> Don't forget colorways, the non-feature that still needed to be force-fed to us. I assumed people who wanted to change the color theme already could
Most average users don't ever change settings or otherwise customize stuff, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy a different theme. Colorways saw good adoption according to our internal Telemetry. In fact, three years later colorway themes combined remain more popular than either Dark, Light, or Alpenglow, despite not being offered or advertised directly in Firefox anymore.
Not surprising, since I believe Firefox gave everyone the Colorways screen when that feature showed up, but nothing equivalent happened whenever it went away.
My current desktop has been Fedora since Fedora 16, and I just upgraded from one release to the next continuously. So yes, whatever choice I made back in 2013 is just going to stick around on my current machine unless it goes away entirely or I manually change it. Colors are just not that important, if I like it well enough, it's going to stick around forever.
The only one that caused intense feelings in me was the "Dreamer – Bold" theme that caused a fair amount of confusion about why the heck couldn't I tell which tab was active, and what could be possibly broken. Because it never occurred to me that the theme could be designed that way intentionally.
> Not surprising, since I believe Firefox gave everyone the Colorways screen when that feature showed up,
Right, I assume that's what the parent comment meant by "force-fed to us." That screen was indeed the whole point: It made the theming feature visible and accessible to the average users.
Drop the hyperbole for a second. It was a choice screen, a far cry from force-feeding. I'll grant you, somewhat wide adoption is almost a given when putting this kind of UI in front of all users, but that still doesn't mean that it was a mistake or a net loss to give folks who wouldn't normally customize Firefox a chance to do so. So, what's your point?
It was something I didn't want, put between me and my browser, because someone at Mozilla decided they wanted wveryone to stop what they were doing and pay attention to this new method of self expression. If it wasn't a big deal them why do I still care about it? Maybe I should just change my desktop theme until I feel better.
> I'll grant you, somewhat wide adoption is almost a given when putting this kind of UI in front of all users
I see now that "force-fed" is hyperbole. It was merely "put in front of all users". And then the thing that happens when you put this kind of UI in front of all users happened.
Does your internal telemetry tell you that "average" users don't know what Firefox is, and that proficient users who might recommend it to them are sick of the mismanagement of the browser?
> In fact, three years later colorway themes combined remain more popular than either Dark, Light, or Alpenglow, despite not being offered or advertised directly in Firefox anymore.
People using colorways after the feature was removed? Well, that sounds like a failure of the feature then.
The whole crux upon which the colorways marketing rested, was they were temporary! You get to change your theme for a few months, and then later on at some random point, it changes again as it's taken away from you.
If users have managed to continue using those themes, well, that's in spite of what Mozilla did with them, not because of them.
The criticism of colorways wasn't because people hate browser themes, it's because making features that self-destruct after indeterminate amounts of time is user-hostile. "Limited time features" is alone enough to make someone want to swap to a fork.
> People using colorways after the feature was removed? Well, that sounds like a failure of the feature then.
> The whole crux upon which the colorways marketing rested, was they were temporary! You get to change your theme for a few months, and then later on at some random point, it changes again as it's taken away from you.
It was sort of a marketing gimmick, one I wasn't particularly fond of. (I was the lead engineer for colorways.) What it really meant is that we'd offer the onboarding screen and colorways built into about:addons for a limited time. The intent was never to remove them once users installed them. We have since migrated them to AMO where they can still be installed: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/4757633...
Yes, and when people complain about colorways, the marketing gimmick is what they are complaining about. No one objects to colored themes, and adding a UI "hey this is a feature" isn't a thing people really dislike either beyond a few.
People know when they are being sold to and emotionally manipulated, and they don't like it, even if it's effective.
That's why colorways was a failure, complained about years later, even if "the metrics look good". People don't remember what you did, they remember how you made them feel.
There's for sure a lesson to be learned in here. The product owner who had decided and pushed for making it seem like colorways were ephemeral has long left Mozilla, so you're preaching to the choir at this point.
I still don't consider colorways a failure, all things considered. To me, the fact that colorways are still some of the most used themes outweighs you remembering that you were angry three or so years ago, but thanks for the feedback.
I think perhaps we are using the same words to talk about different things.
It may well be that colorways are used and loved by many users and that's a success. You made something people like; well done!
That we are having this conversation at all I think could be considered evidence, though, that it was a strategic failure for Mozilla. How much public opinion is worth burning for how much increased usage of a new theme feature? In my opinion, very little.
That colorways work well, that the people who use them continue to do so, that they were technically well designed and well engineered, is one yardstick by which to measure success/failure. By that measure they are certainly a success. But another yardstick is "did they have a net-positive or net-negative effect on the organization", which is where I think it came up short.
Based on the things you've said it sounds like you and I are more or less on the same page.
> How much public opinion is worth burning for how much increased usage of a new theme feature? In my opinion, very little.
I think we're squarely in the "very little" range here in terms of how much public backlash we saw. You might be overestimating how widely folks got angry the same way you got angry, or perhaps we weren't monitoring the right forums and channels when releasing the feature, who knows.
Most of the Firefox adoption I've seen has been driven by tech evangelists pushing it. It's a vocal minority that is upset but it's also a vocal minority that was responsible for a lot of growth.
Firefox Mobile is great, it has uBlock Origin. I'm not recommending it to people though.
Oh... I'd completely forgotten that I picked a theme when those were offered.
So it hadn't occurred to me since then that I could change it.
I guess I count among the users who are still using a colorways theme. But after getting used to it, I ended up thinking of it as being what current Firefox looks like by default.
> Colorways saw good adoption according to our internal Telemetry.
The users who regard colorways as frivolous likely also disabled the telemetry.
Rather like how the "psychological profile of a serial killer" is merely the psychological profile of a serial killer the police are capable of catching.
This is just not true. We're watching ocean currents collapse in real time. You're the frog getting boiled being angry at the thermometer. Wake the f- up.
> “The likelihood that the AMOC collapses, let's say, before the end of the century, according to numerical models and our understanding, is pretty small. Most likely the weakening will be modest,” he says.
'Land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size.'
'Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.'
Also: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration"
Politicians, almost without fail, subscribe to climate hysteria, as that allows them to do whatever they want and claim they are doing it for the climate. It's a perfect boondoggle for them.
Not exactly a catastrophe. But I did hear that the summer this year in Norway is particularly harsh. I hope you get some days this year when it's possible for you to go outside without getting heat stress. It's important to stay safe out there.
School chemistry means it was a ~20 year old prediction 30 years ago, based on known oil deposits 50 years ago.
It would have been a hopeful prediction from today's perspective, as we would necessarily have stopped pumping and burning oil by now, but unfortunately we haven't.
No, it wasn't wrong, because "oil reserves" are defined as: "quantities of crude oil and natural gas from known fields that can be profitably produced/recovered from an approved development", which means they change over time, when we find new oil or develop new technologies. And that's also what happened.
Also maybe at one point accept that "Oil" with an EROEI dangerously getting to below the 1.0 mark is not the same "Oil" as was talked-about 30 years ago: if your shale sands have to get burnt with local coal or natgas to get a pipeline-able liquid, but the total energy spent on the process is about as much as will be dispersed by combustion engines down the line... then you're treading very murky waters indeed.
Hmm, if I had to choose between not having Facebook and having React, I'd pick the former in a heartbeat. Not that this was a real choice, but it was nonetheless bitter to see colleagues join the behemoth that was Facebook.
In about:config, try looking for browser.tabs.dragDrop. The createGroup... and moveOverThresholdPercent flags control the group creation behavior during drag and drop. If anyone finds values that make it less likely to accidentally create groups while still allowing intentional grouping via drag and drop, I can channel these back to the team.
I'm guessing your telemetry will tell you a lot of users have started using tab groups. They may have done so by mistake. My tabs each take up like half an inch of the screen and I don't have a gaming mouse; I now have multiple tab groups which I never intended making. As this is a quite technical feature, maybe dragging should be off by default, or only when e.g. holding shift and dragging or something?
(Yes it's a beautiful feature and probably lots of people want it, just noting that the dragging is confusing. I can't think of a good way to solve the problem that doesn't make it slightly more difficult/nerdy to use.)
Is there a way to disable the creation of tab group by drag and drop altogether by tweaking these parameters ?
Also I noticed another thing: drag and droping a tab on a folded tab group doesn't work. You have to unfold the tab group then you can drag and drop a tab into it.
It would be great to allow drag and drop of a tab on a folded tab group and if dropped just put the tab at the end of the group, it would make the tab group feature more useful by allowing to quickly select and drop tabs where they should go.
You could just set `browser.tabs.dragDrop.createGroup.delayMS` to a high value like 3000; that would mean having to rest the mouse for three seconds to group tabs during drag and drop.
I've only enabled tab groups on my profile after updating to 138 today. That first attempt where drag-and-drop didn't work was already on 138. But I can't reproduce it anymore, so I assume that was a fluke. Looks good so far!
