues this way. I really hope that you seriously consider to keep the browsing experience as user friendly forever. :)

Mart Rootamm

unread,
Oct 20, 2012, 6:48:47 PM10/20/12
to dev-apps-firefox
2012/10/20 <gun...@email.com>:
> I would never update Firefox if I couldn't retain the FF 4.0 look. :/
> Large and colorful icons are MUCH MORE easier to use and tab on bottom
> are easier to switch, MUCH MORE easier.

So far there is still the "Use small icons" checkbox in the toolbar
customization dialog.

> Making icons monochromatic and tiny, hinders with my ability to intuitively
> browse.

There are themes (not personas, but actual themes) at
addons.mozilla.org to improve on that.

-Mart.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages