Slashdot Mirror
No Tab Relocation Coming For Chrome
shaitand writes about Google disagreeing with the desire of Chrome users to put tabs under (rather than above) the location bar: "This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue. [A Chromium developer] says, 'Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'"
Problem solved
This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue.
This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.
Getting too big for their britches.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...along with adblocking and noscript.
The more I read about Chrome's design process the more I hear, "it's the Google way or no way at all". I don't have a problem with the tabs being on the top, but it seems like it would be very easy to have an option where you want the tab bar. Several of the comments had valid use cases for why you'd want tabs under, but Google isn't interested in adding it as an option?
There are quite a few alternative browsers out there. Although those who complain about this change will probably adapt to it in a week or so
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but why in this world does this merit being front page? I find this to be on the level of simple bickering. This is more suited for a forum post or something a long that line.
Then fork it.. I mean if you really insist on using Chrome... Personally I stick with Seamonkey, the all inclusive browser, and not much bigger than Firefox anymore
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Google is blatantly ignoring and degrading their users, Mozilla is forcing their users to install a new version more often which seems increasingly less stable, is everyone losing sight of the user?
Overwhelming feedback: 187 comments.
Google revealed their view on the community: One developer said, specifically: 'Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'
The issue was set to WontFix in September 2010, but people are still complaining about the design decision.
The problem is so-called "UI designers". They have had a horrible impact on every software product they've gotten involved with, whether it's web sites, browsers, email clients, or even entire desktop environments (GNOME, I'm looking at you).
Up until about 4 or 5 years ago, UIs of many of the major projects were designed and implemented by real programmers. These people made far more sensible trade-offs. They'd almost always choose practicality, productivity and usability over appearance. Now, this meant that there weren't as many rounded corners and gradients, but at least we had consistent UIs across applications, and they were reasonably efficient to use. We had proper menus, for instance, that made it very easy to see what an application could do.
As we all know, the situation has changed. Now we have a lot of failed web designers not being able to find work designing web sites, so instead they've tried to get involved with app development. This has not gone well. The UIs of programs like Firefox, and all of GNOME 3, have been trashed by these people. They've even had some impact on commercial software, like the horrid UIs that recent versions of MS Office and IE have.
We need to give these people the boot. It's one thing when they're making icons, but it's a completely different issue when they're deciding how the UI should be designed and implemented. None of them, across a wide range of software products, have been able to put together a usable UI. None of them.
They've no interest in giving users the browser that they, the users, want.
It's a fair point, but then again, they have already given users the browser they want.
When I switched to Chrome, I wasn't pestering Google Devs to gimme gimme gimme. They had an idea, manifested it, and now we have a more competitive browser market. They even poured some advertising money into it so that John and Jane Doe might actually realize how much of the internet they've been missing by using older versions of IE.
It's their browser, their agenda, their rules. If it wasn't for the developers of Chrome having this sense of ego, users would be dealing with simply another browser that mimicked what others do and further stagnating the progress of modern web standards like HTML5/CSS3.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Generally, the less you have to move the mouse, the better. If the tabs are between the text and URL bar, you save 60ish pixels of movement compared to Chrome's arrangement every time you touch a tab, which tends to be a lot. On the other hand, you type into the URL bar at least an order of magnitude less often.
There are other misfeatures that Firefox copied from Chrome, but fortunately all of them can be reverted as an option. Chrome lacks that configurability.
For example:
* when I close the only tab, the browser shouldn't crash. I did not ask for the window to close, nor did I select "Quit" from the menu, I merely closed a tab. No other MDI program works that way.
* special-cased hiding of "http://". What's the point of that? It doesn't do so to "https://", "ftp://" or "gopher://" URLs...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
This.
I switch between Opera and Chrome, and both are the same with the tabs above the location bar.
And Firefox would be nearly the same if the menu bar wasn't above everything else.
I fail to see the problem. It's not a bug.
--
BMO
Seriously, this extension is a must: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/
I have always liked google and I still do, but their browser is not for me.
And to those saying fork chrome - better to fork Firefox I think. It's already pretty much feature-complete and just needs to be yanked out of the hands of Mozilla before they figure out how to screw it up like chrome.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
no
Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'"
i call these people assholes. because, thats the term used for that kind of behavior.
anyway this assholery has just persuaded me not to use chrome ever. and i had some complains with firefox too.
Read radical news here
I would much rather they work on more outstanding bugs (not that this is even a bug--it really is working as intended) than spend time and effort on something as trivial as this. I prefer tabs on top, but my browser of choice (Safari on OS X, though I use Chrome elsewhere) doesn't do it that way. Would I like them to change it? Yes, but it won't happen. Apple briefly tried it with the Safari 4 beta, and reverted it back. Oh well.
In Safari, I'm much more happy with new features like Reading List, Reader mode, and sandboxed plugins, than a silly UI non-issue. Same with Chrome and its respective feature set.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
I'd settle for being able to dock my bookmarks on the left edge of the window. The current menu-tree is cumbersome for me.
on that specific bug tracker thread. Just because 99% of the people replying in THAT thread doesn't mean that 99% of all chrome users support that position.
Personally, I love the tabs being on top because that is where I think they belong. Everything under the tab belongs under the tab. The address bar, navigation buttons, print button, actual web page, and everything else belongs to that specific page and should be under a tab. If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.
Tabs belong on the top. Now, I wouldn't care if google made an option to allow the user to move the tabs to the bottom.
But to whine about google's "arrogance" by not doing what you want them to do shows real arrogance.
I use Chrome. I like the current placement of the tabs above the location bar very much. I and most people who agree with me would never have thought to comment on this "bug" because we don't consider it a bug. If 99% of people (for the sake of argument) like the status quo, should you really be up in arms because a company ignores the 1% of people who complain?
On the other hand, perhaps an option to change the arrangement for those who want the tabs below...
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
Typing "about:flags" in Chrome used to show an experimental option that placed tabs vertically on the side of the browser. That option (and my vertical tabs) mysteriously disappeared a few days ago after I'd been using it for many months. I'm guessing this might have something to do with it. It's frustrating, to say the least.
anyway this assholery has just persuaded me not to use chrome ever. and i had some complains with firefox too.
You still have Opera, IE and Safari...
At the risk of sounding like a tool... Wow, so many people demanding the UI be changed just because they're used to of being a different way in another browser... I can appreciate the remote desktop argument & such but seriously... first world problem much?? It's a free browser - if you don't like it, stop complaining so much and use what you're used to...
Minor UI tweak not coming to open-source browser, even though several people would rather prefer it did!
That isn't the story.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I use Firefox, but I actually prefer the tabs above the address field. A tab is just a container and the address field contains information that's directly associated with the other content within the tab. The same goes for the back and forward buttons; their state is dependent on the browsing history of a specific tab.
Still... giving people the option to switch shouldn't be something that's denied with a heavy fist. That's just poor PR.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
So what? This is non-news. Chromium is open source. Chrome is a closed source build of Chromium. Google can do anything it wants with Chrome, and I see no problem with that. If you want to have tabs below the location bar, great! Write a patch to Chromium, or quit whining. The point of free software is that the user is free to change the software in any way that she sees fit.
If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.
This issue isn't about allowing tabs to be placed at the bottom of the browser window; it's about allowing tabs to be placed below the address/location bar.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
"Google ... today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue."
That's ridiculous; closing a bug doesn't silence anyone's opinion. The dissenting opinion on that bug will now stand forever, for all to see.
Google didn't silence dissent. If anything, they immortalized it.
Fork It. Fork It Hard.
Because when the leadership of an open source project doesn't do what you want, nobody is stopping you from doing it yourself. Someone fork it, i'll use it.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=99332
bluushit. The address bar is where you are, it is what you are looking at. People rarely use it to go anywhere, as in one page to another, but they do glance at it to see where they are. If people want to go to new place, 99% of the time they are opening a new tab or clicking a bookmark, not typing over the current address.
It's customizable in Opera. They've changed the default a while ago to match Chrome, but you can still have it either way.
While I disagree I respect them for having a vision and going for it, ignoring the inevitable complaining when they have a good reason for doing so.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
But the tab on top is fine with me, in fact I prefer it. It just works better for me.
Can someone explain the pros and cons of this? Seems like troll food.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Chrome isn't "just another window". It's an operating system prototype. At the very top of your screen is your application manager. Makes sense.
If you're going to refuse to use a web browser because they won't complicate their code base to satisfy an infinitesimally small number of users, I believe you'll find your solution here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/
Yes, but you gain on the infinite height of a tab ending at the top of the screen. By having tabs on top with the window maximized, you have to only aim in the X axis and move the cursor up, instead of having to aim at a small area in XY, which is demonstrably harder and more time consuming.
That's the name you were looking for for this concept. People unaware of this law shouldn't be designing UIs.
What title bar?
Leave my tabs where they are, please. If you want to use Firefox then use Firefox.
Issues like this are stupid. Projects ought to adhere to design principles. There is a clear rationale for why the tabs are on top and not below the address bar; chrome developers made this design choice deliberately since the very beginning. The same goes with other aspects of chrome's design.
I can understand that if chrome is not a suitable browser for your personal use, that you would prefer to use a different browser instead, but what I don't understand is why all the bitterness and hostility? That's just stupid.
A good compromise would be for users who desire an alternative UI to create their own web browser using components from chrome that they desire, such as WebKit and V8.
"when I don't even care whether they use it or not"
You might not care but Google certainly cares. If the browser doesn't gain enough market share it is useless to them.
"They are releasing a free browser and saying they don't want to change the way it looks."
No they are releasing a project as open and claiming they want to build a community around it. Now they are saying that the feedback from that community isn't considered at any level. This has little to do with the feature in question and everything to do with Google's statement that community feedback isn't considered.
This issue is a perfect example of the gap between Apple and Droid. You people are flaming each other about a fairly small usability feature. This is right up there with complaining about not being able to change icons. This is why Droid is a mess right now (from bugs, to security, to low customer satisfaction) and iOS is dominating. I know giving up software flexibility is the worst sin ever, but sometimes you need to just except small things you can't change (like the size of your caps lock key or the color of your keyboard cord) and focus on the things that matter, like getting work done. Speaking of which, why am I procrastinating right now? Oops!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
It may not be a bug if its "by design" but that doesn't mean the design is fixed and can't be changed as a result of users submitting enhancement requests...
Really, this is the post that it should interest us? Is this the matter that geeks lose sleep over?
How about slashdot not changing the design to satisfy users? I'm sure that users are not happy with couple of options that the slashdot designers chose, I know I am not, does it really need a post though? Is somebody who posted the bug that's butthurt by its closing? Damn...
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
"Since when has it been required that an open source project accept and implement every feature request from users?"
I think saying that community comments have absolutely no impact on whether they CONSIDER a feature is a far cry from implemented every user feature request.
I think google still made the right decision. Users expect the address bar to behave like a tab specific widget. It has different contents on each tab. If the user starts editing the address and then switches to another tab, they expect their changes to be restored when they switch back. Putting the address bar under the tabs clearly shows the relationship between the tabs and the address bar. For users that haven't used tabbed browsing before, the layout in chrome is more intuitive.
Chrome could include an option to change the location just because 50 people complained about the default on a bug, but that approach to design often leads to a crowded preferences dialog that is difficult to find anything in. Chrome often provides better default behavior that can't be reproduced by any combination of firefox settings. For example, Firefox has several different preferences that control tab behavior, but no combination of the preferences can produce chrome's behavior.
Chrome opens new windows as tabs in the foreground, but tabs explicitly opened by the user load in the background. I believe that I can use 'open in a new tab' to open a new web page in the background even if the page author requested it to load in a new window. Last time I used Firefox, using 'open in a new tab' on a link that the page author wanted to open in a new window didn't do anything at all. The behavior in Firefox doesn't make any sense to people who don't know the difference between a regular link, a link with a target attribute, and a link that uses javascript to open a window. I believe that the Firefox developers closed the bug about fixing 'open in a new tab'.
The address bar *DOES* belong to the page. Switch tabs, and you see that the location in the address bar changes.
The address bar contains, for example, the certificate information for the current page, so you can be sure it's not a phishing site.
Also, in chrome, the tab *IS* the titlebar for the page, so it's not "above the tab". Chrome has no titlebar for the app itself.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
some Google hate on Slashdot! I thought this day would never come.
"Now, I wouldn't care if google made an option to allow the user to move the tabs to the bottom."
Virtually no dissent doesn't mean everyone wants them on bottom, the request is to add an option to move the tabs so dissent would be being opposed to there being an option at all.
This wasn't about showing that they aren't implementing this particular feature. It was about the developer stating that community feedback isn't a factor in their development and censoring further comment.
"Tabs on Top is the soul thing that made Chrome interesting."
That's kind of a silly assertion. Dramatically improved rendering speed is what made Chrome interesting. Without that improved performance it's kind of a limp noodle compared to the alternatives.
Can you explain precisely what behaviour makes them assholes?
Deciding not to implement a request?
Telling people the request won't be implemented?
Closing the bug with a final statement so people don't continue to waste their time?
It seems to me that software writers should be free to chose what features they implement. People are then free to choose to use the software or not. I don't see what people are getting angry about. The only thing I can think of that would cause the anger is some (misplaced) sense of entitlement.
When you have freedom of choice and freedom to fork just how entitled does someone have to feel to view Google submitting to the wish as the only acceptable outcome?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
For 99.9% of users, the performance of Firefox is just fine. It doesn't crash, it runs fast. Only some tiny minority experience the problems you suggest, and they can bugger off and use Chrome and no-one will even notice. For the vast majority of users, UI changes are much more significant.
No, and they no that. They are locking it because it's a done deal, and people who search for it show up and don't thinking there is activity on the bug.
You people just like to complain instead of think. The alternative was to say nothing and string them along.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From the last comment (#188) posted to the bug by a Googler:
One more note here for the benefit of Slashdot (hi!) and anyone else who's not clear on this issue or how our bug tracker works.
We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time.
This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback, or that we used to be listening on this bug but decided to stop. The issue is that our bug tracker is specifically about tracking what we consider to be bugs, not a general forum for feedback and debate on our design decisions. That means that in general (this bug included), we can and will decide not to address particular requests, and when we do, commenting on the closed bug is not going to make us change our minds. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to lock things down in the bug tracker precisely to prevent things from spiraling out of control or misleading people into sharing their feedback here instead of where it's helpful
We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.
We don't promise we'll change our minds, but we're not hostile to you expressing your point of view. This is just not the correct forum to do so.
Yes, lts leave it open and string people along about a feature that was marked 'WontFix' a year ago.
That way they can be strung along! That's much better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We are in the era of open source, so with that, if you dont like the direction they're taking, here is the source, http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/, now less complaining and more coding!
For those who don't RTFA:
One more note here for the benefit of Slashdot (hi!) and anyone else who's not clear on this issue or how our bug tracker works.
We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time.
This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback, or that we used to be listening on this bug but decided to stop. The issue is that our bug tracker is specifically about tracking what we consider to be bugs, not a general forum for feedback and debate on our design decisions. That means that in general (this bug included), we can and will decide not to address particular requests, and when we do, commenting on the closed bug is not going to make us change our minds. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to lock things down in the bug tracker precisely to prevent things from spiraling out of control or misleading people into sharing their feedback here instead of where it's helpful
We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.
We don't promise we'll change our minds, but we're not hostile to you expressing your point of view. This is just not the correct forum to do so.
Your opinion is fascinating, but not relevant. If you'd read the bug report you'd know that people aren't complaining on the basis of aesthetics. The problem is that a tab is only big enough to display the favicon and a small number of characters for the page's title, the more tabs are open the fewer characters can fit. This behavior constrains the usefulness of the title tags and there's a lot of websites that haven't adapted to handle it.
Note: I'm posting this using Chrome so don't interpret this as a Google bash, I'm just acknowledging that these people have a point.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
And I should learn to proof read my posts. Open Source*, not souce. Apologies, its very late(early!) :)
Liked Chrome when it first came out. But back to Firefox. The fox had one major glitch session for me but fixed within 24 hours. Tabs position easily selectable. Doesn't make me much difference really. There are lots of browser choices. When devs have their heads wedged, just go run an alternative.
Consider? The word used was "reconsider". They have already looked at the community comments so far and considered it.
Exactly when (and how) would it be acceptable for them to give a final "no" in your opinion?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I think you misinterpreted that. They didn't mean there was 'no chance' when they said that. They implied that whatever chance there was, that it wasn't going to change by users adding more comments where they were not meant to. It's a bug tracking forum, not a feature suggesting place. (See Google's latest post in the link where they say hi to us Slashdotters).
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
How is this that contemptible? It's not immoral, unethical, or even evil. It's a painter saying no I like my painting with purple grass,
I think the reason this annoys so many people, is the expectation of openness. Google has an open bug tracker, and Chromium is open source. So people assume it is open in all ways, like say the Linux kernel is: The Linux kernel is not only open source, and has an open bug tracker, but it is also openly developed as a community open source project.
But Chromium is not a community open source project. It's run by a corporation, Google. It isn't developed completely in the open, and decisions are made from within Google.
There is nothing wrong with that, of course (although I personally do prefer fully open projects to partially open ones). But the problem is that the amount of openness that Chromium does have, leads people to assume it is fully open when it isn't, which ends up annoying a lot of people.
I just switched to Chromium recently, and I certainly noticed it, but I really don't care. I don't see how it's a big deal. I would like a little more configurability to be honest, but so far I'm just happy to have a browser that doesn't slow to a crawl and experience intermittent hangs when you have a lot of tabs open, unlike Firefox.
Indeed, it belongs to the tab. Which makes having it inside the tab incredibly sensible.
This is most obvious when switching between tabs. With tabs situated under the URL bar and above the webpage clicking on a different tab would change content both above (the url field) and below (the page content) the tab. You have switched tabs but something outside the tabs containment area has changed. That is clearly inconsistent, breaks the metaphor and really is "bafflingly stupid" (despite being somewhat conventional).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I dumped chrome because users can't configure location of cache either. I liked it, but that was a dealbreaker for me. Otherwise great browser!
How can this even be a controversy? One of the biggest draws of Chrome (interface-wise) is the tabs on top, and borderless interface when maximized. If you don't like how it looks, why would you have ever started using it to start with? Anyone using Chrome recognizes that changes to the UI are very limited in general. It's always been this way.
Firefox, Opera, etc, mimic this tabs-on-top method as well, which would seem to indicate that the majority of people prefer it. And those who don't, who probably should have never started using Chrome to begin with, can use one of these perfectly acceptable browsers instead and configure it how they want. Problem solved.
Back when I used to suggest Opera to people, some of them would say that they didn't like the interface, despite the fact that it was heavily configurable, and so they simply didn't use it. There was no controversy. They used something else which they liked better. This should be no different.
google is still WRONG. Period. And this is just making it worse, much worse.
Users communicate in what ever form they happen to have handy, proper or not, too bad, so sad. You STILL HAVE TO LISTEN to the USER INPUT REGARDLESS how it comes to you forum, bug tracker, email, note tied to a brick|rock, etc..
again, put the arrogance aside and LISTEN to the USER INPUT no matter how it gets to you.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Now they are saying that the feedback from that community isn't considered at any level.
citation needed
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
No one is forcing you to use it. Even more ridiculous is the fact that this option has never been there and never will be.
The more I think about this the more I can't believe it.
My best analogy is as follows, Google is a person standing on the street giving out free ham sandwiches to try and draw people into their restaurant. The whining users are people who want the free sandwich but won't eat it unless the ham is replaced with turkey.
If you don't want the ham sandwich then walk down the street and there's several free turkey sandwiches waiting for you. They just might not be as awesome!
When i type a new address and hit enter it doesnt direct all of my tabs - just the tab that the bar is contained in.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
if you click on a bookmark, it will not load that location on all of your tabs.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
By "listen" do you mean "follow"?
It seems to me they did listen to the feedback but had good reasons to disagree with it.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I filed a few Chrome bugs, and all I got in response were arguments from developers. Now, that isn't to say that I wasn't wrong, but they just seem uninterested in listening, even to well-reasoned arguments. I don't know what motivates them, but whatever it is, I don't care, because that's when I decided not to use Chrome.
Maybe not, but clicking on the bookmark opens that site on the current tab, so then again, maybe so.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It's not a bug. Why was it posted to the bug tracker? They could have just Googled a little bit and found the suggestions page.
I recently discovered that Opera has this feature. It's bliss! OTOH, maybe I leave too many tabs open at once...
Yup - I work on FOSS projects and I'd lock a bug if it turned into an open forum - I don't need more bugspam for something that isn't a bug.
If you're going to ask for a new feature at least be nice enough to offer a patch along with it...
When users fire input at you from all directions (and especially criticism), it makes it very difficult to concentrate on, say, writing code. Having a bit of order in how users provide feedback is a sane development practice.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
"And so we wind up with a browser that doesn't let you set the default font size. ... [T]he Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they're quite brazen about it, and Fuck You if you're blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life." -Steve Yegge, from his "leaked" G+ post
No surprise, amirite? That is seriously on the mark for how I feel about it. I mean, come on; there's actually no way to entirely disable the url autocomplete in the browser. I find that highly obnoxious. It's not a "bug," so every single instance of users taking issue in the Chrome/Chromium forums is characterized by developers a) ignoring the elephant in the room and giving them solutions to a different problem, which only partially solves the autocomplete issue, or b) merging the topics with those that deal with said "different problem" and marking them as resolved.
Chrome is not very customizable. Why is this news all of a sudden? Next thing you know, you'll be asking Apple to change something in Safari.
Software freedom isn't all about licenses, this is one of the reasons we have choices like Firefox out there. If you don't like the UI that Google or Apple has wrapped around free software, then there are plenty of alternatives. Or do you really think those companies are more likely to listen than Microsoft just because their products rest upon a F/OSS core?
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
And there are plenty of people who hate it but are not vocal enough to post about it. Then there are the people who will just use a different browser, or the people like me who need a new browser but now definitely won't use chrome because of not only this feature, but also the way google treats its users.
We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.
Maybe it would have been useful for pkasting@chromium.org to actual link to the forums (perhaps one specifically for UI/Design issues...) or the mailing list instead of just the slightly snarky comments.
Damn, that's exactly what I was going to say.
Gently reply
The comments from entitled commenters are exactly why companies aren't more forthcoming about their decision-making processes. Companies that are silent on such matters don't get bad press. If the bug report hadn't been locked and no one had explained that this was a feature that would never be implemented, the current hubub wouldn't have happened and the only people likely to notice or care would be the 187 people who commented on the bug report. Now Google's on the front page of Slashdot again doing something that has the appearance of being closed (in reality, most open-source projects reject bug reports, and a good portion of them reject patches that implement desired functionality. How many times was Xen rejected from the Linux kernel? Years, though it was admittedly finally accepted.)
Bringing up the title bar is an interesting one, because the title bar is almost completely useless on Chrome. From the perspective of a flowing design, it definitely belongs on the tab. However the tab is too small for the title to be useful.
Although I can understand your point... People should still have the option. Google is basically tell everyone to fack off, it's my way or the highway. What I don't understand is how complaining about something is arrogant but telling everyone to fack off isn't...
This sounds like a non-issue as Opera, Firefox and Chrome all have their tabs above the location bar, only Safari has the tabs under it: http://www.inside.org/~raynet/slashdot/2120255/
- Raynet --> .
> You STILL HAVE TO LISTEN to the USER INPUT REGARDLESS how it comes to you
> forum, bug tracker, email, note tied to a brick|rock, etc..
1) They've listened. They just disagree
2) This is the WRONG PLACE because it's a bug tracker, but it's not a bug.
Do you understand?
This 'customer is always right' stuff might sound good to you, but it's wrong and irrelevant.
And seriously, if tab position is your determination for what browser you use, then you are pretty useless.
For me it is. Chromium won't ever be anything more than a toy for me without Tree Style Tabs. My screen is wider than it is tall and I can understand hierarchy.
I keep using Firefox despite its speed issues so I can navigate tabs effectively.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't use Chrome so I can't comment on that, but in Firefox having tabs on top means that you can't read the title of the page. That's at least an annoyance (and occasionally a problem) if you have multiple tabs from the same site open. Fix that and I'll agree that tabs on top is better.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Apparently leaving comments open on this bug has given some of you the misimpression that adding comments is going to influence us to add the feature to Chrome. (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=150#c195)
Personally, I LOVE the tabs being right at the top. ok, so it's non-standard, but it gives you that bit extra screen real-estate.
Last time I saw Firefox, you were half way down the screen before you even GOT to the tabs, let alone the page content.
People are flipping out because they want the options to put the tabs elsewhere but Google said "No" because they want to focus on other stuff? That's it? Wow...
~Syberz
The funny thing about all of this is that I've configured my Chrome to have the tabs on the LEFT, and it's far superior to either of the options people are bickering about!
The problem is that their stance is stupid. Everyone else and their mom uses the bug tracker for feature requests, because the bug tracker has reporting tools (or at least stores the data in a way that is easy to report upon with a reporting tool) and it will let you know how much interest there is, who is interested, et cetera.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are you saying that Google doesn't have tools to do that kind of analysis on the discussion forums they host that they have stated is the proper place for this kind of request?
I've always gotten the impression that tracking that kind of information on any services they host (as well as anything they don't host that is publicly visible on the web) is pretty much Google's core competency.
Google isn't everyone else and their mom.
Most open source projects don't ignore feedback as a matter of policy either. it's one thing for a project to hear you out and decide to go their own way. It's quite another for them to boldly claim that they ignore your feedback from the get go.
I can think of a number of "bugs" in Firefox, Gnome, Red Hat & other projects that have gotten the same treatment.
Like anything that's ever been closed with a WONTFIX.
If I were a Google developer, I would WANT anyone who thinks this is a deal-breaker to use a different browser.
I wouldn't care which, just so long as it wasn't the one I was helping develop.
"See Google's latest post in the link where they say hi to us Slashdotters"
And you don't find the snarky stfu and go away tone of that and the previous post to be inappropriate? Also, a bug tracking forum is the normal place to make a feature request.
I very much dislike Google, not google.com, UI's. Gmail's interface is clunky and functionally inept; besides the fact that it goes down about once every couple weeks. Chromes interface is so very unintuitive and minimalist as to be incredibly frustrating. Don't get me started on Youtube. I get used to the interface and where things are then they change it and I can't find anything. I get used to that then they do another unannounced change. They seem to do this every few months or so.
Between Chrome, Firefox, and Windows 8 (Start screen), it seems that the new trend in UI design is contempt for users, especially advanced users who want customization options. The UX "professionals" are dead-set on the notion that there is One True Way of doing things, that adding options just confuses people, and that users need to get with the program whether they like it or not.
Google Cached links re-exposed using Stylish (in Chrome & Firefox)
Here's your simple recipe:
1) Get Stylish, the CSS modifier plugin/extension for Chrome or Firefox
Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fjnbnpbmkenffdnngjfgmeleoegfcffe
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/
2) Make this one-line script/style (Click Stylish's icon -> 'Manage installed styles' -> 'Write new style' & name it "Expose Cached+" if you like):
3) Save
4) Enjoy
For bonus enjoyment you can make the Cached link really stand out with this:
Voila Cached happiness returns :) (as well as 'Similar')
Enjoy!
p.s. I thought I'd gone nuts when the cached link disappeared and looked in the source and it was still RIGHT THERE but hidden! by the css ... a little digging into css tricks lead to this recipe -- the extra emphasis bit was made me feel even better now that the cached links REALLY STANDS OUT. ... & Big thanks to Stylish's Jason Barnabe!!
I hope gives you as much pleasure as it gave me
# google cached link links missing disappeared gone lost
# solved solution fixed fix answered answer
# bring back google cached link links
# solved solution fixed fix answered answer google cached link links missing disappeared gone lost
This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback
"Never" is a strong word but I found that Google very rarely listens to user feedback.
Some cases in point:
Removing saved locations from Google maps (Alternatives: Bing maps, Yahoo maps, Mapquest).
Google toolbar breaking form functionality in FF (Alternative: SearchWP).