"Detailed and specific. That way we can tell if your experience is a bug, a problem in communications, or real problem with the design"
Someone of the Firebug team has already totally blown off this being a design issue with the comment "3) We can't satisfied everybody." anyways, you John seem more interested in finding out the issue, so here's you go I'm in Visual Studio, i built my project, and choose the file to view in browser http://i40.tinypic.com/2cpx8uo.jpg So Flock (version 2.5) opens up, Firebug (i'm on 1.4.0b3) comes up disabled..... http://i42.tinypic.com/30mokmp.jpg (and yeah, that is the annoying part) So now i have to click the bug to "activate", which also opens the panel, which i am running 3 monitors but not very high resolution so i can't actually read/use what i am working on because the panel is hogging up the viewport http://i43.tinypic.com/27yvpnb.jpg So now I have to make another click to "undock", and then drag it to another monitor it just so i can read/use the web page http://i44.tinypic.com/2885b9j.jpg Sure, that simple example may sound like "well, it's just a few clicks", but as a professional developer, I am having to do that a lot of times over and over and over on a given 12 hour workday...... and i am closing and opening windows all the time (as that first screenshot causes a new page/tab to open) I'm just beside myself here, much like many others who have posted here and there, why a simple "if it's a domain the developer specifies, then start activated" isn't feasible.... and to be honest, totally looks like the suggestion is getting completely "blown off" (sorry, i'm still bitter on the "we can't satisfied everyone" comment by Jan above) You all are totally hung up that this new "activation" mode is the way to go, and that's great to think like that, but is it not possible to keep that existing 1.3 functionality and make *everyone* happy that Firebug is the best thing since beer and pizza? Designers and casual users (apparently who benefit most from this change in 1.4) will be happy with their empty "white list" and firebug not clogging up resources, and Developers like myself and the others who are speaking up as we can continue to work and tweak our JavaScript/AJAX and not have to fight the tool that up to this point has been a HUGE time saver.... I'm pretty sure that Firebug's tag line is "web development evolved", but this change seems to be in the wrong direction for *developers* Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now... thanks for reading and good night - Stephen On Jun 30, 11:35 pm, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 30, 7:49 pm, MorningZ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "But this IS the common use case: We have a site of our own that we're > > debugging. We want Firebug up all the time for that site and never for > > others." > > > EXACTLY!!! > > Ok, so open firebug on that site. Next time you return to that site > Firebug will be open. > > Unless you can me help understand why this does not work for you I > can't help. > > > > > I totally fail to understand how that behavior is a "bug" that needed > > to be fixed..... > > > I thought after i made my last post: "screw it, i'll just 'turn on for > > all websites' and deal with it this way".... > > > then 10 mins later as i checked my email i was rudely reminded just > > how much Gmail + Firebug = extreme failure > > What kind of failure are you referring to? I know that Gmail + > Firefox 2.0 + Firebug 1.2 is a problem. But that was, well, years > ago. Even with Firebug active I don't think its such a big deal. > > > > > "We have been working and previewing this design for many months" > > > And i bet the # of people using this preview is just a drop in the > > bucket compared to the people using whatever version is > > athttp://www.getfirebug.com(whichas i type this, is 1.3.3).... > > Yes, and the number of people who have complained is a drop in the > bucket compared to the number of beta users (about 8,000). What do we > conclude? Not much I am afraid to say. > > While I am naturally defensive about our work on 1.4, I do value the > comments from people who speak up. For example, the comments by users > about 1.3 motivated the changes you see in 1.4. So beware! ;-) > > > > > I mean come on now, there's lots of topics in this mailing list of > > people who don't like this "bug fix", surely there's enough feedback > > to at least think about making the change... > > Lots of thought and time when in to 1.4. Honestly we did not make this > change lightly. > > Lots of folks did not like 1.3 either. Now everyone who posts says 1.3 > is great. So what are we to think? > > I will tell you a secret: the way to make a convincing argument for > change is to describe in detail what happens in your use. Detailed and > specific. That way we can tell if your experience is a bug, a problem > in communications, or real problem with the design. > > > > > I saw someone post on another topic this page: > > >http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/firebug/how-to-enable-and-disable-... > > > There's two comments there, and they echo what we are all echoing > > here: 1.4's activation model is counter intuitive ** and not day to > > day developer friendly **... but if your focus has shifted from being > > the absolute must have JavaScript developer tool (believe me, it was, > > as it actually roped me into FireFox as my everyday browser) to a > > plugin my father could use (good god), then whatever, i guess it's "3) > > We can't satisfied everybody" > > Our focus it to make Firebug effective for all users. To the best of > my knowledge there is only one use case that 1.4 really does badly, > sites that generate unique URLs. > > jjb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
