I disagree, that Firebug should not care for the experiance-level of its users: It should be assumed, that all users start as inexperienced FB users, who may or may not have experience in programming. Those features - mainly info or icon+text - needed by inexperienced, are annoying to more versed users. There should be means to adapt the UI.
Also it should be assumed, that one develops a site (using one version of FB), then for a long time makes no changes to the javascript etc code, because it works sufficiently well. Then comen new browsers, new data/requirement which cannot be handled by the old code, so there is a new bout of development with a new UI. If it is drastically different from the old one (which may not even work with the newest Firefox), one is lost. I certainly could make a case for a mixture of site and tab activation: There is an odd error with one page of the site. In most cases works as OK, but sometimes not. I would in this case have this page in two tabs: one with FB deactivated to find when does the page play up, than repeat that case in the other tab with FB activated. This would make debugging much more comfortable and faster. On Jul 11, 3:12 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
