On 03-10-17 22:36, Jeff Griffiths wrote: > We did this based on some early feedback from a few different sources > that people coming from chrome
That's rather ironic. I have always thought that one reason why Chrome uses these uselessly-tiny tabs is to *discourage* users from hoarding a lot of tabs and thus ballooning the memory usage with one-tab-per-process. This can be effectively done by making the browser unusable as soon as you have a lot of tabs, hence, by making them unreadably small and impossible to click in that case. And now we're copying this behavior because Chrome users are conditioned to it. Madness. [1] > comments: chrome's "infinite tabs visible" approach results in a much > higher usable/visible tab count in a given window than ours does. Visible, yes. Usable, I don't think so! > I want feedback on this change from these lists, and will also be > looking for feedback from the original sources of this complaint. In > particular: > > 1. do you prefer the existing behaviour or the new behaviour? The existing behavior, by miles. The problem of the new behavior is that I now have a tab strip with long streaks of identical icons. How am I going to find anything in here? Click all of them (now much harder, because the click target is half the size!), wait for the page to load, move on to the next one? The usability degradation of this is insane. In fact, it makes it pointless to keep tabs open, as I have to find them via the awesomebar now and I might as well just re-open the webpages then, the workflow is the same. Thinking about what could possibly trigger someone to want this behavior, I'm guessing there's an intermediate zone where you have a few tabs open, enough that we would start scrolling them off-screen, but little enough that they still fit in one window with smaller titles. In that case, hunting for the right tab probably is easier if you don't have to scroll, especially as the position will stay fixed(!) and the amount of times you will guess wrong is smaller. This also implies that changing the min-width to be smaller *and* keeping the scrolling will get you the worst of both worlds in terms of usability. If anything, if the amount of tabs increases to the point where scrolling is required, I see no reason whatsoever not to restore a sensible min-width at that exact moment. > 2. if you prefer a value for this pref different than 50 or 100, what > is it? Why? Whatever the previous default was is good enough and infinitely better than what we have now. [1] I'm sure users that have been conditioned that there exists only a single search engine are going to be confused by the choice that it offers. Maybe we should remove the search box and switch to an Omnibar. -- GCP _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
