Firefox
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
I hate the corpo talk as usual but hope they can squeeze out a really good tab manager. Container tabs and proper adblock is the best thing Firefox has, and would be nice with a third Ace in their hand.
The moment Firefox adds back tab stacking, I'll go back to it so fast my pc won't even finish booting
Is there a difference between tab stacking and something like tree style tabs?
So I read that line about it being things we requested and people are not requesting wallpaper stuff 😂
It's thousands for tab grouping and less than a hundred for wallpapers. Seems like when they tried to rebrand bookmarks as collections and were determined to push them.
It has 374 thumb ups here:
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/wallpaper-in-new-tab/idi-p/172
And was suggested here multiple times:
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/let-s-chat-about-the-firefox-new-tab-page/m-p/7632#U7632
Thanks for the correction. Still troubling that Progressive Web Apps has five times as many votes and not a word about it.
Tab Grouping, Vertical Tabs, and our handy Sidebar will help you stay organized no matter how many tabs you have open -- whether it’s 7 or 7,500.
Could we have HDR support instead of AI? Does anyone even want all this AI stuff companies keep pushing?
For context, the part where they talk about AI:
We are approaching the use of AI in Firefox -- which many, many of you have been asking about -- in the same way. We’re focused on giving you AI features that solve tangible problems, respect your privacy, and give you real choice.
We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models -- i.e., more private -- to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.
I mean, this is not "slapping an LLM on top of the software and calling it AI", it's integrating it into the browser in usable ways.
One usage of a local model is the local translation feature which was ... kinda nice? Not having to go online to translate? Pretty cool right?
This is similar here with the alt text, seems like a force for good?
Feels like they're fulfilling what they said in the first paragraph of the quote.
Firefox is my favorite browser, ever since version 1 way back in the days. I only wish they would not add too much nonsense by default. Also reading this marketing talk here feels waste of time, instead of talking like a human to human and not like a robot writing a marketing article.
If they really add AI to Firefox, then I might change my default browser. It would be the first time I say good bye in what, 17 years or so (since I use it)?
-
new tab wallpapers, streamlined menus: Eh, whatever.
-
vertical tabs, better settings UI: I guess it's probably useful for someone if they do a good job.
-
AI-generated alt-text for images in PDFs: Oh fuck right off.
-
Customizable hotkeys: I can't believe you're still not doing it. Wasn't it the number one requested thing on Mozilla Connect? Do it, Mozilla. It's so easy, and so obviously needed. It would serve as a meaningful sign that you've become less user-hostile.
AI-generated alt-text for images in PDFs: Oh fuck right off.
why so negative? this is actually great for accessibility, especially when the majority of people don't care about alt text (especially in pdfs)
Excellent example of good usercase for AI
Yeah, I was kind of taken aback by how genuinely useful this is. So much of this generative AI stuff is marketed for tasks where it is simply inadequate. But in this case, a text that's 90% accurate is a massive improvement from there usually not being alt text at all.
True, my initial reaction was hasty. It took me a good twenty minutes to see why it was right. Mozilla should've spent a few more minutes thinking about it.
AI-generated alt-text for images in PDFs: Oh fuck right off.
Why is this bad?
I kind of resent having a pdf editor in my web browser at all. Putting a giant LLM-based image classifier in there seems inadvisable even if it was going to do something more useful than suggest alt text for images you add to pdfs.
Accessibility tools that can describe images, as well as pdf editing, are fine things for Mozilla to work on but they really shouldn't be done as part of Firefox alone. Image describing has way more uses than just what's found in the web browser, and should be a system-wide thing. There's no point in each application having its own. Doing it only for things inserted into pdfs compounds the absurdity. If the accessibility APIs that exist can't handle it, it's time to propose a better one — and maybe go ahead and implement it on Linux. Solving the problem properly would be a more ambitious goal, but one that seems appropriate for an organization with the stature of Mozilla.
I kind of resent having a pdf editor in my web browser at all.
gonna assume it's for the pdf reader, considering that's where alt text in images is needed.
Vertical tabs has quickly become the deal breaker feature for me personally, for any browser. I am on desktop, horizontal tabs are so senseless there in hindsight as most screens are wider than they are tall.
You could make the title more compelling than "a thing we're doing"
I kind of love that they are not click-baity.
I guess basically skipping putting anything in the title definitely falls under that description 😅
I'd really like container tabs to be a thing. It's a UX nightmare, but I'd really like to keep social media crap at bay.
Any browser which only offers an AI inclusive release, I won't use.
If any company that produces browsers really, truly, cared about their customer base, they would offer an AI release and a non-AI release.
At this point, AI is pretty much any line of code that the marketing team thinks sounds smart. It's really not a hill worth dying on.
What if the AI doesn't activate unless you explicitly choose to do so?
If it provably disabled all functionality and features of the AI, then I would find that acceptable.
So your idea is that visually impaired people should just cry about not having alt text on a lot of images? How would you solve this problem of recognising what's in an image without AI? I hate generative AI in most cases as well but I swear people hear AI and are so blind from anger that they fail to see what it actually is used for
No, actually if you read my comment my idea is that they can use an AI release of the browser, while people who don't want AI in their browser can use a different release without it.
In response to "So your idea is that visually impaired people should just cry about not having alt text on a lot of images?".
This is a loaded question. You shaped the question to be this way so that it would contain presumption of my being guilty of not caring for the differently abled when I have never done such a thing.
My comment just suggests that options are good for consumers, in this case the option of being able to choose if you want AI in your software.
If you have a real argument against that idea that is not predicated on presumptive guilt regarding a topic different to what I was talking about like in your first response, feel free to let me know what it is.
To clarify for you, my saying "Users should have a choice of whether AI is in their browser" being met with your "Then you must hate blind people and want them to cry" does not follow and does not constitute an argument to the contrary.
Ya usually I debate people but your idea is stupid as shit. The resources to do that would be astounding, and there's nothing inheritly wrong with using AI as part of the tech stack.
I'll usually debate people as well, but not those who resort to a logic fallacy as boring as ad hominem for lack of an argument. Seeya.
He did not resort to ad hominem. He didn't say that you were stupid as shit therefore he is right, he said that your idea is stupid as shit and explained why.
And yes, your idea IS stupid as shit. You need to brush up on logical fallacies because it's clear that you don't actually understand how they work.
Please go ahead and explain what the difference is between calling a person stupid and calling a persons ideas stupid, given stupidity refers to a persons intelligence by definition.
If you call someone's idea stupid, then by definition, you are calling them stupid by extension because that's what that word means.
If used in a colloquial manner I can understand how referring to someone's socks, or a device, or some inanimate object can allow one to call those things "stupid", but the fact of the matter is that referring to ones ideas as stupid is redundant to calling the person stupid directly because they both refer to the intelligence and original thoughts of a person and therefore literally mean the same thing by definition.
Furthermore, the notion that saying for example "Your shirt is stupid" or "Your idea is stupid" or "your feelings are stupid" instead of "You are stupid" is not ad hominem due to the colloquial usage is laughable as a fallacious argument only needs to attack the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument to be considered ad hominem, and if a persons ideas are not considered an attribute of them, I don't know what is.
I think I'm pretty brushed up on how this works, but perhaps you should take your own advice, thanks.
A very intelligent person can have some very stupid ideas. The fact that they are intelligent does not make their ideas intelligent as well. Referring to an idea as stupid is not the same as referring to the progenitor as stupid.
You do not understand how logical fallacies work. This is demonstrated by your responses.
Furthermore, saying the equivalent of x person is smart therefore they are right and as a result I am right because I invoked person x is an appeal to authority.
Ding ding, ok school is in session:
Ad hominem attack defined
An ad hominem attack is when someone tries to win an argument by attacking the other person's character instead of addressing the actual issue or argument. It's like saying, "You're wrong because you're a bad person," instead of explaining why their idea might be incorrect.
Example
If you call an idea "stupid" but focus on explaining why the idea itself is flawed, it’s not an ad hominem attack. For example:
Not an ad hominem attack: "The plan to build a bridge out of paper is stupid because paper isn’t strong enough to support any weight."
In this case, you're calling the idea "stupid" but you’re explaining why it’s a bad idea based on its merits.
Ad hominem attack: "You think we should build a bridge out of paper? You must be an idiot."
Here, you're attacking the person rather than addressing the reasoning behind their idea.
This endeth the lesson.
Go through a dictionary of your choosing and post the cited definitions of:
Ad hominem
Character
Attribute
Idea
Attack
Stupid
Intelligence
And I'll prove to you by your own cited definitions why you're wrong without going outside of the definitions.
I trust Merriam Webster if you do.
Jesus. Ffs. You can lead a hoe to water but you can't make him think. Block and move on.
So the debate is about what words mean, but when asked to examine what any dictionary defines those words as to understand and agree upon their meanings, you fold immediately?
If the debate was about this, and I offered this to you, then if we follow your anecdote, it was actually me who lead you to the pacific ocean but then you decided to sit on the beach instead of swimming.
I guess you don't believe your argument is predicated on facts in that case since you dropped it the moment you were faced with scrutinizing it against a reputable source.
Goodbye.