
Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum - DiabloD3
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/firefox-56-last-stop-before-quantum/
======
saberworks
Frustrated by the new "screenshots" tool. The "save" button automatically
uploads your screenshot up to mozilla servers. The "download" button saves it
to your computer. It seems completely backwards. The "save" button should save
it to my computer (there's no reason call something a "download" when it's
already local). The "download" button should be replaced with an "upload &
share" button that sends it to mozilla's servers. Also somewhere it claimed it
could screenshot the entire page, but I can't figure out how to actually do
that.

I'm also might not upgrade to quantum because I will lose my status bar
(status 4 evar addon). I don't understand how people browse the web but can't
see where links are taking them. Showing me where the link points when I hover
the mouse over it is something so fundamental to browsing I just can't figure
out why it was ever removed. I think by default it eventually shows up in a
tiny popup but it doesn't show the full link and the delay is infuriating.

~~~
ianbicking
Hi, Screenshots developer here –

We've gotten similar feedback about the Save and Download buttons, we added
the cloud icon in part to make that clearer. I feel like there's a ticket
about it as well, but I not able to find it. We're planning on adding a Copy
button, and we'll probably do some user research on the buttons generally to
make sure the choice is clear.

We did have a full page screenshot feature, but it didn't make the cut for
Firefox 56. It's back in Firefox 57.

If you have any issues or feedback on Screenshots, we track most of our work
in GitHub and welcome new issues there: [https://github.com/mozilla-
services/screenshots](https://github.com/mozilla-services/screenshots)

~~~
saberworks
Thanks for the reply. Adding a "cloud" icon to a button called "Save" does not
make it clearer, it makes it contradictory (does it save it or does it upload
it?). It's very clear based on the design of the interface that your primary
goal is to get people to upload their screenshots to your servers. The "save"
button is the only one with a label. The others are icons only. The "save"
button is 3x as big as the other two. The "save" button is the only button
with any color (the others are black & white). Also note that the current
"save" feature (which uploads the screenshot to mozilla servers) actually does
the opposite of saving them because after 2 weeks they will be deleted.

I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority
of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that
mean they're right? And when they hit "save" in microsoft word or whatever,
they think the document is going to microsoft servers?

"Save" means put it in my local storage.

"Download" means copy some file from a remote server onto my local storage.

"Upload" means copy it from my local storage to a remote server.

I also just realized that clicking the "save" button clobbers whatever is in
my clipboard.

[https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...](https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombinator.com)

~~~
ianbicking
> I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the
> majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla"
> does that mean they're right?

More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the
one that more people understand is the right one. We're generally shooting for
more than a majority though, we'd want _most_ people to understand the
interface, and would also take negative reactions into account.

In our past studies we found people generally understood the buttons well
enough, and specifically it was obvious after first use what was happening.
But we only compared the current buttons to one other option (which didn't
compare well), so it wasn't a very thorough test.

There's more overhead in updating this interface than some others, since we
have to get updated translations (to more strings than just the button) and
change all our onboarding, which is why we've kind of left it be until we can
look at the full set of buttons more closely.

~~~
saberworks
Haha I am completely dismayed. So that means if I use File -> "Save Page
As..." I can look forward to that eventually sending my entire page to your
servers ;)

Again thanks for your replies and hopefully they can be more clear in the
future (without being incorrect). And just in case I have sounded like a jerk,
I really do love Firefox and I have been using it since it first came out as
Phoenix. I appreciate the work you all put into it even if my above comments
didn't make that clear. I actually used the Mozilla Suite before that, too. I
still have, wear, and love my dinosaur head t-shirt I ordered from the mozilla
store soooo long ago.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Mo...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Mozilla_Foundation_logo.svg/1024px-
Mozilla_Foundation_logo.svg.png)

~~~
teresonos
This seems to be one of those "dark patterns" in design, where they try to
persuade someone to perform a certain action.

At the very least, change it to "Save to Cloud" and "Save to Disk." But to be
really clear, "Upload and Share" is definitely the way to go.

------
wyldfire
> Firefox Quantum’s new engine uses 30% less memory than Chrome

This is a pretty appealing claim. I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that
might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. But
I'll definitely give Quantum a test drive.

~~~
satysin
> I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the
> trove of passwords in my sync'd up account.

I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to
a _real_ password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say
it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a
third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry about
having all my eggs in one basket as such).

I haven't paid for Bitwarden yet but I plan to providing it doesn't have a
massive failure in the next couple of weeks. Looks like it will easily be
worth the $10/year though.

Another added bonus is that their Android app is very decent as well and so
far has worked with all my apps as well which is handy and not something I had
thought much about in the past. Makes life that little bit easier although I
don't have to enter app passwords much in Android it is nice to have the
option now.

But back to Firefox - I checked out Nightly when it hit 57 a while back and
was _extremely_ impressed. It felt like a whole new browser. Not sure if I
will switch from Chrome just yet but I am excited for the future of Firefox
again.

[0][https://bitwarden.com](https://bitwarden.com)

~~~
smnrchrds
I would like to switch to Bitwarden, but I don't know how I can assure I can
trust them with all my passwords. Are any of the founders well-known security
experts? Has the service been recommended by respected security researchers?

I am not a security expert, so I cannot assert their trustworthiness myself. I
know that you can run your own server. But even then, without auditing the
code, configuring a firewall, and checking network logs, I cannot assure the
server and the clients do not _call home_. And all of those solutions are both
prohibitively time-consuming and way out of my area of expertise.

How did you decide Bitwarden was trustworthy? How can I stop worrying and give
them my passwords already?

~~~
satysin
I didn't pick Bitwarden right away. The comment that mentioned it prompted me
to research password managers in general. I looked at primarily online
(1Password, LastPass, Bitwarden, etc) and offline desktop client ones
(Keepass).

I do prefer the idea of using something like Keepass and not relying on a
service but I found it rather frustrating to manage between my multiple
devices. I knew if I were to actually make use of a password manager it needed
to be a smooth experience because otherwise I would just return to using
Chrome's built in one out of laziness.

After researching the main online managers I decided to go with Bitwarden. It
is open source so if it does do something dodgy I would hope it is found and
reported. I do not have the time nor expertise to audit all of the code myself
so I have to put _some_ trust in others.

Plus while it would be a real pain in the ass if accounts were compromised due
to the developer being an asshole/idiot it wouldn't destroy my life. I have a
strong password on my primary email account (not stored in Bitwarden) along
with 2FA. Most of the logins stored in Bitwarden are for things like Hacker
News, Reddit, Slack (personal not work), etc. Randomly generated 18+ character
strings that are a pain to enter manually, especially on a phone.

~~~
zzalpha
FYI: KeePass plus Syncthing works great for me for cross-device password
databases.

~~~
satysin
Will have to check this out. Not used Syncthing before. Thanks!

~~~
zzalpha
No problem!

As I mentioned in my other comment, the only gotcha is to make sure you set up
your syncthing ignore file to ignore the KeePass database lockfile.

------
pricechild
I've been following
[https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonW...](https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonWorry)

It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and
the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57.

For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include
the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely
impressed.

~~~
hadrien01
Unfortunately that's also where I'll stop during at least a few months after
Firefox 57 is released. Quantum is ultra fast, but my extensions are more
important. Greasemonkey and Stylish, for example, have equivalent
WebExtensions, but they're not as polished. Same with DownThemAll.

I think WebExtensions should have matured a bit longer, with Quantum,
electrolysis, and Photon being made available for all with the old extensions.

~~~
andrepd
Absolutely. I won't be upgrading and I'm already looking for alternatives, as
long as crucial parts of my workflow (tree tabs, session manager) have no
adequate replacement.

The ugly redesign is also a thorn in my side.

~~~
greggyb
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-
ta...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/) has a
'Compatible with Firefox 57' badge, and I've been using it with no issues.

I've always been satisfied with the built in session management (restore last
session on open) and don't have any feedback on the other.

~~~
andrepd
Not only is the new Tree Style Tabs a step backwards from the old, I'm also
not running that addon, but this one: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/tab-tree/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/tab-tree/) I find it lighter and more responsive.

As for the session manager, I need more features: saving and loading several
sessions, etc.

------
51Cards
Tab Mix Plus, DownloadThemAll, RightToClick, Status-4-Evar... all regularly
used by me, none migrated yet. Not to mention the loss of Classic Theme
Restorer's control over the UI highly disappoints me. I really really dislike
being locked into the "Chrome Style" UI. I've disliked it since Chrome was
released.

~~~
actionscripted
I'm using Nightly (v58a) and you can customize the UI a lot more than in the
current release (v56).

You can move back/forward and refresh, auto-hide certain buttons like
downloads, add items to the "overflow" menu, toggle full/compact mode, toggle
title bar, toggle a "grab" space...there are a lot of options.

They've also added proper support for light and dark icons for plugins. So now
buttons like 1Password don't stand out with a dark theme.

To me it feels like a return to the level of customization I'd gotten used to
in older versions of Firefox. And FWIW, this is what mine looks like:
[https://i.imgur.com/seJZeg6.png](https://i.imgur.com/seJZeg6.png)

~~~
plopz
Is it possible to make it look like this?
[https://i.imgur.com/sA8za0B.png](https://i.imgur.com/sA8za0B.png)

~~~
jd3
no

------
maxpert
Nice to see FF picking up momentum again. I don't want to use Chrome because I
don't trust Google with my data (using Chromium right now). Can't wait to
switch back, once it's GA.

~~~
DavideNL
Chromium also sends data back to Google... unless you use Ungoogled-chromium,
but the latter has the issue of not being up to date (= missing recent
security updates).

~~~
deltaprotocol
Or Inox [https://github.com/gcarq/inox-
patchset](https://github.com/gcarq/inox-patchset)

------
atonse
Is there a long term plan from Mozilla to implement declarative and built-in
(native-speed) content blockers like Safari?

Would love to not have to use an extension to do this.

~~~
JoshMnem
It's already in Firefox Developer Edition.

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/developer/)

~~~
atonse
I have developer edition. I don't see it. Is it just like Safari's where you
can get extensions that provide content blocking lists?

~~~
mozoldie
IIRC there's an option to enable tracking protection in normal browsing on
desktop. It's enabled by default in private browsing. (I can't check right now
though - it's possible it's just an about:config option too.)

Firefox iOS (on iOS 11+) definitively offers those options, on Android it's
private browsing only by default and I don't think there's an option to enable
it in normal browsing.

~~~
jamesgeck0
In Firefox Developer edition on macOS there's no obvious way to add new
blocklist sources in the UI. You can switch between two provided by
Disconnect.me, and that's it.

------
PhantomGremlin
NoScript is identified as a "legacy" extension. But it's the only one I use or
care about. Hopefully it will be rewritten to work properly?

To me, NoScript is sine qua non. It's the primary differentiating factor
between Firefox and other browsers.

~~~
ReidZB
It's being migrated: [https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-
migrati...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-
webextensions-apis/)

There's also uMatrix as a replacement.

~~~
wtallis
uMatrix isn't a replacement for NoScript. uMatrix lets you do some javascript
blocking, but has none of the other features of NoScript. Several of those
features are not available from anything other than NoScript. Eg. I haven't
seen any other content blocker implement anything like NoScript's surrogate
scripts feature.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
NoScript also isn't a superset of the capabilities of uMatrix. Both can do
things the other can't.

------
binaryapparatus
I will badly miss vimperator. Yeah 56.0 works smoothly but without ability to
use keyboard only that's hollow victory for me.

Typing this in vim after viewing hackers news in w3m shows how desperate I am.

~~~
Vinnl
I'm not sure what features of Vimperator you're using, but if it's only about
being able to navigate through your keyboard only, try Vimium-FF:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-
ff/?sr...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-
ff/?src=search)

~~~
always_good
There are all sorts of issues with Vimium.

For instance, doesn't work on non-website pages, often have to cmd-w when x
doesn't work completely defeating the extension to begin with. No d vs D to
close prev/next tab, or p vs P. No temporary pass-thru, just whitelists.

Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator probably
never used the latter much. Though not sure if it's to do with API limits vs
general lack of polish.

But since Chrome never had a single solution as good as
Pentadactyl/Vimperator, must be an API thing which means we're a bit screwed.

~~~
Vinnl
> Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator
> probably never used the latter much.

That's why I suggested it - apparently OP didn't use it __that __extensively
:)

Note that even if Chrome didn't have an API, that doesn't mean Firefox will
never get it. For example, Vimium had to reimplement its own address bar, but
I believe they're working on API's that will let it manipulate Firefox's.

------
onewhonknocks
I need to be able to use Tab Groups, so I won't be going to 57+.

~~~
analogic
In case anyone listening, plz no quantum till replacement for: tab groups,
hiding horizontal tab bar when using tree style/tab center, and hiding window
title bar under MATE, that as far as I can tell is only possible with hide
caption title bar plus addon.

Pretty sure all being worked on and excited for >>speed>> but I'm scarred this
transition gonna be really annoying.

~~~
StavrosK
I feel your pain, but I think your position of "please don't release new
versions until you have compatibility with the plugins I, specifically, use"
might be a tad unreasonable.

~~~
analogic
how so?

~~~
cisanti
Because I you're not the only one using the browser?

------
CurtMonash
My big concern is add-ons.

The whole reason I use Firefox is the availability of add-ons such as NoScript
and Cookie Culler. I'm guessing NoScript will work with Quantum, but Cookie
Culler hasn't been updated since last year.

Roomy Bookmarks is also a major quality-of-life factor; it allows me to have a
well-stocked bookmarks bar. And it definitely won't work with Quantum. That
alone will give me strong pause about updating.

~~~
earenndil
> cookie culler

What about cookie autodelete?

------
AdmiralAsshat
>In most cases, the upgrade to Firefox Quantum will be painless. Most popular
add-ons will update to the new APIs before the release of Firefox Quantum, and
Firefox will suggest replacements inside about:addons for those that don’t.

Suggestion WebExtension replacements is brilliant. There's already multiple
crowd-sourced lists on Reddit's r/Firefox basically for this purpose.

------
kirillkh
Since there are so many of us who decided to stick with Firefox 56... wouldn't
it be nice if Mozilla declared 56 as ESR release, so that when the time comes
we were not forced to downgrade to the much slower FF 52? Also, I've seen it
mentioned that you can't even downgrade without losing all your settings.

------
DavideNL
I wish they would finally fix the annoying pinch-to-zoom which doesn't work
properly like in Safari and Chrome...

(If you zoom on a site with text and images in Firefox the page layout gets
messed up which makes it impossible to read...)

~~~
digi_owl
Best i can tell, they have basically hooked that up to the text scaling rather
than anything like what you find on phones.

------
k__
The Quantum performance is amazing.

But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.

~~~
schwarze_pest
> But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.

Do you mean 'restore previous session'? It was moved from the start page to
library and now to the hamburger menu. :/

~~~
k__
I don't know really.

I found a config option that said something like "delete cookies when firefox
is closed" I changed this to "No", but somehow it didn't stay.

------
rollcat
Hangouts calls still not working :(

Very stupid reason to keep Chromium around...

~~~
kibwen
Firefox can't do anything about that, it's Google's decision to only support
Hangouts in Chrome.

