!!!! Dude! Why didn't you say there were design documents?! Also, why have a separate group for them? Or why not redirect the design discussions from here over there?
Seriously, we could all be having a much better informed and more productive discussion if we realized that there were documented rationales for all these decisions. Now we know what your assumptions were (and right away I can see that you erred in your consideration of what a "power JS user" is, if there is such a thing; the big category you're missing is JS/Ajax *developer*, which happens to be the constituency objecting the most to the changes). So why not have those documents be part of the discourse earlier? People could have told you right away that they were not well- represented among the user scenarios, and you would've caught the mismatch well ahead of time. Or at least these arguments could've been happening well before the beta. In any case, that document seems to reflect a pretty profound misunderstanding of how people use Firebug. (For instance: If I want to "debug a site deeply," why does it follow that I want to debug *all open pages*? You think we never check GMail in the middle of a debug session? If I want to debug a site deeply, that's what Firebug should let me do, and exactly what 1.3 let us do.) - Luke On Jul 12, 9:27 am, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 11, 4:56 pm, FoamHead <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Quotes are getting pretty deep, so I'm clipping some. Hopefully it'll > > be clear who is speaking in each quote :). > > > > > > 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. > > > This is different from your previous position and, TBH, is more in > > line with what you'd expect of any software project. You can't do > > everything at once, so you have to prioritize. I just hope that this > > isn't a platitude to end the conversation, but rather something that > > is tracked and discussed in earnest. > > Previously I suggested you could implement this in an extension. Based > on our discussions I realized that implementation of a feature to list > the active sites onto a web page would not be very difficult and might > help test and/or build confidence in the mechanism. I remain against > added a feature to Firebug for adding to the blacklist/whitelist. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Per Rako's comment, you need to target different user knowledge > > levels. Considering how blissfully verbose FireFox's FireBug menu tree > > is, I think it's a no-brainer to add the status bar icon's right-click > > menu options there. > > I agree that having the menus be identical would reduce confusion. > > > > > > > > So we agree on something, that's good. > > > Yuppers. I think the tone of this discussion started a little hostile, > > but I'm guessing that it is more a case of having a bad day rather > > than being truly hostile. In any case, FireBug is a best-in-class tool > > that I'm getting for free so how unhappy can we be? :D > > > > 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. > > > As you mention later, if a tab-oriented implementation was presented > > to you, you'd consider it. So what you meant here was that you are not > > planning to work on any alternatives _now_, but you will consider all > > viable FireBug improvements for the future, right? > > No, I meant that if a developer created a tab-oriented solution, > committed to maintaining it, and such a solution worked at least as > well as the current solution, I would support its inclusion. I > certainly do not believe the current solution is the only or best > solution. Its just good enough. > > > > > Assuming this is the case, that's a perfectly acceptable position. As > > a user, I'm not privy to the design and support information that you > > are, so I can't speak with authority. All I can do is outline my > > observations, experiences, and suggestions for consideration and I > > think I've accomplished that for this case. > > Based on my experience, the activation UI is much more difficult than > it appears. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Tone aside, that first sentence says a lot. It says that not only is > > FireBug committed to listening to the needs of its users, but it > > implies that tab-oriented activation was used by previous versions. > > Was tab-oriented used in previous versions? There was probably a lot > > of discussion before changing to the current model -- where are those > > discussions? We shouldn't need to rehash them now. Is the tab-oriented > > version's activation code still viable in FireFox 3.5+? If so, perhaps > > you could give some guidance on having someone port that functionality > > into a 1.4 test offshoot? It could perhaps even lead towards having > > both activation models in FireBug and letting the user choose one. > > No previous version of Firebug had tab-oriented activation. The > activation in 1.4 was originally based on URL alone. But users > described several compelling use case for making the activation work > on the domain of URLs, and that would also make the activation in 1.4 > more similar to 1.3. > > > > > Also, I can't find "Firebug Icon Menu > Options > Activate Same > > Domain" anywhere. I assume you mean "FireFox's Tools > FireBug > > > Options > Activate Same Origin URLs". > > Yes > > > > > In conclusion, let me point out that there may be no "right" > > activation model for FireBug. Some people will prefer one while others > > will prefer another. The fact is that you can never please everyone > > with when it comes to UIs. IMHO this is where things like use cases > > matter most. If you define the use cases that FireBug is meant to > > support, then the decision of an activation model becomes much easier. > > Thus this entire thread has two underlying goals: 1) to enumerate an > > unsupported use case of mine within the current activation model > > (namely being unable to view/manipulate the site activation list) and > > 2) to suggest an alternative activation model that would better > > satisfy all of my use cases. > > In the initial design of 1.4 we discussed a large number of use cases. > Some notes are > here:http://groups.google.com/group/firebug-working-group/web/firebug-user... > These pages are from six months ago and not all of the content is > related to 1.4 as it was implemented. > > jjb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
