On Jul 1, 7:24 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > Still true in Firebug 1.4. The only difference is the UI. In 1.3 you > have to open the permissions panel and add domains manually. In 1.4, > you just open Firebug on the site the first time you need it.
Does that work for the whole domain? Will it work for manually-entered URLs (rather than followed links)? And what happens when I close the console - does it forget that I wanted it activated for the domain? > Clicking the [X] closes Firebug. That is pretty standard user > interface. For example it is used in every application on Windows, > Linux, and Mac. Wrong. Clicking the [X] closes *the window*. I have a buddy list open. If I click the [X], it closes *the buddy list,* not the IM client. (I'm using Pidgin, but AFAIK *all* clients work like this.) In fact, *just like Firebug,* it leaves a little icon in the bottom-right. Closing the buddy list does *nothing* but close the buddy list. The Firebug console is just like the buddy list - it's important for interacting with the app, but the app still chugs along when I'm not interacting with it. (As an aside, almost NO apps on the Mac work as you describe; even if you close all the windows, *the app is still running.* Granted, it's a Mac oddity, but clearly the connection between closing a window and quitting an app is far weaker than you're implying.) This design quirk strongly compounds the problem with having activation remembered the way it is, since if you close the console to get it out of the way, not only have you inadvertently deactivated the Ajax listener for the page, *but you've disabled Firebug for the page permanently.* Closing the console is simply not the significant user decision you've made it out to be - if I close the console, all I want to do is close the console. I don't want to disable Firebug, and I *certainly* don't mean to tell Firebug not to activate automatically for the site anymore. > Which "vast" are you talking about? The dozen or so folks who have > posted here about 1.4? Or the dozen or so folks who complained about > 1.3? Really we can't use newsgroup posts as a proxy for votes. What we > can to is try to make the tool work very well. The key to that is > concrete, specific, detailed descriptions rather than "make it work > like it used to". People have described here at length what their workflow was and how it's been hamstrung by 1.4, and how 1.4's behavior is confusing and unhelpful. Also, the reason few people have piped up before now is that few people have needed to upgrade to 1.4. Now that FF3.5 is out, the group has been deluged. > Yes, but you are taking 72% of a tiny fraction of all Firebug users. > We had about 8,000 beta users, so even if 40 people here did not like > it, 40/8000 is only 0.5%, so we have 99.5% satisfied users. Do you > buy that? Me neither, so let's give up trying to count people who > complain. You're assuming that 100% of the people who didn't like it complained. > It is possible that someone will come along to work on Firebug and > want to work on the activation. Possible but unlikely. Uh, given the number of dissatisfied users around here, and how most Firebug users, particularly the most fervent, are themselves JavaScript devs, it's not only likely, it's a near-certainty. - Luke --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
