147474 - Move "Helper Applications" prefs out of "Navigator" category

Status: ASSIGNED

(SeaMonkey :: Preferences, defect)

Description

[Luke Deller]

In the Edit/Preferences dialogue box, the "Helper Applications" prefs should not
be listed under the "Navigator" category since they are not specific to the
browser component (eg: helper applications are used for viewing email attachments).

Comment 1

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Agreed.

Comment 2

[Markus Merz]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Agreed.
An extra list item under Prefernces / Advanced would be the better place for it.

Comment 3

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(Filter "spam" on 'prefs-nobody-20080612'.)

Comment 4

[Phoenix]

Reasons for moving Helper Applications to Advanced looks right, anybody willing to implement?

Comment 5

[Jens Hatlak (:InvisibleSmiley)]

Edmund, before you put too much time and energy into this one, I'd advise you to check with your proposed reviewer, SM members and/or the dev newsgroups first. I'm not convinced that Advanced is the proper place for the Helper Applications prefpane.

Comment 6

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (v1)

Comment 7

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (Help changes) (v1)

Comment 8

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (Help changes) (v2)

Comment 9

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (Help changes) (v3)

Comment 10

[Jens Hatlak (:InvisibleSmiley)]

Comment on attachment 785681 [details] [diff] [review]
Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (Help changes) (v3)

Review of attachment 785681 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

r=me only be inspection (didn't actually compile it; I take it you checked that all links work).

That said, I'm not sure moving the item below Advanced is a good idea, but that decision is for the code reviewer to take.

Comment 11

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (v2)

Comment 12

[Robert Kaiser]

If I had any say, I'd veto on the ground that I strongly think that the advanced category ought to die. Categories should tell what's behind them, and "advanced" isn't a proper category, it's a mashup of random stuff, which should never exist in a proper hierarchy.

Comment 13

[Jens Hatlak (:InvisibleSmiley)]

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:[e-mail]) from comment #12)
> If I had any say, I'd veto on the ground that I strongly think that the
> advanced category ought to die. Categories should tell what's behind them,
> and "advanced" isn't a proper category, it's a mashup of random stuff, which
> should never exist in a proper hierarchy.

+1, couldn't have said it any better. I was always hoping this would be addressed with Ian's pet project "prefs in a tab", which unfortunately seems to be stalled (understandably, not blaming anyone here). Until then I feel we should at least not make it worse and "hide" reasonably normal menu items behind the "other scary stuff" door.

Comment 14

[Ian Neal]

Comment on attachment 785686 [details] [diff] [review]
Move "Helper Applications" prefs to Advanced Preferences (v2)

It works but I don't think it is the right way to go. I know General is hated almost much as Advanced, perhaps something like Common or Suite. A wider audience than just this bug's list should probably be consulted.

Comment 15

[Phoenix]

What about making it Category?

Comment 16

[Stefan [:stefanh]]

(In reply to Jens Hatlak (:InvisibleSmiley) from comment #13)
> (In reply to Robert Kaiser (:[e-mail]) from comment #12)
> > If I had any say, I'd veto on the ground that I strongly think that the
> > advanced category ought to die. Categories should tell what's behind them,
> > and "advanced" isn't a proper category, it's a mashup of random stuff, which
> > should never exist in a proper hierarchy.
> 
> +1, couldn't have said it any better. I was always hoping this would be
> addressed with Ian's pet project "prefs in a tab", which unfortunately seems
> to be stalled (understandably, not blaming anyone here). Until then I feel
> we should at least not make it worse and "hide" reasonably normal menu items
> behind the "other scary stuff" door.

+1 here too

Comment 17

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

(In reply to Robert Kaiser (:[e-mail]) from comment #12)
> and "advanced" isn't a proper category, it's a mashup of random stuff, which
> should never exist in a proper hierarchy.

+1

Comment 18

[Matt A. Tobin]

Seamonkey is an internet application suite for power users, coperate users, and IT professionals. There is no need to dumb Seamonkey down to the lowest common denominator because Seamonkey is not intended for that audience. 

As well as the helper applications is filed under navigator because if you recall Mozilla Suite and Netscape was computerized for the choice of the user. However, putting it under Advanced Options is a good idea. Advanced is still apart of it if the suite in the future returns to the original ideals for which it was created.

Also I would also suggest the idea of removing options, preferences, and settings as stated by others is not in line with Seamonkey's core mission goals.

Please see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Project_Goals

Comment 19

[rsx11m]

The top category is currently "Appearance" but contains items like "Content" and "Spelling" which aren't really about plain appearance at all.

How about this?

 - Appearance
   - Fonts
   - Colors
 - Content
   - Display       (currently Content)
   - Spelling
   - Applications  (do we need "Helper"?)

Comment 20

[Matt A. Tobin]

That makes sense to me.

Comment 21

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

"Applications" are about content helpers, but they are also about integration with third party software / system integration.
That puts it in the same bracket as plugins and extensions. The only difference between plugins and helper apps is that the former opens inside the browser window, while the latter opens as its own window.

(For example PDF: Acrobat Reader is both a helper application and a plugin. pdf.js acts like a plugin, but it's implemented like an extension, but it's enabled/disabled in helper applications.)

So, the difference between extension, plugin, and helper app is very fine, from a user standpoint. Therefore, these should be managed in the same way and place (at least close to each other).

Comment 22

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

(In reply to rsx11m from comment #19)
> The top category is currently "Appearance" but contains items like "Content"
> and "Spelling" which aren't really about plain appearance at all.
> 
> How about this?
> 
>  - Appearance
>    - Fonts
>    - Colors
>  - Content
>    - Display       (currently Content)
>    - Spelling
>    - Applications  (do we need "Helper"?)

Would this be a good idea?

Comment 23

[Ian Neal]

(In reply to Edmund Wong (:ewong) from comment #22)
> (In reply to rsx11m from comment #19)
> > The top category is currently "Appearance" but contains items like "Content"
> > and "Spelling" which aren't really about plain appearance at all.
> > 
> > How about this?
> > 
> >  - Appearance
> >    - Fonts
> >    - Colors
> >  - Content
> >    - Display       (currently Content)
> >    - Spelling
> >    - Applications  (do we need "Helper"?)
> 
> Would this be a good idea?

What would be in the top level Content pane?
Would things panes like "Downloads" belong under "Content" too? What about "Internet Search"? "Tabbed Browsing"? "Link Behaviour"?

Comment 24

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

(In reply to Ian Neal from comment #23)
> (In reply to Edmund Wong (:ewong) from comment #22)
> > (In reply to rsx11m from comment #19)
> > > The top category is currently "Appearance" but contains items like "Content"
> > > and "Spelling" which aren't really about plain appearance at all.
> > > 
> > > How about this?
> > > 
> > >  - Appearance
> > >    - Fonts
> > >    - Colors
> > >  - Content
> > >    - Display       (currently Content)
> > >    - Spelling
> > >    - Applications  (do we need "Helper"?)
> > 
> > Would this be a good idea?
> 
> What would be in the top level Content pane?
> Would things panes like "Downloads" belong under "Content" too? What about
> "Internet Search"? "Tabbed Browsing"? "Link Behaviour"?

The toplevel content pane would (I believe) contain a subset of the
current Content items.  The other items would be moved to Display.

Tabbed Browsing, Link Behaviour, Downloads would also belong to Content.

But I do understand this is all quite 'subjective'.  Maybe get some
sort of consensus (if it's even possible without turning this into
bikeshedding).