On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, FoamHead <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Providing this function is on the list of things that could be done to
improve Firebug. It is not at the top.
>
> > 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.
Opinions differ. I never use those other things and they are much
less convenient.
>
> > > 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.
Ditto. Nevertheless, I take it back, since I do not believe that the
relative frequency of use has any bearing on the design decisions.
>
> 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.
So we agree on something, that's good.
>
> > > 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.
The current activation model is both the simplest version we have had
and the one we have now. There is no possibility that I will work on
an alternative.
>
> > 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.
All of Firebug's activation models have been site/page-oriented. If
you want to develop a tab-oriented version I would be interested in
the user experience and if it turned out well we could consider it for
a future version of Firebug.
>
> 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.
Firebug tracks activations per site because I listened to the "massive
amount of user complaints" and implemented "Activate Same Domain". If
you prefer, you can turn that option off under Firebug Icon Menu >
Options > Activate Same Domain.
>
> -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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
