On Jul 10, 12:57 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:43 pm, FoamHead <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I know there's been a lot of discussion about 1.4's new activation > > model and I don't want to rehash it, but I would like to request one > > thing: if FireBug is going to remember which sites I activated FireBug > > on, then I need an interface to view/manipulate that list. 1.3 at > > least had the ability to "disable for all", but 1.4 has nothing. It is > > completely unacceptable for FireBug to do anything based on a list > > that I am forced to remember. > > If you would like to write an extension to view and manipulate the > page annotations, we would be happy to help. Dumping the list of > annotations to the Console would be fairly easy. Removing entries > would also not be difficult, though you can do that by visiting the > page and then turning Firebug off. Add entries is much harder, and you > can do that now by opening the page then opening Firebug.
Wow. This attitude stuns me. You are saying that it is *my* responsibility to manage the core functionality of FireBug either by pencil and paper or by writing my own add-on. Simply put: if FireBug keeps a list of sites that *controls how FireBug operates*, then IMHO FireBug *must* provide a way for me to view/manage that list of sites. > To disable all existing annotations, use Firebug Statusbar icon right > click "Off for all pages". Yes, I see this now. I don't understand why this is in neither FireBug's Window's menus nor FireFox's FireBug menu tree. These are pretty important functions so you'd think they'd be in several places instead of just one relatively hidden one. > > Above aside, as a relatively lightweight FireBug user, I don't > > understand why FireBug should even care what the URL of the site is. > > As a relatively lightweight Firebug user, you should not need to care > about the the whitelist/blacklist either. This is a fairly disrespectful statement. You don't get to tell me or anyone else what we should or should not care about. And FWIW, by lightweight I meant I don't use it daily; I use it in spurts as necessary. I was not making any reference to what level of expertise I had with FireBug, but as was agreed, the level of FireBug expertise has no bearing on this usability discussion anyway. > > It seems infinitely easier to make FireBug turn on/off per tab > > regardless of which URL each tab goes to. FireBug shouldn't need to > > remember anything -- all tabs start off and a single click opens the > > FireBug window, activates the Console and Script sections, and reloads > > the current page (tho you should be able to configure exactly what > > happens). > > We did consider tab-oriented activation, but sites that open new > windows would then be difficult to include. True, but if you went tab-oriented, you'd only need a "start FireBug on all new tabs" option to cover this case. I don't know if the existing "On for All Web Pages" does exactly this, but if not, it is a trivial option to code. When you consider the massive amount of user complaints and coding complexity required to support the current activation model, going tab-oriented with a "start FireBug on all new tabs" option seems like an obvious win-win solution. > Please try Firebug 1.4 as it is, and if you have specific > difficulties, let us know in concrete step by step terms. I think if you actually digested what I wrote instead of politely dismissing my comments, you would know that I have been trying FireBug 1.4 as is. In using it, one of the first problems I noticed was that I had to open/activate it on every single page I visited. While I think that is a very poor usage model (and why I brought up tab-oriented), I tried to go with it. My problem came the first time I opened a page and FireBug unexpectedly started on for me. This made me realize that FireBug is tracking activation states per site. Remembering that version 1.3 had the ability to view/manipulate those site lists and globally turn things off, I went looking for the same in 1.4. When I found neither, I posted what I thought was a concrete explanation of the issue and possible solutions. -Foam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
