Last Comment Bug 755593 - Remove tabs-on-bottom mode
: Remove tabs-on-bottom mode
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
[Australis:M6]
: addon-compat, user-doc-needed
Product: Firefox
Classification: Client Software
Component: Tabbed Browser (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: -- normal with 10 votes (vote)
: Firefox 28
Assigned To: (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back)
:
Mentors:
: 986817 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 755646 934114
Blocks: australis-tabs 655294 875819
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-05-15 18:01 PDT by Frank Yan (:fryn)
Modified: 2014-05-03 10:35 PDT (History)
79 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---


Attachments
Patch (44.19 KB, patch)
2013-06-03 23:19 PDT, (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back)
dao+bmo: review-
Details | Diff | Review
Patch v1.1 (50.04 KB, patch)
2013-06-04 09:09 PDT, (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back)
dao+bmo: review+
Details | Diff | Review

Description Frank Yan (:fryn) 2012-05-15 18:01:09 PDT
We're currently planning to remove tabs-on-bottom mode because of its maintenance costs and usability concerns in relation to current and future UI, including Australis.
Comment 1 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2012-05-15 23:51:39 PDT
Enabling tabs on bottom is maybe the most popular remedy for the disruption many users felt when faced with the major UI changes after Firefox 3.6. Reverting this explicit choice may upset a good share of them enough to switch browsers. It's unclear why this is going to be a net win for us or for these users. Only severe usability concerns would justify this, but I haven't yet heard of them.

Same goes for maintenance cost. The mere fact that it would simplify our lives to some degree isn't compelling. It would need to reduce costs pretty drastically. Australis tabs are hard to implement for reasons unrelated to tabs on bottom. Surely tabs on bottom will add extra work, but my gut feeling is that this will take an experienced developer about a day.

Now, nothing I said means that a browser starting from scratch would have to have a tabs on bottom option, so I do think it makes sense to get rid of it at some point. Since the remaining mass of 3.6 users is finally shrinking, I think we should start by preventing users from enabling tabs on bottom (while still allowing disabling it). As old profiles fade away, we should see the share of users with tabs on bottom shrink steadily. We can monitor this with telemetry and weigh it against any usability and maintenance costs as they show up.
Comment 2 Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] 2012-05-16 02:40:23 PDT
I completely understand these concerns, but every other browser have tabs on top enabled by default, except "outdated and for OSX made" Safari. In fact Firefox users are most likely to choose Chrome as a replacement and Chrome provides only tabs on top.
Comment 3 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2012-05-16 02:59:14 PDT
(In reply to Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] from comment #2)
> I completely understand these concerns, but every other browser have tabs on
> top enabled by default, except "outdated and for OSX made" Safari.

We too have it enabled by default.

> In fact
> Firefox users are most likely to choose Chrome as a replacement and Chrome
> provides only tabs on top.

I don't see how this is relevant for what I wrote, unless you're saying upset people aren't going to switch to Chrome because it has tabs on top. They are. It may be because they stop trusting us that we won't annoy them again in the future. Or it may just be an overreaction; people aren't always rational, but it's our job to support them nevertheless.
Comment 4 Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] 2012-05-16 03:23:11 PDT
Sorry I wasn't clear. What I was trying to point out is that I don't see people changing to another browser because of the lack of tabs on bottom considering almost all other browser have tabs on top enabled by default or have (in Chrome's case) only tabs on top. I think it is time to make controversial changes to simplified and modernized the browser (like bug 755598).
Comment 5 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2012-05-16 03:37:46 PDT
(In reply to Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] from comment #4)
> Sorry I wasn't clear. What I was trying to point out is that I don't see
> people changing to another browser because of the lack of tabs on bottom
> considering almost all other browser have tabs on top enabled by default or
> have (in Chrome's case) only tabs on top.

Right, I clarified why people would leave Firefox in the second part of my response. The reason is not that other browsers have tabs on bottom.

> I think it is time to make controversial changes to simplified and modernized
> browser

People who've explicitly enabled tabs on bottom aren't going to perceive the removal as something positive (simpler, more modern, whatever).
Comment 6 Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2012-05-23 15:45:21 PDT
(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #1)

> Reverting this explicit choice may upset a good share of them enough to
> switch browsers.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not exactly a radical UI change (unlike, say, Windows Metro is). Switching to another browser seems like a far more disruptive change. People in Product watch those kinds of trends quite closely (witness the unexpected concern around update-fatigue after switching to rapid-release). I've heard no concerns from them about Australis, and I'm pretty confident that if this does cause users to switch we'll catch that through our release trains and adjust as needed.


> Same goes for maintenance cost. The mere fact that it would simplify our
> lives to some degree isn't compelling. It would need to reduce costs pretty
> drastically. Australis tabs are hard to implement for reasons unrelated to
> tabs on bottom. Surely tabs on bottom will add extra work, but my gut
> feeling is that this will take an experienced developer about a day.

The problem is not the maintenance cost of any one piece, but the cumulative cost of having hundreds of "just a little more" pieces of code that have to be written/rewritten/maintained. And this work all comes at the cost of something else; I'd rather we be spending that time working on things that are more broadly-relevant and have greater impact (snappier UI, new features, bug fixes, etc).
 

> Now, nothing I said means that a browser starting from scratch would have to
> have a tabs on bottom option, so I do think it makes sense to get rid of it
> at some point. 

I think that time is now. Australis is kind of once-every-few-years major UI overhaul where we should clear out the cruft that's accumulated over the years. And more importantly, it's a chance to change where we are on the "innovator's dilemma curve".
Comment 7 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2012-05-23 16:54:06 PDT
> I've heard no concerns from them about Australis,

I didn't say "let's not implement Australis". There's no real correlation between Australis and ditching tabs on bottom.

> and I'm pretty confident that if this does cause users to switch we'll catch that
> through our release trains and adjust as needed.

It's not clear to me how exactly this would work. The damage is done (and can't be undone) when this is released. Beta users I'd expect to be more tolerant, such that we can't easily extrapolate the impact.

What amount of users would we be willing to lose anyway? What would be too much? Are we ok with users developing a negative attitude towards Firefox without ditching it immediately?

> The problem is not the maintenance cost of any one piece, but the cumulative cost of
> having hundreds of "just a little more" pieces of code that have to be
> written/rewritten/maintained.

I don't foresee these hundreds of pieces of code.

> I think that time is now. Australis is kind of once-every-few-years major UI overhaul
> where we should clear out the cruft that's accumulated over the years. And more
> importantly, it's a chance to change where we are on the "innovator's dilemma curve".

Why would we need a window of opportunity to remove tabs on bottom, and why exactly would Australis be that window? To the affected users, I think it's largely irrelevant whether or not this happens in the same release as the curvy selected tab and the deemphasized background tabs.
Comment 8 patrickjdempsey 2012-05-23 20:25:06 PDT
The only reason there is any extra code to support tabs-on-bottom is because for some strange reason that I will never understand you guys decided to style the entire interface differently with tabs-on-bottom with Glass everywhere.  That *never* made any sense.  Not that tabs on top ever made any sense to begin with.  Thanks for making it official.  Firefox is now officially a Chrome copy-cat.  What a crock.  Do you people even realize how seriously the changes that you play at seriously effect the lives of millions of users?  I really hope someone with some real integrity forks this project and turns it into something worth actually getting excited about again... I don't think there's a single thing Mozilla has done in the last 3 years that's been worth getting even luke-warm excited about.  Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Comment 9 Michael Lefevre 2012-05-25 15:14:28 PDT
(In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #6)
> People in Product watch those kinds of trends quite closely (witness
> the unexpected concern around update-fatigue after switching to
> rapid-release). I've heard no concerns from them about Australis, and I'm
> pretty confident that if this does cause users to switch we'll catch that
> through our release trains and adjust as needed.

"People in Product" seem to generally disregard the outrage of vocal nightly and aurora users on the grounds that it's a vocal minority. If concerns aren't recognised until they're coming back on a mass scale from beta, or release, users, that rules out the possibility of catching them on the trains.

> The problem is not the maintenance cost of any one piece, but the cumulative
> cost of having hundreds of "just a little more" pieces of code that have to
> be written/rewritten/maintained. And this work all comes at the cost of
> something else; I'd rather we be spending that time working on things that
> are more broadly-relevant and have greater impact (snappier UI, new
> features, bug fixes, etc).

So you're saying the development effort of supporting the existing tabs-on-bottom code is the same effort as implementing a whole new feature? Seems unlikely...

> I think that time is now. Australis is kind of once-every-few-years major UI
> overhaul where we should clear out the cruft that's accumulated over the
> years. And more importantly, it's a chance to change where we are on the
> "innovator's dilemma curve".

I would say the last "once-every-few-years" was less than 18 months ago. When implementing tabs-on-top, it was stressed that it was only an option, and that "we [Mozilla] know it's important for you to be in control of your browser". Mozilla (yes, I know Mozilla has more than voice) reassured people that the Firefox 12 UI was not significantly different to the Firefox 3.6 UI, and still very configurable, as part of coaxing them off the 3.6 branch, just a few weeks ago.

Is tabs-on-bottom really the most important "cruft" to battle? Is there no other code that could be removed in the interests of easier future maintenance, but without making a major UI change?
Comment 10 M** A**** 2012-05-26 00:59:52 PDT
Well when the ESR changes to tabs on the top my clients will be moved to Opera. A move I am sure a lot of techs will be forced to make.
Comment 11 Willy_ Foo_Foo 2012-05-26 02:39:21 PDT
(In reply to Michael Lefevre from comment #9)
> (In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #6)
> > People in Product watch those kinds of trends quite closely (witness
> > the unexpected concern around update-fatigue after switching to
> > rapid-release). I've heard no concerns from them about Australis, and I'm
> > pretty confident that if this does cause users to switch we'll catch that
> > through our release trains and adjust as needed.
> 
> "People in Product" seem to generally disregard the outrage of vocal nightly
> and aurora users on the grounds that it's a vocal minority. If concerns
> aren't recognised until they're coming back on a mass scale from beta, or
> release, users, that rules out the possibility of catching them on the
> trains.
> 
> > The problem is not the maintenance cost of any one piece, but the cumulative
> > cost of having hundreds of "just a little more" pieces of code that have to
> > be written/rewritten/maintained. And this work all comes at the cost of
> > something else; I'd rather we be spending that time working on things that
> > are more broadly-relevant and have greater impact (snappier UI, new
> > features, bug fixes, etc).
> 
> So you're saying the development effort of supporting the existing
> tabs-on-bottom code is the same effort as implementing a whole new feature?
> Seems unlikely...
> 
> > I think that time is now. Australis is kind of once-every-few-years major UI
> > overhaul where we should clear out the cruft that's accumulated over the
> > years. And more importantly, it's a chance to change where we are on the
> > "innovator's dilemma curve".
> 
> I would say the last "once-every-few-years" was less than 18 months ago.
> When implementing tabs-on-top, it was stressed that it was only an option,
> and that "we [Mozilla] know it's important for you to be in control of your
> browser". Mozilla (yes, I know Mozilla has more than voice) reassured people
> that the Firefox 12 UI was not significantly different to the Firefox 3.6
> UI, and still very configurable, as part of coaxing them off the 3.6 branch,
> just a few weeks ago.
> 
> Is tabs-on-bottom really the most important "cruft" to battle? Is there no
> other code that could be removed in the interests of easier future
> maintenance, but without making a major UI change?

+1
Please listen to people
Radical changes will force users away(which is not our goal)
FF=users choice, That's what Mozilla stands for !!
Comment 12 Willy_ Foo_Foo 2012-05-26 02:41:36 PDT
(In reply to Michael Lefevre from comment #9)
> (In reply to Justin Dolske [:Dolske] from comment #6)
> > People in Product watch those kinds of trends quite closely (witness
> > the unexpected concern around update-fatigue after switching to
> > rapid-release). I've heard no concerns from them about Australis, and I'm
> > pretty confident that if this does cause users to switch we'll catch that
> > through our release trains and adjust as needed.
> 
> "People in Product" seem to generally disregard the outrage of vocal nightly
> and aurora users on the grounds that it's a vocal minority. If concerns
> aren't recognised until they're coming back on a mass scale from beta, or
> release, users, that rules out the possibility of catching them on the
> trains.
> 
> > The problem is not the maintenance cost of any one piece, but the cumulative
> > cost of having hundreds of "just a little more" pieces of code that have to
> > be written/rewritten/maintained. And this work all comes at the cost of
> > something else; I'd rather we be spending that time working on things that
> > are more broadly-relevant and have greater impact (snappier UI, new
> > features, bug fixes, etc).
> 
> So you're saying the development effort of supporting the existing
> tabs-on-bottom code is the same effort as implementing a whole new feature?
> Seems unlikely...
> 
> > I think that time is now. Australis is kind of once-every-few-years major UI
> > overhaul where we should clear out the cruft that's accumulated over the
> > years. And more importantly, it's a chance to change where we are on the
> > "innovator's dilemma curve".
> 
> I would say the last "once-every-few-years" was less than 18 months ago.
> When implementing tabs-on-top, it was stressed that it was only an option,
> and that "we [Mozilla] know it's important for you to be in control of your
> browser". Mozilla (yes, I know Mozilla has more than voice) reassured people
> that the Firefox 12 UI was not significantly different to the Firefox 3.6
> UI, and still very configurable, as part of coaxing them off the 3.6 branch,
> just a few weeks ago.
> 
> Is tabs-on-bottom really the most important "cruft" to battle? Is there no
> other code that could be removed in the interests of easier future
> maintenance, but without making a major UI change?

+1
Please listen to people
Radical changes will force users away(which is not our goal)
FF=users choice, That's what Mozilla stands for !!
Comment 13 Jeremy Morton 2012-06-16 02:49:27 PDT
(In reply to Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] from comment #4)
> Sorry I wasn't clear. What I was trying to point out is that I don't see
> people changing to another browser because of the lack of tabs on bottom
> considering almost all other browser have tabs on top enabled by default or
> have (in Chrome's case) only tabs on top. I think it is time to make
> controversial changes to simplified and modernized the browser (like bug
> 755598).

I have started to use Chrome alongside Firefox.  If you switch to only having tabs-on-top, I will probably completely switch over to Chrome, and keep Seamonkey around if I have need of the Gecko rendering engine.  I do happen to prefer tabs-on-bottom (guess I'm one of that mass of irritating 3.6 users), but the main reasons is: why would I use Firefox when you literally design the entire UI to be almost identical to Chrome?  What would you say distinguishes Firefox?  Why should people use Firefox and not Chrome?
Comment 14 bug.zilla 2012-06-24 02:59:01 PDT
Please do not remove this option as I think you underestimate the number of users that still use this. We could probably get this back using an add-on but that shouldn't be the case.

In fact, I would go one step further:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=767709
Comment 15 KLB 2012-07-08 18:59:59 PDT
I'll add my voice as another tabs on bottom user who does not want tabs on top. Yes maybe there is a little extra development cost, but so what? Flexibility and customization is what makes Firefox different from other browsers.  The only way Firefox can really compete against Chrome is to provide something distinctly different and compelling. Being able to easily customize the UI to suit one's tastes is a part of what makes Firefox compelling.
Comment 16 Ken Saunders 2012-07-14 10:59:08 PDT
For what it's worth, people do move to other products out of frustration and/or sheer spite.
Sometimes it's a single change that causes them to do so, sometimes it's because they've reached a threshold for how much change that they're willing to tolerate.

These vocal minorities are usually the power users and long time users and contributors (as seen above), and they're the ones that have always installed Firefox on friends and family's machines and heavily promoted Firefox to more mainstream users.

That's how Firefox initially gained it's popularity and a lot of those individuals now use Chrome.

I say it's worth the effort, labor, and expense to keep the minority happy.
Comment 17 Ed Hume 2012-07-24 18:45:01 PDT
By 'tabs on the bottom' do you mean the option of having tabs below the Nav and bookmarks bars and above the page content? Losing that would be sad. It would break the UI paradigm for all the other apps I use. 

Some of us do migrate away from irritation. For example, after the recent changes to Gmail's appearance I moved most of my mail to Yahoo. Gmail is superior, but Yahoo is more readable.

Ah, well: for years it's been hard to figure out why devs do what they do.
Comment 18 Ken Saunders 2012-07-24 19:42:14 PDT
(from comment #17)
> By 'tabs on the bottom' do you mean the option of having tabs below the Nav
> and bookmarks bars and above the page content?

I don't know why I didn't assume that is what is intended here.

Please do not do this without at least allowing us to use -moz-box-ordinal-group to move them where we want.
Comment 19 Brandon Cheng 2012-07-24 20:57:49 PDT
Was this done from another bug patch? Tabs on Bottom is no longer in Firefox 15 Beta.
Comment 20 Siddhartha Dugar [:sdrocking] 2012-07-24 21:24:58 PDT
(In reply to Brandon Cheng from comment #19)
> Was this done from another bug patch? Tabs on Bottom is no longer in Firefox
> 15 Beta.

It was removed from the context menu (Bug 755646). For the time being, you can still enable it using "browser.tabs.onTop" in about:config.
Comment 21 Brandon Cheng 2012-07-25 18:33:28 PDT
As a programmer and web developer, I clearly understand the reasons for the change, but there was barely any refutation for the numerous comments against this.

We need to consider everything that is affected by this change, and the cons far outweigh the pros. Removing the option from the GUI is fine. It allows the user to know they're not using "supported" features. But do not remove the code.
Comment 22 Frank Yan (:fryn) 2012-08-16 17:18:35 PDT
I still fully support this bug, but I am not actively working on it, so I'm unassigning myself for now. I'm happy to provide feedback or review any patches for this.
Comment 23 Jeremy Morton 2012-08-17 01:41:58 PDT
You still fully support removing choice from users.
Comment 24 Marco Castelluccio [:marco] 2012-08-17 06:31:12 PDT
(In reply to Jeremy Morton from comment #23)
> You still fully support removing choice from users.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html
You're breaking the first rule of the Bugzilla etiquette. Please, do not reply to this comment. If you disagree with the purpose of this bug, you can write your thoughts in an appropriate newsgroup (http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/).
Comment 25 ithinc 2012-08-23 15:02:15 PDT
-1 vote.
Comment 26 Ed Morley [:emorley] 2012-08-28 06:33:46 PDT
(In reply to ithinc from comment #25)
> -1 vote.

Please post in the newsgroup thread instead:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/Oral-S5Z8HQ
Comment 27 Michael Harris 2012-08-28 11:34:02 PDT
For me personally, tabs on bottom increases my productivity. As an example, when doing google searches I constantly find myself quickly scanning the through the first 10-20 entries tabbing the 5-7 most relevant sources then quickly scan through the tabs (closing the tabs on irrelevant entries). The tedious searching for relevant information is where a big portion of my time is spent online... that and facebook (but I don't need tabs for facebook, I have a bookmarks).

I can understand the rationale behind trying to decrease code maintenance, what I can't understand is the proclamation that tabs-on-bottom are being removed because tabs-on-top just makes more sense... 

It's a very bold statement considering that everybody's workflows are very different. What makes sense to you doesn't necessarily make sense for me.

I'm very pleased with all the work that has gone to make firefox what it is. Many thanks to the developers.

I just don't want to see another "Ubuntu Unity" happen because someone thinks they understand another person's workflow better than they do.
Comment 28 Cerberus™ 2012-09-14 07:15:47 PDT
Please do not remove this possibility! I have been using browsers with tabs on top all my life, and several of my Autohotkey scripts depend on it, not to mention my entire routine. I beg you! I will have to stay with FF 15 forever, and eventually dump Firefox for some fork if this happens. Would make me very, very sad. Don't force unnecessary changes upon us!!
Comment 29 Cerberus™ 2012-09-14 07:17:49 PDT
****, I meant "I have been using tabs at the bottom all my life".
Comment 30 Brandon Cheng 2012-09-14 12:01:50 PDT
(In reply to Cerberus™ from comment #28)
> Please do not remove this possibility! I have been using browsers with tabs
> on top all my life, and several of my Autohotkey scripts depend on it, not
> to mention my entire routine. I beg you! I will have to stay with FF 15
> forever, and eventually dump Firefox for some fork if this happens. Would
> make me very, very sad. Don't force unnecessary changes upon us!!

You can toggle on "browser.tabs.onTop" to false in about:config. Feature and code are still there, just hiding it lets users know it is no longer supported.

Tabs on bottom really has to go at one point, as tabs on top makes more sense. I'm personally upset that removal is this early on.

On a side note, cut down on the language please. Thanks.
Comment 31 Jeremy Morton 2012-09-14 12:17:39 PDT
(In reply to Brandon Cheng from comment #30)
> Tabs on bottom really has to go at one point, as tabs on top makes more
> sense. I'm personally upset that removal is this early on.

No it does not make more sense!  The only reason people like you think that is because it's Google's preferred way of doing things.  Tabs-on-bottom associates the tab with the content, and nothing more, and treats everything else as a "helper" that can technically be discarded and the fundamental content will remain the same.  Even the URLbar isn't technically needed for the content to remain fully intact.  This is just as logical as tabs-on-top, if not moreso.
Comment 32 Brandon Cheng 2012-09-14 14:36:38 PDT
(In reply to Jeremy Morton from comment #31)
> (In reply to Brandon Cheng from comment #30)
> > Tabs on bottom really has to go at one point, as tabs on top makes more
> > sense. I'm personally upset that removal is this early on.
> 
> No it does not make more sense!  The only reason people like you think that
> is because it's Google's preferred way of doing things. 

"people like you"?

Let's avoid generalizations here. I'm not at all affiliated with Mozilla, I'm just another user. I didn't like the idea of tabs on top to begin with, but I gave it a chance and it was not a bad idea. And to provide some history on Tabs on Top, Mozilla had the idea to begin with. Their discussion on it began back in 2004 or 2005 (I believe), much before Chrome. So accusing "me" of thinking "Google's preferred way" is the way Mozilla should do things isn't a very well thought argument with evidence, or a necessary accusation here.

> Tabs-on-bottom
> associates the tab with the content, and nothing more, and treats everything
> else as a "helper" that can technically be discarded and the fundamental
> content will remain the same.  Even the URLbar isn't technically needed for
> the content to remain fully intact.  This is just as logical as tabs-on-top,
> if not moreso.

This is actually a good argument for Tabs on Bottom. Except there's a problem with it. Firefox is more than just a web browser displaying web pages. It's also a platform for web applications. For this, Tabs on Top make more sense due to the fact that a large majority of the controls manipulate the current page and are specific to it. This, and many other reasons have been explained multiple times. Please see the video below.

http://blog.mozilla.org/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-top-in-firefox-4/

But I'm not going to argue this point past here. My "about:config" already resolution was given. Post a comment in the thread linked above if you wish to continue this conversation. I will no longer reply to anything here since Bugzilla is not the place for discussion. Thank you.
Comment 33 illusion3 2012-09-17 11:36:13 PDT
**** you! This is the worst thing that happened with Firefox since Firefox 4 release.

Why the **** you wanted to remove this potion?!

Tabs on Top have no sense!
The browser is much better if tabs on bottom. If Tabs on Bottom, it is much easier to handle tabs and associates with the content.

I hate the sucker Firefox developers. They ruin the browser. The browser become even worse with every update.
Comment 34 Jeremy Morton 2012-09-19 12:21:00 PDT
(In reply to illusion3 from comment #33)
> **** you! This is the worst thing that happened with Firefox since Firefox 4
> release.
> 
> Why the **** you wanted to remove this potion?!
> 
> Tabs on Top have no sense!
> The browser is much better if tabs on bottom. If Tabs on Bottom, it is much
> easier to handle tabs and associates with the content.
> 
> I hate the sucker Firefox developers. They ruin the browser. The browser
> become even worse with every update.

I'm going to be developing a Firefox 3 theme for Seamonkey, which sticks with tabs-on-bottom mode and has a proper status bar.  It's basically designed for real PCs instead of netbooks and tablets in mind.  I'd advise that you switch to that and keep checking my Firefox addons site for updates on my Seamonkey theme.
Comment 35 Mike Harris 2012-09-21 18:24:36 PDT
Obviously, some people have become abusive.  The human, instinctual reaction is to respond as if one were being attacked -- dig in one's ground, and so on.

For those who believe as I do but have resorted to abusive language, I apologize.  However, I would ask that you be the better people, put aside any exasperation at the attacks, and parse them for the information they can provide you: people who have actually heard of this proposed UX change feel very strongly about it.  I just heard of it 30 minutes ago, and I've been spending some time on a Friday evening writing this.

I would myself ask as well that you not remove the Tabs on Bottom thread and close this bug.

I do not wish what I am about to say as an insult to any of you -- I cannot begin to imagine the literally unthinkable amounts of hard work which go into Firefox.  But from the perspective of an end user who is an outsider to your team but has been loyal to Firefox for much of its life, it seems as if Firefox's UX direction, lately, has been one of growing to resemble Chrome.

This, to me, is a deeply problematic direction that completely misreads or ignores Firefox's main strength -- its CUSTOMIZABILITY.  I have been loyal to Firefox solely because of this.  I can set up my workflow as I wish.  I can find most of the features I desire in addons.  I can use userstyles (Stylish) and userscripts (Greasemonkey) to style the Firefox interface and the web itself as I wish.  The web ... is what *I* want it to be, without infringing upon the rights of others.

If I wanted a browser that resembled Chrome, I would use Chrome.  I don't.  (Personally, I miss the deeply-plain-jane Whitehart theme.)

The more you remove choice from Firefox, the more you undercut its most triumphant and completely unreproduced strength.  No other browser on the market gives people the control over their browsing environment that Mozilla Firefox does.

And the removal of tabs-on-bottom is perhaps one of the biggest elements you could "lock".

I respectfully suggest and advocate that you not go forward with the removal of tabs-on-bottom, that you not proceed with Bug 755598, and that you reverse the changes of Bug 755646.

Thank you for listening.

(A clerical note: bizarrely, I am not the same Michael Harris who commented earlier in this thread.)
Comment 36 Joe Hodsdon 2012-10-06 08:58:43 PDT
Would it make sense for one or more developers who feel strongly about keeping tabs-on-bottom to offer to take on any maintenance costs associated with the feature?

If the developers who contribute their time and effort to produce Firefox don't find any value in tabs-on-bottom, then non-contributors (like myself) have no place to complain. But if some of us are willing pitch in to keep alive a feature that we value, then it seems that the maintenance cost concerns would be resolved.
Comment 37 :Gavin Sharp [email: gavin@gavinsharp.com] 2012-10-08 06:40:38 PDT
It's not possible to entirely isolate the cost of maintaining the feature to a few developers - software development just doesn't work that way.
Comment 38 Joe Hodsdon 2012-10-08 13:58:41 PDT
Gavin, you are right if the additional developers were to focus exclusively on code related to tabs-on-bottom, but that wouldn't be the case. As you point out, software just doesn't work that way.

Maintenance costs translate to developers' time. Ultimately, the feature is being removed to free up developers' time for other tasks. What I'm proposing is that instead of freeing up that time at the expense of a product feature, you are given more time to work with.
Comment 39 :Gavin Sharp [email: gavin@gavinsharp.com] 2012-10-09 03:52:22 PDT
If we could magically grow our development contributor base (we're always trying, but scaling is hard), we'd like them to focus on features that in my opinion have much greater and broader impact than maintaining tabs on bottom. "Important to many" is too low of a bar - we have "many many" users :)
Comment 40 John 2012-10-09 13:25:21 PDT
Putting tabs on top degrades usability. Yes I have looked at the new UI proposal page. But I am somewhat puzzled over the aims of the new design. It looks so much like every other browser. To me the new look seems to be oriented towards tablet users. What about the zillions of desktop users, who are now switching to higher res, and larger screen sizes? Surely a 'tablet' version as a branch from android and Moz OS is the way to go, to address those using portable devices. They need the ultra compact menus/tool-bars/etc. 

Usability is the key issue for me. So tabs on top is a no no!
Comment 41 Dmitry Semionin 2012-10-09 14:32:09 PDT
Like some people already said above, the main bonus of using Firefox is that you can alter it to fit your likes and needs rather easily. FF isn't the fastest or the most lightweight browser around, but an ability to make it convenient to use kinda makes up for it.

As a loyal FF user since the version 1.0, i was never too upset with the updates that the new versions were bringing. The only exception was the version 4.0 which simply broke my comfort by altering everything: the status bar, the tabs, the icons and even the toolbars background color. I was clinging to the 3.6 branch for more than half a year and several major version updates, until the devs fixed all the font issues and the add-on developers like Jeremy Morton did all they could to return to Firefox its previous look and feel.

Everyone i know, who still uses Firefox as their primary browser, do not do it because FF is more robust or secure - it's Chrome's turf, and i doubt that Mozilla has enough manpower to challenge Google on that. These people use FF because Chrome wasn't _nice_ enough to them. To me, no "tabs on bottom" was one of the reasons to be unhappy. Not only i'm used to this paradigm more, it's just the only paradigm that allows me to see the page title on a full-time basis, without having to catch a pop-up by hovering the mouse over the tab and then doing nothing because it would disappear otherwise. Don't know what People in Product think about this, but for me it's something to consider moving to another browser over.

Honestly guys, every time i update FF, its website keeps telling me how awesome FF is by endorsing the truly independent web surfing experience. But when it comes to a choice between some inner simplicity and the user experience which has been basic to your product since its start, you're ready to sacrifice your users just to make your life a little easier. Do you actually listen to your product users, can you believe them if they tell you that they don't share your enthusiasm about tabs on top, can they do anything to make you change your mind?

It's 1AM where i am right now, and i bothered reading all the comments here and writing my own just because i updated FF to the version 16.0 today and saw the FF3 Aero theme from Jeremy Morton not working anymore. This was my personal way of having most of the 3.6 experience without the risk of using the outdated version, and this is something your telemetry might miss. Now that way is broken. You push it a little more and force the tabs on top, and it might become easier to tweak Chrome to make it deliver what i need than to tweak Firefox to force it to do what it was once doing out of the box.
Comment 42 Michael Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] 2012-10-10 03:57:46 PDT
Personally I use tabs on top but I know a bunch of people that use Firefox because we provide the tabs on bottom feature.

By the amount of public feedback (and outrage) here and on newsgroups it really does sound like we should not remove the tabs on bottom mode.
Comment 43 Paul Rouget [:paul] 2012-10-10 04:21:39 PDT
(In reply to Michael Ratcliffe [:miker] [:mratcliffe] from comment #42)
> By the amount of public feedback (and outrage) here and on newsgroups it
> really does sound like we should not remove the tabs on bottom mode.

This is very very far from being representative.

--

Afaik, nobody is working (or planning to work) on that.

Gavin and Dao said (see newsgroup):

Gavin wrote:
> Dao wrote:
> > the maintenance costs
> > of tabs on bottom have been reasonably low and I don't see large costs
> > approaching us. So I think we can delay this decision until it becomes
> > relevant.
>
> My message wasn't intended as an argument for or against any 
> particular decision, I was just trying to make an observation about
> the decision process in the most general sense.
>
> Re: tabs-on-bottom specifically, there is clearly disagreement (even
> just amongst developers, let alone users). As you suggest, it's
> probably not useful to re-open the debate here, now.

If you want to continue the discussion, please post there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/Oral-S5Z8HQ

This bug is about implementation details (if we ever decide to fix this bug).
Comment 44 aolszowka 2012-10-12 12:22:43 PDT
I just wanted to chime in here that I think this is a fascinating trend, there seems to be a movement within the Firefox Development Core that desires to mimic as much of Chome as possible within Firefox. I saw it most drastically when they moved to Firefox 4 and the Rapid Release Cycle, and the removal of my beloved status bar.

I guess I can add myself to the 'vocal minority' that choose to use Firefox because it *doesn't* look like Chrome. I find myself having to modifying each install of Firefox more and more in order to return to a 3x era look and feel.

Again its just fascinating to me to hear statements like "witness the unexpected concern around update-fatigue after switching to rapid-release" and "I've heard no concerns from them about Australis". For me it became a concern as soon as I had learned about it, for me personally I didn't hear about it until it was rolled out (far too late in the process), and today is the first time I've ever heard about 'Australis'. The reason being is for me the system worked and why mess with something that works for you? I would not be surprised if many people were in the same boat.

In fact the only reason I learned about this desire to remove Tabs on Bottom was because after upgrading to FF16 my FF3 Theme was broken, with the author stating that he felt he would have no possible way to continue to maintain this product because of this change.

The great thing about Firefox is (was?) the ability to customize every aspect of its UI to provide users choice. Its disturbing to hear people talk about the desire to disable this functionality in order to 'make controversial changes to simplified and modernized the browser'. Simplified for who? for what? Because Google did it? Why even use Firefox if it looks and behaves exactly like Chrome? Why not just use Chrome and give Google the Ad Dollars and Data Mining?

Just my two cents.
Comment 45 Brandon Cheng 2012-10-12 12:29:32 PDT
Guys, this really is not the place for this discussion. If you think you're reaching developers better by commenting this bug, you are not. You'll have better luck on the Google Groups link that is 2 comments above this.
Comment 46 Richard 2012-10-13 02:21:06 PDT
I just wanted to say that I was forced to move from 3.6 because too many websites don't support it any more and that list is growing all the time. I'm sure many users have updated or moved on to a different browser for the same reason, compatibility, not preference. 

I hate the tabs on top so add my minority vote to the list. I also don't like the absence of the status bar. Tabs on top doesn't make any sense to me but, not having a choice makes less sense. It took me a long time to switch from IE to Firefox but,although I don't like the GUI limitations in IE8, I'll probably switch to it for its tabs on bottom and status bar. For the last year or so, I only used IE8 over FF3.6 if I really had to. Now I have to for too many sites to deal with 3.6, I actually think I prefer IE8 over FF4+, not sure yet.
Comment 47 Jeremy Morton 2012-10-13 02:30:54 PDT
(In reply to Richard from comment #46)
> I just wanted to say that I was forced to move from 3.6 because too many
> websites don't support it any more and that list is growing all the time.
> I'm sure many users have updated or moved on to a different browser for the
> same reason, compatibility, not preference. 
> 
> I hate the tabs on top so add my minority vote to the list. I also don't
> like the absence of the status bar. Tabs on top doesn't make any sense to me
> but, not having a choice makes less sense. It took me a long time to switch
> from IE to Firefox but,although I don't like the GUI limitations in IE8,
> I'll probably switch to it for its tabs on bottom and status bar. For the
> last year or so, I only used IE8 over FF3.6 if I really had to. Now I have
> to for too many sites to deal with 3.6, I actually think I prefer IE8 over
> FF4+, not sure yet.

I would recommend you use SeaMonkey's browser, not IE.  You get tabs-on-bottom and a status bar, and the latest Gecko rendering engine.
Comment 48 Richard 2012-10-13 03:13:53 PDT
Correction, I stopped updating at 3.0.6 not 3.6, I don't remember why I didn't like any version above that, some missing options or something.

and thanks for the suggestion Jeromy, I'll check it out.
Comment 49 rearwindow 2012-10-13 07:21:05 PDT
Oh dear. It really feels like I may have reached the end of the road with FF. I've loved FF for so long, since I switched from Netscape. But with every release after 3.6 that love diminished a little bit. 

Today I found out that FF 16 no longer supports the FF 3 Theme For FF 4+. I so I ended up at this bug report. Like aolszowka@gmail.com above, I proceeded to read the entire thread. I fully concur with his/her thoughts on this sad development for FF. Possibly I find the fact that what users want, and what FF stands for, have been brushed aside by Mozilla, even sadder than the demise of the tabs-on-top feature itself.

When I first moved from FF 3.6 to FF 5 I was that not impressed. Thankfully I found FF 3 Theme For FF 4+. After that I felt happy to continue using the latest FF. Then came 'Rapid Release Cycle' or whatever it is called. This just seemed to force unreliability on to the end user. It seems I've had more update problems since 'Rapid Release' was introduced than in all the years before 'Rapid Release'. After 'Rapid Release' the excellent Mozilla ProfileManager became an essential tool. Then in FF 13 ProfileManager was broken by the FF change of use of the parent.lock file. I think ProfileManager is the best FF feature to be added to FF in years; but of course it is not actually an FF feature. And then FF went and broke it.

I really don't understand why Mozilla seem hell bent on making FF just like other browsers. The reason I continued to use FF over all these years was precisely because FF was not like all the other browsers. FF was different. FF was customizable. FF was extendible. And when Mozilla went and screwed things up, there were always willing add-on contributors (who seem to have a better appreciation of what makes FF special than Mozilla themselves) to fix things up. If I really want to use a Chrome-like browser, why wouldn't I use Chrome (as numerous people above have already said).

I've never liked the tabs-on-top UI. Not because it is new, but because it is not logical to me. I was interested to read the following above, 'Firefox is more than just a web browser displaying web pages. It's also a platform for web applications. For this, Tabs on Top make more sense due to the fact that a large majority of the controls manipulate the current page and are specific to it.' Maybe this is my problem: I use FF to read web pages. 

Of course I'm just writing all this down to get it off my chest. It is way too late in the day for my comments to make a difference. But from reading the thread it seems obvious that my comments would never had made the slightest bit of difference anyway. My views as a long time FF user are just not welcome.

For now I'm stuck on FF 15. But I have no option now not to search for a new browser. Seamonkey seems to be the obvious first port of call. But to be honest I feel like getting away from Mozilla. I've also used Thunderbird for years. But have never been persuaded to move from TB 2, and so I forgo the benefits of TB 'Rapid Release'. And I am also a fan of Sunbird. But Mozilla ended support for that some time ago. All in all things are no longer rosy in the Mozilla garden.
Comment 50 Nic 2012-10-13 16:08:17 PDT
As a developer, I frequently work with users who are not technical experts.  For them, who, I suspect are by far the majority, continual change is just a nightmare.  I still have to deal with calls from those who "can't find anything" on M$'s infamous ribbons.  
As noted several times above, FF has always been configurable.  Users have not had a "developer knows best" policy imposed on them, because with configuration options and add-ons or themes, they have been able to make their browsing experience suit their needs.  
Who are developers to tell users what suits the users' needs or how the users must work?  We can offers options, but we should _never_ adopt the arrogance of some vendors who believe that only they - strictly, their developers - know how users work most effectively with their products.
Going with the herd is not a valid justification either.  It just diminishes differentiation from other products.  And if FF insists on _forcing_ unwanted changes on their users, those users will look around at other options.  Some will find try products and stick with them.
PS I too am a grateful user of Jeremy Morton's FF3 theme.  I know shades of grey are popular in some quarters, but they are deadly boring and more difficult to distinguish visually from each other.
Comment 51 Brandon Cheng 2012-10-13 16:42:37 PDT
Guys, complaining here will not help. Developers are not reading this. Go on the Google Groups forum topic. I am also strongly in favor of keeping tabs on bottom, but please present your arguments and evidence there. The link is below.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/Oral-S5Z8HQ

And if it pleases some people, I will be developing an add-on to restore Tabs on Bottom behavior to be released as soon as possible.
Comment 52 patrickjdempsey 2012-10-14 00:27:09 PDT
Ha!  At this point Mozilla has long ago attributed user-complaints as spam, so you can forget about either method as a way to reach the hallowed halls.  Just look at the mockups... user-control over customization is on the way out and this is only the first battle lost... and lost long before this implementation began.  You think it's like Chrome now?  Just wait.
Comment 53 Elomir 2012-10-18 10:21:36 PDT
I would like to keep my tabs on bottom. It is just an option, and having options/freedom of choice is, IMHO, one of the core characteristics about Firefox. Already a bunch of add-ons are necessary to give back the functionality Firefox 3.6 showed. If you continue to needlessly make things worse, I must either change to an 
ESR version or Maxthon, but I would like to keep using the recent version of Firefox. Do not destroy Firefox, please!
Comment 54 Elomir 2012-10-18 10:23:36 PDT
@ Brandon Cheng : It would please me very much to keep Tabs on Bottom, if need be by an Add-on. It would be very kind of you to develop such an add-on, please. Thanks in advance!
Comment 55 raid_kbd 2012-10-20 21:09:50 PDT
Another vote against this ticket.  If I wanted a Google Chrome clone, I would install it. I prefer tabs beneath the navbar/address bar.
Comment 56 ianfuture 2012-10-25 08:05:44 PDT
I agree totally with raid_kbd.

Been using Firefox since v1 and I adjusted to the change when moved from v3.6 for v4+ but wasn't happy at the UI changes in theme, now upgraded to v16 and horrified by the UI and discovery that the tabs will be moved. If I want a dull grey washed out browser I'll use Chrome or IE. I'll be moving back to an earlier version shortly. The faster release cycle of FF hasn't been a good thing.

I can see a fork of one of those earlier versions taking a lot of unhappy FF users if it's done right. Even if it only provides security patches.

So annoyed about this i had to sign up to bugzilla to discourage you from continuing on this path to self destruction
Comment 57 patrickjdempsey 2012-10-25 13:32:45 PDT
You really should not expose yourself to the security risks over the theme.  There are plenty of "retro" themes available for current versions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/themes/retro

Many of these are marked as not compatible with 16 due to a hiccup in addon.mozilla.org's compatibility policies which apparently authors are not aware of.
Comment 58 Drake 2012-10-28 02:56:57 PDT
(In reply to Frank Yan (:fryn) from comment #0)
> We're currently planning to remove tabs-on-bottom mode because of its
> maintenance costs and usability concerns in relation to current and future
> UI, including Australis.

If you want to look and act like Chrome, then users should move to Chrome. You seem to think that the user community are dimwits who should leave the leave the very design of the browser they WANT to the experts who know what's best. I can assure you that we are not (all) children and do know what we want. You're unilaterally removing ANY OPTION to keep the features we, THE USERS, expressly want. I am quite confident that user outrage will only feed the developer Gods need for power and control, thus having the effect of eventually pushing the users out of the development picture all together. Ubuntu did it. Microsoft is doing, and now Mozilla is doing it. Wouldn't it be nice to have a browser that USERS wanted instead of what the developers demand we accept?  Think it's time to shop for a new browser - They all look the same and Chrome is faster anyway.
Comment 59 tekwyzrd 2012-10-29 10:24:14 PDT
I use tabs on the bottom. Top tabs require more mouse movement and are therefore inconvenient. Removing options is never a good idea. I do not like google chrome, and don't plan to ever use it again. It is crippled by default and too much effort to make it useful. Firefox had the advantage of being easy to configure with more options than the competition. It's sad to say but if the Firefox devs are so determined for it to be nothing more than a chrome clone I have to wonder if it should even continue development.

I'd like to know why so many app dev teams have adopted the "less is more" mentality. Crippled, less useful software is NOT better.
Comment 60 Aleksi 2012-10-30 02:48:05 PDT
I don't comprehend what the developers are thinking concerning this "fix". This is going against the very principles that made Firefox great in the first place: extreme customizability for the preferences of every user. Making it harder and harder to choose your own kind of UI is taking this browser further and further away from its core strengths. Imitating Google's design choices blindly does not improve the usability of the browser. 

I implore you developers: don't turn your back to the best qualities of your creation. Don't enforce unnecessary UI choices just for the sake of streamlining. At least leave the door open for modders to use the option, even if you don't want to use it yourselves. Personally I find tabs on top inconvenient and uncomfortable, usable but utterly pointless. If there are people who like the option fine, but enforcing the choice on everybody is not OK.
Comment 61 srsdfd 2012-11-01 22:43:51 PDT
As a concerned user I'd just like to state that if tabs on top is enforced I'll definitely move to another browser. I'll freely admit I don't know much of the rationale behind the changes that have been made, mostly post-4.5, but I'd rather have a 4.5 style browser that gets security updates. Not liking a user's UI choice is no reason to cut them off from vital security updates.
Comment 62 rearwindow 2012-11-02 03:08:56 PDT
Good point srsdfd.

A feature of the rapid release cycle seems to be that Mozilla now only support the latest version of Firefox as security updates are only released for the latest version. Coupled with that the latest version has a lifespan of a few months. Not exactly user friendly in my opinion, especially as new versions quite often introduce new bugs. It is only a slight exaggeration to suggest that by the time the bugs are fixed in one version, support is soon dropped because a new version is released, with possibly new bugs. This is why I now find ProfileManager a vital tool, so that I can install the latest version in a test profile before installing in my live profile.

Apologies I digress, my point being can we please have security fixes for release 15?
Comment 63 Paul [pwd] 2012-11-02 03:19:01 PDT
Every release is a security fix. There are also Extended Support Release versions available (currently 10.0.10). I'm not sure why anyone would come in here to throw their toys out of the pram without actually doing the research on that. Those releases are available from here: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

and more info here: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Also it might be worth acknowledging that users that actually customise Firefox are in a heavy minority, users that _need_ tabs on bottom, even more so. Firefox currently has ~22% of the browser stats and ~50 of them are in here spamming a bug in anger.

Unless you're coming into this bug in order to offer to personally maintain tabs-on-bottom, please refrain from posting.
Comment 64 Joe Hodsdon 2012-11-02 14:34:46 PDT
Paul, I proposed that very offer and it was dismissed as unwanted by the team.
Comment 65 Paul [pwd] 2012-11-04 04:15:56 PST
Joe, propose it again on the newsgroup and the 50 or so of you that want to support the initiative can throw your support behind Joe's new post. Worse comes to the worst, you can always fork Firefox. Though I doubt that'll be necessary.
Comment 66 hamiglorr 2012-11-13 16:55:20 PST
(In reply to Ken Saunders from comment #16)
> For what it's worth, people do move to other products out of frustration
> and/or sheer spite.
> Sometimes it's a single change that causes them to do so, sometimes it's
> because they've reached a threshold for how much change that they're willing
> to tolerate.
> 
> These vocal minorities are usually the power users and long time users and
> contributors (as seen above), and they're the ones that have always
> installed Firefox on friends and family's machines and heavily promoted
> Firefox to more mainstream users.
> 
> That's how Firefox initially gained it's popularity and a lot of those
> individuals now use Chrome.
> 
> I say it's worth the effort, labor, and expense to keep the minority happy.

Hear hear!
Comment 67 hamiglorr 2012-11-13 17:19:36 PST
(In reply to rearwindow from comment #49)
> Oh dear. It really feels like I may have reached the end of the road with
> FF. I've loved FF for so long, since I switched from Netscape. But with
> every release after 3.6 that love diminished a little bit. 
> 
> Today I found out that FF 16 no longer supports the FF 3 Theme For FF 4+. I
> so I ended up at this bug report. Like aolszowka@gmail.com above, I
> proceeded to read the entire thread. I fully concur with his/her thoughts on
> this sad development for FF. Possibly I find the fact that what users want,
> and what FF stands for, have been brushed aside by Mozilla, even sadder than
> the demise of the tabs-on-top feature itself.
> 
> When I first moved from FF 3.6 to FF 5 I was that not impressed. Thankfully
> I found FF 3 Theme For FF 4+. After that I felt happy to continue using the
> latest FF. Then came 'Rapid Release Cycle' or whatever it is called. This
> just seemed to force unreliability on to the end user. It seems I've had
> more update problems since 'Rapid Release' was introduced than in all the
> years before 'Rapid Release'. After 'Rapid Release' the excellent Mozilla
> ProfileManager became an essential tool. Then in FF 13 ProfileManager was
> broken by the FF change of use of the parent.lock file. I think
> ProfileManager is the best FF feature to be added to FF in years; but of
> course it is not actually an FF feature. And then FF went and broke it.
> 
> I really don't understand why Mozilla seem hell bent on making FF just like
> other browsers. The reason I continued to use FF over all these years was
> precisely because FF was not like all the other browsers. FF was different.
> FF was customizable. FF was extendible. And when Mozilla went and screwed
> things up, there were always willing add-on contributors (who seem to have a
> better appreciation of what makes FF special than Mozilla themselves) to fix
> things up. If I really want to use a Chrome-like browser, why wouldn't I use
> Chrome (as numerous people above have already said).
> 
> I've never liked the tabs-on-top UI. Not because it is new, but because it
> is not logical to me. I was interested to read the following above, 'Firefox
> is more than just a web browser displaying web pages. It's also a platform
> for web applications. For this, Tabs on Top make more sense due to the fact
> that a large majority of the controls manipulate the current page and are
> specific to it.' Maybe this is my problem: I use FF to read web pages. 
> 
> Of course I'm just writing all this down to get it off my chest. It is way
> too late in the day for my comments to make a difference. But from reading
> the thread it seems obvious that my comments would never had made the
> slightest bit of difference anyway. My views as a long time FF user are just
> not welcome.
> 
> For now I'm stuck on FF 15. But I have no option now not to search for a new
> browser. Seamonkey seems to be the obvious first port of call. But to be
> honest I feel like getting away from Mozilla. I've also used Thunderbird for
> years. But have never been persuaded to move from TB 2, and so I forgo the
> benefits of TB 'Rapid Release'. And I am also a fan of Sunbird. But Mozilla
> ended support for that some time ago. All in all things are no longer rosy
> in the Mozilla garden.

Oh, I agree _so_ completely with everything you've said!  I, too, use Firefox to look at web pages - what else??  And for the life of me I can't see the point of "Rapid Release" - why make changes just for change's sake?? I'm sticking with FF 15 too, for the same reasons as you are.
Comment 68 douglasw7 2012-11-14 10:50:21 PST
No need to rehash everything that has been said in this bug. I use tabs on the bottom, and I hate tabs on top. I frequently switch between programs and FF tabs, and having tabs on bottom saves me a TON of mouse movement. Isn't that a good enough reason to continue supporting tabs on bottom? If I liked tabs on top, I'd consider switching to Chrome anyway because the update cycle for FF has gotten so annoyingly frequent.

For the little it seems to be worth, please register me as a vote for keeping the tabs on bottom option.
Comment 69 Roranicus 2012-11-17 11:43:57 PST
This is not something minor, but one of the big reasons why myself and many users use Firefox. If tabs on bottom get removed, then I'll just stick to older versions of the browser. 

I think the firefox team needs to realize something; Firefox is not Chrome, and many firefox users choose to use it in part because they don't like Chrome. I vote to keep tabs on bottom. People use Firefox because it's easily customizable, this is what your users want, and this is the direction the browser needs to take, simple as that.
Comment 70 chuck2134657 2012-11-17 11:53:58 PST
I think you should just Leave the choice up to the users & don't just get rid of the tabs on the bottom. Having the tabs on the bottom is one of the main reasons I use firefox over chrome.
Comment 71 Drake 2012-11-17 14:43:05 PST
(In reply to Guillaume C. [:ge3k0s] from comment #2)
> I completely understand these concerns, but every other browser have tabs on
> top enabled by default, except "outdated and for OSX made" Safari. In fact
> Firefox users are most likely to choose Chrome as a replacement and Chrome
> provides only tabs on top.

Do you not see the ILLOGIC of your statement? PEOPLE WHO STAY WITH FIREFOX WANT TABS!!! OTHERS MOVE TO CHROME!!!! Where is your head, man!
Comment 72 Carlo 'Carcarlo' Carmagnini 2012-12-16 06:57:43 PST
As many, I use tabs on bottom. With tabs on top, I would have the bookmarks toolbar below the tabs. While the bookmarks (in your logic of separating each tab from Firefox main UI) belong to the Firefox UI, not the single tab. There is also a usability issue, as I would have to move the mouse for more pixel in height before clicking on a different tab. I would be like to understand the ratio of that choice.
If there will be no choice on new installs (most people do not know the about:config tricks) it would be as Chrome. Do we want FX to be a copy of Chrome? Just remember that people always choose the original rather than the copy.

It seems to me that usability has been put aside in a lot of circumstances. For example I still remember the *years* we had to wait before having a "new tab" button (see bug 186865) in the tab bar. Then we saw the title bar disappearing if the menu was hidden, and in the default UI there is no way to see the complete title of a page without placing the mouse cursor over the tab. Just like Chrome. Then don't be surprised if people are moving to that browser.

I know there is plenty of good developers working here and FX is still the greatest product, but many of us are simply asking to maintain the original Mozilla philosophy: let the user choose.
Comment 73 Will Pittenger 2012-12-19 08:24:37 PST
This has to be one of the worst ideas I've seen.  At least make it available as an addon.  I have TabMix+ set to open a new tab when I click a bookmark.  I won't want my bookmarks hidden just because I'm in the wrong tab.  NEVER, EVER assume users use a program in the same manner you do.  DON'T DO IT!!!!
Comment 74 bug.zilla 2012-12-27 03:07:40 PST
This add on forces tabs on bottom and also offers great tab grouping for those with lots of tabs:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/tabgroups-manager/

If you only have one group of tabs then go into options and select "Hide GroupBar when there is only one Group". This removes the groupings but keeps the tabs at the bottom.
Comment 75 Toni Clark 2012-12-30 06:00:44 PST
This is what I posted in mozilla.dev.apps.firefox. I figured it wouldn't hurt to post it here as well. It doesn't seem that anyone has given the disabled much, if any, thought.

For me Tabs on the Bottom is not an option. This is a matter of accessibility. I have MD, Macular Degeneration. This makes it very difficult to see things on a busy screen.  I have no choice but to have them on the bottom of the toolbars. Where I can find them easily and hey have the whole row. With the tabs on the address line they become too small to make out.

And I am sure there many other visually disabled users out there who feel the same. And people who have Muscular Dystrophy or any other condition that makes it difficult to control the mouse.

Has anyone thought about us?

For now I will stick to the older version that I have been using. At least till I find something else or they fix this problem.
Comment 76 Chris Wagner 2013-01-11 03:13:24 PST
I must say, I'm quite stunned by the downfall of Firefox.  I know "the devs don't read this" but I'm here and I'm tired.  I'm a programmer myself and I know that the end user experience is EVERYTHING.  How the user feels after using ur product represents the only value of ur work.  Telling a customer "I don't want to deal with that complexity level" is a one way ticket to being out of work.  Hiding the tabs-on-bottom config is a jerk move.  As someone who is asked for software advice on a regular basis, I can no longer recommend Firefox to anyone.

Mozilla == Microsoft now.  Legacy dinosaur that doesn't heed the users.  One day u'll wake up with ur teeth in the back of ur mouth and convince urselves that a 5% market share is viable.
Comment 77 Drake 2013-01-11 06:05:24 PST
Well said, Chris. End users are being dragged through the mud by developers trying to emulate each other. Windows 8, Ubuntu, and now Firefox are shoving **** down our throats and telling us it tastes good. I have news for them - we don't appreciate their arrogance. These guys only get the message when it's too late and their respective products tank. RIP Firefox - You are now Apple/Google/Microsoft/Ubuntu.
Comment 78 :Gavin Sharp [email: gavin@gavinsharp.com] 2013-01-11 18:17:50 PST
Maintaining a product that's in use by hundreds of millions of people is difficult. It's our job and we do it as best we can, but there are many tradeoffs, and none of them are as simple as "care about users or don't care about users".

Reducing this particular decision into "Firefox developers don't care about users" isn't really a fair, though I can see how it might seem that simple if you look at a specific decision in isolation and are particularly attached to one or the other outcome.
Comment 79 Drake 2013-01-12 06:58:56 PST
(In reply to :Gavin Sharp (use gavin@gavinsharp.com for email) from comment #78)
> Maintaining a product that's in use by hundreds of millions of people is
> difficult. It's our job and we do it as best we can, but there are many
> tradeoffs, and none of them are as simple as "care about users or don't care
> about users".
> 
> Reducing this particular decision into "Firefox developers don't care about
> users" isn't really a fair, though I can see how it might seem that simple
> if you look at a specific decision in isolation and are particularly
> attached to one or the other outcome.

I take this a "**** You" to people the who care enough to express the views of many, many more who don't know how to make their voices heard. Why not SURVEY ALL USERS? You're going to do what you damn well please, so why permit input anyway?
Comment 80 Paul [pwd] 2013-01-12 07:04:27 PST
There are multiple methods to collect feedback about any given feature. Just because a few vocal people are loud, doesn't mean they're the majority. In actuality most users don't modify the UI. If you truly feel that strongly about Tabs on Bottom mode, take to blogging and build a movement to resurrect the feature. Spamming bugs and abusing developers isn't a very productive use of time.
Comment 81 Marco Castelluccio [:marco] 2013-01-12 07:09:36 PST
This is an opensource project, if you want such a feature no one stops you from contributing with time or money to mantain it.
Comment 82 Drake 2013-01-12 08:18:31 PST
(In reply to Paul [sabret00the] from comment #80)
> There are multiple methods to collect feedback about any given feature. Just
> because a few vocal people are loud, doesn't mean they're the majority. In
> actuality most users don't modify the UI. If you truly feel that strongly
> about Tabs on Bottom mode, take to blogging and build a movement to
> resurrect the feature. Spamming bugs and abusing developers isn't a very
> productive use of time.

 Well boys,I apologize for being rude, but you just seem so arrogant an condescending brushing off users' input and slandering us as a 'few loud vocal people.' There were 75 or so posters or "Bug Spammers" as you call them, ahead of me and you ignored them and that made me angry. Marco, you know that a lot of workarounds have been created (see Youtube Videos, plugins, and Mozilla's own https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=why-are-tabs-top)for the changes you've been imposing, but you've rewritten the code to defeat user choice and options. Why? Why take away user choice/customization?  Is it because you know better than we do what we need? Well, you go ahead and do what you like. I'm just a end user. Marco, "This is an opensource project, if you want such a feature no one stops you from contributing with time or money to maintain it." Really? I can contribute code to restore Tabs on Bottom mode? That's already been done - and defeated.

Might as well end this thread - it's pointless for end-users like me to complain.
Comment 83 Jim Mathies [:jimm] 2013-01-12 12:02:16 PST
> (In reply to Paul [sabret00the] from comment #80)
> ..  but you've rewritten the code to defeat user choice
> and options. Why? Why take away user choice/customization? 

From the original post on this bug - 

(In reply to Frank Yan (:fryn) from comment #0)
> We're currently planning to remove tabs-on-bottom mode because of its
> maintenance costs and usability concerns in relation to current and future
> UI, including Australis.

This stuff takes a lot of time and effort to maintain. It also makes maintaining the interface most users prefer more time consuming. We don't have the developer resources to do it.
Comment 84 Sk 2013-01-12 22:22:15 PST
You had these resources for 9 years and now you don't?
Maybe you shouldn't have implemented tabs-on-top in the first place?
Cause when devs did it they said nothing about they're gonna remove tabs-on-botton later.
Need I remind you that Firefox had tabs on bottom since 1.0! And only after Chrome copied Opera's style Firefox for some reason had to copy Chrome.
Stop copying Chrome! Housewives don't care about the browser, they will use anything that hardcore users recommend them. And hardcore users are tired of FF devs copying Chrome.
Comment 85 Aleksi 2013-01-13 08:26:30 PST
There comes a time in the history of every system where the developerbase will run out of good ideas on how to improve the user experience and under internal pressure for change and progress will resort to self-indulgent aesthetic masturbation and delusions of infallibility at the cost of the usefulness of their product. For Firefox this was at the end of the production cycle of Version 3. 

At which point did the userbase demand less colourful, more obtuse interface and an increasing number of hidden options? The average user of an Internet browser will submit to these changes and try to adapt to their best ability, but this silent acceptance to the whims of the distant developers is not the same thing as approval or desire for further "improvements". 

The origin of the popularity of Firefox in comparison to other browsers was its openness and modifiability, which allowed users to tailor their interface perfect for their own use. As it gained mainstream popularity these options became less often used relative to the number of users, but they still formed its core for the power users who had funded, modded and advertised it to its current status. Now the developers tell that properties which are not used by the majority are undesirable and useless and should be discarded. In other words, we can say goodbye to add-ons, themes, even basic user options, since the average user never makes use of any of them. 

If the new Firefox is nothing but an inferior imitation of Google Chrome, then what is the purpose for its use? What makes it distinct and desirable for its users? Why should anyone stay loyal to it, any more? These are questions that the developers should ask from themselves if they ever hear them in their ivory tower. If nothing makes Firefox unique any more, then why should it even exist?
Comment 86 :Gavin Sharp [email: gavin@gavinsharp.com] 2013-01-13 15:55:17 PST
The cost/benefit ratio of maintaining a feature can change over time, for numerous reasons.

We're never going to get rid of Firefox's rich extension/customization support, and indeed it's a great mechanism by which those who feel strongly about this particular UI choice can get what they want regardless of what we decide to support in Firefox proper.
Comment 87 Sk 2013-01-13 23:48:23 PST
>>We're never going to get rid of Firefox's rich extension/customization support
Who knows, who knows. 

Because: "The cost/benefit ratio of maintaining a feature can change over time, for numerous reasons."
Comment 88 Chris Wagner 2013-01-16 07:57:29 PST
(In reply to Jim Mathies [:jimm] from comment #83)
> This stuff takes a lot of time and effort to maintain. It also makes
> maintaining the interface most users prefer more time consuming. We don't
> have the developer resources to do it.

If that is a concern then the logical thing to do would be to not start a new drastic change - tabs on top.  U guys have created this work load for urselves.  No one forced that time consuming tabs on top and bottom on u.  If that has become too much work, the logical thing to do would be to back out the changes that created the work load in the first place.

Now, if ur goal all along has been social engineering, we know why the change was made and how this will end up.  Socialism...
Comment 89 Ryan 2013-01-29 03:57:51 PST
The only thing you guys need to copy off Chrome is the performance.
Comment 90 Mark Straver 2013-02-11 04:47:28 PST
(In reply to :Gavin Sharp (use gavin@gavinsharp.com for email) from comment #86)
> We're never going to get rid of Firefox's rich extension/customization
> support
Then what's stopping anyone from making this bug a "wontfix"?

Tabs on bottom is a very obviously desired customization. A good number of users have accepted the other default layout because there was no easily accessible way anymore to put them on bottom. These are the same users that will not disable the default choice for telemetry gathering (realize that most advanced users who WOULD customize the Firefox UI and go the extra mile through about:config to change this setting (as is now required since bug 755646), will switch telemetry off the first chance they get) so whatever data the "desirability" of features are based on is likely skewed. Also, IIRC, the "cost" for maintaining this is relatively small. It's also not just a personal choice, there is logic behind both choices from a design/visual perspective.
Comment 91 mitchell 2013-03-09 00:08:17 PST
One of the great advantages of Firefox over Chrome is the interface customizability. The advantages of this move are spurious, and will just push people to Chrome. 

Firefox devs have to realise that, at this point, Chrome is better in almost every way to Firefox. I love Firefox, but I'm not deluding myself about this. The only real advantage we have is customizability. I may be in the heavy minority, but I use Firefox and suffer through its rough points because I love using a browser that works how I want it to - not how google wants it.

Please don't do this. This is user-hostile.

(Copypasted from 755598)
Comment 92 Stewox 2013-04-02 14:46:59 PDT
First of all I have to salute fellow advanced users for standing up against this sacrilege!

Special thanks to the Firefox Theme guy who actually made me aware of all this taking place, I have totally erupted when my old theme stopped working suddenly a few weeks ago.

I have also already written a RANT in mozilla.dev.apps.firefox google groups, so I will be short here.

In reply to Frank Yan: That decision is critical to my use of Firefox, you just lost another FF user, i will switch to CHROME out of spite as a protest against mozilla, firefox 20.0 or whatever ridicolous version it is is chrome copycat anyways.


If you guys read the rant there is a 3 year old thread i made back in ultra-rand mode maybe that's why it didn't get any serious though, but I do see the big picture, i saw what was coming.
Comment 93 Stewox 2013-04-02 14:51:37 PDT
I will also in the meantime be very active in talking about this and educating other people, I will not lose opportunities to tarnish mozilla's image, i am not a fanboy. I hereby announce that I see mozilla as COMPROMISED, I do not belive their "hard to maintain" programer PR ****.
Comment 94 Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2013-04-02 14:59:23 PDT
I'm restricting further comments on this bug. Rants are non-constructive, no new info is being added, and spams people CC'd on the bug.

See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html, repetitively abusive users will have their accounts disabled.

[Comments are restricted to users with the editbugs privilege -- with privilege comes responsibility, so please consider carefully before commenting if you are able.]
Comment 95 (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back) 2013-06-03 23:19:48 PDT
Created attachment 757820 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch
Comment 96 Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] 2013-06-04 01:08:28 PDT
Comment on attachment 757820 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

Review of attachment 757820 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This looks all good to me. I'm not too experienced with our theme code though, so I'd really like another person to give their thumbs up as well.

::: browser/themes/linux/browser.css
@@ +46,5 @@
>  }
>  
> +#nav-bar,
> +#nav-bar[collapsed=true] + toolbar,
> +#nav-bar[collapsed=true] + #customToolbars + #PersonalToolbar {

Can we really simplify all these selectors? Shouldn't we still distinguish between :-moz-lwtheme and :not(:-moz-lwtheme)?
Comment 97 Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] 2013-06-04 01:14:40 PDT
FWIW, I also think that there are lots of selectors that could possibly be simplified now. We can leave that for a follow-up. We should also keep in mind that this may change the specificity of some selectors and *may* (or may not) break themes.
Comment 98 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2013-06-04 01:15:43 PDT
Comment on attachment 757820 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

> #TabsToolbar {
>-  -moz-box-ordinal-group: 100;
>-}
>-
>-#TabsToolbar[tabsontop="true"] {
>   -moz-box-ordinal-group: 10;
> }

Why is this still needed? Should the toolbar be moved in browser.xul?

>+    if (currentUIVersion < 15) {
>+      Services.prefs.clearUserPref("browser.tabs.onTop");
>+    }

This isn't needed and counter-productive if e.g. an add-on such as tab mix plus wants to honor the previously set pref.

>--- a/browser/themes/osx/browser.css
>+++ b/browser/themes/osx/browser.css

>-toolbox[tabsontop=true] > toolbar:not(#TabsToolbar):not(#nav-bar):not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>+toolbox > toolbar:not(#TabsToolbar):not(#nav-bar):not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>   -moz-appearance: none;
>   background: url(chrome://browser/skin/Toolbar-background-noise.png) hsl(0,0%,83%);
> }

s/toolbar/#navigator-toolbox/

>--- a/browser/themes/windows/downloads/downloads-aero.css
>+++ b/browser/themes/windows/downloads/downloads-aero.css
>@@ -21,39 +21,31 @@
>   }
> }
> 
> @media (-moz-windows-compositor) {
>   /* The following rules are for the downloads indicator when in its normal,
>      non-downloading, non-paused state (ie, it's just showing the downloads
>      button icon). */
>   #toolbar-menubar #downloads-indicator:not([attention]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-icon:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=true] #downloads-indicator:not([attention]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-icon:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #navigator-toolbox[tabsontop=false] > #nav-bar #downloads-indicator:not([attention]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-icon:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #nav-bar + #customToolbars + #PersonalToolbar[collapsed=true] + #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=false]:last-child #downloads-indicator:not([attention]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-icon:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>+  #TabsToolbar #downloads-indicator:not([attention]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-icon:not(:-moz-lwtheme),

:-moz-any(#toolbar-menubar, #TabsToolbar)

>   /* The following rules are for the downloads indicator when in its paused
>      or undetermined progress state. We use :not([counter]) as a shortcut for
>      :-moz-any([progress], [paused]). */
> 
>   /* This is the case where the downloads indicator has been moved next to the menubar */
>   #toolbar-menubar #downloads-indicator:not([counter]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-progress-area > #downloads-indicator-counter,
>-  /* This is the case where the downloads indicator is in the tabstrip toolbar with tabs on top. */
>-  #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=true] #downloads-indicator:not(:-moz-lwtheme):not([counter]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-progress-area > #downloads-indicator-counter,
>-  /* This is the case where the downloads indicator is anywhere in the nav-bar with tabs on bottom. */
>-  #navigator-toolbox[tabsontop=false] > #nav-bar #downloads-indicator:not(:-moz-lwtheme):not([counter]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-progress-area > #downloads-indicator-counter,
>-  /* This is the case where the downloads indicator is in the tabstrip when the tabstrip is the last item in the toolbox (and is therefore over glass) */
>-  #nav-bar + #customToolbars + #PersonalToolbar[collapsed=true] + #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=false]:last-child #downloads-indicator:not(:-moz-lwtheme):not([counter]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-progress-area > #downloads-indicator-counter {
>+  /* This is the case where the downloads indicator is in the tabstrip toolbar. */
>+  #TabsToolbar #downloads-indicator:not(:-moz-lwtheme):not([counter]) > #downloads-indicator-anchor > #downloads-indicator-progress-area > #downloads-indicator-counter {
>     background-image: -moz-image-rect(url("chrome://browser/skin/Toolbar-inverted.png"), 0, 108, 18, 90);
>   }

ditto

>   #toolbar-menubar #downloads-indicator-counter:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=true] #downloads-indicator-counter:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #navigator-toolbox[tabsontop=false] > #nav-bar #downloads-indicator-counter:not(:-moz-lwtheme),
>-  #nav-bar + #customToolbars + #PersonalToolbar[collapsed=true] + #TabsToolbar[tabsontop=false]:last-child #downloads-indicator-counter:not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>+  #TabsToolbar #downloads-indicator-counter:not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>     color: white;
>     text-shadow: 0 0 1px rgba(0,0,0,.7),
>                  0 1px 1.5px rgba(0,0,0,.5);
>   }

ditto
Comment 99 Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] 2013-06-04 01:18:17 PDT
Comment on attachment 757820 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

What Dão said :)
Comment 100 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2013-06-04 01:22:44 PDT
(In reply to Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] from comment #96)
> > +#nav-bar,
> > +#nav-bar[collapsed=true] + toolbar,
> > +#nav-bar[collapsed=true] + #customToolbars + #PersonalToolbar {
> 
> Can we really simplify all these selectors? Shouldn't we still distinguish
> between :-moz-lwtheme and :not(:-moz-lwtheme)?

These selectors used to match #nav-bar[tabsontop=true] regardless of :-moz-lwtheme.

(In reply to Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] from comment #97)
> FWIW, I also think that there are lots of selectors that could possibly be
> simplified now.

Besides the :-moz-any case mentioned in my review comment, I didn't see any other opportunities in the context of this patch.
Comment 101 Tim Taubert [:ttaubert] 2013-06-04 01:29:26 PDT
(In reply to Dão Gottwald [:dao] from comment #100)
> These selectors used to match #nav-bar[tabsontop=true] regardless of
> :-moz-lwtheme.

Right, that makes sense.

> Besides the :-moz-any case mentioned in my review comment, I didn't see any
> other opportunities in the context of this patch.

Ok, thanks for checking!
Comment 102 (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back) 2013-06-04 09:09:49 PDT
Created attachment 757974 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.1

Thanks for the quick turnaround-time on the reviews!

I couldn't just use the same :-moz-any() for the last one since we didn't apply the rules when the download-indicator was in the tabs-toolbar with a lightweight theme applied. I expanded the moz-any usage there to account for this.
Comment 103 Dão Gottwald [:dao] 2013-06-04 10:29:06 PDT
Comment on attachment 757974 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.1

>--- a/browser/base/content/browser.css
>+++ b/browser/base/content/browser.css

>-#toolbar-menubar {
>-  -moz-box-ordinal-group: 5;
>-}
>-
> #navigator-toolbox > toolbar:not(#toolbar-menubar):not(#TabsToolbar) {
>   -moz-box-ordinal-group: 50;
> }

Remove this as well.

>--- a/browser/themes/windows/browser-aero.css
>+++ b/browser/themes/windows/browser-aero.css

>   /* Vertical toolbar border */
>   #main-window[sizemode=normal] #navigator-toolbox::after,
>-  #main-window[sizemode=normal] #navigator-toolbox[tabsontop=true] > toolbar:not(#toolbar-menubar):not(#TabsToolbar),
>-  #main-window[sizemode=normal] #navigator-toolbox[tabsontop=false] > toolbar:not(#toolbar-menubar):not(#nav-bar) {
>+  #main-window[sizemode=normal] #navigator-toolbox > toolbar:not(#toolbar-menubar):not(#TabsToolbar)  {

Remove extra space before {

>-  #main-window[sizemode=normal] #tabbrowser-tabs[tabsontop=true] > .tabbrowser-arrowscrollbox > .arrowscrollbox-scrollbox > .scrollbox-innerbox:not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>+  #main-window[sizemode=normal] #tabbrowser-tabs > .tabbrowser-arrowscrollbox > .arrowscrollbox-scrollbox > .scrollbox-innerbox:not(:-moz-lwtheme) {
>     position: relative;
>   }

Remove "#tabbrowser-tabs > "
Comment 104 (Away 6/25-7/4) Jared Wein [:jaws] (reviews and needinfo disabled until back) 2013-06-04 15:51:54 PDT
https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/ux/rev/c197150217d6
Comment 106 dougogd64 2013-12-17 00:04:08 PST
(In reply to Frank Yan (:fryn) from comment #0)
> We're currently planning to remove tabs-on-bottom mode because of its
> maintenance costs and usability concerns in relation to current and future
> UI, including Australis.

I can tell you 40 people I know of that switched to chrome just because of the tab issue, the others went back to IE. No point on downloading another annoying browser when there is one already installed. They say the tabs are on top of both so why not go with the more stable faster Google Chrome. Me personally I will be going back to IE why install another annoying browser. I will be saving a ton of space without chrome or firefox.
Comment 107 YUKI "Piro" Hiroshi 2013-12-17 00:26:18 PST
FYI: I've released an addon "Tabs On Bottom" for Australis:
https://addons.mozilla.org/ja/firefox/addon/tabs-on-bottom/
(*Note: it doesn't work on Firefox 28 Aurora without Australis!)
It can help people who want tabs on bottom mode.
Comment 108 dougogd64 2014-01-10 13:08:15 PST
(In reply to YUKI "Piro" Hiroshi from comment #107)
> FYI: I've released an addon "Tabs On Bottom" for Australis:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/ja/firefox/addon/tabs-on-bottom/
> (*Note: it doesn't work on Firefox 28 Aurora without Australis!)
> It can help people who want tabs on bottom mode.

Just what is needed another plugin to fix something that should not have been removed. Again people don't want to add any unnecessary plugins for something that should not have been removed. I am now using other browsers until firefox starts listening to their customers or users.
Comment 109 Matthew N. [:MattN] (behind on reviews) 2014-03-20 17:09:13 PDT
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom needs an update
Comment 110 Charles 2014-03-20 20:22:57 PDT
Yup, this caused major pain for me too.  Now, instead of mousing a few pixels to move from the page content to the tab bar (where I can then scroll through dozens of tabs I have open), I have to skip over the developer tools bar, the bookmarks toolbar, and the main navigation toolbar to get to the damn tab bar -- much more painful, and much slower, for something that is about the #1 most common operation I do with FF.  Tabs on top seems to be one of those features that was foisted on users because it *looks* good to some designer -- the usability of it is terrible, and testing should have showed that.
Comment 111 Will Pittenger 2014-03-20 20:26:23 PDT
(In reply to Charles from comment #110)
> Yup, this caused major pain for me too.  Now, instead of mousing a few
> pixels to move from the page content to the tab bar (where I can then scroll
> through dozens of tabs I have open), I have to skip over the developer tools
> bar, the bookmarks toolbar, and the main navigation toolbar to get to the
> damn tab bar -- much more painful, and much slower, for something that is
> about the #1 most common operation I do with FF.  Tabs on top seems to be
> one of those features that was foisted on users because it *looks* good to
> some designer -- the usability of it is terrible, and testing should have
> showed that.

Well, feel free to try Pale Moon from http://palemoon.org/.  No Australis.  Tab On Bottom not only survives, it's the default.  The status bar also survives.  It's also compiled for modern CPUs whereas FF is compiled for CPUs that are 20 years old.  I support it from ircs://irc.mozilla.org/palemoon.
Comment 112 tekwyzrd 2014-03-21 09:43:03 PDT
(In reply to Will Pittenger from comment #111)
> (In reply to Charles from comment #110)
> > Yup, this caused major pain for me too.  Now, instead of mousing a few
> > pixels to move from the page content to the tab bar (where I can then scroll
> > through dozens of tabs I have open), I have to skip over the developer tools
> > bar, the bookmarks toolbar, and the main navigation toolbar to get to the
> > damn tab bar -- much more painful, and much slower, for something that is
> > about the #1 most common operation I do with FF.  Tabs on top seems to be
> > one of those features that was foisted on users because it *looks* good to
> > some designer -- the usability of it is terrible, and testing should have
> > showed that.
> 
> Well, feel free to try Pale Moon from http://palemoon.org/.  No Australis. 
> Tab On Bottom not only survives, it's the default.  The status bar also
> survives.  It's also compiled for modern CPUs whereas FF is compiled for
> CPUs that are 20 years old.  I support it from
> ircs://irc.mozilla.org/palemoon.

That may be a solution for Windows users but unfortunately all of the mozilla based browsers available for linux seem to be following the 'less is more' philosophy.
Comment 113 Jeremy Morton 2014-03-21 11:48:45 PDT
(In reply to tekwyzrd from comment #112)
> That may be a solution for Windows users but unfortunately all of the
> mozilla based browsers available for linux seem to be following the 'less is
> more' philosophy.

Nope, try SeaMonkey (IceApe on Debian).
Comment 114 la 2014-03-21 16:55:23 PDT
(In reply to Charles from comment #110)
> Yup, this caused major pain for me too.  Now, instead of mousing a few
> pixels to move from the page content to the tab bar (where I can then scroll
> through dozens of tabs I have open), I have to skip over the developer tools
> bar, the bookmarks toolbar, and the main navigation toolbar to get to the
> damn tab bar -- much more painful, and much slower, for something that is
> about the #1 most common operation I do with FF.  Tabs on top seems to be
> one of those features that was foisted on users because it *looks* good to
> some designer -- the usability of it is terrible, and testing should have
> showed that.

This is a perfect summary of my current number one issue with ff, we appear to have arrived at a stage where visual changes trump everything, including ease of use.
Comment 115 Matthew N. [:MattN] (behind on reviews) 2014-03-22 13:10:35 PDT
*** Bug 986817 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 116 Mark Straver 2014-03-22 13:20:07 PDT
(In reply to tekwyzrd from comment #112)
> That may be a solution for Windows users but unfortunately all of the
> mozilla based browsers available for linux seem to be following the 'less is
> more' philosophy.

There's a Linux port of it too, http://sourceforge.net/projects/pm4linux/
Comment 117 bobbuun 2014-03-24 05:39:09 PDT
I was agog when I started Firefox (29, beta) this morning to see "tabs on top: false" is no longer honored. Worse than that, there's the EVEN WORSE "tabs in titlebar" feature on.

Please, properly, revert this silliness. This is getting asinine.

(Now to find a report that customize toolbar is broken...)
Comment 118 Paul [pwd] 2014-03-24 06:55:28 PDT
Guys, Firefox believe it or not wasn't designed to be the browser that met all your needs by default. It was designed as a standard compliant extensible browser and with Australis it remains that. There was a ton of User Research done to justify the move to tabs-on-top by default and as it stood, not enough users moved their tabs back to the bottom to make it a default user option. Instead you're able to install an extension to recreate that browsing model. As Australis came about, the UX and UI design teams never put effort into designing a tabs-on-bottom mode and so in order to restore this evolution of the browser, you'd need to first get in some researchers to overturn the previous researchers' findings, get in some designers to design the interaction models and then assets and then some programmers to actually provide a patch. Unless you're willing to do any of that, you're simply spamming the bug. Please stop! You win some, you lose some. As stated, there's extensions to restore the behaviour you're after, seek them out.
Comment 119 Mark Straver 2014-03-24 07:17:59 PDT
@Paul: you don't need a whole team to implement what (as previously stated) would take one developer maybe one day to do right. It's not asking a redesign of the UI, and if the average add-on developer can do this in a short amount of time, then so can someone employed by Mozilla (even more so if they can do so in native code instead of having to use injection/overlays)...

As for the "research" done, I'm sure some study was performed that shows design choices with tabs on top to be more beneficial in some situations. But both locations of the tab bar have their advantages depending on situation. Tabs on top + in title bar (as seems to be the current standard for Australis) is good for full screen/maximized use (i.e. on low resolution screens). But who are you to tell us how we use our browsers? Tabs on bottom makes much more sense when you look at ergonomics, windowed use (including Fitts' Law principles), element grouping and intuitiveness of the interface. Not to want to start a discussion that is best left for dev usenet groups or similar, but taking away the *option* of this desired and beneficial situational feature automatically reduces usability in (at the very least) the windowed use of Firefox. I don't think many people on HD screens will be using Firefox maximized. If your telemetry says otherwise, it's likely flawed or incomplete.

I would expect Firefox to have a *reasonable* basic set of available features, and considering its strong point has always been UI customizability, that should be retained. A "standards compliant extensible browser" (is that the new hot-word?) can also be a window frame with a content window and nothing else, and telling people to "install the omnibar add-on, search add-on, web developer add-ons and bookmarks add-on" to "meet your needs". There's only so much trimming you should do in a default feature set. If you get clear resistance from your user base when removing things: Please stop!
Comment 120 Paul [pwd] 2014-03-24 07:34:36 PDT
@Mark, I'm not going to speak to you like you haven't got a clue because you clearly do, so covering your main points:

1/ It is asking for a redesign, because that interaction isn't within the product as it's currently designed.

2/ There are different standards thresholds amongst other things (like salary qualification) for add-ons and RTM products.

3/ That's why you have the opportunity to use another browser or an add-on.

4/ Just so you know, you're saying "design Firefox to meet my needs" in the face of numbers that determine you to be in a vast minority. The fact you can get your needs met with an add-on should be sufficient for someone advanced enough to find their way here.
Comment 121 Mark Straver 2014-03-24 08:31:39 PDT
(1) Basically you're saying "We haven't implemented this in Australis" -- I'm saying "you should have". 
(2) It's not like Mozilla is hurting for resources. In fact, if you were, you wouldn't have about 40 FTE of open positions you're hiring for.
(3) I'll just not respond to that.

And you are incorrect about (4). That's not at all what I'm saying. But to not spam this bug any further with different viewpoints that I obviously can't get across, I leave it at that you're right in saying "You win some, you lose some" but I'm sure you understand that I say that with a whole different interpretation of "win" and "lose" than you might have meant.

Firefox has always been about choice and giving the users that choice by default. It is no longer. And before you say "but you can use add-ons" again, consider the impact of what it means, especially for the vast majority of people who are less tech savvy. "Silent acceptance" of changes has a limit. And I think you're reaching it. We'll see when 29 hits the release channel.
Comment 122 Will Pittenger 2014-03-24 15:20:53 PDT Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment 123 Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec] 2014-04-13 20:44:01 PDT Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment 124 Will Pittenger 2014-04-13 20:48:47 PDT Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment 125 Gingerbread Man 2014-04-28 19:58:27 PDT
What will it take to get user-doc-needed removed from the keywords? Is the following good enough?

1. I submitted an edit to the "How do I put tabs back on bottom like they used to be?" article to mention the Tabs On Bottom add-on.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/put-tabs-back-on-bottom/revision/62205

2. For this and other changes, there's the "How to make the new Firefox look like the old Firefox" article.
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-to-make-new-firefox-look-like-old-firefox
Comment 126 tekwyzrd 2014-04-28 20:52:53 PDT Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment 127 tekwyzrd 2014-04-28 21:13:59 PDT Comment hidden (advocacy)
Comment 128 tekwyzrd 2014-04-29 21:54:20 PDT Comment hidden (advocacy)
Comment 129 Andrei Boros 2014-04-30 06:37:25 PDT Comment hidden (advocacy)
Comment 130 gramtoph 2014-05-01 05:37:02 PDT Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment 131 bogomip 2014-05-03 07:38:43 PDT
After six weeks of beta testing I could not get accustomed to the tabs on top.  Switching tabs is more error prone, requires more attention, and thus is more distracting than before.  Since this problem cannot be fixed without installation of even more add-ons I consider this the worst thing that happened to the usability of Firefox since the first appearance of Phoenix.

Please fix this.


See also https://input.mozilla.org
Comment 132 Justin Dolske [:Dolske] 2014-05-03 10:35:45 PDT
I'm restricting further comments since this bug is basically just collecting advocacy now. Tabs on top has been the default on all platforms for a long time. Add-ons are available to change that if you so desire.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.