Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Tab Relocation Coming For Chrome

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the trust-us-we're-designers dept.

Chrome 574

shaitand writes about Google disagreeing with the desire of Chrome users to put tabs under (rather than above) the location bar: "This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue. [A Chromium developer] says, 'Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'"

cancel ×

574 comments

Use Firefox (2, Insightful)

medlefsen (995255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755580)

Problem solved

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755624)

Use Firefox
Problem solved

Compared to the thread on that bug, even the Firefox UI team's hostility to its userbase is but a pale imitation of Chrome.

But at least now we know where the Fx developers got the idea.

Re:Use Firefox (1)

medlefsen (995255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755688)

I just don't get the whining. Not only are there multiple high quality browsers for every major OS, but two of the top four of them are open source. Each team is going to have their own vision for their product and that's just part of life. If you want a level of customization that Chrome doesn't provide, Firefox with it's huge extension database seems like a good match.

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756126)

Unfortunately, while Firefox is customizable, the performance absolutely sucks. Just open one tab and go to some website that crashes Gecko, and the whole browser crashes. One tab is slow, the whole browser is slow. Too many tabs, and everything slows to a crawl, with long delays between typing into a textbox (like I'm doing now) and seeing the text show up.

These problems all exist because Firefox stubbornly clings to the antiquated and idiotic notion of having all tabs and windows run in a single process. Chromium doesn't do this, so I never have those problems in that browser. When is Firefox going to stop wasting time on useless UI changes and actually fix their architecture?

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755686)

I've had loads of friends ask why I don't use Chrome. Shit like this is why.

The worst thing I've had to deal with is tear-off tabs/tear-away tabs, which seems to be a highly unwanted feature by many people (and yet no configuration option exists in vanilla Firefox.) Bug 489729 [mozilla.org] is a wonderful addon which pretty much does what Mozilla was (in this one instance) too lazy to do - disable a new option they added that a whole lot of people didn't want.

In the Mozilla case, if they fuck stuff up there's other people out there who will unfuck it via addons, mods, scripts, etc. If Google fucks stuff up... well, you're just fucked.

Re:Use Firefox (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755958)

Speaking as a Chrome user (and web developer), the ability to detach tabs is a critically important feature that I can't live without. The lack of said ability means that, when I need to view two tabs side-by side (often on different monitors), I have to open up a new browser and hope I can reproduce whatever was going on. It drives me nuts when I'm using a browser like IE, and am unable to do this. Even when I'm at home on my single monitor, and not working, I regularly tear off tabs and use the WIN+LEFT and WIN+RIGHT shortcuts to get them side-by-side...

I'm not sure how the feature works on Firefox, but on Chrome, there is no reason to add an option to disable this behaviour (and several reasons why not to add an option), as it's unlikely the user would do this by accident (having to click and drag a tab a decent distance to trigger it), the user can always simply not tear off tabs. Offering an option to disable it it would be like offering an option to disable tabbed browsing entirely; if you don't want to use tabs, just don't open any extra tabs.

Re:Use Firefox (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755718)

If you have more than a handful of tabs, they belong on the side of the browser anyway. Chrome allows this. [lifehacker.com] Yeah, it doesn't change the fact that they're dicks, but it might help some people.

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756002)

Firefox allows that too, courtesy of extensions. I like the Ff model of using extensions to add/modify/remove functionality, I just wish they carried it to the logical conclusion of making the browser itself minimal, with extensions providing many features that are now built in (e.g. awesome bar).

Hell, ship it with those extensions pre-installed, if you want to provide a "complete" UX by default for people without the knowledge/inclination to start with a minimal browser and choose their own set of add-ons, but let them be removed entirely instead of requiring additional extensions to override them.

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755728)

Yeah, I'll trade my tab location for bloat and churn. Fuck that noise. Firefox is everything I left IE over.

Re:Use Firefox (1)

cloricus (691063) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755986)

I'm pretty sure the rest of us left Internet Explorer due to its lack of bloat (no modern features at all) and its total lack of churn ('IE6 is perfect, it'll never need another release!').

Guess you just have a short memory.

No, the problem is "UI designers". (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755730)

The problem is so-called "UI designers". They have had a horrible impact on every software product they've gotten involved with, whether it's web sites, browsers, email clients, or even entire desktop environments (GNOME, I'm looking at you).

Up until about 4 or 5 years ago, UIs of many of the major projects were designed and implemented by real programmers. These people made far more sensible trade-offs. They'd almost always choose practicality, productivity and usability over appearance. Now, this meant that there weren't as many rounded corners and gradients, but at least we had consistent UIs across applications, and they were reasonably efficient to use. We had proper menus, for instance, that made it very easy to see what an application could do.

As we all know, the situation has changed. Now we have a lot of failed web designers not being able to find work designing web sites, so instead they've tried to get involved with app development. This has not gone well. The UIs of programs like Firefox, and all of GNOME 3, have been trashed by these people. They've even had some impact on commercial software, like the horrid UIs that recent versions of MS Office and IE have.

We need to give these people the boot. It's one thing when they're making icons, but it's a completely different issue when they're deciding how the UI should be designed and implemented. None of them, across a wide range of software products, have been able to put together a usable UI. None of them.

Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (2)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755760)

But ... but ... the usability studies say so!

Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755978)

There are entire degree programs on UI design. But a few users will demand that things be arranged the way they want. And for many things, the vocal minority gets a larger voice than the silent majority. Ignoring whining users isn't a bad thing. In fact, it shows a team dedicated to a unified UI vision that would be superior to UI by untrained users (you end up with the car from the Simpsons).

Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756032)

Speaking as a programmer, programmers are not designers. They should not, unless they have demonstrated an ability to do so, design UIs. Letting programmers design UIs is how we get software like emacs or vi: greatly productive for a small number of advanced users, completely unusable by almost any computer user apart from those.

Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756084)

Real programmers use ed.

Re:No, the problem is "UI designers". (3, Interesting)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756056)

In a similar vein, look at the reaction to google hiding the link to cached search results [google.com] in that stupid preview popup.

Not only does it add an extra click and load time to every view of a cached page, it also breaks when scripting isn't given free reign.

With tree-tabs! (4, Informative)

Arker (91948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755794)

Seriously, this extension is a must: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ [mozilla.org]

I have always liked google and I still do, but their browser is not for me.

And to those saying fork chrome - better to fork Firefox I think. It's already pretty much feature-complete and just needs to be yanked out of the hands of Mozilla before they figure out how to screw it up like chrome.

Re:With tree-tabs! (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755950)

Oooh, I like this. Thanks for the pointer!

Re:Use Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755816)

I hereby present you with my "Funniest Post of The Day." It's quite an honor.

Re:Use Firefox (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755884)

Firefox: Hey, guys, we're adding in a ton of new features! I mean, tons of them! Look how much memory we're using with all this random bullshit a couple guys with hideously esoteric tastes kept bugging us to add in!
Nerds: Waaaah! Waaaah! We don't want features! It's too bloated and wastes too much memory! Why do we have to dig into config files and about:config to change this? Make it different! It physically hurts us somehow! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
Chrome: Hey, guys, we're cutting out all this bullshit and not kowtowing to random esoteric features 1% of our userbase wants! Look how lean our browser is!
Nerds: Waaaah! Waaaah! We want useless bullshit features! It's too nonconfigurable! Why don't we have to dig into config files and about:config to change this? Make it different! It physically hurts us somehow! Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!

And this bitchfest right here has given me an entirely new appreciation for Firefox's and Google's devteams and some understanding of their arrogant attitudes if this is the sort of nonsense they have to deal with every day. Give the users an inch, they'll cry until you give them a mile, and then Chrome becomes just as bloated as Firefox just because a couple really loud nerds can't figure out how to install Opera.

Frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755584)

Piss!

This (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755586)

This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue.

This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.

Getting too big for their britches.

Re:This (1)

tidepool (137349) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755654)

This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.

Getting too big for their britches.

And this is why I am downloading Opera now. Why is it once a company gets more 'market-share' in whatever 'industry', they start being absolute dickheads?

Re:This (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755724)

I'm sorry, but while you can place the tab bar on the bottom in Opera, you can't place it directly under the address bar.

Re:This (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756130)

Er, yes, you can.

1. Right-click toolbar -> Customize -> Appearance.
2. In "select which standard toolbars you want to show", check "Main bar" (it's a toolbar that is above the tab bar).
3. Remove any predefined buttons on "Main bar", and place Back/Forward/Reload buttons, address and search fields etc on it, according to your taste. Now you have a duplicate address bar above tabs.
4. Uncheck "Address bar" to hide the 'real' address bar (below tabs).

Re:This (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755660)

If you are willing to trade speed and stability for greater customizability, there is always Firefox. Feature creep is what defines FF, so if Google doesn't want their browser to turn into a huge complicated mess, all I can do is agree with them.

And for the record, I'm a Firefox user. As a developer, I would not want to live without Firebug and 3 dozen more add-ons. Chrome is a "consumer" browser, much like Safari and Opera, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Re:This (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755844)

Chrome is a "consumer" browser, much like Safari and Opera, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I know that Firebug is really popular. I use it on occasion. Personally, I prefer GDT. I just find it a helluva lot more useful.

Re:This (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756138)

Tab relocation isn't a feature that is going to slow down the browser or the fast js rendering engine that gives Chrome its edge. It's a basic usability feature.

Re:This (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755692)

And this is why it's important to have several browsers around that all implement the same standards. This kind of competition is awesome, because a new browser is just a click away. Don't like Chrome? Go for IE or Firefox. Or the other half-dozen options that are available. Features that drive people away will either be killed, or result in the death of the browser.

I really hope that three browsers will remain at the top of the heap for a long time. That makes it a lot harder for one to dictate how the web works, and for two to collude on how the web works.

Re:This (2, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755726)

How is this that contemptible? It's not immoral, unethical, or even evil. It's a painter saying no I like my painting with purple grass, and I don't care that you want green grass in my painting because it's my painting. If you want green grass go to that Van Gogh guy. This isn't really a "bug" ether. It's an aesthetics request. It is behaving exactly as the designer wanted it to.

Re:This (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756096)

I'm sorry, but a browser is not a piece of art.
It's like your carpenter telling you that your cabinet will have sliding doors; no matter how many orders he gets for hinged doors, he'll ignore it.
Sure, he can do that, but he'll be considered a quirky craftsman at best, and a bad one at worst, and I don't think his carpentry business will be viable in the long run.

Re:This (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755754)

Yea, this is shocking behaviour.

We should organise a class action to get a refund for the money we've spent on Chrome!

Re:This (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755930)

Yea, this is shocking behaviour.

We should organise a class action to get a refund for the money we've spent on Chrome!

It's not about Chrome, but their attitude towards their users/customers. While I understand wanting to maintain their direction in product development, simply telling the user base their opinions do not matter is rude. Users often offer up great feedback, which I value. I weigh everything when someone discusses my apps, to bulldoze ahead without taking any pulse is to do what Microsoft have done. See how well it has worked for them?

Re:This (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756068)

Ok, but they have millions of users. The vocal 185 that posted on the bug may represent 1 million users or may represent 185. This was a bug, not a design preference, and given the tasks they need to do saying "Hey, we made a decision, sorry, not taking anymore comments" on this bug is not that big a deal.

Re:This (1)

Adm.Wiggin (759767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755806)

If you ask the users what they want, they'll tell you that they want a faster DOS...

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755892)

Getting too big for their britches.

As mentioned in the rant by the Google employee last week [slashdot.org] the Google Chrome Team hates their users:

And so we wind up with a browser that doesn't let you set the default font size. Talk about an affront to Accessibility. I mean, as I get older I'm actually going blind. For real. I've been nearsighted all my life, and once you hit 40 years old you stop being able to see things up close. So font selection becomes this life-or-death thing: it can lock you out of the product completely. But the Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they're quite brazen about it, and Fuck You if you're blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life.

Re:This (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755934)

"contemtable behavior"? Seriously? It's a company making a product to their views of what works and giving it away for free. If you don't like their decisions you are free to do one of the following:

* Don't use it
* Fork Chromium and make the change

Nowhere in there is "* Whine about it and then get upset when you don't get your way."

Re:This (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755946)

You can have any color you want, as long as it's chrome. I prefer Chrome, or even a hammer and chisel, over IE, and as others have commented, Chrome is simple and uncluttered. If Google doesn't want it to morph into bloatware, that's their call. More power to them.

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755992)

Yes. How dare Google act upon it's opinion about the browser it pays to develop.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is just absurd. It is not contemptible in the slightest for any open source dev to create a project they want. It is their time and money. And you know what, someone is free to fork Chromium and change the GUI. Or, someone could create a patch set. Or, my favorite option, don't get your panties in a bunch about an inconsequential feature.

I wish it had an option for removing the X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755592)

I wish it had an option for removing the X from tabs (other than the one you're currently on maybe) for those of us who use the middle mouse button to close tabs

let's revolt! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755594)

oh my god! the humanity.

Who cares?! Shut up already.

Push this on the queue of broken dreams... (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755606)

...along with adblocking and noscript.

Re:Push this on the queue of broken dreams... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755708)

Adblock Plus works just fine in Chrome. And Notscripts does a wonderful job of blocking unwanted scripts, similar to Noscripts.

Re:Push this on the queue of broken dreams... (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756098)

I second this. I've been using Adblock Plus in Chrome for a few weeks now and it's amazing the difference it makes in pages. Works very well.

Google way or the highway (2, Interesting)

Muerte2 (121747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755614)

The more I read about Chrome's design process the more I hear, "it's the Google way or no way at all". I don't have a problem with the tabs being on the top, but it seems like it would be very easy to have an option where you want the tab bar. Several of the comments had valid use cases for why you'd want tabs under, but Google isn't interested in adding it as an option?

Re:Google way or the highway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755706)

Dur Apple is closed, dur dur. They aren't open like google. Dur hur dur.

Re:Google way or the highway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755862)

Every option you add is another option to maintain.

Good 'ol Stanford snootiness alive at Google. (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755616)

Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'"

Wow. Talk about arrogance on their part.

Locking the comments doesn't mean the issue goes away.

Invalid Bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755622)

It's not a "bug" if it's by design. They said from the start that it was by design. Close the bug as invalid and move on.

Re:Invalid Bug. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755790)

This.

I switch between Opera and Chrome, and both are the same with the tabs above the location bar.

And Firefox would be nearly the same if the menu bar wasn't above everything else.

I fail to see the problem. It's not a bug.

--
BMO

Fortunately (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755626)

There are quite a few alternative browsers out there. Although those who complain about this change will probably adapt to it in a week or so

People actually care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755638)

People actually have an opinion on a trivial, insignificant change?

The tabs are on top? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755640)

Funny, I've been using Chrome exclusively for months, and until I noted this /. post I never noticed that the tabs are above the location bar. I guess that's where they belong.

They seem nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755646)

While I prefer my tabs where they currently are in Chrome, I really hate the attitude of the Chromium developers towards their users on this and other issues. They've no interest in giving users the browser that they, the users, want. Instead they give them the browser that they, the developers, think the users should want.

Re:They seem nice. (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755764)

They've no interest in giving users the browser that they, the users, want.

It's a fair point, but then again, they have already given users the browser they want.

When I switched to Chrome, I wasn't pestering Google Devs to gimme gimme gimme. They had an idea, manifested it, and now we have a more competitive browser market. They even poured some advertising money into it so that John and Jane Doe might actually realize how much of the internet they've been missing by using older versions of IE.

It's their browser, their agenda, their rules. If it wasn't for the developers of Chrome having this sense of ego, users would be dealing with simply another browser that mimicked what others do and further stagnating the progress of modern web standards like HTML5/CSS3.

Feature request... Not a bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755650)

I dont think creating a defect is the proper way to go about presenting an idea... Typically bugfixers are not the developers anyways.

fork chromium (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755658)

fuck google. put it under control of a non-profit with some sort of accountability.

Re:fork chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756030)

yeah, a non-profit that will jump to meet any feature request that gets more than 180 users to whine on an internet thread. that'll stay non-bankrupt for a really long time!

Re:fork chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756144)

kill yourself

Breaking news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755664)

Minor UI tweak not coming to open-source browser, even though several people would rather prefer it did!
Thank you, /., for your continued dedication in keeping us up-to-date on the leading edge of tech.

I know getting on the front page of Slashdot is the only way to get Google to do anything, but Jeebus, at least save it for something of even remote significance.

Re:Breaking news! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755984)

Minor UI tweak not coming to open-source browser, even though several people would rather prefer it did!

That isn't the story.

Why did this even make front page? (5, Insightful)

T-Mckenney (2008418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755680)

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but why in this world does this merit being front page? I find this to be on the level of simple bickering. This is more suited for a forum post or something a long that line.

Re:Why did this even make front page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755792)

Google-like typing detected

Re:Why did this even make front page? (0)

T-Mckenney (2008418) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755846)

u mad, bro?

Is Chrome open source? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755694)

Then fork it.. I mean if you really insist on using Chrome... Personally I stick with Seamonkey, the all inclusive browser, and not much bigger than Firefox anymore

Re:Is Chrome open source? (1)

TxRv (1662461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755800)

Chrome isn't, but Chromium, from which Chrome draws its source code, is.

The user is never right (2, Interesting)

Neurotrace (2382180) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755702)

Google is blatantly ignoring and degrading their users, Mozilla is forcing their users to install a new version more often which seems increasingly less stable, is everyone losing sight of the user?

Re:The user is never right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755814)

degrading their users

Really? I think you might want to look that word up in a dictionary.

What actually happened: (1)

Issildur03 (1173487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755722)

Overwhelming feedback: 187 comments.
Google revealed their view on the community: One developer said, specifically: 'Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'

The issue was set to WontFix in September 2010, but people are still complaining about the design decision.

Re:What actually happened: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755780)

Also, "no dissent"? Tabs on top of the address bar makes way more sense than having them underneath. I mean, duh: the address bar's contents are dependent on the tab. Why would the tabs be underneath, other than "Mozilla Firebird 0.2 did it that way so now everyone has to do that forever!"

Shilling for Google? (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755842)

N/T

Re:What actually happened: (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755858)

Can you sensationalize your comment a bit so I can get angry about it? I really want to get angry about it!

Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755762)

Good for Google, it's a stupid idea anyway.
No one is forcing you to use chrome.
I'd act like an asshole too if I made some software and people start complaining about all kinds of shit when I don't even care whether they use it or not.
I know you'll say Google is a company and bla bla bla, but what is really different?
They are releasing a free browser and saying they don't want to change the way it looks.
All these people complaining just means that chrome is so much better than all the other browsers that they use it despite this annoyance.

Usability (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755788)

Generally, the less you have to move the mouse, the better. If the tabs are between the text and URL bar, you save 60ish pixels of movement compared to Chrome's arrangement every time you touch a tab, which tends to be a lot. On the other hand, you type into the URL bar at least an order of magnitude less often.

There are other misfeatures that Firefox copied from Chrome, but fortunately all of them can be reverted as an option. Chrome lacks that configurability.

For example:
* when I close the only tab, the browser shouldn't crash. I did not ask for the window to close, nor did I select "Quit" from the menu, I merely closed a tab. No other MDI program works that way.
* special-cased hiding of "http://". What's the point of that? It doesn't do so to "https://", "ftp://" or "gopher://" URLs...

Re:Usability (3, Insightful)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755914)

Generally, the less you have to move the mouse, the better. If the tabs are between the text and URL bar, you save 60ish pixels of movement compared to Chrome's arrangement every time you touch a tab, which tends to be a lot. On the other hand, you type into the URL bar at least an order of magnitude less often.

Yes, but you gain on the infinite height of a tab ending at the top of the screen. By having tabs on top with the window maximized, you have to only aim in the X axis and move the cursor up, instead of having to aim at a small area in XY, which is demonstrably harder and more time consuming.

Re:Usability (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755936)

"* special-cased hiding of "http://". What's the point of that? It doesn't do so to "https://", "ftp://" or "gopher://" URLs..."

The reason would be that for 99% of the use cases of typing and sharing URL's, the HTTP is implied and unnecessary.

Non HTTP addresses are however non-standard and as such need to be declared explicitly.

Re:Usability (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756026)

In my recent browsing history, 80% URLs are https.

Re:Usability (1)

Hotweed Music (2017854) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756040)

I use the URL bar a lot in Chrome. Instant is awesome. 60 px is nothing to cry about, seriously.
The tab thing is a small nitpick that takes exactly 1 misuse to find a solution to -- not all products have the same functionality, what kind of backward world do you want to live it?
Since it doesn't do so to the others, and "http://" has no useful information wouldn't it make sense to exlcude only that?

I think you just WANT to hate Chrome.

Wow. locking feedback, telling people what to thin (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755796)

Thats good for 'open' software, isnt it.

no

Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider. So that people don't get their hopes up falsely, I'm locking this bug to additional comments.'"

i call these people assholes. because, thats the term used for that kind of behavior.

anyway this assholery has just persuaded me not to use chrome ever. and i had some complains with firefox too.

Re:Wow. locking feedback, telling people what to t (2)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755948)

Fork it, you are still free to do it. That's why it is still open software. Other than that, they have a vision on what the browser called Chrome should be, of which Chromium is the dev version.

anyway this assholery has just persuaded me not to use chrome ever. and i had some complains with firefox too.

You still have Opera, IE and Safari...

Re:Wow. locking feedback, telling people what to t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756028)

Wait, what? Since when has it been required that an open source project accept and implement every feature request from users? I don't care how many people commented or voted on the issue. Ultimately it's the developers who get to decide what features make the cut, and what features are not worth their time. Not a bunch of petulant lusers whinging over pixel placement.

Go ahead and fork Chromium if you want tabs below the address bar. Then you can deal with the whining from 150 people who want you to change some other trivial detail.

Waste of time (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755882)

I would much rather they work on more outstanding bugs (not that this is even a bug--it really is working as intended) than spend time and effort on something as trivial as this. I prefer tabs on top, but my browser of choice (Safari on OS X, though I use Chrome elsewhere) doesn't do it that way. Would I like them to change it? Yes, but it won't happen. Apple briefly tried it with the Safari 4 beta, and reverted it back. Oh well.

In Safari, I'm much more happy with new features like Reading List, Reader mode, and sandboxed plugins, than a silly UI non-issue. Same with Chrome and its respective feature set.

Bookmarks Location (1)

JonBuck (112195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755890)

I'd settle for being able to dock my bookmarks on the left edge of the window. The current menu-tree is cumbersome for me.

"overwhelming feedback with no notable dissent..." (3, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755894)

on that specific bug tracker thread. Just because 99% of the people replying in THAT thread doesn't mean that 99% of all chrome users support that position.

Personally, I love the tabs being on top because that is where I think they belong. Everything under the tab belongs under the tab. The address bar, navigation buttons, print button, actual web page, and everything else belongs to that specific page and should be under a tab. If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.

Tabs belong on the top. Now, I wouldn't care if google made an option to allow the user to move the tabs to the bottom.

But to whine about google's "arrogance" by not doing what you want them to do shows real arrogance.

Re:"overwhelming feedback with no notable dissent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755956)

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the address bar that makes this decision so bafflingly stupid. The address bar does not "belong to that specific page"; it is a mechanism for leaving the page to go elsewhere. Nobody is going "Holy shit, I'm reading this page and have no idea where I am; let me check the address bar and find out." Even if such people existed, they'd be better off looking at the title bar which is still above the tab!!!

Re:"overwhelming feedback with no notable dissent. (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756148)

bluushit. The address bar is where you are, it is what you are looking at. People rarely use it to go anywhere, as in one page to another, but they do glance at it to see where they are. If people want to go to new place, 99% of the time they are opening a new tab or clicking a bookmark, not typing over the current address.

Re:"overwhelming feedback with no notable dissent. (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756062)

If the tabs are on the bottom then the tab's container holds the address bar, navigation buttons, print button and everything EXCEPT the actual web page. Silly.

This issue isn't about allowing tabs to be placed at the bottom of the browser window; it's about allowing tabs to be placed below the address/location bar.

Fine the way it is, but why not support both? (1)

podom (139468) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755910)

I use Chrome. I like the current placement of the tabs above the location bar very much. I and most people who agree with me would never have thought to comment on this "bug" because we don't consider it a bug. If 99% of people (for the sake of argument) like the status quo, should you really be up in arms because a company ignores the 1% of people who complain?

On the other hand, perhaps an option to change the arrangement for those who want the tabs below...

They took my vertical tabs! (1)

taybay (935207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755916)

Typing "about:flags" in Chrome used to show an experimental option that placed tabs vertically on the side of the browser. That option (and my vertical tabs) mysteriously disappeared a few days ago after I'd been using it for many months. I'm guessing this might have something to do with it. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Re:They took my vertical tabs! (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756014)

To be fair it does come with a warning:

WARNING These experimental features may change, break, or disappear at any time. We make absolutely no guarantees about what may happen if you turn one of these experiments on, and your browser may even spontaneously combust. Jokes aside, your browser may delete all your data, or your security and privacy could be compromised in unexpected ways. Any experiments you enable will be enabled for all users of this browser. Please proceed with caution.

Re:They took my vertical tabs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756082)

Firefox has an addon Tree Style Tabs that puts them on the side. Configurable to turn off the auto-collapse option.

Reason for Being (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755970)

Tabs on Top is the soul thing that made Chrome interesting. It was 'THE' innovation that justified the release of a new browser. They can't allow it to go away without losing their identity. I suspect there are technical and 'paradigm' reasons involved as well.

One thing I noticed from the comments that I read from that thread, in the majority of cases it's not really the tabs at the top that bother them, it's the fact that they broke UI conventions and therefore do not play nicely with the other software. Except that it's their fault for breaking custom, why should Google put in a fix to make the other software work?

I find it interesting that I'm typing this from FireFox with my tabs ABOVE the URL bar. (And it only makes sense that way.) However, they are below the menu bar and the title bar. So my app still has the familiar "top handle" and therefor plays nicely with the other apps on the screen, but still keeps the URL safely on the tab it belongs with.

Seriously??? (2)

elfuzzo (885365) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755972)

At the risk of sounding like a tool... Wow, so many people demanding the UI be changed just because they're used to of being a different way in another browser... I can appreciate the remote desktop argument & such but seriously... first world problem much?? It's a free browser - if you don't like it, stop complaining so much and use what you're used to...

Sense of Entitlement: n, (0)

TxRv (1662461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755982)

definition: a 'Sense of Entitlement' is an unrealistic, unmerited or inappropriate expectation of favorable living conditions and favorable treatment at the hands of others.

Example: Complaining about UI design changes in a browser you got for free.

Visual and Informational Hierarchy (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755994)

I use Firefox, but I actually prefer the tabs above the address field. A tab is just a container and the address field contains information that's directly associated with the other content within the tab. The same goes for the back and forward buttons; their state is dependent on the browsing history of a specific tab.

Still... giving people the option to switch shouldn't be something that's denied with a heavy fist. That's just poor PR.

It's my build I can cry if I want to (1)

utkonos (2104836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756000)

So what? This is non-news. Chromium is open source. Chrome is a closed source build of Chromium. Google can do anything it wants with Chrome, and I see no problem with that. If you want to have tabs below the location bar, great! Write a patch to Chromium, or quit whining. The point of free software is that the user is free to change the software in any way that she sees fit.

It's still there (1)

insidious777 (890334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756090)

"Google ... today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue."

That's ridiculous; closing a bug doesn't silence anyone's opinion. The dissenting opinion on that bug will now stand forever, for all to see.

Google didn't silence dissent. If anything, they immortalized it.

Waiting for the fork... (1)

dragonk (140807) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756132)

Because when the leadership of an open source project doesn't do what you want, nobody is stopping you from doing it yourself. Someone fork it, i'll use it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...