Firefox 57 Will Hide Search Bar and Use a Uni-Bar Approach, Like Chrome (bleepingcomputer.com) 315
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: Mozilla will drop an iconic section of its UI -- the search bar -- and will use one singular input bar atop the browser, similar to the approach of most Chromium browsers. This change will go live in Firefox 57, scheduled for release on November 14, and will be part of Photon -- the codename used to describe Firefox's new user interface (UI) -- also scheduled for a public release in v57. Mozilla engineers aren't removing the search bar altogether, but Firefox will hide this UI element by default. Users can still re-enable it by going to "Preferences -> Search -> Search Bar" and choosing the second option. The current Firefox search bar is redundant since most of its features can be performed by the URL address bar.
End of Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless Firefox 57 does something better than Chrome why use Firefox?
Re:End of Firefox (Score:5, Funny)
It should be renamed. How about Firefaux, or maybe Chlone?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:End of Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
Transcript of the last brainstorming meeting at Firefox HQ:
"Hey you guys, have you noticed how everyone's stopped using Firefox and started using Chrome?
Maybe if we make our browser exactly the same as Chrome some people might use it?
What's that? You think that would provide even less of an incentive to use Firefox?
Ha! Good one! Carry on everyone!"
Running Firefox into the ground. What a fucking shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if we make our browser exactly the same as Chrome some people might use it?
Well I suppose we might get a few percent of existing Chrome users.
More than we have now, then?
Re:End of Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with Mozilla ?
They keep pissing around with Firefox, removing and changing stuff people use and like about the browser, whilst continually wasting resources adding "features" nobody wants (Pocket, Hello etc).
And all the time this is going on Firefox market share keeps falling, yet those in charge at Mozilla fail to see the correlation.
It's almost as if Mozilla hold meetings where they ask "How can we alienate our userbase even more with the next release?"
Re:End of Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
If they think I am going to use a search field which might take me to a random website instead of searching for a URL or IP address they can Fcuk off. Morons. They can also give me back 8 add-ons that they are about to disable. Maybe I should give Chrome a whirl seeing as it is supposed to render so much faster and I won't have any special reason to use Firefox any longer? What is it with cretinous designers who introduce new stuff (good) whilst removing all the good stuff that I already use (bad)?
Re:End of Firefox (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe I should give Chrome a whirl seeing as it is supposed to render so much faster and I won't have any special reason to use Firefox any longer?
Maybe you should give Pale Moon a whirl, and re-live the experience of Firefox from the days when the UI was sensible and most of your add-ons still worked. It probably won't render as fast as Chrome, but hey, at least your FF add-ons will still work, and you won't be fully embracing the evil that is Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon isn't Gecko-based, it uses Goanna, a different layout engine. Just read on the home page for Pale Moon: http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Based" on something doesn't mean it is something.
And that engine is one of the main culprits with ridiculous compatibility problems Pale Moon suffers from even on major sites.
Re: (Score:3)
I dropped Pale Moon recently after something like 2 years of use. The problem is stuff just stops working. Its often not even really browsers fault, but simply no website developers care about it at all. I have 2 sites that I visit semi regularly that straight blocked it (slack and my local electricity provider) and many sites have some minor (or even major if they use some more obscure functionalities) glitches. The straw that broke the camels back for me was user script that I needed and that simply refus
Re: (Score:2)
This plus the add-on extinction event they had when they decided to just randomly drop jetpack add-on support "because our new engine just doesn't support them any more".
It's all about autocomplete (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, the autocomplete for searches should be completely separate from the autocomplete for URLs.
Anybody who thinks differently is an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not an idiot, just misguided.
("Misguided" && "refusing to listen") == "idiot" in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones. Two separate bars take too much space on a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the autocomplete for searches should be completely separate from the autocomplete for URLs.
Anybody who thinks differently is an idiot.
I have actually *never* used the Search Bar and have disabled searching from the URL Bar (I refuse to call it the Awesome Bar, 'cause it's not). When I want to search, I navigate to the home page of the search engine I want to use and search there. I also have disabled search suggestions in Google as that creeps me out. Perhaps a bit old-fashion and/or Luddite of me, but it gives me more control rather than whatever *else* the Search Bar does under the covers.
Re: (Score:2)
So you basically agree - the URL bar isn't for searching.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also some additional technical issues with combining these. I normally just search for things in the URL bar, but occasionally have found that I get directed to a non-existent website when I actually wanted to search for a specific term.
This is the problem with overloading your input field like this. You have to make a "best guess" as to your user's intention, and if you screw up, you force the user to go search from a website.
Want to know how easy it is to fool the "Awesome Bar"? Type "string.
Re:End of Firefox (Score:4, Interesting)
if they really crave a UI change, they should integrate "Tree Style Tab" functionality into firefox.
i only have 3 remaining reasons for using firefox:
* tree style tab extension (not gonna work in new version; all replacements are a joke compared to this extension)
* privacy (the amount of addons to help me with this and the mindset of mozilla foundation are unmatched elsewhere. mozilla have repeatedly demonstrated they care about privacy and openness of the interwebs. i simply don't trust chrome/chromium)
* being able to disable search in the address bar (so that i can type git/plex/etc.. and go to a server on my LAN)
ALL 3 of these reasons will have gone when current firefox ESR loses support next year. f**k them.
Have you looked at Firefox's privacy policy?! (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy?!
Anybody who claims that Firefox protects their privacy probably hasn't actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy [mozilla.org].
Below are some excerpts from the Firefox privacy policy that is dated July 31, 2017.
Be sure to notice the type of information being collected and possibly even transmitted to third parties (including Google, some "Leanplum" company, a "mobile analytics vendor", and "certain developers"). We see terms like:
Here are the excerpts:
Re: (Score:3)
tree style tab extension
Tree Style Tab will work with Firefox 57 [github.com].
privacy
NoScript [mozilla.org], Ghostery [mozilla.org], uBlock Origin [mozilla.org], etc. work with Firefox 57. So don't worry, be happy [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Starting with firefox 56, "tree style tab" is so buggy it is almost unusable. There is no WebExtenions-based replacement that would even approach its functionality. The version 2.0 for firefox57+ will NOT have the features people are used to. e.g.: like in chrome with similar extensions, there will be 2 tab bars (the native horizontal one + crappy always-broken javascripty injected vertical one); no context menus on tabs, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
there will be 2 tab bars (the native horizontal one + crappy always-broken javascripty injected vertical one); no context menus on tabs
Both hiding the native tab strip and context menus are being worked [github.com] on for Tree Style Tab. Your fears are unfounded.
Re: (Score:2)
less capable
No. Read the links.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should run for political office.
...and Firefox 58 will be (Score:5, Informative)
Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not 100% sure but I guess you want to have a look at
Still leaks memory like a sieve ... (Score:5, Funny)
... but we polished that sieve to a nice chrome finish.
Information leakage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's annoying is that firefox had "quick bookmarks" over a decade ago, and that functionality is just fine for implementing searching from the URL bar. Just throw in some pre-setup keywords and everything is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, only needed one more funny to actually be funny.
Please stop this madness (Score:5, Informative)
Stop removing features and start fixing the bugs and improving performance, Mozilla. You might still have a chance against Google if you kicked out your UX team and just started doing some basic engineering. The browser is not meant to be any playground where UI elements are moved and changed around. Browser should be an application which stays off the way and just shows the web pages efficiently. But of course according to UX people, eg. the search bar is a distracting element which is way too hard for their stupid users to understand so it must be removed. Surprisingly the Pocket, reader mode and other useless buttons are there to stay just in case somebody clicks them by mistake.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
UX people are cancer. They are to engineers what interior decorators are to architects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stop removing features and start fixing the bugs and improving performance
Funny that's exactly what they are doing. Part of the reason of switching to webextensions is to get a massive performance boost while at the same time limiting the damage that plugins cause such as lockups and memory leaks.
Browser should be an application which stays off the way and just shows the web pages efficiently.
Disagree. A browser should be a window manager, a download manager, a bookmark manager, a privacy manager and have a usable UI while achieving all of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop removing features and start fixing the bugs and improving performance
Funny that's exactly what they are doing. Part of the reason of switching to webextensions is to get a massive performance boost while at the same time limiting the damage that plugins cause such as lockups and memory leaks.
True only if "webextension" keep enough functions of old firefox extensions capabilities. Remove features so that a program can be fast? Anyone who want a Chrome-like experience can use and have used Chrome. Firefox will always lose in long term the "performance game", as Google Chrome have more money and manpower behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. According to TFA, you can still have your search bar if you want it. There is an option to have a unified bar or two separate bars.
But the bigger issue here is that maybe a unified bar is better. Most browsers have adopted this UI, and from a usability point of view it does seem to be better. URL detection is pretty reliable, it saves space, it makes it easier to find stuff because the search results include your browsing history and URL entry history without sending any of that information to a 3rd p
Re: (Score:3)
But the bigger issue here is that maybe a unified bar is better. Most browsers have adopted this UI, and from a usability point of view it does seem to be better. URL detection is pretty reliable, it saves space, it makes it easier to find stuff because the search results include your browsing history and URL entry history without sending any of that information to a 3rd party... It's what most people want.
I'm not sure all of that is true. In my experience (alert, alert, anecdote ahead!), URL detection is hopelessly bad, by default sending LAN IP addresses and hostnames to your favourite search engine or even going to an Internet site with the same 2nd level domain name as an internal server unless you preface it with http:/// [http] first. In UI terms, the consolidation hardly saves space, since the URL bar just ends up taking the same space as the search box would have taken anyway; and if you think the browser is
Re: (Score:2)
I type in LAN IP addresses all the time. By default in Chrome is just works as expected.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. According to TFA, you can still have your search bar if you want it. There is an option to have a unified bar or two separate bars.
This is what Mozilla always do! They take a feature and change it to 'off by default but optional', and then remove the option to enable it and later declare it the sole purview of mods. And then make the mods obsolete and non-functional.
How many times now have they done this now?
Re: (Score:2)
The key reason for this is unification with phone browsers. "Everything should look the same across devices".
Obvious problem being that this means that everyone gets the lowest common denominator across all devices and loses as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything should look the same across devices"
Who the blaze wants that? My phone is a single small portrait screen. My PC has dual landscape mode monitors. If you try to make it look the same, one of them is going to have serious letterboxing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, lots of people were saying that back when Firefox 1.0 was released, and the unified address/search input area that was in Mozilla 1.7 and all other major browsers of that era went away in favor of the separate boxes paradigm, too.
Of course, back then, the Mozilla organization was telling the people that favored the unified approach that they were wrong, that two separate boxes was superior for usability. Now Mozilla is reversing itself.
Re:Please stop this madness (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary, the only reason I still use Firefox part of the time is because way back around version 2 or 3 (back when it had the configurable drag and drop UI), I took some time to configure it to my liking. When I upgraded computers, I used Firefox's built-in backup utility to backup bookmarks but didn't uncheck any options. That's when I accidentally discovered that it also backed up my UI configuration as well.
For about a decade now, I've been restoring this backup and it's been mostly successful at undoing many of the pointless UI changes Mozilla has been making to turn FF into a clone of Chrome. Being able to remove or change around UI elements is exactly what browsers need - so long as it's the user who is in control of these changes. Not some faceless designer who decides which changes to make and forces it onto all users.
Oh god (Score:2)
that so fucking annoying and it's not like our PC monitors are getting smaller and screen real estate are at a premium.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone maximises their browser windows. The extended screen real estate can be put to better use.
I am used to running two windows side by side on 1920 wide screens, and three windows on 34" 21:9, same PPI.
One window per task, thus having tabs sorted by task and not in one clump.
Oh, oh, oh! (Score:3)
Just give us a browser that doesn't spy on us and is stable. This was the Firefox mantra 14 years ago and before that they cared about user control.
What the actual fuck has happened to software?! These last few decades have shown that they don't care about performance, privacy, or anything but the bottom line for their own profits. Fuck that! And fuck you too!
Re: (Score:2)
I Thought Firefox was Open NOT Just Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep hearing about things Mozilla is doing that is upsetting much of is key Firefox User base (I was an early early adopter and back then a friend of the "tree"). At one point Mozilla was an open company that listened and talked to its key users. Now they can say they are open source all they want, but that does not mean they are open to other ideas. Not even sure they are even open to the ides that made them popular.
As a long time Firefox user I want key Mozilla staff to come out and truly explain their logic and clearly answer some of the very logical and specific concerns that have been brought up. Mozilla staff (not marking) need to step up and listen and reconsider some steps. I know the search bard can be turned back on, but all in all just seems like will be getting a Chrome by Mozilla instead of Firefox by Knowledgeable Users.
Some people won't ever go out of their way to use different web browser. They will use Internet Explorer, Edge, Safari, or whatever was on the desktop at the beginning. So the fight is really to get the people that actually make choices and have some knowledge about choices.
Re: (Score:2)
UI and extension changes are hard to make because they'll always upset someone, notice how long it's taken Mozilla to finally get rid of old extension APIs that was blocking development.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the changes usage numbers over years, people that go to Chrome are unlikely to come back. Even to shill.
Few if any people like to torture a dying, suffering horse that served them well in the past when they're riding a new healthy one just for the giggles.
Last straw (Score:3)
I want functionality because I'm not a 90 year old grandma; I stayed with firefox because it used to respect my intelligence; it's not doing that any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple chose single button mouse (Score:5, Funny)
A raised middle finger.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it isn't (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not redundant. The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.
And that is precisely why I've stuck with Firefox and limited my use of Chrome to things specific to my Google account. When I type in a URL on my own LAN, I really *don't* to be feeding that URL into a search engine - doubly so if it's something I've made IPv6-accessible so I can bring it up on my cell phone. (Firefox on Android has a single bar for space reasons, but it at least doesn't do a search until you tell it to.)
On the desktop, if they make it NOT do a search without asking, I'd be a lot less hostile to this, but there's so much "because fuck you, that's why" on the net these days that I'm not optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not redundant. The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.
You can make it so (at least up to v55, not sure about v57). The way I've been using FF for years is: hide the search bar, disable search and suggestions in the URL bar, and then use keyword search to search from the URL bar (g for google, w for wikipedia, and so on).
As a FF user since v0.3 Phoenix, I'm willing to give v57 a fair try, but Mozilla is treading on very thin ice lately...
Re: (Score:2)
The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.
Unless you've looked at the code, you don't know that. They may both be entry fields to the same subroutine, just with different options.
Re: (Score:3)
You can switch it off with:
browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete = false
Re: (Score:2)
I've got good news for you: switching it off in 55 stops suggestions from appearing in the url bar, so it's not being ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, hold on. You're right enough.
It's the "Show search suggestions in location bar results" setting in Prefs->Search
Re: (Score:2)
And CTR is one of the add-ons that have been nuked and are not coming back. This functionality is gone post add-on apocalypse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have ctr installed, btw. It's a standard option.
So going back to the way things were? (Score:2)
I hope they will also fix search from that bar, then. Once upon a time, typing stuff into that bar did a search with your default search engine. Later, I believe sometime well after they implemented the separate search field, the address bar searches started to use the currently selected engine (in the search field) instead of your default. This is completely, absolutely, and in all other ways idiotic, and only a complete numbfuck could have thought it up. If I wanted to search with my currently selected se
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vivaldi has a search bar, works very well now and has designers that want to be different from Chrome: https://vivaldi.com/ [vivaldi.com]
If we just want Chrome without the Google we can go here and get that: http://chromium.woolyss.com/ [woolyss.com]
my preference... (Score:2)
I mostly want my browser to not crash, to render pages and perform DOM-manipulation correctly, and to do everything as quickly as possible.
Duplicating Chrome = less marketshare (Score:2)
I wish the guys in charge of Vi
Luring users (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the UI change on the linked page with those hard square tabs (and non metal frontage), it looks really awful and that was on a Mac....just like Vivaldi's (which I like otherwise) engine generated square UI, well except it won't have a separate search bar. (giving me more of a reason to use Vivaldi) That's even worse, loosing their look....could this just be a path to use the Chromium engine for costs?
Firefox should be Firefox (Score:2)
At least the search in address bar is configurable. Personally I prefer Chrome's approach but I think that Firefox should make the old separate search bar be the default.
If Firefox wants to position itself as an alternative to Chrome, it should try to be an alternative to Chrome and that means that it would have to be different, it has to be its own thing.
Otherwise Chrome Users will just see it as a copy - an inferior copy - to Chrome and they will go back to the "real thing".
Google chose to unify the searc
Something Something Chrome (Score:2)
Mozilla: do what you can to arrest your declining market share! Hint: it's not continued attempts at emulating Chrome.
Removal of things (Score:2)
As Long as Firefox Keeps FireFTP, I'm Hooked (Score:3)
Phew! (Score:2)
Beta user who actually likes it (Score:2)
I am a Firefox beta user who was selected to participate in the trial of the uni-bar and I actually like it. I did not expect to, though. I had always hated that about Chrome (one of the reasons I don't use Chrome), but it works pretty well. I like being able to search my URL history, my search history, etc, all right there from one spot. It puts the "autosuggest" completions from your default search engine in the "right" spot -- not too high and not too low.
Overall, though I am usually a "get off my lawn"
I would install IceDragon if I wanted Chrome (Score:2)
not Firefox. Failing that, Chromium or even Chrome itself.
Actually, I do have Ice Dragon installed. Mostly as a backup for the - hopefully nonexistent - day PaleMoon dies. I've found Firefox unusable for both technical and UI reasons for years.
Thanks for the reminder to donate to PaleMoon!
Firefox has contempt for their userbase (Score:4, Interesting)
Not viable for corporate use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
'http://hr/' + ENTER = 11 keystrokes.
Maybe eight extra keystrokes isn't anything to get militant about, but don't pretend it's an improvement over three.
If I wanted to use Chrome I'd fucking use Chrome (Score:2)
"...since most of its features can be performed by the URL address bar."
Does that include the feature of being able to quickly go in and rip out Yahoo (default) and Bing as search providers? Otherwise they're just making this necessary first step an even bigger PITA than it already is.
You know, maybe if Firefox wants to gain its users back it should stop alienating them by giving them a royal "fuck you" as it continues its downhill spiral to be as shitty as Chrome is. If I wanted to use something that loo
Re:Firefox will use $crap, Like Chrome Template. (Score:5, Informative)
Migrating to Palemoon takes about 90 seconds. There's a tool to copy over your profile and you'll probably wind up switching over to Adblock Latitude. Sometimes you'll have to hunt up an old version of an Addon but it's really not a big deal.
Re: Good (Score:2, Informative)
Its useful for an area to copy text into temporarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That stupid search bar is archaic and literally the first thing I remove when I install FF.
Then you're an idiot.
The autocomplete for searches should be separate from the autocomplete for web sites.
Re:If firefox is just a chrome clone (Score:4, Insightful)
There's still two reasons: NoScript and the history side panel.
I'm sure they'll get rid of them soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll get rid of them soon.
Nope [mozilla.org] and nope [wordpress.com]. Don't panic. Be happy [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Pale Moon after the AdNauseam debacle. (Score:2, Informative)
Recently there was a pathetic debacle [palemoon.org] where the Pale Moon lead developer decided to blacklist the AdNauseam extension, mainly for personal ideological reasons.
When confronted by the community, Pale Moon's users were effectively told to fuck off. When it became very clear that the Pale Moon users were not happy about this unwanted change, the discussion topic was locked [palemoon.org], and the users were effectively told to fuck of and die.
This is the same sort of bullshit that Firefox was pulling on its users, forcing unw
Re: (Score:2)
If you understood anything about the issue, you would know that with one very simple change to one about:config entry, a user can enable AdNauseam.
I read that thread, and the level of hypersensitive hysteria was depressing. Your posting here is more of the same nonsense. MoonChild didn't tell anyone to 'fuck off'. He explained very clearly why he did what he did, and he clearly described what anyone could do to re-enable it.
Re:Fuck Pale Moon after the AdNauseam debacle. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not that they blocked it, they just advised that you must specifically enable it in about:config to use a different blocking level. I have to agree, extension should be used to provide additional protection of the user of the browser. It should not be used as an attack tool just because you feel that blocking ads are not enough. What you are supporting is that if a website uses an ad server, I will punish you for using it. That is not right. Blocking ads is enough so that you do not see it. Generating false click trail data to flag the web site as an "ad click abuser" to the ad provider is wrong.
And remember that there may be legal repercussions for retaliation type attacks. Do you want to see a one of the last decent browser out there disappear in a legal battle? International law already has this pretty much defined. The International Court of Justice supports the response of cyberattacks if they follow four elements of a lawful counter-measure. These elements include a counter-attack being directed towards those who performed the original cyber act, asking those in the wrong to discontinue the attack, a counter-attack being in proportion with the original act, and the counter-attack being reversible.
With that in mind, what is the attack that the website has done to you that warrants a counter-attack? Presenting something you do not wish to see? DON'T GO THERE or use an ad blocker. You are punishing the wrong person in your counter attack. You may be held liable in the future.
Me, I use an ad blocker, if the site does not function properly with it enabled, I blacklist the site as not useable. It just means I have to look a little harder to find the information I want. When and if they outlaw ad blockers, THEN I will join you in your outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
A very balanced comment on the issue, thanks for that.
Sites that should be avoided as far as possible and be on the blacklist includes Facebook - the site where you are the product. Be in the group "I dare to avoid Facebook".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that George H.W. Bush should have taken that action already when he held the office. The Microsoft dominance was bad even then and they killed things like Word Perfect and Novell Network.
Re: (Score:2)