I do spy the "@mozilla.com" address, so I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt.
I would expect that among Windows 7 users (admittedly, not anywhere near a majority of Firefox users), Aero Snap usage - essential for multitasking, especially with multiple monitors - is quite high. Though I do see your point, Fitt's Law only mentions the width of the target. My issue with using Fitt's Law in support of this change is that you're not going to push then let your mouse glide in a general direction and hope it lands on the target tab; I just don't think it's applicable for that aspect of this situation.
Wouldn't it be easier from a user's standpoint to go to the edge of the screen where, instead of landing on a tab, it lands on the small, 5 px space above them, then move the mouse pointer back down a little? According to W3 Schools, the most common resolutions are between 1200 and 1400 pixels wide. With the tabs up against the top of the window (maximized), it takes five tabs open before the entire title bar is filled, leaving no more than five (okay, no measurement was taken, but I'm having a hard time finding _anywhere_) consecutive pixels (horizontally) by which to grab the title bar. Fitt's Law says that you have completely alienated Windows power users (that is, to say Windows 7 users who have a fair number of tabs open) who use one of 7's best features. As time progresses, more people will upgrade to Windows 7 and have increasing numbers of tabs open. When I use Chrome (which, coincidentally, isn't often exactly because of this gripe), I waste more time hunting for slivers of free space in the title bar to drag the window around than I spend in Firefox clicking tabs.
As I see it, this change makes it _impossible_ to us one feature under some conditions in order to make it _slightly_ more efficient to perform a standard action. I don't think that's a fair trade-off.
I do. Tabs on top made sense - the forward, back, home, etc. buttons apply to the pages within the tab and therefore belong there - so I have no desire to move those back below. I've read some Mozilla bug reports saying that the placement change has either already been implemented in an earlier version or has yet to be implemented (I don't remember which), so that's likely an "XP thing".
I've actually found the lack of the status bar quite nice. I only ever used it to see the target link and change NoScript settings. I'm liking the former being done in the remainder of the location bar, and NoScript is handled well through the context menu.
Why is this touted as a feature/benefit? In Windows (7, specifically) when the window is maximized, the tabs are so flush with the top of the screen that it makes Firefox almost unusable for snapping (left, right, or down from top).
I understand that pushing the tabs up save pixels - a scarce asset in netbooks - but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?
"*assumption that FOSS > paid software in nearly any and every regard*"
You're making a mountain out of a molehill, QuietLagoon. I have yet to see anything that shows "concern" - official acknowledgement doesn't mean that they're worried about losing any significant market share.
We should meet up some time. then. I find the ribbon vastly superior to the jumbled menus of OO.o and Office '03 (and, indeed, most other complex applications). And yes, ThePhilips, I use Word for more than just simple word processing and Excel for complex financial and physical computations, not just making a bar graph with three sets of data.
While the suite doesn't justify $400, I find $75 (academic price) quite reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
That post was supposed to be formatted, and I'm unfamiliar with editing posts on Slashdot, so please excuse the block text.
I do spy the "@mozilla.com" address, so I'll take what you're saying with a grain of salt. I would expect that among Windows 7 users (admittedly, not anywhere near a majority of Firefox users), Aero Snap usage - essential for multitasking, especially with multiple monitors - is quite high. Though I do see your point, Fitt's Law only mentions the width of the target. My issue with using Fitt's Law in support of this change is that you're not going to push then let your mouse glide in a general direction and hope it lands on the target tab; I just don't think it's applicable for that aspect of this situation. Wouldn't it be easier from a user's standpoint to go to the edge of the screen where, instead of landing on a tab, it lands on the small, 5 px space above them, then move the mouse pointer back down a little? According to W3 Schools, the most common resolutions are between 1200 and 1400 pixels wide. With the tabs up against the top of the window (maximized), it takes five tabs open before the entire title bar is filled, leaving no more than five (okay, no measurement was taken, but I'm having a hard time finding _anywhere_) consecutive pixels (horizontally) by which to grab the title bar. Fitt's Law says that you have completely alienated Windows power users (that is, to say Windows 7 users who have a fair number of tabs open) who use one of 7's best features. As time progresses, more people will upgrade to Windows 7 and have increasing numbers of tabs open. When I use Chrome (which, coincidentally, isn't often exactly because of this gripe), I waste more time hunting for slivers of free space in the title bar to drag the window around than I spend in Firefox clicking tabs. As I see it, this change makes it _impossible_ to us one feature under some conditions in order to make it _slightly_ more efficient to perform a standard action. I don't think that's a fair trade-off.
I do. Tabs on top made sense - the forward, back, home, etc. buttons apply to the pages within the tab and therefore belong there - so I have no desire to move those back below. I've read some Mozilla bug reports saying that the placement change has either already been implemented in an earlier version or has yet to be implemented (I don't remember which), so that's likely an "XP thing".
I've actually found the lack of the status bar quite nice. I only ever used it to see the target link and change NoScript settings. I'm liking the former being done in the remainder of the location bar, and NoScript is handled well through the context menu.
What change(s) should I make to take it back?
Why is this touted as a feature/benefit? In Windows (7, specifically) when the window is maximized, the tabs are so flush with the top of the screen that it makes Firefox almost unusable for snapping (left, right, or down from top). I understand that pushing the tabs up save pixels - a scarce asset in netbooks - but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?
"*assumption that FOSS > paid software in nearly any and every regard*" You're making a mountain out of a molehill, QuietLagoon. I have yet to see anything that shows "concern" - official acknowledgement doesn't mean that they're worried about losing any significant market share.
We should meet up some time. then. I find the ribbon vastly superior to the jumbled menus of OO.o and Office '03 (and, indeed, most other complex applications). And yes, ThePhilips, I use Word for more than just simple word processing and Excel for complex financial and physical computations, not just making a bar graph with three sets of data. While the suite doesn't justify $400, I find $75 (academic price) quite reasonable.
Yes, I've opened two different presentations in PowerPoint, spreadsheets in Excel, and documents in Word in multiple windows for viewing side-by-side.