throbber - Mozilla

This is a discussion on throbber - Mozilla ; Chris Ilias wrote: > _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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: throbber

  1. Re: throbber

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > _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.

    well, you're the fricken one who started the whole damn thing!

    --
    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

  2. Re: throbber

    On 18/01/2007 07:13, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ed Mullen to
    generate the following:? :
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >
    >> _Ed Mullen_ spoke thusly on 17/01/2007 1:42 PM:
    >>
    >>> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>>
    >>>

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

    I'm not as polite at putting things as you are, Ed! If something is
    "stupid", I say stupid (whereas you call things a polite "silly") -
    which is why I wrote - and stand by - my comment to Tony's post.... and
    please read *ALL* the words and not stop reading after "brain dead"...

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

    I also have the feeling that Chris feels trodden upon because he
    supported a dev-decision - and has been proven to have made a wrong
    decision! Instead of making the decision on our- the users -behalf his
    actions in that decision would have been more understandable if he had
    used his position *here* to say...
    "Let's wait a while and I'll put the question to the FF-NG users, to see
    just how that feature is required and utilised"

    But, as in Forrest Gump.... **** happens!

    reg

  3. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    Ed Mullen wrote:
    > 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. :-)
    >

    Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  4. 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?
    >
    > 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. ;-)


    OK, let him do that; and you, Chris, find out how many are positively annoyed
    that the throbber should link somewhere. Not content to leave it alone, not
    even content if it were disabled by default but available through
    about:config, no: how many are determined that no one at all should have the
    right to use it as a link without going through the hoops of finding,
    installing and configuring the right extension for it. I'm betting that his
    count will be much higher than yours.

    >
    > Tony, if a user has gone far enough to install a different theme, they
    > would know about extensions.


    "Know about" the fact that extensions exist, yes, definitely. Know *which*
    extensions exist and what the're good for, that's less certain. I'd bet many
    of these users would dig into themes first, because "skinning yor browser"
    seems more harmless (less chance of f***ing things up in a major way, and
    easier and faster to determine which one you like best) than adding an
    extension to change the _behaviour_ of the browser.

    > 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.


    Of course; and if you're experimenting and something unforeseen happens, it's
    not a bug, it's something you've just learned through experimentation. And,
    BTW, if a user "consciously" clicks on any recognizable area, and something
    happens as a result of that click, then it wasn't a "dead" area by any
    definition I can conceive.

    > 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.


    What is or isn't expected? The way I read it, this whole thread seems to prove
    that "some" people did expect the throbber to be a link. So, *for these
    people*, your argument works in reverse: the expected behaviour, *for them*,
    is for the throbber to link somewhere. It does nothing. Worse: it is *by
    design* that it doesn't behave as a link anymore. By your reasoning (and I
    agree with that part), that shouldn't be so (at least, not with their existing
    profiles). As for what *new* users expect, there are a lot of grey areas.
    There are also areas that are not grey: for example I suppose it's not
    unreasonable to suppose that they would expect that the buttons on the left
    should mean left-arrow = go back, right-arrow = go forward, turning arrow =
    reload, big X = stop, house = go home. But OTOH I'm not convinced that they
    should have expectations (and *uniform* expectations at that) about what the
    throbber should or shouldn't do when clicked (unless maybe they come from
    Netscape or such, but in that case they are not really "new" to the Mozilla
    family of browsers). IMHO we're in the "experimenting" range here, not in the
    "must do as expected" range.

    >
    > 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."


    Ho ho, so the removal was maybe done with a further intention in mind. I for
    one would much like to know what those "goals as a whole" are, for which the
    removal of the throbber link was an absolutely necessary prerequisite, that
    couldn't even be met by leaving everything as-is (and the browser throbber
    link code in place -- be it C code, XUL code, or whatever), except maybe
    changing the factory default setting for browser.throbber.url to the null
    string (but even that should IMHO have been left unchanged, or changed in a
    "predictable" way such as sending to some different mozilla.com page,
    concerning the new version of the browser).

    And yes, once you've learnt that a feature is there, once you've used it and
    found it useful, then if suddenly that feature is removed without warning and
    with no obvious indication of how to put it back, then of course you get
    frustrated at the least, maybe even angry. Who wouldn't?

    Hey, didn't someone on this thread say that a customizable throbber link was
    just one more bookmark? Maybe it was even you. I think I've found the exact
    right URL to have that throbber point to (well, the right one for me at least;
    YMMV):

    http://talkback-public.mozilla.org/search/start.jsp

    So if something "unexpected" happens to me (such as a crash) I'll know what to do.


    Best regards,
    Tony.

  5. Re: throbber

    squaredancer wrote:
    [...]
    > I'm not as polite at putting things as you are, Ed! If something is
    > "stupid", I say stupid (whereas you call things a polite "silly") -
    > which is why I wrote - and stand by - my comment to Tony's post.... and
    > please read *ALL* the words and not stop reading after "brain dead"...
    >
    > QUOTE
    > aggre with all that, Tony - in proving that the devs are "brain dead"
    > when it comes to user-friendliness!
    > UNQUOTE
    >
    > I also have the feeling that Chris feels trodden upon because he
    > supported a dev-decision - and has been proven to have made a wrong
    > decision! Instead of making the decision on our- the users -behalf his
    > actions in that decision would have been more understandable if he had
    > used his position *here* to say...
    > "Let's wait a while and I'll put the question to the FF-NG users, to see
    > just how that feature is required and utilised"
    >
    > But, as in Forrest Gump.... **** happens!
    >
    > reg


    Ed and I are polite, maybe because we've been brought up that way (back when),
    but also, at least in part, because we have learned by experience that being
    polite is one of the ways to make oneself listened to (and no wonder diplomats
    are reputed to have elevated politeness to the level of the fine arts). If you
    start throwing around epithets like "stupid", "braindead" and more, some
    people will be hurt by the invectives and not listen to what you actually
    mean. Even people at whom you are not directly throwing them may feel hurt if
    they feel that you are not showing due respect to people who, in *their*
    opinion, deserve such respect, even if for other reasons than what provoked
    your ire. By being consciously polite (however much effort it may cost us), Ed
    and I are showing a conscious determination not to hurt the feelings of people
    who may be of a different opinion than we are: so they listen to us a little
    longer maybe, and as long as they listen, the contact isn't broken, and we
    stand "some" chance to bring our interlocutors around to our point of view --
    or to be convinced by their arguments (to which we also listen) in case we
    might decide that they weren't as stupidly braindead as that after all.

    Now go ahead, go on throwing bad language left and right, but don't be
    surprised if after some time you get plonked. Good luck.

    Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
    Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other side
    of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
    ;-)


    Best regards,
    Tony.

  6. Re: throbber

    On 2007-01-18 20:15 (-0700 UTC), Tony Mechelynck wrote:



    > Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
    > Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other
    > side of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
    > ;-)


    Hah! -- I'll need to remember that one:

    'My esteemed colleague is devoid of a fundament . . .

    ' . . . al understanding of the issue at hand.'

    :-D

    /b.

    --
    People are stupid. /A/ person may be smart, but /people/ are stupid.
    --Stephen M. Graham

  7. Re: throbber

    Brian Heinrich wrote:
    > On 2007-01-18 20:15 (-0700 UTC), Tony Mechelynck wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
    >> Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the
    >> other side of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of
    >> fundament..."
    >> ;-)

    >
    > Hah! -- I'll need to remember that one:
    >
    > 'My esteemed colleague is devoid of a fundament . . .
    >
    > ' . . . al understanding of the issue at hand.'
    >
    > :-D
    >
    > /b.
    >

    What we have here, is failure to communicate...... ;-)

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    On 19/01/2007 00:24, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    > Ed Mullen wrote:
    >
    >> 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. :-)
    >>
    >>

    > Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/
    >
    >

    errrr-ummmmm I thought that was a *handgun* ???

    reg

  9. Re: throbber

    On 19/01/2007 04:15, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Tony
    Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
    > squaredancer wrote:
    > [...]
    >

    <>
    >
    > Now go ahead, go on throwing bad language left and right, but don't be
    > surprised if after some time you get plonked. Good luck.
    >

    which is why NOBODY has any belief in the virtues of politicians any more!
    > Street language: "You're dead wrong, you stupid braindead jackass!"
    >

    Street reply: "oh yeah! sorry for that"
    > Senate language: "Mr. Speaker, what my esteemed colleague from the other side
    > of the hall just asserted, is completely devoid of fundament..."
    >

    public reply: "what the HELL does he mean??"
    > ;-)
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Tony.
    >



    and there you see the difference!

    JFK called speaking your mind "civil courage"

    reg

  10. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 19/01/2007 00:24, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    > Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    >> Ed Mullen wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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. :-)
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/
    >>
    >>

    > errrr-ummmmm I thought that was a *handgun* ???
    >
    > reg

    actually that's euphemism for Mogan-David 2/20 (a Type of wine) ;-)

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  11. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    On 20/01/2007 18:49, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    > squaredancer wrote:
    >
    >> On 19/01/2007 00:24, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    >> Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >>> Ed Mullen wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> 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. :-)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Could of been MadDog 20/20 ;-/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> errrr-ummmmm I thought that was a *handgun* ???
    >>
    >> reg
    >>

    > actually that's euphemism for Mogan-David 2/20 (a Type of wine) ;-)
    >
    >

    I *knew* it had something to do with champus & Magnum - or was that
    Dirty Harry Calahan ??

    reg

  12. Re: [OT]Re: throbber

    _squaredancer_ spoke thusly on 20/01/2007 4:32 PM:
    > I *knew* it had something to do with champus & Magnum - or was that
    > Dirty Harry Calahan ??


    Please take this OT discussion to email or mozilla.general.
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
    mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
    (Please do not email me tech support questions)

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