Geoff Welsh wrote:
Gerry Hickman wrote:
Rufus wrote:
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey2.17/changes
...yawn.
You need more sleep, I can tell.
...true, and if things continue the way they are I'll be getting
it...uninterrupted.
But isn't it better that they are concentrating on standards compliance,
bug fixing and security, as opposed to silly new "features"?
from this users standpoint, I never understand the security fixes, I
keep reading here about problems that are /not/ fixed, and my only judge
for standards compliance is html5test.com which shows Chrome and Maxthon
are kicking our ass.
That means nothing to me because I have very seldom if ever navigated to
a site which fails in SM...with the Mac versions, anyway. And in those
cases I've since learned to use spoofing to make those sites work.
Granted, I shouldn't have to.
It feels like my favorite team is losing...but I don't wanna learn how
to use something new, I like running just one piece of software for web
and mail, and I enjoy the thought that we are all trying to help even if
we/I have zero ffffing clue how to actually read/write XUL or any
scripting languages. I even stopped keeping up with HTML cuz none of
the money making entities seem to care. The Google home page has 23
errors, e.g.....and it should be the SIMPLEST page on the Web.
I use SM for those reasons too, but when SM breaks something that it
supposedly offers/features that fix should have *top* priority, and this
is a considerable reason for "losing", IMO - quality control. People
(especially non-savy people) use what they use because it does what they
want it to do, when they want it to do it. It's really that simple.
There are enough basic interface problems in SM at present - not being
able to use the Profile Manager, the annoying random Master Password
bug, not following on-disk Alias/HTML paths, short drawn drop-downs,
ignoring Master Password Pref setting - that I refuse to update any but
my *least* used machine past 2.13.2; and all that does for me is work
around the short drop-downs (which are compounded by the foregoing).
And that's just the short list of user issues from the Mac POV...
An why isn't there a giant list somewhere of all the userchrome.css
tricks possible that work? Beyond C&P I am lost at modifying that. I've
googled for hours over the years on that.
GW
Here's a few userChrome.css refs:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/CSS/CSS_Reference
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html
http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=UserChrome.css&printable=yes
I've gotten one .css mod to work for me - fixing the narrow scroll bar
in the Sidebar. That's working great, but I haven't been able to get
the recently posted one to remove unwanted Bookmarks Menu entries to do
anything at all.
And this partly sums up what I'm getting at...you (and I) shouldn't have
to do anything like this, nor fiddle with about:config, to make SM work
- the software should just plain work for the user. Most of us are
geeks here and put up with this stuff, but the majority of people aren't
geeks and won't - and *that's* what's kicking SM's butt, and why people
are using other software. I myself have postulated that if I could get
Thunderbird and Safari to work as a suite that I would switch to that
combination - the two seem almost bug-free in comparison from a UE/UI
standpoint.
Most of the time I feel like actual user desires/input/feedback gets
ignored for the "shiny" stuff - like those stupid too-small dialog
buttons (that even a seeming majority of the team fought against)...it's
like users are not even allowed to "help" even as little as we can. SM
just rolls on, on whatever course somebody somewhere has charted.
--
- Rufus
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
