Closed Bug 309798 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

A shortcut to downloaded files should be put in "Documents" folder on Start Menu

Categories

(Firefox :: Shell Integration, enhancement)

Product:
Firefox
Component:
Shell Integration
Platform:
x86
Windows 2000
Type:
enhancement
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 310071

People

(Reporter: bugzilla-support, Unassigned)

Details

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050908 Firefox/1.4
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050908 Firefox/1.4

After a download in IE, the file you've just download is automatically added as
an icon to the "Documents" folder on the Start menu (well, actually, it's added
to the folder when the download starts and isn't removed if you then cancel the
download - IE bug).

Possibly a OS integration problem...

Anyway, to win over the hoards of IE users this is definitely something that
people would find it tiresome to work around as it is a serious convenience -
no matter where you save the file you can find it within two clicks *without*
opening Explorer to do so.

Only the die hards use a download manager, the only reasonable alternative if
trying to avoid this "niusance". For these people an option should be made
available so that they can disable the facility to stop their "Documents"
folder filling up/turning over too fast.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download a file from the internet

Actual Results:  
"Documents" folder on the Start menu does not contain an icon referring to the
file that you just downloaded.

Expected Results:  
"Documents" folder on the Start menu should contain an icon referring to the
file that you just downloaded.
I forgot to add my standard disclaimer:

* It is not the job of an extension to be fixing this kind of problem. Even if
* there is an extension that can fix the problem it is seriously unwise to
* assume that, because there is an extension to fix this, the average user will
* be able to find out about the existence of the extension and then install it.
*
* Firefox may be good but user-ubiquity will be impossible if they have to
* install numerous extensions to fix the small but very useful, and productive,
* features like this. It should be fixed in code.

Hiding any downloads in the documents folder would only prove to be a bad thing.
Most users out there don't even know there *is* a documents/recent documents
folder. The desktop (the default location) is highly visible and known to all
users. 
Not to mention that the download location is very simple to change without the
use of extensions.

Sorry, the default location won't be changing anytime soon.

-> WONTFIX
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Ryan: Why do you WONTFIX bugs? I don't think you have the authority to do so,
only module owners and peers of it are allowed to WONTFIX bugs.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
This is not even about changing the default download location. It's about still
saving to the same place, but making that saved file appear in the recent
document's list. This can be achieved by creating a shortcut to the file in the
recent documents folder, though I suspect there is a shell function that does
this in a more sensible way.

Oops, sorry 'bout that - I definetly didn't read that well enough.

Dave - IIRC there is a shell function: SHAddToRecDocs() (or something similar)
that can accomplish this.
> This is not even about changing the default download location. It's about still
> saving to the same place, but making that saved file appear in the recent
> document's list. This can be achieved by creating a shortcut to the file in the
> recent documents folder, though I suspect there is a shell function that does
> this in a more sensible way.

There is a Windows API that allows the creation of these kinds of things - it's
how all the applications function. However, it does in this case map to just a
physical *predictable" location on the hard disk so we could just create a file.

P.S. Ryan, you're forgiven this time. Just as I was writing my less than happy
response I just noticed to actually saw the point of this post...
(In reply to comment #5)
> Oops, sorry 'bout that - I definetly didn't read that well enough.
> 
> Dave - IIRC there is a shell function: SHAddToRecDocs() (or something similar)
> that can accomplish this.

The API call is "SHAddToRecentDocs(...)". Inspection of the API also shows why
the bug I mentioned in IE exists. Whilst there is an "add" function there is no
"remove" function, so IE adds the icon as the download starts but, should the
User cancel the download, a shortcut is left dangling into thin air.

When implemented, we must make sure we only create the shortcut AFTER the file
has completely downloaded. Logically obvious but I'd thought I'd say it anyway.

Cheers.
Summary: Downloaded files should be put in "Documents" folder on Start Menu → A shortcut to downloaded files should be put in "Documents" folder on Start Menu
One should keep a poll, how many people find that convenient. I think most
people aren't aware that the folder even exists and would hide/delete it
rightaway because the other computer users can trace what you have
done/downloaded/written/changed and even can see where you saved it. :D
(In reply to comment #8)
> One should keep a poll, how many people find that convenient. I think most
> people aren't aware that the folder even exists and would hide/delete it
> rightaway because the other computer users can trace what you have
> done/downloaded/written/changed and even can see where you saved it. :D

Let's have a poll, shall we?

1) How many Windows Users DON'T KNOW that when you press the "Start" Button in
the bottom left corner of your screen, the fourth or fifth option on the menu
from the bottom says "Documents", and that this folder that keeps a list of the
last 10 or 20 documents that you have opened (or, from IE, downloaded)?

Answer: LESS THAN 50%. Maybe, less than 5%. Or how about, approx. ZERO?

There. Poll finished. We have a majority.

Excuse me, but READ THE POST.

I'm not explaining this again.

(In reply to comment #9)

> 1) How many Windows Users DON'T KNOW

They will know when other users know their noted passwords, have read their
diaries, have seen the correspondence with their friends. And in case this
enhancement will be added, they'll also see exactly what they have downloaded
with Firefox.
In this case, please add an option to switch this feature on and off and disable
it by default.

Andre, being arrogant and borderline abusive doesn't help you make a clear case
for the bugs you're filing.

That said, this has potential value, but your attitude and the language used is
far more inflammatory than appropriate in this area.
> Andre, being arrogant and borderline abusive doesn't help you make a clear case
> for the bugs you're filing.

"Arrogant?". Mr. Connor, before you make such claims might I suggest that you
check your own position, and record, very carefully. For example, this is one
of your responses to another of my bugs reports:

[from bug #309798]
> Let's be upfront about this: Notepad isn't better for viewing page source than
> the pretty-printed source viewer that's included.  Doing what's expected is not
> always doing what's better.  This is one of those cases.

In a climate where I am already seeing Firefox's increases in the marketplace
begin to decrease prematurely, the attititude of "Well I think it's best, so
the customer can like it or lump it" is the height of arrogance. In what
capacity is one qualified to suggest that *technological features* are more
relevant than the User's own wishes and HABITS (and let's not even mention
Operating System convention) for selecting which features go into Firefox and
which one's do not?

The editor issue is especially pertinent as the attitude of "Technology for
technology's sake" is very scary. I said in that original bug report that:

[from bug #309798]
> It doesn't matter if the new editor happens to be "better" than the one the
> User prefers and has spent time configuring or not; to not have the choice
> is a problem. Moreover, to not use the default/configured editor, when that
> is what System Convention is, is a bigger problem.

All the issues I raise are not for the benefit of Firefox becoming more
reliable as most of them are not "bugs" per-se. They are issues that will
prevent, categorically, the customer from adopting Firefox in favour of the
browser they currently use, 9/10 times that being IE.

Please don't for one minute forget what the end goal of Firefox is. We are NOT
doing it for ourselves. We are doing it for the Customer, and the Customer
alone. There is a market out there to be won and it would be nice if Firefox
could be strong enough to win over the Customers who are responsible for making
that change happen.

However, when a feature on a particular platform is useful, was designed from
the start, and billions of people use on a day to day basis and have done for
many years, is described by the powers at be as something that only as
"potential value" I think it's sad. Especially as these are features, not the
real bugs, that will prevent Firefox from being adopted.

If we continue with the "Well I think it's best, so the customer can like it
or lump it" attitude, we might as well start writing Firefox's obituary from
now.

There's a difference between asserting something to be established and "RTFA"
which I don't think you're seeing.  We've had the external editor/viewer vs.
internal viewer argument countless times before that bug, and the consensus
viewpoint was that View Source is not about editing, its about viewing the
source, since in nearly all use-cases, loading the content in an external editor
is only really of value for really Web-saavy individuals who grok HTML.

This isn't a messageboard, and your comments aren't relevant to this bug, which
makes this bug even more spammy/hard to follow, so I'll file a sanitized bug,
and dupe this there in order to have a clean slate to work on.

A better forum for arguing about things is most assuredly IRC, feel free to find
me there if you're really interested in getting a different perspective on the
external editor vs. internal viewer debate, since you're late to the party etc.
filed bug 310071 to get a clean report without the pointless bickering/debate
here.  Please don't go off on the advocacy comment tangent there, please.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 310071 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago → 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.