Mozilla Labs: the URL Bar Has To Go 591
An anonymous reader writes with an editorial from ConceivableTech "Since Google's move to enable users to hide the URL bar, we have seen what could be the beginning of the end of one of the key features of the web browser. Mozilla has its own thoughts, but there is little doubt that Mozilla is reconsidering the purpose of the URL bar in future versions of its browsers. In a Mozilla Labs post today, David Regev suggests that the location bar should be replaced with a tool to support more than just one command."
Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Gah, what is with Mozilla following Google's every example, no matter how stupid or not? There's a good reason to keep the URL bar - it's a quick and easy way to check for phishing 2 out of 3 times. Hiding the URL bar is just dumb, because now we're reliant on Google or Mozilla or other third-party maintained lists to protect us from phishing, or we have to jump through hoops to check the URL. No, thank you!
Plus, what is wrong with keeping the URL bar where it is? I use the Omnibar addon and it adds the ability to do all sorts of query commands into the URL bar already. It works well and it's convenient to use, and best of all, I keep my URL bar (albeit it's now a long address bar that incorporates the search bar into it). Why not go that direction? Why follow Google towards stupid design decisions? Just making it look nifty is not a good reason to change something or to remove functionality and features.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice trolling there. You do realize that Firefox 4.x is marked faster than the 3.x series, right? And that the 2.x series had that terrible memory leak to it as well.
As for the reason to use a recent release, part of it is better standards compliance with recent standards and part of it is that it is really annoying to have to spend a lot of time waiting for the page to load.
Re: (Score:3)
I miss the days when web developers would focus on perceived load time. It irritates me a great deal that I often times have to wait for a page to fully load before I read the text. Granted it's not easy taking multiple sources and creating a page, but it's really irritating for the viewer to have to wait for an ad to load for the lay out to look right.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
The forced upgrade march is also unwelcome, for reasons that should be obvious, but apparently aren't. I've upgraded software tools, only to discover that the new version has abandoned compatibility with an older version, which is a catastrophe if that older version is part of a currently-shipping product or service. My production lifecycles exceed typical software lifecycles by an order of magnitude. XP? Yep, still running that along side of several Win2K machines. You may find that unpalatable, but upgrading to Win7 would break functionality (and has been demonstrated in a sandbox, so that last part isn't just conjecture.)
As for the URL bar
Re: (Score:3)
I use my browser for much more than just surfing the net for pr0n...
I wasn't aware there were other reasons... could you enlighten us?
There's also trolling /.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they came for the URL bar....I said nothing.
Next they came for me and there was no one left to speak...
Yes, the design to allow extensions is a cardinal feature of FF - extensibility. But, how far down the road do we take it?
Are back buttons next? after all mouse gestures work just fine. How about 'refresh'? you can just back and reload the page instead. Properties? bah, install an extension if you want to actually configure the application.
If there are 2 basic units of functionality in a 'browser' they are the URL bar and the status bar. (the latter is pretty damned standard in a lot (most?) applications. Knowing the 'status' is something most people at some point want to show. I'm not saying force it to display. It previously could be easily hidden or shown. Why take the removal step? just makes no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, but this is not a binary state, Firefox generally *is* much easier to configure to protect the user than Chrome and is likely to stay that way.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about following Google's move (to me). Their efforts seem disingenuous. The URL bar is fine and there's nothing wrong with it. The purpose behind the move? More screen real-estate, or just an effort to confuse the customer?
It it isn't broken do not fix it. It means that I'll have to put in extra effort on all the machines I repair to find and put back the URL bar for my customers.
Seriously, they need to rethink their purpose.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
I was livid when LCD producers stopped making 4:3 screens, forcing me into a bulbous 15" widescreen behemoth. Now, having forced us into these widescreen laptops, they're bitching that there isn't enough realestate. Well, gee whiz! You think that a widescreen display has a really wide horizontal spread (wasted on an oversized and mostly empty address bar) and less vertical space?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because software developers are totally to blame for the shift to widescreen displays.
Re: (Score:3)
This statement is against every research report that I ever read on that topic.
All typography research shows that readibility slows down after more than 70 columns. Your statement is false, IMNSHO. Human perception is not best supported by "wide" manner. Except if you think that looking at Hollywood movies is the equivalent to human perception. Me, I decline to go as low.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
That's been my complaint with Firefox lately, they seem to forget that some of us have large monitors and that it's actually a decrease in usability to take away parts of the interface. I've got a 1900x1200 display, I've got no problem having a status bar and a URL bar, I've still got probably 1100 pixels or more of height to work with. If they're so obsessed about being space efficient, perhaps they ought to move those things to the side of the window as horizontal space tends to be poorly utilized anyways. And with the increased focus on 16:9 displays, that's even more significant than it used to be.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an extension [mozilla.org] to make the "add-on" bar act like the old status bar, but it's got some issues (might be FF, might be the add-on).
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
It does everything the status bar did that I cared about (i.e. everything except displaying "Document Done") without wasting the screen space all the time.
Which is great, if you're running Firefox on a phone. On a real PC it looks pretty clunky.
And removing the URL bar is simply retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use the Omnibar addon and it adds the ability to do all sorts of query commands into the URL bar already. It works well and it's convenient to use, and best of all, I keep my URL bar (albeit it's now a long address bar that incorporates the search bar into it). Why not go that direction?
Umm...
David Regev suggests that the location bar should be replaced with a tool to support more than just one command.
Isn't that exactly what he's suggesting?
Granted, if you look at the fine article, it isn't exactly a bar so much as a box... But it's the same idea. A multi-function interface element that allows you to enter searches, addresses, get page info, and whatever else.
I think the observation is that most folks don't actually use the URL bar to type in a URL these days. That's why so many browsers allow you to search directly from the URL bar - because people don't type out URLs, they type out searches.
Re: (Score:2)
Gah, what is with Mozilla following Google's every example, no matter how stupid or not?
They're the Soviet Union to Google's USA.
Every little thing US military did, from the 5.56mm ammo to the Space Shuttle, the Soviets copied... even the boneheaded moves (such as these two). Their rationale was that "Well if the Americans are doing it, it must be good".
There was also a bit of Cover Your Ass mentality, similar to "I can't get fired for buying IBM". If I authorize development of new tech, and it fails, I could be sent to the goulags... but if I just copy American shit, I'm safe.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
Gah, what is with Mozilla following Google's every example, no matter how stupid or not?
Complacency followed by panic. Two years ago Firefox looked secure, according to statcounter IE had 62% marketshare, Firefox 29% and Opera/Safari/Chrome fought over the last 9% - Firefox was almost 10x bigger than than the third browser and everybody agreed nobody runs IE because it's better so in many ways they felt like #1. All they had to do was convert more IE users and world domination was at hand.
Then came Chrome:
May 2009: 2.45%
May 2010: 8.61%
May 2010 (est): 19.22%
Extrapolation is always a dangerous thing but Chrome has been eating almost one full percentage point per month now. One more year like this and Chrome would pass Firefox. And Mozilla's search engine agreement with Google ends in November this year, what's the deal going to be now that Chrome goes toe to toe with Firefox? I doubt they'll get as generous terms this time around. In short, they really feel the competition breathing down their necks now.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, one more year taking away everything FF has that Chrome doesn't and people may stop bothering with FF.
Re: (Score:3)
Something I'll never understand: people's obsession to be everything to all people. It doesn't work with cars, it doesn't work in politics, and it doesn't work in software projects. What's wrong with being the browser for the computer literate? The extensible browser? Those are all things you can design into a product. You can't design something to be "the browser with 100% market share". Any attempts to do so will be met by total failure.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
You're confusing "Mozilla" (like the people who are shipping the Firefox browser) and "Mozilla Labs" (the people whose job it is to brainstorm and come up with ideas, prototype them, and see if they work).
Some Labs ideas end up in the browser after they've been prototyped and the like. Most don't.
The only difference between that and what Apple and Google do is that they keep their prototyping work hidden for the most part, so you don't get articles about all the things they're thinking of trying that then don't pan out.
Re: (Score:3)
"Many normal users are confused by URL's and the like anyway ".....
And we all know that it's far easier to hide it than to educate someone or GASP! they take effort to learn.
This kind of mentality will bring us the car without access to the engine bay and computers that only let you install software from the AppStore(tm)....
Why are we dumbing things down to cater to the bottom of the pool? What the hell is wrong with society, It's encouraging people to be illiterate and undecuated?
Re: (Score:3)
That's what happens in motorsports, when they air F1 on broadcast tv. The commentators sound like they're speaking for 2nd graders: not commentating on the sport and what's happening, but repeatedly explaining nuances that anyone would have been able to pick up after watching a few races. So if someone can't put in the minimal effort it takes to lean the basics, why should they be pandered to, which would only reinforce their ignorance for everything.
We're already at the stage where people use an email cl
Re: (Score:3)
That's what happens in motorsports, when they air F1 on broadcast tv. The commentators sound like they're speaking for 2nd graders: not commentating on the sport and what's happening, but repeatedly explaining nuances that anyone would have been able to pick up after watching a few races. So if someone can't put in the minimal effort it takes to lean the basics, why should they be pandered to, which would only reinforce their ignorance for everything.
We're already at the stage where people use an email client for 4 years and have no idea what a subfolder or a filter are, toss up their hands and yell "but it worked yesterday!" and demand something be fixed, like preschoolers.
It's interesting that in this one thread what the phenomenon actually means and represents is appreciated. You said it: immature like pre-schoolers. Not self-sufficient and capable of self-education like a proper adult. Balking at the slightest effort or inconvenience just like a spoiled child.
Most of the time I catch flak for pointing out that there's something wrong with adults acting this way. So be it, that's hasn't and won't stop me. Still, it's nice to see a thread where common sense is openly ac
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You are spewing total bullshit. Reality is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim it is.
The URL bar is no menace to the n00b end user. Dangers to the n00b end user are generally hidden in plain sight on websites that seem benign and inert.
The idea that you have to take the URL bar away because it's "too powerful" and the n00b might hurt themselves with it is beyond absurd.
For the "I can't be bothered" class of user, the URL bar is either irrelevant and ignored or something that they can use to confirm they aren't being hacked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And with this sentiment, we've come full-circle back to "AOL Keyword: Sports".
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Mozilla is struggling to stay relevant when they are losing market share year after year to Chrome.
Which, of course, just decreases their relevancy further and faster.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
Tree-style tabs is what is keeping me on FF. Tabs are nested on the left side of the screen like split file manager window. Tabs opened from another get nested. For whatever reason, there is no such add-on for Chrome and it kills me to have my tabs listed across the top. You can get so many more tabs running vertically than you can horizontally.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you measure in? Nanoseconds? How old is your computer that either takes more than a second to load?
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a quad core with 8GB of RAM. Let me tell you that after a cold start, Firefox starts up in SEVERAL seconds, not just one. Chrome is blazingly fast in comparison.
Plus, whenever a stupid plugin freezes, it's the whole browser that freezes. In Chrome, just the tab.
Overall, Firefox feels much more responsive and modular, where Firefox feels just monolithic.
Both consume huge amounts of memory, but that's cheap these days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Overall, Firefox feels much more responsive and modular, where Firefox feels just monolithic."
With all those cpus and memory are you sure you can see a difference between Firefox and Firefox?
Re: (Score:3)
My pet peeve about a lot of apps is no application should assume it has access to all the system's RAM. Just because I have 4 GB RAM, doesn't mean a browser, etc... should use it all. I do run other programs simultaneously, ya know.
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Informative)
the day chrome fixes it's theming colors, and print system I will switch back.
Seriously chrome is the only browser not to support page margins. So it is useless for printing out web forms.
As for theme's when a website requests a new window theme colors default to the original colors.
Two very simple things chrome does wrong.
now let me actually delete history on a regular basis and all will be good. I don't need 6 months of browser history saved.
Re: (Score:3)
now let me actually delete history on a regular basis and all will be good. I don't need 6 months of browser history saved.
Press ctrl-shift-del and select what you want to delete, then click clear browsing data?
I personally prefer mozilla because of:
1) noscript
2) adblock plus
3) treestyle tab
4) certificate patrol
At work I also have a mozilla instance with firebug and firecookie. But at work I also use chrome and IE ;).
Re: (Score:3)
Avast, Ad-aware and Google Earth all come with chrome (or did when I last installed them)
Re:Following Google to Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mozilla's motto for Firefox is to keep it being completely customizable..."
Ah yes. That's why I can turn the status bar back on in FF4, right?
I appreciate the desire to reduce clutter and give us more browsing space, but the stupid floating URL at the bottom in lieu of a status bar does NOT save space, it just overlaps and obscures content--and I can't turn it off or move it.
The Mozilla foundation needs to stop screwing around until they take a good hard look at the direction they've been drifting in the last two years.
Re: (Score:3)
"Mozilla's motto for Firefox is to keep it being completely customizable..."
Ah yes. That's why I can turn the status bar back on in FF4, right?
Mod parent "-1 Doesn't understand what customizable means in this context".
Yes, that is why you can turn the status bar back on. [mozilla.org] And why you can show no ads, or have your bookmarks folder look how you want. Or have thirty gazillion toolbars. Or have a minimalist browser look and feel. Or re-theme with the click of a button or two.
You confuse the ability to customize with "Mozilla did all the work and considered every customization wanted and has settings for them all". They made it customizable... now al
But you can turn the status bar back on in FF4 (Score:3)
I hate to spoil your rant, but you can turn the status bar back on in FF4.
The trick is in knowing that they now call it the "add-on bar".
In the new menu, go to Firefox -> Options -> Add-on bar. Or press Ctrl+/
The URL preview and download status still won't show in the bar like it used to, but if you want that as well, you can still restore that old behaviour with this addon [mozilla.org], as recommend by Mozilla's official knowledgebase [mozilla.com].
How's that for configurable?
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, good. Then we only need to wait six months for them to add another broken 'feature.' It still might be two years before they fix the floating URL, though.
Ultimately, they're spending too much time on 'reimagining' and not nearly enough on bug fixes and performance. They need a 3.7 release: Keep the 3-series, but work entirely on repairs and speed. Then there needs to be a feature moratorium for at least a year.
Great idea! (Score:2, Interesting)
You know who else didn't have a URL bar?
AOL.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL actually added one, I thought.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate devs who follow "trends". (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing gets under my skin more than devs who like to follow the latest trends without considering whether what they are doing actually delivers concrete value to the end user or at least makes the codebase more maintainable in a real measurable way. Newer is not always better.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that the last link in TFS effectively calls for a CLI based browser, which would suck for handheld devices or people who aren't seasoned keyboard jockeys.
Re: (Score:3)
They should change the URL bar to be limited to 140 chars, that'll make web programmers make their urls more concise and to the point!
Re:I hate devs who follow "trends". (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing gets under my skin more than devs who like to follow the latest trends without considering whether what they are doing actually delivers concrete value to the end user or at least makes the codebase more maintainable in a real measurable way. Newer is not always better.
I understand when a commercial software company (Microsoft, Adobe, etc) does this. They must constantly release "new" versions of their products in order to generate sales. Constantly changing things, re-arranging the entire program and constantly "fixing" things that aren't broken is stupid, but I understand why they do it.
Using this approach with Firefox, however, makes absolutely no sense at all. Firefox is given away for free. There is no sales revenue. Mozilla may get money from Google for making them the default search engine in Firefox, but that will happen regardless of any changes that are made toFirefox.
Firefox 2.0, which was released several years ago, was feature-complete as a web browser. Since then, their focus should have been strictly on things that are "under the hood" -- (a) fix any security holes or other bugs that are discovered (b ) improve rendering speed (javascript, etc).and memory use (3) When needed add new stuff that comes along (HTML 5, etc).
That's it. Period.
There is no need to constantly fuck with the user interface, adding pointless crap, removing useful features.
I <3 URL Bars (Score:5, Insightful)
I like URL bars. They're quick and easy to type into, they let me see exactly where I'm browsing at (in theory), and when it comes time to copy and paste a link it's simple. The added 33 pixels means nothing to me.
Alternatively, we could consider removing the URL bar if it was replaced with a button that gave David Regev electroshock therapy every time it was clicked. Oh, and that Google guy too who's removing it.
Could Someone Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
....why I don't want a URL bar? How the hell am I supposed to type in the places I want to go. What are they thinking? I don't get it. I also tend not to change my habits. Is typing in URLs passe now? Am I supposed to rely on my browser to take me where I want to go? What's the deal?
Not trolling here. I'm serious, I don't get this 'feature' at all. I open a blank page and search on google and hope my search term works the next time?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Could Someone Explain to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
....why I don't want a URL bar? How the hell am I supposed to type in the places I want to go. What are they thinking? I don't get it.
Everything is on Facebook now, so other URLs are obsolete. Didn't you get the tweet?
Re: (Score:2)
A blank page is different from ordinary web pages. A blank page will require some tool that allows you to type in where you want to go, including the option of typing in a URL. If you're going to have that, it might as well be a big feature of the page, in large text, rather than an inconspicuous and often unlabeled bar at the top.
It's inconspicuous and unlabeled in your current browser because you rarely refer to it. Most of it is meaningless, to you if not to the server. This URL is http://news.slashd [slashdot.org]
Re:Could Someone Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing Google picked up on how several of my family members (and many, many other computer users I'm afraid) actually enter URLs:
1. Click browser home button, arrive at google.com
2. Type URL in search box, then click first link (for advanced users: click "I'm feeling lucky")
No matter how I try to explain how backwards this is, they keep doing it. Take away the search bar and I can't even argue the sane alternative.
More hits for google.com - more data, ads and more money for them. Only makes sense, really.
Re:Could Someone Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing Google picked up on how several of my family members (and many, many other computer users I'm afraid) actually enter URLs:
1. Click browser home button, arrive at google.com
2. Type URL in search box, then click first link (for advanced users: click "I'm feeling lucky")
No matter how I try to explain how backwards this is, they keep doing it. Take away the search bar and I can't even argue the sane alternative.
More hits for google.com - more data, ads and more money for them. Only makes sense, really.
You know what this seemingly clumsy approach prevents? The dreaded 404.
Typing your URL into Google gives you the following:
1) A malformed URL 90% of the time is corrected by Google
2) Google provides cached results if the original site has been slashdotted/LOIC'd
3) Google can sometimes guess the original context of the content, and provide alternate content to match (this helps in veracity/context testing the content before you jump.. what happens if all the Google-provided results shout warnings or show pr0n while you link at work... useful to know).
It's a very user-friendly and helpful bonus at a cost of one additional click. It certainly feels like Google understood this use case, improved it's benefits/outcomes and promoted it's use (hell if you type a non-crawled URL Google thinks it goes to nowhere, so it actively pushes site-owners to get their content
People are often not as stupid as they seem. Don't underestimate the users; often you can learn and profit from where they do things "wrong".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing Google picked up on how several of my family members (and many, many other computer users I'm afraid) actually enter URLs:
1. Click browser home button, arrive at google.com
2. Type URL in search box, then click first link (for advanced users: click "I'm feeling lucky")
No matter how I try to explain how backwards this is, they keep doing it. Take away the search bar and I can't even argue the sane alternative.
More hits for google.com - more data, ads and more money for them. Only makes sense, really.
You know what this seemingly clumsy approach prevents? The dreaded 404.
And that is just one more reason why it is a bad idea. Why is a 404 dreaded? If a site is down or returning an error code, the user should see that.
I have to deal with this in my employer's IS department. The standard browser is IE and errors redirect the bing. That makes my job a lot harder. If my server isn't responding, I don't need to be directed to a search engine.
Yes, I know I'm not an average user. But what's wrong with even the average user seeing an error message?
It's like replacing the check
Re: (Score:3)
From a usability point of view the URL has been criticized from at least 1999 [useit.com], mostly due to influx of machine generated addresses on dynamic web pages. Since that time, the url has only become
Re: (Score:3)
first paragraph
more often than not, the url bar is the only way I can get to where I want to be on a site.. more often, where I want to go, and how I want to go is different than the idiot 'web master' who coded the site intended. changing the url and hitting enter is a lot faster than wading through the stupifyingly obtuse web 2.1 interfaces common today...most of them won't even work with the 'back' button.
second paragraph
this is less so because the URL bar can be manipulated. it was never a secure means of figuring out what your brow
What's wrong with a classic browser? (Score:2)
Ok, I understand tabs on top after using them. I understand the awesome bar's usefulness after having used it for a while. But no URL bar? Whatever happened to full-screen mode if you really need that much vertical real estate? I don't want to lose my URL bar, nor do I want to help support users who aren't knowledgeable who get a browser update containing this (if Mozilla and Google are both going in this direction, I expect IE10 to also be URL bar-less). Is this going to finally validate all those people w
When you lack inspiration.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you lack inspiration, fix something that isn't broken!
Re:When you lack inspiration.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But with mozilla it's , "when you don't want to bother with working on the pile of bug reports to fix the problems that have been there for a while.... Work on a new shiny!
Why parent got marked "insightful" (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's demonstrably true.
Sadly, most programmers (there are notable exceptions) will always choose to do the work that is less important, but more likely to gather recognition.
So to fix this, stop lionizing idiots who want to remove useful information from the display and start standing up and cheering for the guys who are committin
Re: (Score:2)
When you lack inspiration, fix something that isn't broken!
Sadly, this seems to be exactly the philosophy of the Firefox developers. Along with "we must imitate everything Google Chrome does".
Re: (Score:3)
For Google's Chrome having URL address bar in the window IS broken.
They do not want you to be able to type in a URL and go around their wonderful search engine. Of-course this means they will exclude a very large number of people and businesses from their user base, who do not need to find the site they are going to, they know where they are going and if the site is not indexed by Google's search engine, then these people can't even get there, but Google doesn't care, they just want the majority of users to
Fork for sane people? (Score:2)
So how about a fork of Firefox for sane people? Just some defaults tweaked.
Some suggestions
- Ask me where I want to save things instead of just dumping things in a folder
- URL bar with konqueror style commands like 'ggm:' for google maps, 'gg' for google, 'imdb' for imdb...
- One click pass through when an SSL certificate doesn't match (yes, tell me, but probably I knew this already)
- One click toggle of plugins
- history off by default (who uses that?)
Anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 4 broke the ability to display a table as it is being generated line-by-line, leaving the user staring at a blank browser for as long as it takes to emit the </TABLE> tag. That's REALLY annoying, especially for reports that take a while.
It took me a little while to figure out how to put the tabs back on top of the page, instead of on top of the URL bar; I'd add that to your list of things for sane people.
Re: (Score:2)
- Ask me where I want to save things instead of just dumping things in a folder
That option already exists, and has for a long time. Tools -> Options -> General -> Always ask me where to save files
- history off by default (who uses that?)
I do. A lot.
So how about a fork of Firefox for sane people?
I have thought the same thing for a long time. I would love to see a fork of Firefox that undoes all the stupid bullshit and all the "we have to imitate Google Chrome" nonsense. However, if you spend some time with Firefox's train-wreck source code (some of which dates back to 1999), and the insanely complicated, convoluted build process that would make Rube Goldberg
Re: (Score:2)
This would be called the "Not and idiot" mode... it should require some basic math to enable it to keep the typical idiot from accidentally enabling it.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Really don't get what's the problem with the URL bar.
The problem with the URL bar is that it doesnt always send people directly to Google.
FACT: The majority of Mozilla revenue comes directly from Google payments to be the default search engine.
FACT: The current default search deal, extended for 3 more years in august 2008, ends this year.
FACT: Mozilla big-wigs would see substantial paycuts if this deal isnt renewed.
End of story.
I'm getting out of user support, now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Crap, another move to ensure that new users will never understand how their computers work.
And these stupid CLIs! (Score:2)
Let's get rid of all typing! Just click on pretty pictures for everything! No one actually needs a keyboard.
Just....no (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't do it Mozilla. Don't lose your identity. Don't f*ck with users just to copy another browser. Another browser that is popular because of internal stuff rather than interface.
Why not copying the GOOD aspects of Chrome? You know, the stuff Chrome fans like to point out, like speed and such.
Enough already (Score:2)
"Secondly, it’s hard to read, since people don’t really understand URLs"
Do we always have to cater to the lowest common denominator. At this rate we will have nothing but a browser sidebar with predefined url buttons to the most popular social sites.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as the list of sites was configurable, I expect that a lot of users would really like that. I mean, how many different sites do you hit on a typical day, really? More to the point, how many sites does your non-technical mom use on a typical day?
All this... (Score:2)
While the Downloads are looking at them from that Ugly Default External Window.
Fix that instead, Mozilla.
NO! (Score:2)
Mozilla Considering a "TaskBar" (Score:2)
When reached for comment, reps from competing browsers had this to say:
IE: "Hawt."
Safari: "Who need
How about fixing the URL Bar instead (Score:4, Insightful)
What should be done is to increase the functionality of the URL bar. The one thing that always pisses me off and should be fixed is not allowing a web page to steal the focus from the URL bar. I don't know how many times I've started typing in a URL only to have the Yahoo or Google bar steal the focus 3-5 characters in. Improve it, don't remove it.
Intranet (Score:2)
How do you connect to sites on an Intranet without a location bar. I don't want a google search of my intranet, for my dev products.
Microsoft-ian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does for Phishers what hiding ext did for Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
The person who decided to hide extensions by default is single-handedly responsible for a great deal of the trojans that get executed.
And I agree, the idea of getting rid of the address bar is just terrible. It's EXTREMELY important for you to know where you are at all times in this world of multiple redirects! This will do for phishers what hiding extensions did for trojans.
The real purpose (Score:2)
The real purpose for Google putting everything into one entry box is that everything you type gets turned into a search, and therefore gets sent to Google. It adds a very significant amount of data to their user search information database - essentially monetizing everything you type up there (Microsoft does this with IE as well). My guess is that Mozilla is getting something under the table for this as well. Fork time?
Remember when Mozilla was about the users? (Score:2)
User plug-ins...buttons where users wanted them....themes..
God Dammit (Score:2)
Thanks for making my life miserable again, Mozilla.
Any GOOD reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
This from the article:
“The location bar has to go. It has many problems. For one, it’s always visible and constantly takes up a large amount of space. Secondly, it’s hard to read, since people don’t really understand URLs. Moreover, it’s modal: it has a mode for displaying the current page’s location and a mode for entering your next destination. It’s not always immediately obvious which mode you’re in and what the current text is indicating, and switching modes is not easy either."
That is the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Really? The URL bar takes up too much space? It is slightly larger than one line of text. If they aer so concerned about saving space, maybe they should get rid of the title bar and the little mozilla icon in the corner - that is a hell of a lot less useful than the URL bar. Sure, hiding the bar might be a great idea on a smart phone or something with severely limited screen real estate, but to apply this across the board as the default is just stupid.
The URL is hard to read? Seriously? It tells you the address of the page you are looking at. That's pretty damn simple. Yes, it is a long string of characters, which I'm sure offends graphic designers everywhere (which seem to be the people driving the current rash of browser UI changes - screw usability, it has to look "nice"), but it really is a simple way to tell you what you are looking at.
It isn't always obvious if you are entering the next destination or looking at your current location? Really? There are people that click in the bar, start typing a new address, and then forget what they are doing and think that the address they just (partially) typed is what they are looking at right now? That argument simply doesn't make any sense.
Mozilla seems to have a serious case of me-too-itis lately. Chrome's version is increasing too fast? Fine, we'll start pumping out new version numbers to compete - yeah, 4.0 just came out, that's okay; this next version we'll just call 5.0 instead of the 4.0.4 that it really is. We'll catch up in no time! Chrome offers the option to hide the URL bar? Hah! Those losers! We're going to get rid of it entirely because we're awesome like that! Here's some made-up BS to justify it even though approximately zero users want this!
Location bar (Score:2)
Secondly, itâ(TM)s hard to read, since people donâ(TM)t really understand URLs.
Really? On what planet?
I submit to you this: If someone doesn't understand a URL after all this time, then they don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the basic workings of the Internet.
My concern is this: that this path leads to a "Playskool" internet browser, that may be fine and dandy for 6-year-olds and great-grandma, but that will frustrate the rest of us. If you must insist on taking this path, then at least give us the option to turn the URL bar back on if we want it.
Vimperator :set gui=none,addons,tabs (Score:2)
Most everyone who uses vimperator [vimperator.org] has their browser configured to not use an URL bar. I personally don't miss it at all.
Designers gone dumb (Score:2)
Computers have been around for decades; many interface designs were tried, and we have a pretty good clue about what works and what does not. But lately it seems that everyone has decided to ignore this knowledge and just try to make things flashy. Those morons may think they'll attract a new userbase this way, but actually will just alienate the one they already have.
Return of The Command Line? (Score:2)
Please read TFA (Score:3)
I haven't seen so much unjustified criticism from so many people who so poorly understand the topic since... well, this being /., I guess it was yesterday.
But anyway, please read the article. It does not say what you think it says, if you only read the summary.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if the UI for Gnome 3 is better for tablets and such. I don't care that you think the URL bar is too big at 33 pixels or whatever it is. Stop messing up things that work as they are. Start a new project and give the existing stuff to someone else who won't have mobile on the brain for a desktop product.
Sorry for the rant but this is getting old watching good and decent desktop software become hybrid mobile nightmare designs.
Clarifications from the Author (Score:4, Informative)
I'm the author of the guest blog post. I have some clarifications that should clear things up a lot.
First, I'm just a member of the large community of Firefox users. I do not work for Mozilla (though that would be awesome), and I do not speak for Mozilla. As far as I know, no one within Mozilla is working on implementing any of my ideas at the moment. I simply had a concept and was offered the amazing opportunity to write some guest blog posts. The linked post is Part 1. Part 2 is coming.
Second, contrary to the article summary and to the many comments from people who clearly did not read the post, I am not proposing to hide the location. The location will be completely visible at the top of each page, with even more information. As far as I can tell, there is nothing that the location bar can do that is not possible in my concept.
Finally, the arguments behind each step are available in much more detail on the Mozilla Wiki [mozilla.org]. That should answer many questions.
if you want to contribute to the discussion in a substantive manner, please first read the article [mozillalabs.com] and then go to the discussion page [google.com]. I've already responded to a number of excellent comments there. Also, if anyone is interested in helping me implement some of these ideas, please let me know!
David
Re:Clarifications from the Author (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I read TFA, and I read your page on the Mozilla Wiki. Now please please please please please stop talking and go away.
Thank you,
-The Internet
A minor inconvenience (Score:3)
So now every Firefox user is going to need to install URL-4-Evar right after they install Status-4-Evar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's [twotoasts.de] not [opera.com] like [caminobrowser.org] you can't find alternatives.