Peter Trudelle wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
Post in text/plain only, please?
/Jonas
Johnny Yen wrote:
One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and
which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever
read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors.
Absolutely. Site/page icons is a great feature. But automatically
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
This sentence:
That is just as nice for people who visit than auto-requesting them.
Should have been:
That is just as nice for people who visit as auto-requesting them is.
Johnny Yen wrote:
Here again, it's a helluva lot easier to throw a favicon into the root
rather than ad link rel=icon to hundreds and hundreds of pages just to
get the same effect.
So how do you add the same background to all of your pages? favbg.ico?
--
Mike Gratton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Trudelle wrote:
One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and
which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever
read the URL. They can thus
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
David Hyatt wrote:
Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this!
Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since
Moz
request favicon.ico for every
Johnny Yen wrote:
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Still, that doesn't answer my question - why not just evangelise sites
to use link rel=icon? (You _do_ agree that in an ideal world, every
page that had an icon would also have a
Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with not
caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as numerous
requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our marketing
department notified us of the strong demand for such a feature.
Management ensured
Peter Trudelle wrote:
Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with
not caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as
numerous requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our
marketing department notified us of the strong demand for such a
On 18/12/2001 at 00:32 Peter Trudelle wrote:
Yes, we care. Don't confuse having different values than yours with not
caring. The feature you seem to dislike so much started as numerous
requests from our customers, users and reviewers. Our marketing
department notified us of the strong
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a good
thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit does it have
(other than displaying a pretty little icon in the URL bar?)
It is also displayed in the title of the tab, once you have
Firts of all, JTK, Who are you? When I search a number of mozilla groups
for your initials (With the stable and handy mail/news client Mozilal,
with a verry handy search option), it pops up a large list of
criticising replies and annouying text. When I go to
JTK wrote:
The... ah why the hell
do I bother, nobody here cares enough about this project to put it to
sleep, let alone make it good.
You got that right ... nobody cares about what you think. Maybe you
should be the one who should go to sleep and have a chill pill.
Mozilla's failue or
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not
really.
Accually, its probobly more like this:
The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it
better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not
On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote:
Have you ever peered at File Types in your File Associations list ??
See the little icons to the left of the association ?? If you're looking
for a particular file-type association you can scroll the list looking
for the associated icon in the left column
Peter Trudelle wrote:
One benefit is that users can tell, at a glance, the current site, and
which site such bookmarks came from, much faster than they could ever
read the URL. They can thus browse faster and with fewer errors.
Absolutely. Site/page icons is a great feature. But
As I've said several times before, Mozilla does not spam the site on
every visit, only on the first visit. It then caches information of a
miss to prevent spamming the site again (and this persists across
sessions), and on a hit it caches the favicon itself to prevent spamming
the site again
David Hyatt wrote:
Some people are even blocking Mozilla from their sites because of this!
Mozilla's way of doing this spams servers much more than IE's, since Moz
request favicon.ico for every visit (IE only does it when the page is
bookmarked).
As I've said several times before,
Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this feature.
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
On 18/12/2001 at 07:55 Jay Garcia wrote:
Have you ever peered at "File Types" in your File Associations list ??See the little icons to the left of the association ??
On 18/12/2001 at 12:16 Ben Goodger wrote:
Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this
feature.
No. He was being patronising.
An icon for a bookmark is not equivalent to an icon for a file type.
The number of different types of file icon is quite small, and easily
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
That tends to imply that it was an AOL product requirement and notnecessarily a mozilla.org one.
Not imply, I was clear that this requirement came from Netscape marketing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
I can't see any downside to AOL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Wilson) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I understand that loading favicon.ico for bookmarks is accually a
good thing but why load favicon.ico on page load, what benifit
does it have (other than displaying a pretty little icon in the
URL bar?)
It's very handy if you're
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
On 18/12/2001 at 12:16 Ben Goodger wrote:
Actually he's making the case for the key usability benefit of this
feature.
No. He was being patronising.
An icon for a bookmark is not equivalent to an icon for a file type.
The number of different types of file
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
The number of different types of file icon is quite small, and easily
remembered by the user after some small amount of use.
I may not be typical, but I have many more different file system icons
than favicons.
It also means an
entirely different thing. It means I can
really.
Accually, its probobly more like this:
The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it
better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not
asked to by the user with no way to turn it off is not better)
But on the other hand, we have the
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
From what I have seen with things like favicon.ico and other things not
really.
Accually, its probobly more like this:
The engineers and coders do care about the browser and want to make it
better (no, reading favicon.ico when first loading the page even if not
26 matches
Mail list logo
