Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 33 Nixes Option To Fall Back To Old 'New Tab' Page

Posted by timothy on from the put-it-on-my-ta-hey-waittaminute dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, Chrome 33 was shipped out the everyone on the stable channel. Among other things, it removes the developer flag to disable the "Instant Extended API", which powers an updated New Tab page. The new New Tab page receieved a large amount of backlash from users, particularly due to strange behavior when Google wasn't set as the default search engine. It also moves the apps section to a separate page and puts the button to reopen recently closed tabs in the Chrome menu. With the option to disable this change removed, there has been tremendous backlash on Google Chrome's official forum. The official suggestion from Google as well as OMG! Chrome is to try some New Tab page changing extensions, such as Replace New Tab, Modern New Tab Page, or iChrome."

24 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Should be a public API for this by Darkon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Doesn't help that the new tab page lives inside a protected "chrome://" namespace which extensions are almost entirely prevented from touching, and uses private APIs for things like showing the most used pages, meaning that anyone wanting to put it back how it was by writing an extension has to reimplement everything from scratch.

  2. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is saying the Google is slipping down the slippery slope of evil, ignoring massive negative feedback as usual, and demonstrating clearly why dominance of their non-open open source browser is a bad thing for everybody except Google.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  3. Re:Chrome by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I open a new tab in chrome, and try to do a search in the search box, it shifts focus instantly to the url field.

    Can anyone tell me how to prevent this? It makes searching google using a url as the keyword a huge, ginormous pain in the ass, and it interferes with what I'm doing on pretty much a daily basis.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  4. Burning Chrome by kevlar_rat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So basically a successful company forced a new UI on their audience, ignoring a mountain of negative feedback, without really understanding the community?

    --
    Moderated Usenet
    1. Re:Burning Chrome by Max+Threshold · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's the Microsofting of Google.

    2. Re:Burning Chrome by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Burning Chrome by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.

      It's part of that whole "you're not the customer, you're the product" thing.
      I've never heard a meat-packing plant listen to the feedback from cows, either.

  5. Re:Chrome by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever thought it was a good design choice, shifting the focus halfway across the screen after the user explicitly put focus on the search box... I sure hope they're no longer working in IT. That was just gross incompetence.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  6. Re:Chrome by Fwipp · · Score: 2

    Why are you searching for URLs? If you add another word it'll be fine though - you can simply add a " ." if you like.

  7. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."

  8. Foolish idea by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And leave yourself with an increasingly insecure browser thanks to discovered bugs the updates you've blocked fix? No thanks. I'd swap browsers before leaving myself with an out-of-date browser.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    1. Re:Foolish idea by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      I recommend keeping the browser updated on all operating systems.

  9. I prefer the "Empty New Tab Page" extension by kill-1 · · Score: 3

    If an empty new tab page would be configurable and Chrome wouldn't exit if a single tab is open and I press Ctrl-W, I'd be perfectly happy with Chrome's tabs. For the latter, I use the "Live On" extension, which is a bit quirky, unfortunately. With Firefox I can fix both these issues, at least in about:config.

  10. Re:Chrome by glavenoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ctrl+k puts focus in the omni/address bar with a "?" which tells chrome you want to search rather than go to a url. Alternatively, you can add the ? as the first character in the address/omibar and this will also initiate a search rather than going to the site.

    --
    I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
  11. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by swillden · · Score: 2

    I don't think "controversial UI" counts as "evil."

    Not even all that controversial, since the UI change happened about a year ago and Chrome market share has continued climbing.

    The only way to avoid annoying some percentage of your user base with UI changes is to never change the UI. Even clear improvements will generate screams of outrage from a few percent of the users, just because they don't like change.

    In any case, if people don't like Chrome's UI, there are plenty of other options. If you really dislike this change, just use a different browser that you like better. If enough people do that, Google will get the message.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. Re:what a fuss about nothing by bolek_b · · Score: 3, Informative
    Firefox has this ability as well, it is not so obvious, though.
    • Go to a page with some search field, for example amazon.com title page.
    • In Firefox Search Bar, expand its pop-up menu; one of the items should be "Add Amazon Search Suggestions". Click it
    • Once again go to Search Bar pop-up menu, this time for "Manage Search Engines..."
    • Select the appropriate row and click "Edit Keyword..."
    • Type some reasonably short abbreviation, such as "ama"

    You are done, now you can type "ama cthulhu" and there you go. I have there shortcuts for Google (keyword "g"), Wikipedia ("w"), YouTube ("y"), IMDB, CPAN and a couple of other sites and it is really efficient and comfortable.

  13. A tempest in a teapot .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 2

    New Tab Redirect! Remove Google Redirects

  14. Re:what a fuss about nothing by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

    You mean search keywords?, that was in Mozilla Suite already and presumably Firefox 0.x. Right-click an arbitrary form and select "add a keyword for this search".

  15. Re:I guess I'm geezering.. by kiddygrinder · · Score: 2

    it's GPL, how's that not open source? the flash code? that's not open source anywhere.

    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  16. Use Firefox by stooo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    JUF : Just use Firefox

    --
    aaaaaaa
  17. I hope, Distros will start patching chromium by allo · · Score: 2

    And remove some of the new unfeatures.

  18. Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by kav2k · · Score: 4, Informative

    You think that's the real problem in Chrome 33?

    Well, compare that to this fact: on Chrome 33 on Windows (and Windows only) all non-Chrome-Web-Store extensions are forcibly disabled and will not install anymore, with the exception of pushing them through domain group policy.

    http://www.chromium.org/develo...

    So, say goodbye to anything not blessed by Google, like extensions that allow "the unauthorized download of streaming content or media".
    Unless you want to use the Dev channel as an official workaround, or are content with loading extensions unpacked, with no auto-update.

    It's not like I don't understand the problem, I've seen rampant Chrome crapware on clueless people's computers. But this is heavy-handed.

    1. Re:Also in Chrome 33: Welcome to Walled Garden by mgiuca · · Score: 2

      (Disclosure: I am a Google Chrome engineer.)

      It's not like I don't understand the problem, I've seen rampant Chrome crapware on clueless people's computers. But this is heavy-handed.

      I'm glad you understand the severity of the problem. We took no joy in introducing these restrictions, but I think we made a good compromise between security and user freedom. If you don't want the extension side-loading policy, you have a number of options:

      • Use Mac or Linux.
      • Use Dev channel (but have potentially unstable code).
      • Load your extensions unpacked (but have Chrome warn you every time you start up).
      • Use Chromium (missing various features, but the option is there).

      None of these options are ideal, but there are numerous escape hatches for people determined to side-load. The point is to stop side-loading in the default case only, where people are getting unknowingly infected. I would call this as far from "heavy-handed" as possible while still being effective.

      or are content with loading extensions unpacked, with no auto-update.

      Non-Web-Store extensions never had auto-update to begin with. The only difference between loading unpacked and side-loading is that it's a bit trickier to install unpacked, and Chrome will warn you every time you start up.

  19. Font on tabs and antialiasing by loufoque · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally I'm more worried about them having broken the rendering of the fonts on tabs a few versions back...
    It is antialiased despite my settings saying that it shouldn't.