throbber - Mozilla

This is a discussion on throbber - Mozilla ; On 17.01.2007 03:27, Tony Mechelynck wrote: --- Original Message --- > If some existing feature is a plus for some (even if only a few), and a minus > for nobody, I can't see why it should be removed. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: throbber

  1. Re: throbber

    On 17.01.2007 03:27, Tony Mechelynck wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > If some existing feature is a plus for some (even if only a few), and a minus
    > for nobody, I can't see why it should be removed.
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Tony.


    I look at it as .. why remove something rather than leaving well enough
    alone and concentrate more on ADDING something to give the user a more
    hands-on approach?

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  2. Re: throbber

    On 17.01.2007 04:49, Chris Ilias wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"


    Haven't we progressed to the point that we're supposed to be giving the
    user - advanced OR casual - more user-customizable options and features
    so that he/she can do what they please to make their experience more of
    their own choosing?

    To counter the argument that "it doesn't look like a button" or "it
    doesn't do anything when it's not activated". To the user that's used to
    seeing/using the logo/throbber "do something" it directly relates to the
    former useage and is "supposed" to do something other than just be an
    activity monitor, IMHO of course. 8-)

    At the very least, give the user the option in about-config. That's why
    the functionality is there, to give the user choices, let THEM decide.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  3. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 16/01/2007 11:14 PM:
    >> squaredancer wrote:
    >>> On 16/01/2007 17:22, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen
    >>> to generate the following:? :
    >>>
    >>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329601
    >>> oh great! as I said - the "we know what's best for you" devs....
    >>>
    >>> two quotes, to show *just how much they know*
    >>> QUOTE
    >>> Mike Beltzner 2006-03-07 06:45:00 PST
    >>>
    >>> As mentioned elsewhere, unless someone can provide me with a *really
    >>> good
    >>> reason* to keep this function, I say we toss it. No other major
    >>> browser seems
    >>> to do this anymore either.
    >>>
    >>> Comment #3 Michael Kaply (IBM) (mkaply) 2006-03-07 07:36:04 PST
    >>>
    >>> The CCK allows you to change the throbber image and have it link to
    >>> another
    >>> page...not sure how useful that is - I just did it to copy from
    >>> Netscape.
    >>>
    >>> UNQUOTE
    >>>
    >>> so - because "no other major browser...." and
    >>> because "not sure how useful that is...."
    >>>
    >>> it has to go!

    >>
    >> Well, um, YEAH! And not to mention that they totally ignored IBM (you
    >> did catch that Mike Kaply is from IBM, eh?) which has a fairly
    >> widespread internal distribution of a customized Firefox, and numerous
    >> corporate-specific extensions, AND is an active open-source
    >> participant. And IBM has long had strong internal support for Mozilla
    >> (going back to Netscape days). Dumb, just dumb. As one of the posts
    >> in that bug alluded, surely the devs had something more important they
    >> could have spent their coding and discussion time on. Good grief.
    >> *Stop the madness!!!* :-)

    >
    > There are a number of things wrong with your argument:
    >
    > 1. Mike Beltzner (the quote that says "I say we toss it") also has an
    > affiliation with IBM.
    >
    > 2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
    > represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.
    >
    > 3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
    > you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined that
    > CCK users should implement it via extension.
    >
    > 4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
    > campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does that
    > mean everyone else should be ignored?
    >
    > Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back, how
    > about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber link
    > anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's just an
    > activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link anywhere? If
    > you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the bug), you'll see
    > that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it were a Firefox logo, I
    > could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I would rather turn it
    > into a stop button.


    Once they decided to go with the bland ball-bearing throbber which
    dropped any visual association to Firefox or Mozilla (a thus its use as
    a branding tool), the continued use for its display became questionable.

    Having it available as a user pref (or even an extension) seems
    reasonable, imo.

    --
    Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
    About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.com/
    Mozilla Themes: http://www.projectit.com/freestuff.html

  4. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _Tony Mechelynck_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 5:16 AM:
    >> - impossible to discover? How come people did discover it then, as
    >> shown by the number of people asking on these NGs why it doesn't work
    >> anymore?

    >
    > Because it was much much bigger in Mozilla/Netscape.
    >
    >> Even if _all_ of the people who use it discovered it by clicking the
    >> big N of Netscape long before finding out that Mozilla (or Firefox)
    >> existed (which I don't believe but let's assume it for the sake of
    >> argument), it's already a reason to keep it.

    >
    > I don't agree with keeping a feature just for legacy purposes.


    I believe in upwards compatibility, especially when it doesn't cost much, as here.

    >
    >> - doesn't look like a button? On some themes it doesn't, on some
    >> themes it does. That argument doesn't sway me.

    >
    > On the default theme, which is what all new users are on, it doesn't
    > look like a button.


    All users are on the default theme, for at least a few seconds; but on the
    very site from which they downloaded Firefox, they are urged to:


    href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features.html#personalize">Personalize
    Your Browser
    Choose from over a thousand useful add-ons that enhance Firefox. It’s easy to
    personalize Firefox to make it your own.


    and from there they are resent to addons.mozilla.org via a prominent link near
    the top of the "sales talk" at that URI.

    Indeed one of the strongest points of Firefox IMHO (I almost said "strongest
    selling arguments", except that its sale price is $0.00) is precisely its high
    customizability, be it through the built-in Preferences UI, or through the
    extremely many available themes, extensions and search engines (or, for more
    experienced users, via about:config, userChrome.css and userContent.css in
    that order). Developers should not rely on the hypothesis that new users will
    stay with the default theme (or with plain-vanilla Firefox for that matter)
    for any length of time.

    The throbber on the Fx theme I'm currently using shows a Mozilla "m" logo (but
    no larger than the default theme's throbber). I wonder what a representative
    sample of all Fx users would show.
    >
    >> - by clicking on a dead area? A revolving widget is hardly a dead area,

    >
    > Revolving, only when there's activity. Most of the time, it just sits
    > there not revolving; and that's usually the time when clicking is done.


    Yeah, sure, but it's still not undecorated background; and changing from
    revolving to static doesn't IMO change it from "live" to "dead".

    >
    >> especially if hovering the mouse over it displays a tooltip with a URL.

    >
    > If a user places the pointer over the throbber, and holds it there long
    > enough for a tooltip to show, that click ain't no accident.


    Of course it isn't. Don't you look where your mouse pointer happens to be when
    you want to click "on a dead area"? I do.

    >
    >> - Confusing if invoked? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that (if
    >> about.config wasn't changed) it used to links (or used to) to a
    >> Mozilla Firefox page (and not to, let's say, a Google page), plus a
    >> little thinking back ("what did I do just now?"), would IMO lead to
    >> its "discovery", thus negating the argument according to which it is
    >> "impossible to discover".

    >
    > I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"


    Typo: the above ought to have been: ...changed) it links (or used to)...

    When something doesn't behave as expected (and sooner or later something will,
    even when staying with Notepad, IE and OE, not to mention W32 and its
    blue-screens-of-death), I believe that the healthy thing to do is to ask
    oneself "What did I do just now, which could have caused that behaviour?"
    Isn't that the behaviour expected from Bugzilla reporters? They could be any
    users of Mozilla products -- well, any users who happen to have been told
    about Bugzilla and decided to act upon it. I don't remember how I found out
    about Bugzilla but I do remember that I hadn't been using Firefox for very
    long -- or was I maybe still with Netscape 6.0?

    Anyway, that Fx2 throbber is small enough (in most themes including most
    particularly the default theme) and far enough out of the way (unless moved by
    "customizing" the toolbars), that I don't believe it will be "clicked by
    mistake" at any significant frequency.


    Well, it's too late now. The throbber link has been scrapped from
    plain-vanilla Firefox, and AFAICT it's not going to come back any time soon.
    At least MR-Tech Local Install (which I use for many other reasons) reinstates
    it, so even if I used it (which I don't, or not much, but I believe in choice
    -- and maybe I'm going to use it some more now), I would still have it.


    Best regards,
    Tony.

  5. Re: throbber

    On 17.01.2007 11:15, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > So, as I said, it should be a users choice of what they want done with
    > it. After all, its the users who are using the program the most, is it
    > not?
    >


    Glad you agree.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  6. Re: throbber

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 17.01.2007 04:49, Chris Ilias wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> I don't want users thinking "What did I just do now?"

    >
    > Haven't we progressed to the point that we're supposed to be giving the
    > user - advanced OR casual - more user-customizable options and features
    > so that he/she can do what they please to make their experience more of
    > their own choosing?
    >
    > To counter the argument that "it doesn't look like a button" or "it
    > doesn't do anything when it's not activated". To the user that's used to
    > seeing/using the logo/throbber "do something" it directly relates to the
    > former useage and is "supposed" to do something other than just be an
    > activity monitor, IMHO of course. 8-)
    >
    > At the very least, give the user the option in about-config. That's why
    > the functionality is there, to give the user choices, let THEM decide.
    >


    I searched Mozilla.support.* in google groups about throbbers and here's
    what I've come up with the following:

    -- What is it and what does it do?

    -- how do I change the look of it?

    -- how do I change the url location?

    -- and just recently, one person didn't like it and wanted to know how
    to remove it.

    -- nobody has every complained that when they clicked on it, they were
    taken to some site, and why did it happen?

    -- Nobody ever complained or said the throbber looks like a button.

    So, as I said, it should be a users choice of what they want done with
    it. After all, its the users who are using the program the most, is it
    not?

    --
    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Pe...amus_Show.html
    http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s...h&show_id=2778

    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks

  7. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 17/01/2007 05:40, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen to
    > generate the following:? :
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> Ah, the Marketeer in you is showing again
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's an illness. ;-)
    >>
    >>

    > possibly bought on by canadian Whisky ??


    Not too likely, more probably Jim Beam or Makers Mark. :-)

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    Chastity is curable if detected early.

  8. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 16/01/2007 11:14 PM:
    >> squaredancer wrote:
    >>> On 16/01/2007 17:22, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen
    >>> to generate the following:? :
    >>>
    >>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329601
    >>> oh great! as I said - the "we know what's best for you" devs....
    >>>
    >>> two quotes, to show *just how much they know*
    >>> QUOTE
    >>> Mike Beltzner 2006-03-07 06:45:00 PST
    >>>
    >>> As mentioned elsewhere, unless someone can provide me with a *really
    >>> good
    >>> reason* to keep this function, I say we toss it. No other major
    >>> browser seems
    >>> to do this anymore either.
    >>>
    >>> Comment #3 Michael Kaply (IBM) (mkaply) 2006-03-07 07:36:04 PST
    >>>
    >>> The CCK allows you to change the throbber image and have it link to
    >>> another
    >>> page...not sure how useful that is - I just did it to copy from
    >>> Netscape.
    >>>
    >>> UNQUOTE
    >>>
    >>> so - because "no other major browser...." and
    >>> because "not sure how useful that is...."
    >>>
    >>> it has to go!

    >>
    >> Well, um, YEAH! And not to mention that they totally ignored IBM (you
    >> did catch that Mike Kaply is from IBM, eh?) which has a fairly
    >> widespread internal distribution of a customized Firefox, and numerous
    >> corporate-specific extensions, AND is an active open-source
    >> participant. And IBM has long had strong internal support for Mozilla
    >> (going back to Netscape days). Dumb, just dumb. As one of the posts
    >> in that bug alluded, surely the devs had something more important they
    >> could have spent their coding and discussion time on. Good grief.
    >> *Stop the madness!!!* :-)

    >
    > There are a number of things wrong with your argument:
    >
    > 1. Mike Beltzner (the quote that says "I say we toss it") also has an
    > affiliation with IBM.


    So?

    >
    > 2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
    > represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.


    Never said anything of the sort.

    > 3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
    > you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined that
    > CCK users should implement it via extension.


    See below.
    >
    > 4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
    > campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does that
    > mean everyone else should be ignored?


    That is really silly. I never suggested anything of the sort.

    > Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back, how
    > about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber link
    > anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's just an
    > activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link anywhere? If
    > you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the bug), you'll see
    > that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it were a Firefox logo, I
    > could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I would rather turn it
    > into a stop button.


    First, I didn't curse anyone. Not sure where that came from. Second,
    I'm not doing anything behind anyone's back: this is a public forum.

    A lot of people DO use the throbber. Some organizations have built
    in-house versions of Moz products that take advantage of it. It's been
    a long-standing part of Moz software.

    Yes, almost anything can be taken out of a Moz product and put back via
    an extension. The question in this case is why? Wasn't hurting anyone.
    I did read all of the bug and I don't agree with the arguments. Oh,
    and I DO use the throbber all the time (with a customized link) and have
    for years.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don't know and
    I don't care. - William Safire

  9. Re: throbber

    On 17/01/2007 17:47, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Jay Garcia to
    generate the following:? :
    > On 17.01.2007 01:28, Chris Ilias wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >
    >> _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 2:27 AM:
    >>
    >>> I think it should be left up to the individual user on what his/her
    >>> throbber does.
    >>>

    >> That's noble of you. I think it should be up to the user what the Back,
    >> Forward, and Stop buttons do. :-P
    >>

    >
    > That's irrational thinking because the "activity monitor" isn't labeled,
    > even when hovering over it and users relate it to the logo/throbber.
    > Yes, I noted the smiley. :-P
    >
    > My own thought is that it should have been left as-is to appease those
    > that used it in previous versions of most anything produced by
    > Netscape/Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Firefox, etc. At the very least, there should
    > be an aboutconfig entry to let the user decide mainly because we've come
    > a very long way in user-available customization options so why take a
    > step backward in this adventure.
    >
    >

    Well spoken, Sir! You are a User at heart and a true Master to boot!

    reg

  10. Re: throbber

    On 17/01/2007 11:16, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Tony
    Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >
    >> _Tony Mechelynck_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 4:27 AM:
    >>
    >>> Now let's try to find the flip side of the coin: In what circumstances
    >>> would that link be a positive _nuisance_ to anyone?
    >>>

    >> It was actually explained in the original thread.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Let's copy that here:
    >
    > Well it has an action that is impossible to discover (it doesn't look
    > like a button), possible to invoke accidentally (by clicking on an
    > assumed dead area of the screen) and confusing if invoked ("where did
    > this website come from?") as at least a little harmful...
    >

    >
    > That argument doesn't convince me:
    > - impossible to discover? How come people did discover it then, as shown by
    > the number of people asking on these NGs why it doesn't work anymore? Even if
    > _all_ of the people who use it discovered it by clicking the big N of Netscape
    > long before finding out that Mozilla (or Firefox) existed (which I don't
    > believe but let's assume it for the sake of argument), it's already a reason
    > to keep it.
    >
    > - doesn't look like a button? On some themes it doesn't, on some themes it
    > does. That argument doesn't sway me.
    >
    > - by clicking on a dead area? A revolving widget is hardly a dead area,
    > especially if hovering the mouse over it displays a tooltip with a URL. I
    > don't know if that tooltip in my Firefox installation comes from MR-Tech Local
    > Install or from Firefox, but regardless, it's one possible way to make the
    > link "discoverable" and the underlying area "obviously not dead". Another
    > possible way would have been to have the mouse pointer change from "pointing
    > arrow" to "pointing hand" since the latter means "you're on a link". Anyway,
    > when I want to click on a dead area, I look for some empty space with plain
    > background color and no foreground feature over it. Or maybe the titlebar,
    > whose only "action when clicked" AFAIK is to give its window focus.
    >
    > - Confusing if invoked? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that (if about.config
    > wasn't changed) it used to links (or used to) to a Mozilla Firefox page (and
    > not to, let's say, a Google page), plus a little thinking back ("what did I do
    > just now?"), would IMO lead to its "discovery", thus negating the argument
    > according to which it is "impossible to discover".
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Tony.
    >

    aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
    when it comes to user-friendliness!

    reg

  11. Re: throbber

    On 1/17/2007 9:10 AM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:



    > Well, it's too late now. The throbber link has been scrapped from
    > plain-vanilla Firefox, and AFAICT it's not going to come back any time
    > soon. At least MR-Tech Local Install (which I use for many other
    > reasons) reinstates it, so even if I used it (which I don't, or not
    > much, but I believe in choice -- and maybe I'm going to use it some more
    > now), I would still have it.
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Tony.


    It's a great shortcut for about:config for which I have used it for
    about a year now, both before and after it was "decommitted".

    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  12. Re: throbber

    On 17.01.2007 15:02, squaredancer wrote:

    --- Original Message ---
    > aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
    > when it comes to user-friendliness!
    >
    > reg


    C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
    are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
    discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  13. Re: throbber

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 17.01.2007 15:02, squaredancer wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
    >> when it comes to user-friendliness!
    >>
    >> reg

    >
    > C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
    > are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
    > discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.
    >


    Bravo!

    Here's my take on it FWIW.

    I admire the Open Source model and the Mozilla dev community. And as
    long as it was "for testing purposes" I figured I could comment and
    complain but had no expectation of anyone listening except those of us
    in these groups.

    However, as soon as Mozilla decided to market its products, they become
    fair game for criticism. and mine is that it seems that development
    takes place sans active solicitation (or even active observation) of
    ordinary user input. There are dev newsgroups and user/support
    newsgroups. If devs read these it is not evident to me. Hence, the
    appearance is that they don't monitor in any meaningful way their own
    customer base. Which seems to lead me to the conclusion that the devs
    are devving for themselves, not a market (read: customers).

    Now, hey, I'm the first to say: "Well, it's free, you get what you pay
    for." ... or some spin-off of that. My point is that if Mozilla wants
    these products to be taken seriously, to develop a loyal customer base,
    they need to adopt a much more responsive and traditional-like
    operational methodology. Or not.

    When I ran businesses I spent a great deal of time (and traveled 100k
    miles a year) meeting with customers to find out what they wanted. Then
    arguing with (er, uh, "discussing with") engineering and manufacturing
    to explain that: "No, if you build it with two left handles, I won't
    agree to sell it because the market won't buy it. And, by the way, most
    of the customers I've met with want a left handle and a right handle.
    And they also want a functional throbber because the last 15 versions of
    the product have had one!!! (You dolts!)" :-D

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    Consciousness - the annoying time between naps.

  14. Re: throbber

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 17.01.2007 15:02, squaredancer wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>> aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
    >>> when it comes to user-friendliness!
    >>>
    >>> reg

    >>
    >> C'mon now, they're not "brain dead" by any stretch. Remember, most devs
    >> are volunteers as in "no pay"!! What I think is needed is a user
    >> discussion that is at least given "some" merit by those devs.
    >>

    >
    > Bravo!
    >
    > Here's my take on it FWIW.
    >
    > I admire the Open Source model and the Mozilla dev community. And as
    > long as it was "for testing purposes" I figured I could comment and
    > complain but had no expectation of anyone listening except those of us
    > in these groups.
    >
    > However, as soon as Mozilla decided to market its products, they become
    > fair game for criticism. and mine is that it seems that development
    > takes place sans active solicitation (or even active observation) of
    > ordinary user input. There are dev newsgroups and user/support
    > newsgroups. If devs read these it is not evident to me. Hence, the
    > appearance is that they don't monitor in any meaningful way their own
    > customer base. Which seems to lead me to the conclusion that the devs
    > are devving for themselves, not a market (read: customers).
    >


    Those that develope SM, I know that some devs are in the SM newsgroups.
    But for FF and TB, I have no idea. Maybe one that I know of -- Mike
    Cowperthwaite of Quality Assurance does, once in a while, though.

    --
    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Pe...amus_Show.html
    http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s...h&show_id=2778

    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks

  15. Re: throbber

    _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 1:42 PM:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >
    >> There are a number of things wrong with your argument:
    >>
    >> 1. Mike Beltzner (the quote that says "I say we toss it") also has an
    >> affiliation with IBM.

    >
    > So?
    >
    >> 2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
    >> represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.

    >
    > Never said anything of the sort.
    >
    >> 3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
    >> you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined that
    >> CCK users should implement it via extension.

    >
    > See below.
    >
    >> 4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
    >> campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does
    >> that mean everyone else should be ignored?

    >
    > That is really silly. I never suggested anything of the sort.
    >
    >> Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back,
    >> how about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber
    >> link anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's
    >> just an activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link
    >> anywhere? If you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the
    >> bug), you'll see that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it were
    >> a Firefox logo, I could understand linking it. If it's not a logo, I
    >> would rather turn it into a stop button.

    >
    > First, I didn't curse anyone. Not sure where that came from. Second,
    > I'm not doing anything behind anyone's back: this is a public forum.
    >
    > A lot of people DO use the throbber. Some organizations have built
    > in-house versions of Moz products that take advantage of it. It's been
    > a long-standing part of Moz software.
    >
    > Yes, almost anything can be taken out of a Moz product and put back via
    > an extension. The question in this case is why? Wasn't hurting anyone.
    > I did read all of the bug and I don't agree with the arguments. Oh,
    > and I DO use the throbber all the time (with a customized link) and have
    > for years.


    I'm going to reply to everyone in this post, to try keep this thread
    from exploding into multi-sub-thread madness.

    First off, my apologies to Ed, if my last paragraph seemed like it was
    only directed at him. The insulting and cursing arbitrary devs is
    primarily coming from reg. Sorry for the miscommunication.

    Ed, you mentioned Mike Kaply's association with IBM, stated that he was
    ignored, then mentioned IBM's support for Mozilla. If you didn't mean to
    imply that his opinion should be given more weight because of IBM, what
    /was/ the purpose of stating all that?

    Just because this newsgroup is public does not mean you are not calling
    devs dumb behind their back. If I insult you in a usenet newsgroup like
    alt.antiques.delaware or some unpopular web-based forum, it's behind
    your back. If you want to criticize Firefox development decisions, do it
    in the Firefox development newsgroup. If you get the impression they
    aren't reading this group, and think they should, go to m.d.a.firefox,
    and tell them.

    Organizations that have built in-house versions can add the throbber
    functionality back during their customization process.

    The answer to why some functions are taken out (to be extensions), and
    others aren't is that Firefox is designed for novice users to understand
    'out of the box'. Linking an activity indicator to a website is
    illogical. This is further evident by the number of people changing the
    link. It's just another bookmark. If the activity indicator should link
    anywhere, where should it link to?

    Jay, out of the box, text labels are off. The average user can predict
    the actions of Back, Forward, Reload, Stop, and Home. An activity
    indicator linking to a Mozilla web page is not predictable.

    Any user who wants to the throbber to link somewhere can decide to link
    it somewhere, by extension. But the only ones that are even going to
    think of it are not new users.

    gwtc, this newsgroup is not indicative of the entire user base; but if
    you want to use it as a measuring stick, find out how many of us use the
    default throbber URL. And I mean actually use it, not just leave it
    alone. ;-)

    Tony, if a user has gone far enough to install a different theme, they
    would know about extensions. If a user has to think "What did I just do
    now?", then they didn't *want* to click on the dead area. If a user
    consciously clicks on a dead area, that's not accidental. That's
    experimenting. Yes, sometimes things don't behave as expected, but that
    shouldn't be by design. Presumably bug reporters are forced to think
    "What did I just do now?", because they ran into a bug, and are
    reporting that bug.

    Everyone: in the words of Mike Shaver, "...once you've shown someone
    that a feature is possible, and there, some subset of people will cling
    onto that, as though it can save their life; and will not easily let you
    remove it later, when you decide it doesn't suit your goals as a whole."
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  16. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > gwtc,


    this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at this.
    Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR ANYONE
    ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!

    --
    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Pe...amus_Show.html
    http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s...h&show_id=2778

    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks

  17. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 1:42 PM:
    >> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>
    >>> There are a number of things wrong with your argument:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Mike Beltzner (the quote that says "I say we toss it") also has an
    >>> affiliation with IBM.

    >>
    >> So?
    >>
    >>> 2. If one person from IBM has a concern about one bug, that does not
    >>> represent Mozilla's relationship with all of IBM.

    >>
    >> Never said anything of the sort.
    >>
    >>> 3. Mike Kaply was not ignored. If you read the rest of the comments,
    >>> you'll see that his concern was considered, and it was determined
    >>> that CCK users should implement it via extension.

    >>
    >> See below.
    >>
    >>> 4. Mozilla is not a politician trying to please those who fund its
    >>> campaign. Just because one person from IBM states one concern, does
    >>> that mean everyone else should be ignored?

    >>
    >> That is really silly. I never suggested anything of the sort.
    >>
    >>> Instead of insulting and cursing arbitrary devs, behind their back,
    >>> how about answering the question they asked: Why should the throbber
    >>> link anywhere? In Firefox, the throbber is not a Firefox logo; it's
    >>> just an activity indicator. Why should an activity indicator link
    >>> anywhere? If you read the discussion in m.d.a.firefox (linked in the
    >>> bug), you'll see that I agreed with the removal. As I said, if it
    >>> were a Firefox logo, I could understand linking it. If it's not a
    >>> logo, I would rather turn it into a stop button.

    >>
    >> First, I didn't curse anyone. Not sure where that came from. Second,
    >> I'm not doing anything behind anyone's back: this is a public forum.
    >>
    >> A lot of people DO use the throbber. Some organizations have built
    >> in-house versions of Moz products that take advantage of it. It's
    >> been a long-standing part of Moz software.
    >>
    >> Yes, almost anything can be taken out of a Moz product and put back
    >> via an extension. The question in this case is why? Wasn't hurting
    >> anyone. I did read all of the bug and I don't agree with the
    >> arguments. Oh, and I DO use the throbber all the time (with a
    >> customized link) and have for years.

    >
    > I'm going to reply to everyone in this post, to try keep this thread
    > from exploding into multi-sub-thread madness.
    >
    > First off, my apologies to Ed, if my last paragraph seemed like it was
    > only directed at him. The insulting and cursing arbitrary devs is
    > primarily coming from reg. Sorry for the miscommunication.
    >
    > Ed, you mentioned Mike Kaply's association with IBM, stated that he was
    > ignored, then mentioned IBM's support for Mozilla. If you didn't mean to
    > imply that his opinion should be given more weight because of IBM, what
    > /was/ the purpose of stating all that?


    Mike's concerns were given, IMHO, short shrift in that bug discussion.
    And, my point was that /any/ institutional user which customizes a
    Mozilla product is an entity that should be given, from a marketing
    standpoint, a great deal of consideration, even deference. Adoption of
    the product is desired, yes? Any organization that has customized the
    product as IBM has should not have impediments placed in its path like
    this. It's simply silly. I speak from a standpoint of one who has had
    a long career in business, product development, sales, and marketing.
    The attitudes expressed by the comments of the devs in that discussion
    indicated to me, based on my experience, a total lack of market awareness.

    I don't know how many other institutional users took advantage of the
    throbber feature as IBM did. I don't speak for IBM, but I have used the
    IBM customized Mozilla products going back many years, into the Netscape
    products. IBM isn't being hurt by this, individuals within the
    organization who spend their free (Open Source) time promoting Mozilla
    products are. I follow internal IBM newsgroups about this and I suspect
    you have no idea how much support for Mozilla products there is in that
    company. It is utterly silly to me that this decision was made,
    especially considering that it is trivial in any benefit to the product.
    This is not a techical issue: It's perception, it's marketing, it's
    image. And it's, at best, ill-conceived.

    > Just because this newsgroup is public does not mean you are not calling
    > devs dumb behind their back. If I insult you in a usenet newsgroup like
    > alt.antiques.delaware or some unpopular web-based forum, it's behind
    > your back. If you want to criticize Firefox development decisions, do it
    > in the Firefox development newsgroup. If you get the impression they
    > aren't reading this group, and think they should, go to m.d.a.firefox,
    > and tell them.


    This is the problem with your strategy of "replying to everyone." You
    are replying to my message, I'm reading it, I can't help but think you
    are directing this to me personally. I did not insult anyone. I offered
    my opinion. I didn't rant, I didn't go off on any tangent, my comments
    were to the point.

    As to the notion of "behind the back" ... if I get your argument, you're
    saying that if I comment in this venue about a Bugzilla discussion it is
    "behind their back." Ok. I reject your logic. It's silly. I'm not
    hiding here. I'm in the open. Anyone who feels I've unfairly treated
    them "behind their back" can feel free to tell me. Sheesh.

    > Organizations that have built in-house versions can add the throbber
    > functionality back during their customization process.


    Yes they can. Mozilla can change the product in any way they want; it's
    their product. That doesn't make it a smart decision. Yes, customers
    have recourse. My point is that the design decision made puts the onus
    on the customer for no good reason in this instance. Sure, there are
    ways to un-break the customized versions, but why should loyal customers
    have to do that? That is just silly.

    The historical fact is that Mozilla products have had the throbber
    function a certain way. It intruded into no one's use of the product.
    Despite your rationale, I've never seen anyone say: "Oh God! I clicked
    on that little thingie up there by accident and I went to a Web page
    without knowing it!!!" C'mon. Your, and the arguments in the
    referenced Bug discussion, are specious at best, circularly
    self-serving, and, at worst, unsupportable considering that:

    - no harm is done by leaving a legacy (and useful) feature in
    - no significant benefit is gained by removing it
    - breaking a historically available feature puts the onus to fix it on
    users which is totally not market friendly
    -

    I'm sorry. This is so Marketing 101 I am beside myself.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    That's a hell of an ambition, to be mellow. It's like wanting to be
    senile. - Randy Newman

  18. Re: throbber

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> gwtc,

    >
    > this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at this.
    > Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR ANYONE
    > ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!
    >


    Golly! I, for one, don't care. I react and respond to each post
    regardless of origin. And I don't have any inclination to go sniffing
    out IPs to try and figure out who is who. If you start to exhibit any
    characteristics of gwtc, Andreas, etc. I'm sure I'll react accordingly.
    So far you haven't and all is well.

    By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
    don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
    impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
    above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
    hide and why?

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://mozilla.edmullen.net
    http://abington.edmullen.net
    I have no choice but to believe in free will. - Randy Wayne White

  19. Re: throbber

    _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 18/01/2007 1:19 AM:
    > By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
    > don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
    > impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
    > above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
    > hide and why?


    Folks, this discussion has nothing to do with Firefox. Please take it to
    either email or mozilla.general.
    Follow-up set to mozilla.general.
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

  20. Re: throbber

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>> gwtc,

    >>
    >> this is my last posting of this. I'm getting really F'en Pissed at
    >> this. Please get it right: I AM NOT GWTC, ANDREAS, CRICKETS, OR
    >> ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got it!
    >>

    >
    > Golly! I, for one, don't care. I react and respond to each post
    > regardless of origin. And I don't have any inclination to go sniffing
    > out IPs to try and figure out who is who. If you start to exhibit any
    > characteristics of gwtc, Andreas, etc. I'm sure I'll react accordingly.
    > So far you haven't and all is well.
    >
    > By the way, I post with my real name, my real email address. People who
    > don't are immediately suspect in my book. YMMV, but consider the
    > impression you create when you're not willing to be transparent and
    > above-board. The question immediately arises: What are you trying to
    > hide and why?
    >


    I believe I already said who I am:
    http://groups.google.com/group/mozil...5d53c60050b0b8

    --
    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
    http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Pe...amus_Show.html
    http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s...h&show_id=2778

    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. Thanks

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast