I like how you just cast off our disappointment with the way this feature was implemented. o_O I took issue with the new activation model months ago, you could have read the signs back then when people agreed with me.
I'll be happy if the button order is changed so that the minimize button is in the corner. As someone else pointed out here or another thread, this is a tool for developers. The likelihood that someone developing on a site is going to be enabling and disabling firebug a million miles a minute is minute. The more likely scenario is that they will want it on for a domain and then forget about it (minimize it) until something happens that causes them to need to interact with it. Not only was this a break from the earlier functionality of Firebug, it's also moving functionality that is not always wanted or needed into a prime location for accidental clicking. Anyway, the firebug team could easily avoid this by either allowing extension hooks into the location/format/form of those three buttons, or simply having an option that moves the "close and disable" button somewhere else or removes it entirely. On Jul 8, 10:47 am, Rob Campbell <robmcampb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rako, further obfuscation of JS code will never be a feature of > Firebug. Most minimized JS is already quite obfuscated and, if > anything, we'll produce a mechanism to display it more legibly, either > by extension or with a feature. > > As for the Off vs [X] button, I really feel this was a bit of a wasted > effort and a discussion that blew the issue out of proportion. Now > we've implemented this change to appease a noisy few. Most users will > learn that the [X] button means "Close / Off" after they've used it. > It behaves similarly to how you'd expect a close button to work in any > other area of Firefox or the OS. I, for one, will be glad to see the > "Off" label go away as soon as possible. > > On Jul 7, 3:33 pm, Rako <mscam...@rakovszky.eu> wrote: > > > I do not rant. > > I simply explain why is this extension/modification to/of the > > activation needed. > > Perhaps my reasoning offends you (are you one of the reverse- > > engineers?), but it is not going to change my reasoning. > > > On Jul 7, 12:34 pm, alfonsoml <aml...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 8:32 am, Rako <mscam...@rakovszky.eu> wrote: > > > > > I agree with all you say, but what annoys me, are the requests for new > > > > features in FB to enable reverse engineering. > > > > Then place your rants in those threads. > > > This is already too heated, please, don't mix unrelated things. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
