Bugzilla

(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #4)
> (In reply to Asif Youssuff from comment #3)
> > As far as opening the image in a new tab, I suppose that may have worked, but is a pretty indirect way of getting to this and I did not think of it - that is two steps instead of one.
> 
> I don't understand why you consider this 2 vs 1 step - it's still just 1 context menu item, and then having to either navigate the list in the page info dialog (which per reddit is allegedly only 60% of the time selecting the right image...) for the right image, or hovering the title of the tab. Or you could just `copy image link` and then the URL would distinguish what type you get (in this particular case, for the `<picture>` element). The page info dialog also doesn't seem any easier or harder to get rid of than the additional tab that "open image in new tab" would produce.

I don't think I had to navigate the list, it just showed me the information I wanted to see immediately - eg dimensions and type. Hovering the title of the tab is the second step, closing the tab or the window is equivalent. Copying the link location destroys the contents of my clipboard, so it doesn't really feel like a workable solution, and works even less well in cases where the location doesn't change but the type of image does (not an issue in the <picture> case). 

Opening a new tab (or navigating to the image in the same tab in previous version) feels like more of an interruption than what seems to be the equivalent of an inspector panel: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/windows-and-views/panels/

> > >Is the only reason to use "view image info" to find out what the content type of the image is? And... why would you care about the type of the image in the first place?
> > 
> > It was in this instance (for me), although I have used it in the past to get the images' dimensions without needing to view the image. Your proposed workaround above used to be an easy way to do this back when Firefox had a titlebar by default, and I could "View Image" to look at the dimensions and quickly go back.

> > As far as caring about the image type - I was writing a web page and wanted to see whether I was getting the optimized webp image or whether I was getting the fallback image (like what Inspect seemed to claim).
> 
> Again I would suggest the inspector here needs fixing. You could also rely on the network pane in devtools, if verifying server behaviour is what you're after.

This seems far more complex than what was previously already available (the regression here). 

> 
> Basically, there are a lot of other ways to get this information that *should* be just as easy if not easier (and that double up doing other work like showing you the image in a convenient size and place, unlike the weird preview in page info which [also has other issues](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453452)), this isn't a usecase most people have (which we have telemetry for), other browsers don't have an equivalent which further cements the understanding that this isn't crucial functionality, so the item got removed to try to simplify the menu and make it easier to find the items that *do* get use.

I understand wanting to make things easier to find, but there really isn't that many items here (in my testing) to be overwhelming, especially if grouped. Safari has two instances of "Save" (Save to Downloads/Save Image As...) and "Open Image" (Open Image in New Tab, Open Image in New Window) and doesn't feel heavyweight to me - they group those options together to make them feel like bundles of options. I think grouping would be more effective to organize the information hierarchy and to make things easier to find (and ignore) - removing things just make them impossible to find - or force users into unwieldy workarounds. 

Email Image would have been a better candidate for removal (this was suggested in the reddit thread) - Chrome doesn't have this menu item, and emailing the image is a much more straightforward operation to workaround - copy, copy image location, even open in new tab and share. Chrome actually has a QR code generator when context clicking images, but no email image. 

Can that be considered instead, if the concern is to simplify the menu and to eliminate items that don't have equivalent functions in other browsers?

(In reply to :Gijs (he/him) from comment #4)
> (In reply to Asif Youssuff from comment #3)
> > As far as opening the image in a new tab, I suppose that may have worked, but is a pretty indirect way of getting to this and I did not think of it - that is two steps instead of one.
> 
> I don't understand why you consider this 2 vs 1 step - it's still just 1 context menu item, and then having to either navigate the list in the page info dialog (which per reddit is allegedly only 60% of the time selecting the right image...) for the right image, or hovering the title of the tab. Or you could just `copy image link` and then the URL would distinguish what type you get (in this particular case, for the `<picture>` element). The page info dialog also doesn't seem any easier or harder to get rid of than the additional tab that "open image in new tab" would produce.

I don't think I had to navigate the list, it just showed me the information I wanted to see immediately - eg dimensions and type. Hovering the title of the tab is the second step, closing the tab or the window is equivalent. Copying the link location destroys the contents of my clipboard, so it doesn't really feel like a workable solution, and works even less well in cases where the location doesn't change but the type of image does (not an issue in the <picture> case). 

Opening a new tab (or navigating to the image in the same tab in previous version) feels like more of an interruption than what seems to be the equivalent of an inspector panel: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/windows-and-views/panels/

> > As far as caring about the image type - I was writing a web page and wanted to see whether I was getting the optimized webp image or whether I was getting the fallback image (like what Inspect seemed to claim).
> 
> Again I would suggest the inspector here needs fixing. You could also rely on the network pane in devtools, if verifying server behaviour is what you're after.

This seems far more complex than what was previously already available (the regression here). 

> 
> Basically, there are a lot of other ways to get this information that *should* be just as easy if not easier (and that double up doing other work like showing you the image in a convenient size and place, unlike the weird preview in page info which [also has other issues](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453452)), this isn't a usecase most people have (which we have telemetry for), other browsers don't have an equivalent which further cements the understanding that this isn't crucial functionality, so the item got removed to try to simplify the menu and make it easier to find the items that *do* get use.

I understand wanting to make things easier to find, but there really isn't that many items here (in my testing) to be overwhelming, especially if grouped. Safari has two instances of "Save" (Save to Downloads/Save Image As...) and "Open Image" (Open Image in New Tab, Open Image in New Window) and doesn't feel heavyweight to me - they group those options together to make them feel like bundles of options. I think grouping would be more effective to organize the information hierarchy and to make things easier to find (and ignore) - removing things just make them impossible to find - or force users into unwieldy workarounds. 

Email Image would have been a better candidate for removal (this was suggested in the reddit thread) - Chrome doesn't have this menu item, and emailing the image is a much more straightforward operation to workaround - copy, copy image location, even open in new tab and share. Chrome actually has a QR code generator when context clicking images, but no email image. 

Can that be considered instead, if the concern is to simplify the menu and to eliminate items that don't have equivalent functions in other browsers?