No Tab Relocation Coming For Chrome 574
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.'"
Use Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem solved
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What dicks?
They made a decision, and made it clear that it's not something they are going to do.
Being a dick they would have kept the thread alive, with no real intention of doing anything. Instead that made a design, and told their users; that is the right way to handle it, even if you wanted the feature.
No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
But ... but ... the usability studies say so!
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a programmer, programmers are not designers. They should not, unless they have demonstrated an ability to do so, design UIs. Letting programmers design UIs is how we get software like emacs or vi: greatly productive for a small number of advanced users, completely unusable by almost any computer user apart from those.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:4, Interesting)
In a similar vein, look at the reaction to google hiding the link to cached search results [google.com] in that stupid preview popup.
Not only does it add an extra click and load time to every view of a cached page, it also breaks when scripting isn't given free reign.
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:5, Insightful)
I should mention that many users find Google's popup web previews on mouseover to be very obnoxious, and disable scripting just to avoid them, since Google does not provide an option to permanently disable them in search results.
Now, there's no way to avoid the popups without also making the cached search results inaccessible.
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:5, Insightful)
I 100% disagree with you. Emphatically. Having been in the CAD development world for 20+ years, programmers are THE LAST PEOPLE who should be designing user interfaces. The vast majority of programmers have no idea what usability means to a general audience, and even worse sense of aesthetic. The worst offenders are programmers who think they know better without ever having met a customer.
Now is an artless programmer better than a bad UI designer? That is debatable. But in my experience, the people who should develop the UI are the users and the trainers, together, and then provide a spec to the development team. With that feedback, even a mediocre programmer can make life a lot easier on the users.
I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but the programmers rarely have any idea how to actually use the software. Especially when it is a large modular project, and each programmer may only have a slight idea what the entire application actually does. Sure the lead integrator has a clue, but they are usually way too busy to put any thought into a UI design, let alone collect feedback from the people who use it; they often delegate to another tertiary programmer (intern, co-op) who knows even less.
I've seen this in 3D animation, CAD/CAM, medical software, automotive UI, factory and assembly line flow control, local government utilities control systems, etc.
Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (Score:4, Funny)
at least we had consistent UIs across applications, and they were reasonably efficient to use
Speaking as someone who used linux circa 2001, ahahahahahahahah haha ahahahah, hahaha, hah.
With tree-tabs! (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, this extension is a must: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ [mozilla.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're pretty close to doing just that. It's already almost too late. Unless someone forks FF 3.6.
Re:Use Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox: Hey, guys, we're adding in a ton of new features! I mean, tons of them! Look how much memory we're using with all this random bullshit a couple guys with hideously esoteric tastes kept bugging us to add in!
Nerds: Waaaah! Waaaah! We don't want features! It's too bloated and wastes too much memory! Why do we have to dig into config files and about:config to change this? Make it different! It physically hurts us somehow! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
Chrome: Hey, guys, we're cutting out all this bullshit and not kowtowing to random esoteric features 1% of our userbase wants! Look how lean our browser is!
Nerds: Waaaah! Waaaah! We want useless bullshit features! It's too nonconfigurable! Why don't we have to dig into config files and about:config to change this? Make it different! It physically hurts us somehow! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
And this bitchfest right here has given me an entirely new appreciation for Firefox's and Google's devteams and some understanding of their arrogant attitudes if this is the sort of nonsense they have to deal with every day. Give the users an inch, they'll cry until you give them a mile, and then Chrome becomes just as bloated as Firefox just because a couple really loud nerds can't figure out how to install Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. It's a good, more friendly, and safer browser. the tabs being above or below matters not to the vast majority of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a Chrome user (and web developer), the ability to detach tabs is a critically important feature that I can't live without. The lack of said ability means that, when I need to view two tabs side-by side (often on different monitors), I have to open up a new browser and hope I can reproduce whatever was going on. It drives me nuts when I'm using a browser like IE, and am unable to do this. Even when I'm at home on my single monitor, and not working, I regularly tear off tabs and use the WIN+LEFT a
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a surprise to you, but some people achieve less than divine perfection with their mouse input. As clicking on a tab is something people do often, it follows that clicking-and-accidentally-dragging a tab (by not releasing the mouse button as fast as you'd hoped) is a mistake that happens often. Making a product that annoys less dexterous users is almost as stupid as making a product that annoys less intelligent users.
Anyhow, who would you not offer an option for any UI behavior people are
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're dragging a tab and accidentally tear it off, you can simply move the mouse back into the tab bar and it reattaches itself. This is no more effort than it would have taken to drag the tab into the correct position without tearing off, since you'd probably need to move the mouse back there anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because on one can make add on's for Chrome, or build there own browaers based on Chromium.
twad.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the rest of us left Internet Explorer due to its lack of bloat (no modern features at all) and its total lack of churn ('IE6 is perfect, it'll never need another release!').
Guess you just have a short memory.
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to the thread on that bug, even the Firefox UI team's hostility to its userbase is but a pale imitation of Chrome.
But at least now we know where the Fx developers got the idea.
Really? I wasn't aware of the debate, and would have the tabs to go underneath the location bar. I would have dissented if I'd knows such a move was being discussed. That bit of the Chrome interface is just fine for me. In other words, they're not ignoring their userbase, they're ignoring a small but vocal subset of their userbase who have reported a valid design decision as a bug. The position of the tabs is not a bug, FFS. The bug report complains that "For myself I use a program called Stickies at work t
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, while Firefox is customizable, the performance absolutely sucks. Just open one tab and go to some website that crashes Gecko, and the whole browser crashes. One tab is slow, the whole browser is slow. Too many tabs, and everything slows to a crawl, with long delays between typing into a textbox (like I'm doing now) and seeing the text show up.
My problem with FF is its still huge memory footprint. I can open up 4 tabs (a couple gMail accounts, Yahoo Groups, and Facebook) and before know it FF is consuming 450MB and climbing. That's insane for even dozens of web-pages at once. And I'm talking the latest FF.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're mixing two things. Threads are supposed to have better performance, due to less cost when doing a context switch, but if the process crashes, everything goes. But performance and stability are two different things.
And nowadays I believe flash and things like that are run on another process, so it is less likely to crash... And having a process for each tab would require a full code rewrite, and I really don't believe it's worth it.
Re:Use Firefox (Score:5, Informative)
These problems all exist because Firefox stubbornly clings to the antiquated and idiotic notion of having all tabs and windows run in a single process. [snip] When is Firefox going to stop wasting time on useless UI changes and actually fix their architecture?
I think "stubbornly clings" is not supported by our actions. The multiprocess Firefox project is called Electrolysis. It's been going on for about two years now. We moved plugins to a separate process back in Firefox 3.6.4, in June 2010; that was part of the project. Firefox for Android uses two processes, to improve UI performance. Bringing multiprocess Firefox to the desktop is a priority, but it's hard.
We're working on it, but it's a false dichotomy to suggest that we need to choose between improving our UI and improving our architecture. Indeed, if we choose one over the other, we lose. We have to do both.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis [mozilla.org]
This (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are willing to trade speed and stability for greater customizability, there is always Firefox. Feature creep is what defines FF, so if Google doesn't want their browser to turn into a huge complicated mess, all I can do is agree with them.
And for the record, I'm a Firefox user. As a developer, I would not want to live without Firebug and 3 dozen more add-ons. Chrome is a "consumer" browser, much like Safari and Opera, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome is a "consumer" browser, much like Safari and Opera, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I know that Firebug is really popular. I use it on occasion. Personally, I prefer GDT. I just find it a helluva lot more useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Tab relocation isn't a feature that is going to slow down the browser or the fast js rendering engine that gives Chrome its edge. It's a basic usability feature.
Re: (Score:2)
You act like Firefox is slow, the only times I have a problem with speed is when my internet connection stalls out, and that happens with other browsers as well. Even my laptop with dual core 1.6ghz processor I don't have any trouble with Firefox keeping up.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why it's important to have several browsers around that all implement the same standards. This kind of competition is awesome, because a new browser is just a click away. Don't like Chrome? Go for IE or Firefox. Or the other half-dozen options that are available. Features that drive people away will either be killed, or result in the death of the browser.
I really hope that three browsers will remain at the top of the heap for a long time. That makes it a lot harder for one to dictate how the web
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, except all three are in a race to copy each other.
For about the last two years, I've been in a continuous cycling between Opera, Firefox, Chrome.... back to Opera, back to Firefox, try Chrome again.
Each one of them sucks in its own particular way, and all three suck in some of the same ways.
I for one am getting sick to death of it.
I don't have a browser that is my "favorite". I just have a list of "which browsers suck the least, in this order".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but a browser is not a piece of art.
It's like your carpenter telling you that your cabinet will have sliding doors; no matter how many orders he gets for hinged doors, he'll ignore it.
Sure, he can do that, but he'll be considered a quirky craftsman at best, and a bad one at worst, and I don't think his carpentry business will be viable in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Or, since people prefer (*smirk*) car analogies, tabs on top in a browser is like a major car manufacturer deciding to replace the steering wheel with a tiller in all of its designs.
And rejecting at least half of customers' cries of how awkward and cumbersome that is for steering the vehicle.
It's a simple matter of a checkbox, in a browser, not a fricking vehicle redesign, in the case of a car.
If it weren't for the lack of that simple checkbox in Chrome, that's the browser I'd be using right now, but
Re:This (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like that at all. Hiring a carpenter would be analogous to hiring a developer to write a custom web browser for you. If that were the case, then yes, customers would have reason to gripe. But Google's response is more like a cabinet manufacturer that offers its wares on the open market (a la Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.). Customers can gripe all they want, but if it's not a bespoke job then you have to choose from what's available.
Even in a free market economy, consumer choice among vendors is limited to those vendors who choose to enter the market.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a usability request. There are a number of situations, such as via a terminal server, where there is a screen element at the top of the screen. It also means moving the mouse further every time you switch tabs.
This isn't evil per say. As you say, it is their design and their browser. But it is also pitched as being open and in the open source world it is a big deal (whether you are for or against) if a project is or is not community driven. A direct statement that community feedback isn't a considerati
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Van Gogh only had to sell the painting once to one person, the folks at Chrome are wanting large numbers of people to use Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, this is shocking behaviour.
We should organise a class action to get a refund for the money we've spent on Chrome!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but while you can place the tab bar on the bottom in Opera, you can't place it directly under the address bar.
Re:This (Score:4, Informative)
Er, yes, you can.
1. Right-click toolbar -> Customize -> Appearance.
2. In "select which standard toolbars you want to show", check "Main bar" (it's a toolbar that is above the tab bar).
3. Remove any predefined buttons on "Main bar", and place Back/Forward/Reload buttons, address and search fields etc on it, according to your taste. Now you have a duplicate address bar above tabs.
4. Uncheck "Address bar" to hide the 'real' address bar (below tabs).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but while you can place the tab bar on the bottom in Opera, you can't place it directly under the address bar.
actually you can place it in front, next to, above, below, or even on the side. Opera UI is customizable to the smallest pixel.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a sad day when basic UI customizability is referred to as "bloatware" - on Slashdot of all places. I remember back in teh days when Firefox (then Firebird) appeared, "bloatware" was having an email client in your browser.
I can't help but think that Apple has truly 'advanced' the industry in a very short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Google claims to be trying to build a community around Chrome as an open project. People who might consider joining that community have a right to know that this not only isn't a community driven project but that community feedback is openly ignored in the development process.
This is information spreading and not whining. People have the right to know about something like this so they can make an informed decision about whether to
* Don't use it
* Fork
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't ignored, it was considered and turned down. The they told people about ti so they wouldn't be strung along.
It's a very professional way to handle it. most companies would have strung people along.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is free to do what they want. And I am free not to participate in their community and share their openly expressed views with others so they can make an informed choice on whether to do the same.
Push this on the queue of broken dreams... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google way or the highway (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so easy to do so. You're adding a ton of complexity with these kinds of things, because not only are you cluttering the options page with tiny little toggles, but you're causing a ton of extra code to try to handle the tab bar being in a different place, and you're breaking a whole bunch of assumptions all over the place (be it in code or themes) about where the tab bar is, what it is expected to look like, etc.
For example, Google has been working on an option for quite some time to move the tab ba
Fortunately (Score:2)
Why did this even make front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news is that Opera still cares about the users. The bad news is what the fuck is Opera?
Usability (Score:2)
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, th
Re:Usability (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you gain on the infinite height of a tab ending at the top of the screen.
Only when the window is maximized, and you aren't running OSX...
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.
Even chrome maximized on windows... the top pixel or two aren't part of the tab, so you have to bring it back down a couple pixels. The amount of effort between that, and moving it down enough to get into t
Re: (Score:2)
"* special-cased hiding of "http://". What's the point of that? It doesn't do so to "https://", "ftp://" or "gopher://" URLs..."
The reason would be that for 99% of the use cases of typing and sharing URL's, the HTTP is implied and unnecessary.
Non HTTP addresses are however non-standard and as such need to be declared explicitly.
Re: (Score:2)
In my recent browsing history, 80% URLs are https.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I'm guessing that maybe, just maybe, Google might have a little better statistics on the browsing tendencies of users than you.
By your logic, we should put the tabs right in the middle of the screen. After all, the user's mouse tends to be nearer the center of the screen rather than at the top, and the less mouse movement the better.
In the vast majority of UI's represents a "folder" of concep
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why tabs are above the address bar is that it plainly makes more sense.
Consider dialogs with tabbed pages in any OS/DE that you've seen - Windows, OS X, KDE, Gnome, they're all the same. Any widgets inside the tabbed pages control are those that "belong" to the currently selected page. Pages may duplicate widgets, but then the currently displayed widgets represents parameters that are in effect for that particular page. Any widgets outside the tabbed pages control are those that don't belong to a
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite is true. If you put the tabs at the top of the screen, the user can just jerk his mouse upwards, and the top of the screen will limit movement, making it quicker/easier to get to the tab bar. If you put the tabs below the address bar, now you need a precise movement to get there. Either you're going to overshoot it and move the mouse back down, or you're going to move the mouse slower to get the precision to stop there.
For your first example, your browser isn't crashing, it's closing gracefully
Wow. locking feedback, telling people what to thin (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [gnu.org]
Re:Wow. locking feedback, telling people what to t (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Waste of time (Score:2)
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
Bookmarks Location (Score:2)
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.
"overwhelming feedback with no notable dissent..." (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Seriously??? (Score:2)
Visual and Informational Hierarchy (Score:2)
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.
It's my build I can cry if I want to (Score:2)
Got to respect them for not pandering (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Can I make a joke about people "holding it wrong"?
I know of a similar large company that likes to do things a particular way, and it's *never* described as "being respected for having a vision and going for it", in fact it's almost universally reviled.
Options are good things, usually.
Maybe I'm in the minority?... (Score:3)
But the tab on top is fine with me, in fact I prefer it. It just works better for me.
Seriously?! (Score:2)
Can someone explain the pros and cons of this? Seems like troll food.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I can tell:
Tabs on bottom:
Tabs on top:
Chrome OS (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Um, no, I dissent. (Score:2)
Leave my tabs where they are, please. If you want to use Firefox then use Firefox.
Stupid (Score:2)
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'
Infinite flexibilty vs usability (Score:2)
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
Finally! (Score:3)
Bug tracker for bugs, not design change requests (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 Chro
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's customizable in Opera. They've changed the default a while ago to match Chrome, but you can still have it either way.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Minor UI tweak not coming to open-source browser, even though several people would rather prefer it did!
That isn't the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, "no dissent"? Tabs on top of the address bar makes way more sense than having them underneath. I mean, duh: the address bar's contents are dependent on the tab. Why would the tabs be underneath, other than "Mozilla Firebird 0.2 did it that way so now everyone has to do that forever!"
two random reasons why "tabs at the top" is a bad idea:
- placing stuff at the top of the screen is a bad idea, because that area of the screen is often covered by other stuff (like e.g. the menus of a RDP session) or is in an area which makes menus pop up if you go near there with the mouse
- tabs should be close to the web page you are looking at, because tabs are used OFTEN, definitely more than bookmarks, so they should be easier to reach with the mouse. Why would you want to place the tabs as far away as
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you are seriously over thinking the "meaning" of the positioning. There are things like terminal windows that put something in that location of the screen and it is further from where your mouse hovers on the content. That is more than enough justification for having AN OPTION to reposition the bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forking over inconsequential nonsense hurts the opensource ecosystem by spreading developers and duplicating effort. Everybody loses as a result. Forking should be reserved for important stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Google doesn't know that? How can you read the summary and think that that's Google's official reason for closing the thread? That was commentary in the slashdot summary. The point was not to silence the dissent, but to say "we made a decision. And it's final, so don't try to convince us to change our minds." Have you ever looked in the Chrome options/preferences menus? They are so simple. The decision was probably made to keep them simple. Having another option would also add bloat to a very s
Re: (Score:2)
"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 d