7 ms·

Frustrated by the new "screenshots" tool. The "save" button automatically uploads your screenshot up to mozilla servers. The "download" button saves it to you

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.

romanovcode 9y ago
Hopefully someone from Mozilla reads this and takes notes. I completely agree with you on this one.
- gcp 9y ago
  File a bug.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  I would not get my hopes up on the second part. Mozilla seems to be living in a "we know better" bubble these days, alongside Gnome and certain other big name FOSS projects...
rtpg 9y ago
was super shocked when the button uploaded to the servers. The straightforward way most people use screenshots nowadays is to paste in Slack/Messenger/Google doc. Seems like a no-brainer for the default to be "copy to clipboard", but instead it's "upload to servers with no indication of this on the first click".
StevePerkins 9y ago
On your second point, I'm running the 57 beta and am not sure what you're talking about. It's true that there is no "always on" status bar at the bottom. However, when I hover over a link, its URL does appear in the bottom-left corner. Exact same behavior as Chrome.
- saberworks 9y ago
  Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. I've been using status 4 evar addon since they removed the status bar. I think the original behavior when they removed the status bar was to have a tooltip popup with the URL, but looks like it has changed since then. Does it popup immediately or is it like the tooltip where you have to hover for a couple of seconds before it shows up? I'll try removing my addon to check. Note that the addon allows me to configure how long the delay is (current setting=0ms) and how long it stays there after I move my mouse.
  - phireal 9y ago
    It takes a fraction of a second to pop up (maybe a few hundred milliseconds).
    - saberworks 9y ago
      Yeah just confirmed by removing the addon. The url shows up but only after an annoying delay and an animated fade-in. Ugh.
      - wlesieutre 9y ago
        Flickering in and out instantly as you move the cursor across a page and happen to pass through a bunch of links would be a lot more annoying. Alternate implementation would be to make sure the cursor has actually stopped, which still needs a frame or two before you act on it. I could definitely do without the fade-in, that's inconsistent with the rest of the OS and it feels clunky. I wonder if the designers are on a different OS where this is normal for tooltips?
phireal 9y ago
> 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 Firefox 57 (and maybe previous versions, I can't remember) pops up a "temporary status bar" (for lack of a better phrase) with the link destination in it when you hover on a link (https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ).
- rightos 9y ago
  > and maybe previous versions, I can't remember Yes, this has been the way it's done for a very long time. It's such a basic feature that I don't think there was ever a version of Firefox without this feature in one form or another.
DerfNet 9y ago
honest question, why would anyone use an in-browser screenshot tool when screenshot tools already come pre-installed in basically every operating system? can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.
- Aeolos 9y ago
  Because that allows you to capture a complete, scrollable website as a single png image. OS tools only let you capture the currently viewable area.
  - DerfNet 9y ago
    ah! thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I use Evernote's web clipper for similar functionality.
- saberworks 9y ago
  Well, once you learn the backwards behavior of the buttons, nothing will get sent to mozilla (click "download" and not "save"). I thought it would be cool to save the entire page, even the parts that aren't in view (difficult with operating-system screenshot tools). (I couldn't figure out how to make this work.) And yes, you can right-click on the screenshot button and remove it from the toolbar (I don't think this would disable the entire feature, maybe there's a keyboard shortcut to activate it as well).
- AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
  If you consider Firefox Screenshots from the perspective of a Support tool, this makes alot of sense. Customer wants to file a support ticket or bug report, needs to include a screenshot. Screenshot taken, they paste the link into the ticket, done. They never leave the browser. Outside of the browser, fire up the screenshot tool, crop whatever you want to show, save it, upload it to imgur or website of choice, attach or paste it. I would liken the tool to Fedora's amazing fpaste tool, which you invoke via the following: foo | fpaste fpaste takes the output of the `foo` command, sends it to a log file, automatically uploads it to a fedora server, and returns a minified URL that can be copied and pasted to the developer. It is an amazing tool, provided you know what it's doing. fpaste also takes several safety precautions such as static URLs that delete themselves after 24 hours. So I can see Screenshots being very useful for that purpose. It just needs to be better about disclosing what it's doing.
metalliqaz 9y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. This is a bug IMHO. No security-focused browser to do that.
thatcat 9y ago
>it could screenshot the entire page I saw that too, but it seems the only way to do it is the old ctrl+shift+i and use the dev screen shot tool after enabling it in the toolbox. This method does always save locally though.
hellbanner 9y ago
Screenshots, what.. ? Is this even if you're not signed into Mozilla? I remember recent HN submissions about Mozilla sharing information with Google...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ianbicking 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.ycombinator.com https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...
  - saberworks 9y ago
    After using it to actually upload that shot, I just realized it captured and shared much more than just the screenshot. It captured and shared the page title and domain of the page I took a screenshot of. That seems like quite the security risk given that I wasn't notified such was going to be shared. Imagine if I'm working on a dev server or a private place on a public server. It seems that when people want to share a screenshot, they want to share just the screenshot in many cases.
jtoledo 9y ago
I've tried Developer's Edition, but gave up when I saw that Vimperator would not work on it.

romanovcode 9y ago

Hopefully someone from Mozilla reads this and takes notes. I completely agree with you on this one.

gcp 9y ago
File a bug.
digi_owl 9y ago
I would not get my hopes up on the second part. Mozilla seems to be living in a "we know better" bubble these days, alongside Gnome and certain other big name FOSS projects...

rtpg 9y ago

was super shocked when the button uploaded to the servers. The straightforward way most people use screenshots nowadays is to paste in Slack/Messenger/Google doc. Seems like a no-brainer for the default to be "copy to clipboard", but instead it's "upload to servers with no indication of this on the first click".

StevePerkins 9y ago

On your second point, I'm running the 57 beta and am not sure what you're talking about. It's true that there is no "always on" status bar at the bottom. However, when I hover over a link, its URL does appear in the bottom-left corner. Exact same behavior as Chrome.

saberworks 9y ago
Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. I've been using status 4 evar addon since they removed the status bar. I think the original behavior when they removed the status bar was to have a tooltip popup with the URL, but looks like it has changed since then. Does it popup immediately or is it like the tooltip where you have to hover for a couple of seconds before it shows up? I'll try removing my addon to check. Note that the addon allows me to configure how long the delay is (current setting=0ms) and how long it stays there after I move my mouse.
- phireal 9y ago
  It takes a fraction of a second to pop up (maybe a few hundred milliseconds).
  - saberworks 9y ago
    Yeah just confirmed by removing the addon. The url shows up but only after an annoying delay and an animated fade-in. Ugh.
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      Flickering in and out instantly as you move the cursor across a page and happen to pass through a bunch of links would be a lot more annoying. Alternate implementation would be to make sure the cursor has actually stopped, which still needs a frame or two before you act on it. I could definitely do without the fade-in, that's inconsistent with the rest of the OS and it feels clunky. I wonder if the designers are on a different OS where this is normal for tooltips?

phireal 9y ago

> 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 Firefox 57 (and maybe previous versions, I can't remember) pops up a "temporary status bar" (for lack of a better phrase) with the link destination in it when you hover on a link (https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ).

rightos 9y ago
> and maybe previous versions, I can't remember Yes, this has been the way it's done for a very long time. It's such a basic feature that I don't think there was ever a version of Firefox without this feature in one form or another.

DerfNet 9y ago

honest question, why would anyone use an in-browser screenshot tool when screenshot tools already come pre-installed in basically every operating system? can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.

Aeolos 9y ago
Because that allows you to capture a complete, scrollable website as a single png image. OS tools only let you capture the currently viewable area.
- DerfNet 9y ago
  ah! thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I use Evernote's web clipper for similar functionality.
saberworks 9y ago
Well, once you learn the backwards behavior of the buttons, nothing will get sent to mozilla (click "download" and not "save"). I thought it would be cool to save the entire page, even the parts that aren't in view (difficult with operating-system screenshot tools). (I couldn't figure out how to make this work.) And yes, you can right-click on the screenshot button and remove it from the toolbar (I don't think this would disable the entire feature, maybe there's a keyboard shortcut to activate it as well).
AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
If you consider Firefox Screenshots from the perspective of a Support tool, this makes alot of sense. Customer wants to file a support ticket or bug report, needs to include a screenshot. Screenshot taken, they paste the link into the ticket, done. They never leave the browser. Outside of the browser, fire up the screenshot tool, crop whatever you want to show, save it, upload it to imgur or website of choice, attach or paste it. I would liken the tool to Fedora's amazing fpaste tool, which you invoke via the following: foo | fpaste fpaste takes the output of the `foo` command, sends it to a log file, automatically uploads it to a fedora server, and returns a minified URL that can be copied and pasted to the developer. It is an amazing tool, provided you know what it's doing. fpaste also takes several safety precautions such as static URLs that delete themselves after 24 hours. So I can see Screenshots being very useful for that purpose. It just needs to be better about disclosing what it's doing.

metalliqaz 9y ago

Thank you for pointing this out. This is a bug IMHO. No security-focused browser to do that.

thatcat 9y ago

>it could screenshot the entire page I saw that too, but it seems the only way to do it is the old ctrl+shift+i and use the dev screen shot tool after enabling it in the toolbox. This method does always save locally though.

hellbanner 9y ago

Screenshots, what.. ? Is this even if you're not signed into Mozilla? I remember recent HN submissions about Mozilla sharing information with Google...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ianbicking 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.ycombinator.com https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...
- saberworks 9y ago
  After using it to actually upload that shot, I just realized it captured and shared much more than just the screenshot. It captured and shared the page title and domain of the page I took a screenshot of. That seems like quite the security risk given that I wasn't notified such was going to be shared. Imagine if I'm working on a dev server or a private place on a public server. It seems that when people want to share a screenshot, they want to share just the screenshot in many cases.

jtoledo 9y ago

I've tried Developer's Edition, but gave up when I saw that Vimperator would not work on it.