User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030805 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+ Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030805 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+ The string "Mozilla Firebird" has gone from the titlebar of the browser. This means it is hard to figure out what the window is. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Launch Mozilla Firebird Actual Results: Title Bar says "Main Page" (the title of my Home Page) Expected Results: Title Bar should say "Main Page - Mozilla Firebird"
I talked this over with Hyatt and this was intentional. After thinking about it, I agree with him. The icon already tells you what the application is, and the " - Mozilla Firebird" at the end of the caption is hardly ever going to display on the taskbar icon.
Yes. Please. Leave it like it's now. It's pretty cool because now your taskbar already tells you what site is open. It's really a feature, coz I know that it's firebird (which I'm running).
Why do you jump to this descision? David Hyatt is not the only user of this browser, you know. I want the title put back, and I suggest you re-open this bug, as to allow for the community's opinion.
Please see http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html, the paragraph containing 'For coherent UI within an application, there is no substitute for leadership by an "application czar".' Bugs are not the place to rally the community to your side; use newsgroups, vote for bugs, but do not add advocacy comments to them. /be
You still get incidents where there is aboslutely nothing shown in the titlebar... Like when a tab is loading, to me... It just looks stupid, while it may be intentional, it makes no sense... Every other program I can think of. uses the " - Application" It's never bothered anyone, there was no *need* to remove it... So while it may be intentional, I think the true purpose of this bug was to request the 'feature' back, not file it as a "bug"
Tom, Dean already filed bug 215353 to cover the case when there's no title.
I strongly disagree with not adding it back. Currently, Firebird is the only application that does not seem to have its OWN name in my Taskbar.
I'm sorry but this is a really daf thing to do. It makes the program look really cheap and nasty. I think it looks terrible when there is nothing in the taskbar at all. Of course if you are going to do this then add support for coloured scrollbars. There was a big hoohar about how a webpage should not have control over the browser but by removing the "- Mozilla Firebird" this is what it seems to be doing. Every other application I know retains it's own name in the title bar with the filename either before or after it. Please put it back.
The title bar will display Untitled when the page has no title. That's a regression caused by the removal that I will be fixing. As for the complaints about the application name being necessary, here is some of the reasoning behind the decision: The taskbar has two modes of operation in Windows XP: either similar application windows are clumped together (by application name), or the old-style Windows 2000 and earlier style can be used, where each window is given its own entry in the taskbar. The former is the default in Windows XP, and quite obviously makes the need for a title utterly unnecessary, since the windows are already grouped by type. With the latter, the title rarely shows anyway, so arguing that it is somehow useful as a means to understand what kind of window you have open is bogus. Finally, on platforms like the Mac, this convention simply isn't used, and it resulted in "- Mozilla Firebird" showing up for the items in the Window menu. This looked completely ridiculous on the Mac. Yes, I could #ifdef this change just for Mac, but I don't view this as any great Windows OS imperative (on my machine plenty of apps have the titlebar addition and plenty don't, so it's obviously only a guideline and not some holy OS behavior).
With all due respect, what was wrong with the way it was before?, it worked for everyone then. Nobody complained, all was good. I would rather have an #ifdef for Mac, it doesn't seem fair to change this all because of how it looks on Mac. Having an entry in my taskbar saying "Untitled" makes no sense. The question "Untitled what?" comes to mind.
I'm going to show the application name when the document has no title (rather than Untitled). From a XUL perspective, there's now a new attribute available on <window> called titledefault that represents the title to use when a document in the window has no title.
Fair enough, it's a step in the right direction. But I still maintain my opinion that this thing should never had happened - If it ain't broken, don't fix it!
Only it is broken on Mac, and I don't see any reason to clutter up the XUL with #ifdefs when all platforms can have a consistent single implementation.
> But I still maintain my opinion that this thing should never had happened - If > it ain't broken, don't fix it! It should never have happened because to leave the titlebar on the main frame of your app completely blank at ANY time is counter to every UI guidline I've ever read. It's VERY bad form on all the major platforms (Windoze, Mac, Linux). This is something I'd like to see fixed ASAP, and the sort of unilateralism I'd like to see avoided in the future. I'm trying hard to not be a UI weenie zealot, but you have to have SOME modicum of following the rules in that area.
David, I can understand the change if it caused problems on Mac. But that does not, in my mind, justify making it a global (all OS) change. Windows users have lived with this 'look' for many many years. Whenever *I* look at the title, I go "Something is missing" I don't see any advantages by removing it on windows, none at all... There might be some on Mac, but it should not affect the look on Linux and Windows. Just wondering: Would it not only require ONE #ifdef?
Surely this is not just to do with the Mac builds? Plus as for the XP grouping - every UK PC manufacturer I've had experience with seems to turn it off for their OEMs. I know a lot of people who find it annoying so I'm not sure how that argument relates to it. You could colour the button blue automatically but what would happen to people using the non default themes? I'm not convinved. Is there no way to get this back from about:config or turn it off just for the mac builds. I mean Autoscroll only exists in Win32.
When an URL is open, the title of the URL shows up on the menu bar. When it's a blank page, however, nothing is displayed. I honestly believe that looks bad. At least when a blank page is displayed, the title "Mozilla Firebird" should be displayed instead.
There was a reason why every other program made for Windows had their app title in the titlebar, ya know.
#19: Yeah we sort of already covered that, read the bug....
Everyone please stop posting complaints about the title bar being blank. That was never the intended behavior of this checkin, and is just a bug. See 215440 for the fix that is already coming.
Well, I just went through virtually all major applications I'm running on my Windows 2k platform, and NONE, not even the **** ones, tried to hide the name of the application from the title window. In some cases, the application name was preceded by the document title (e.g. in IE and all MS Office products), sometimes it was vice versa (e.g. in TextPad, which uses 'Textpad - [Document1]' for a new document), but I have yet to find one program which does not show the program name at all. I think it would be bad for Mozilla Firebird to behave differently. If the standard convention for the Mac is different, then by all means fix this for the Mac, but please stick to the standard conventions when it comes to other platforms. Implementing different behavior just for the sake of it does not make sense, even in view of the cross-platform argument. I also believe that removing Mozilla Firebird from the title bar will hurt Mozilla marketing and evangelism efforts. People need to be able to distinguish Firebird from IE, they need to get rid of the idea that IE == 'The Internet'. Hiding (or at least obscuring) Firebird's identity does not help.
(Apologies for not using hard line-brakes in my previous message. I'm still fairly new to Bugzilla; I thought it would wrap automatically.)
Comment #22 You make excellent points :) Comment #23 It normally does, AFAIK. Don't know what went wrong..
completely agree. Make this a freakin' option in 'advanced options', but DONT turn it off by default. I will be staying at Moz 0.6.1 until this is fixed.
The blank titlebar problem has been fixed. (bug 215440)
I guess another argument is that when Firebird and Thunderbird become primary products, and replaces the Suite. Some won't be able to tell which is which, since the icons will then change again (posted in a bug somewhere) and become unified. Can we PLEASE make this Mac only? All this is because it looks bad on a Mac... Yeah I know I am whining, I can't stop :(
While I don't know if this is codified in any Windows or Linux UI guide, having the application title is certainly the "standard." There are many special concessions made for the Mac version of Firebird to follow Mac guidelines -- why should this particular instance warrant a deviation from this practice? I think I speak for many here when I say that if I wanted my apps to behave like they do on a Mac, I'd use a Mac. As far as the taskbar button goes, not everybody *has* XP (Or KDE, since it can do the same thing), not everybody uses the grouping feature anyway, and there's still the title bar, which is what the bug report was originally in reference to anyway.
OK, I'm going to reopen this, even I've been told it will cause an unholy battle of huge proportions. May I suggest a look at the following: "The title bar at the top of a window displays an application-defined icon and line of text. The text specifies the name of the application and indicates the purpose of the window." - User Interface Element Reference, Microsoft Active Accessibility. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/msaa/msaapndx_9a2a.asp "Sufficient information about a user interface element including the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology. When an image represents a program element, the information conveyed by the image must also be available in text." - Section 508, § 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems, Item d. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Software I knew there was a better reason for commenting than "this is *really* pissing me off"...
Microsoft doesn't make this a hard and fast rule, Windows Explorer doesn't ever use this, Outlook Express compose and read windows don't, there's an option somewhere to turn this off in at least in Excel XP (because it sure wasn't on at IBM). I could expand the list to others but I won't. Meeting UI requirements from a company that doesn't always use them in their own apps doesn't seem like a big deal, especially if the convention has extremely limited value. I also personally disagree with the interpretation of section 508(d) in this regard, since I highly doubt the name of the program should be construed as a program element, especially as it has no action associated with it. Also, that would mean that anything Mac-based could never be used by anyone in the US federal government. adjusting severity and modifying summary to reflect the only part of the bug which is possibly valid. I don't care much for the MS UI guidelines, but the section 508 requirement issue needs a legal opinion. Adding sec508 keyword provisionally, pending response from legal.
It might also be observed that, if the display of the program name is considering as falling under accessibility mandates, that the removal for reasons of cross-platform consistency could be interpreted as permissable under the W3C User Agent Accessibility Guidelines. "When faced with a choice between the conventions of different operating environments, a developer should follow the conventions that most benefit accessibility, while meeting the developer's design goals. For instance, some developers may prefer cross-platform consistency over consistency with other user agents running in a given operating environment, and this might affect which conventions would be preferred." http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#content-or-ua Adding kw access conditionally as well.
If someone could please state clearly **why this makes a difference to the operation and accessibility of the app** (without reference to UI specs and with meaningful justification), I'm sure Bugzilla would be very greatful.
If someone could please state clearly **why this makes a difference to the operation and accessibility of the app** (without reference to UI specs and with meaningful justification), I'm sure Bugzilla would be very greatful.
"If someone could please state clearly **why this makes a difference to the operation and accessibility of the app**" I'm a theoretical blind computer user. As is typical of assistive software for the blind, as I switch from application to application, the software reads the title bar of the application. Typically the title bar includes the name of the application. As things currently stand, I have no Firebird application name in the title bar. I cannot see those wonderful application icons. I now have to recall the title of the page I was on to be sure what application I have switched to. Good luck to me if I'm on one of these pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22untitled+document%22 While the UAAG may be interpreted as allowing for the current behavior, I think the previous implementation was more accessible and was working fine cross-platform. I grant that I am a Windows user, but if the "- Mozilla Firebird" behavior was really bothering any Mac users outside of the Firebird team, I sure can't find the bug reports to back that up. Someone please refer me to a bug number if I am wrong. From an accessibility viewpoint, I would argue we should revert back to Firebird's previous functionality.
Some points before I close this again: There is no doubt in my mind that this does not violate accessibility guidelines. Windows Explorer (not Internet Explorer but just plain old Explorer) does not include an "application name" in its title bars, nor do many other windows apps. Windows Explorer is obviously not in violation of accessibility guidelines. Furthermore, the Internet Explorer titlebar addition gets taken over by ISPs and the text gets replaced anyway. The one on the Windows machine I'm using now is meaningless. The text has been replaced with my ISP. This is not done on platforms like the Mac, and it is not seen as a violation of accessibility guidelines there. If you don't understand why having the "- Mozilla Firebird" appended on the Mac is a problem, then you have obviously never used the Window menu on a Mac before. :)
Do not reopen this. The decision is final.
Can I still reply to this thing? Well I'm going to anyways. I don't agree with Windows Explorer being pulled up as a testcase as it is not an "application" of sorts - it is the operating system's file and folder viewer thing. Is this decision purely related to the Mac issue as I cannot seem to find a definate answer in the replies. If it is - surely it could have just been edited in the Mac version for Firebird. As cross-platform as FB is there are differences between the different builds (autoscroll being the most obvious). Anyways that's my moan for tonight.
Please provide reasoning rather that personal opinions here. If referring to accessibility problems, please refer to specific guidelines or testcases. Failing that, stop commenting on this "bug" because you are adding nothing.
Point taken about Explorer, but I can give you plenty of apps that don't do this as well. Although I can't verify this, someone said Opera drops the "- Opera" in paid versions. I should point out that "- AppName" is not a convention on Linux either. This is purely a Windows convention, and IMO not an important enough one to have #ifdef XP_WIN code for.
I'll say my 2 cents as well before walking away. "There is no doubt in my mind that this does not violate accessibility guidelines." Unless you wish to offer an informed opinion why (yours or anyone else's), at least just stick to your main point that in your opinion it was broken on a Mac previously. "Windows Explorer (not Internet Explorer but just plain old Explorer) does not include an "application name" in its title bars, nor do many other windows apps. Windows Explorer is obviously not in violation of accessibility guidelines." Again, whose informed opinion are you citing to make such a blanket statement? "Furthermore, the Internet Explorer titlebar addition gets taken over by ISPs and the text gets replaced anyway. The one on the Windows machine I'm using now is meaningless. The text has been replaced with my ISP." So because this functionality is broken in other applications, is your justification? "This is not done on platforms like the Mac, and it is not seen as a violation of accessibility guidelines there. If you don't understand why having the "- Mozilla Firebird" appended on the Mac is a problem, then you have obviously never used the Window menu on a Mac before. :)" I still have not seen anything that shows the Mac Firebird commmunity was having an issue with this, outside of the Firebird team itself. Yet the Windows community already has an extension written to restore the original text of the titlebar. Vox populi. "Point taken about Explorer, but I can give you plenty of apps that don't do this as well. Although I can't verify this, someone said Opera drops the "- Opera" in paid versions." That is not correct where Opera is concerned. "I should point out that "- AppName" is not a convention on Linux either. This is purely a Windows convention, and IMO not an important enough one to have #ifdef XP_WIN code for." So the point is still that to fix a Mac convention, the Windows convention has been broken. That seems clear enough. ===== "Please provide reasoning rather that personal opinions here. If referring to accessibility problems, please refer to specific guidelines or testcases. Failing that, stop commenting on this "bug" because you are adding nothing." Colin, since several guidelines have already been cited, feel free to remove yourself from the CC list if you're troubled.
Apologies, I should have written "relevant guidelines". It's been shown by the reference to Windows Apps (explorer, etc) that no relevant guidelines have been provided. The MS guidelines are ignored by everyone, why should Firebird follow them? The *relevant guidelines* would be those published by independant accessibility experts. The only one I've seen like that is the "section508" one, and I've yet to see an interpretation of that case for this bug.
Sigh. There is no rule in Microsoft's guideline, there is only a suggestion. From http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/winui/winui/windowsuserinterface/windowing/windows/aboutwindows.asp, "[t]he title bar displays an application-defined icon and line of text; typically, the text specifies the name of the application or indicates the purpose of the window." Note the key word "typically".
Ok, my main concern here was forcing all XUL authors to have to #ifdef their windows (which would inevitably just lead to Mac and Linux getting screwed over by this Windows convention), but I've since thought of a way to avoid this and to keep the #ifdef XP_WIN in only two places. So here's an idea: (1) Back out titledefault (2) Make the application of titlemodifier be #ifdef XP_WIN in the case where you have a doctitle, and make it happen everywhere in the case where you don't. This would keep the #ifdefs in the toolkit and would enable XUL authors to just write to the Windows convention while keeping everything working on Mac and Linux. Thoughts?
The fact remains, though, that Firebird's title bar looks better to me even on Windows without the extra modifier.
Referring to #42: Only because Bill Mason doesn't like the new behaviour, and maybe some others from mozillazine don't either, that does not mean it's vox populi. It seems now, that no feature can be added, without some persons heavily objecting it. That's sad, because this will slow down development. Every improvement has to undergo a long road of justification, because one can always find reasons against it. And if there is already an extension to restore the original behaviour (is it?), where is the problem?
FWIW, I think bucking the trend of Windows UI isn't a great move. I can see the arguments for doing it on Windows XP, but there are still a lot of users of Win98 and 2000. But my personal opinion isn't why I was adding to this bug... Isn't there something of a security issue here? As of a couple of versions ago, IE actually forces the IE name into all windows it generates (previously it could be removed by script). If Firebird doesn't put its name in the title bar, doesn't that make it easy for a web page to pop up a window that pretends to be some other app? If a user can't tell the difference between a Firebird window displaying a web page, and their AOL logon window, that's playing into the hands of numerous password "phishers". The suggested compromise now that there's a cleaner way of making this Windows only seems like a good idea.
personally I like the the new titlebar (I'm a win2k user), as far as acessibility is concern, the "Firebird" should probably be available to screen readers and whatnots. Though I have a feeling that it is impossible to make a browser that will fit all type of users (visual, text, braille, speech,...). If there are people who are interested in doing that, they might want to create either extensions or even their own special browser based on gecko.
Hyatt, it makes a lot of sense to do it that way, if we want to continue with the Windows convention. Personally, as a Windows user, I'd rather you not do it since I agree with you about how it looks, but that's certainly a viable solution that satisfies most of this. And Bernd, I agree completely, freedom to innovate is inversely proportional to the number of people who have a say in the end product.
Well I kept my word and took myself off this bug only to hear I was being misconstrued, so I'm back. "Only because Bill Mason doesn't like the new behaviour" Actually, I personally couldn't care if the old or new way is used. When I first saw it changed it looked odd, but 5 minutes later I didn't care. My argument here was to support the valid point raised that the change causes accessibility issues. That's been decided on and laid to rest, so I'm not belaboring it. "and maybe some others from mozillazine don't either, that does not mean it's vox populi." Vox populi literally means "voice of the people." I still have not seen where there were Macintosh users voicing that the old behavior was a problem. None of them writing extensions to take the text out of the title bar. There certainly have been plenty of Windows users voicing an opinion about the new, and the extension does exist for those who really are hung up on the whole thing. "It seems now, that no feature can be added," To define removing a portion of the UI functionality, however small, as 'adding a feature' is a misrepresentation. "without some persons heavily objecting it. That's sad, because this will slow down development. Every improvement has to undergo a long road of justification, because one can always find reasons against it." To call it an improvement is obviously something that people would debate as well. I actually think this instance has been a short, straightforward road. A change was made to create a cross-platform consistency that satisfies the developer's aesthetic and uses the cleanest coding possible. It was done, it was aired out publically afterward, the call was made that it's a WONTFIX to reverse it. Done. If only more debates (and decisions) in Bugzilla were handled as decisively. That's why I actually feel that David's suggestion in comment 46 shouldn't be done. If what we have now satisfies the needs as defined by the developer, then let that be it. If avoiding IFDEF is the key to making it work, then just don't do it. Otherwise, philosophically, you just undermine your own argument and you're back to 'this has been done because it looks prettier on the Mac' and hearing 'but you're ignoring the traditional Windows style' in reply ad infinitum. Frankly, I'd rather hear that the change is because it creates less spaghetti code than the alternatives, and that's the end. "And if there is already an extension to restore the original behaviour (is it?)," Yes, it does exist. I've tried it and it works fine. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=144430#144430 "where is the problem?" Which brings us back and ends us with: I didn't have one. You just mischaracterized what I said.
I just got a call from a friend. She´s blind and is using various type of equipment, among two of them reads the text on the screen. She really likes Mozilla Firebird and I have helped her getting it to do what she wants it to do and she´s pleased to having been able to replace her old Netscape browser. In fact she´s so into Firebird that she spends some time reading the forums. She now called me asking if it was true that the new build had droped the name out of the titlebar. I had to tell that it was so. She then explained to me that she will not be able to use Firebird anymore since it actually will be very heard for her to know what Windows she´s in. That´s why some of her programs in her computer has been replaced with software that does have their name in the title bar - among them Windows Explorer. Her last question was if the decission was final and my reply was - I sincerely hope not. Now what do you expect me to tell her? That the name was droped due to some lines of code? And she´s not alone and personally I think it´s really sad that Mozilla Firebird will, or could be, known for being a browser that blind people can not use. This is a matter of acessability and not to shut users out. My two cents on the subject...
I'm investigating the accessibility issue after new information that some screen readers possibly strip the name from the end of the title bar and read it *first* when viewing window names. Stay tuned. Reopening for now.
It may be worthwhile having this be part of an "accessibility pack" or some such to avoid the visual clutter otherwise. It may be that an extension is still the right place for this feature (as someone pointed out, I really want to avoid #ifdefs in this title code and just have cross-platform consistency in the default Firebird application). Anyway, I'll keep this open for now while this is being investigated.
It may also be possible to feed the "- Mozilla Firebird" to screen readers somehow without it being visually rendered. If possible, I'd like more information (e.g., the specific reader being used).
After having written my comment I got the information about an extension that put Mozilla Firebird back. I have tested it and it works fine. I will off course help my friend to install it and at the same time upgrade her Firebird :-)
Its a very bad and extremely strange idea to remove the "- Mozilla Firebird" from the title bar. The browser got anonymous for people who dont know about Firebird. It will be harder to promote the browser to the rest of the world when the people cant see the name an memorize it together with the gui. Its now the same thing with Thunderbird - "The anonymous mail client from Mozilla.org". Embarrassing.
I suggest that the "Product" line reflect Firebird AND Thunderbird, since the same is true for the latest Thunderbird build. My vote on this will depend on the future plans of Mozilla. In general, I believe that it's a terrible idea to leave an application without its title in the window some place. While I agree that one rarely looks at the application name and that while on the taskbar, the name is most of the times invisible. However, the name *is* visible when one mouses over the task bar icon. Annonymous applications are not just a deviation from the norm but also a roadblock towards marketing. Now if it is being left out to prepare for integration in Mozilla, i.e. the name "Mozilla" will eventually take the spot, then go ahead. I can live with no names for a while.
Shouldn't summary be changed to "Removing '- Mozilla Firebird' breaks screen readers"?
I had to test to be sure -- this makes the JAWS screen reader (which has around 90% of the screen reader market) not say the name of the application when it is switched to. Yes, this is important for usability of a screen reader. Screen reader vendors are not going to insert special case code for Mozilla apps, to speak the application name. However, since a lot of people like the new shortened title bars, maybe we can compromise. We can test for the presence of a screen reader and put the application name in the title bar only when a screen reader is running. I'm not sure how to do this on *nix, but this works for windows: PRBool isScreenReaderActive = PR_FALSE; #ifdef XP_WIN ::SystemParametersInfo(SPI_GETSCREENREADER, 0, &isScreenReaderActive, 0); #endif BTW, this is technically not a section 508 violation, because the name of the application is still exposed, just not through the title bar. It can still be gleaned from other OS APIs. The section 508 guidelines don't specify what API things have to be exposed through. Changing summary to reflect that.
Forgot to respond to Hyatt's comments - * On Mac there is no screen reader, so for accessibility it doesn't matter what we do there. * When JAWS is used with Windows Explorer it says "folder view" after the name of the folder. I believe this is due to JAWS checking the window content. * As far as ISP's occasionally taking over the title bar, I suppose that's true in the minority of cases If someone wants to file a separate bug on exposing the name of the application when a screen reader is present, IMO that's probably good enough for now, rather than keep this bug open for accessibility reasons.
Changing summary to reflect Aaronl's comments and targeting for Firebird 0.7. I'll hook up code that checks for the presence of a screen reader and make sure the title gets modified appropriately.
Plan of attack: (1) Put titleseparator back into the XUL for Firebird and Thunderbird. (2) On Win32 only, check for the presence of a screen reader. If it's active, then treat titledefault like titlemodifier. (3) Make sure the code doesn't append the modifier or separator if the modifier is empty.
Created attachment 129632 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to check for screen readers and do the right thing with the title. This should not affect Seamonkey at all, since it doesn't use the titledefault mechanism.
The problem with this patch is it only deals with browser windows. Mail was building up the title by hand using JS. I think there's no choice but to just put this back the way it was and add #ifndef XP_MACOSX code.
Created attachment 129634 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to make only the Mac (and only in Fb/Tb) drop the modifier. Ok, this patch makes sure Mac-only and Tb/Fb/New Xul Apps do the right thing with title bars while leaving WIn32 and Linux alone.
Comment on attachment 129634 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to make only the Mac (and only in Fb/Tb) drop the modifier. r=bryner with the change we discussed on irc (change to #if defined(XP_MACOSX) && defined(MOZ_XUL_APP))
Comment on attachment 129634 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to make only the Mac (and only in Fb/Tb) drop the modifier. what bryner said, and email@example.com. /be
Comment on attachment 129634 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to make only the Mac (and only in Fb/Tb) drop the modifier. a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to Mozilla 1.5beta.
Fixed. See, no decision is really final. :)
I hope so... It was classy, user friendly and just beautiful to show a single page title without a shameless self-advertising. Remember AOL? They also used to put their 3 letter everywhere on the computer. I wonder if we end up with the behaviour of a known software vendor which includes abbreviation 'MS' in every app's name as many times as possible :-)
What can I say? Switch to Mac. ;)
I know I'm a bit late with my comment, but since there are such strong feelings on either side, shouldn't it just be made an option whether " - Appname" is included in the titlebar? That way: - People can change it easily to their liking - Default can be set appropriate for the platform (Mac off, rest on) - No #ifdef in the XUL required Just my € 0.02, - Michael
Just for completeness, I should point out that the lack of app name in the title attribute also breaks speech control programs (Dragon Simply Speaking, for example) that allow you to use "Switch to $FOO", where foo is part of the title of the window.
Thanks for restoring the title. While I can understand that some people actually liked the 'feature', I really believe that UI consistency is more important. Every Windows program I know has its title displayed; removing the title was therefore non-standard UI behavior. I hope the lesson of this will be that any deviations from standard UI features need to be evaluated more carefully before being applied in practice. If, as in this case, some people appear to prefer the non-standard behavior, it should be made available as an option or extension, not a default setting. Unless there are _real_ compelling reasons, non-standard UI features should _not_ be part of the program defaults, in my opinion. Anyway, while this mess could have been avoided I appreciate that the developers took appropriate action. Thank you for listening and for having the courage to admit a mistake. :)
Francis - "I hope the lesson of this will be that any deviations from standard UI features need to be evaluated more carefully before being applied in practice." This wasn't "applied" to any releases - evaluating things is what the nightly builds are for. If you only want to see changes after they've been evaluated more carefully, stick to the release builds. anyway, it's back. Let's not waste any more time discussing it. Verified fixed.