9 ms·

One of the most voted for issues is closed WONTFIX: single click selects all in address bar and search box. I use Firefox exclusively and this is the single mo

by gdrift 6y ago

One of the most voted for issues is closed WONTFIX: single click selects all in address bar and search box. I use Firefox exclusively and this is the single most annoying change they made for no apparent reason. So annoying. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621570 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621570 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133

Spivak 6y ago
Even if you disagree with the reason might as well give the devs’ stance on it. > it [single clicking not selecting all] was a special behavior only implemented for Linux, it was not consistent with Firefox on other OSes, and with other browsers on Linux itself. The prefs were causing broken edge cases complicate to handle, taking into account all the possible pref combinations (for example under certain combinations it was not possible to select a word), and having to execute more tests for them. Not removing the prefs would have not saved many resources, since we still need to maintain them. Why can’t you just have both options? > Most of the tests should then be able to run with both setups, everytime we touch something around that we'll have to check not breaking it, and so on. Yes, even the simplest pref skipping a line has a cost, and that's why they must be weighted with a benefit. > Apart from what I already said regarding the will to unify the behavior for the more commonly found case of users moving across OS and browsers, and the cost of options in general, I'd like to explain a further reason why it's not just matter of reintroducing a pref; the change we made here will allows us to experiment more broadly with the unfocused Address Bar contents, for both UX and security reasons. Keeping browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll around would make experiments a lot more problematic, and at a certain point we may have to remove the pref regardless, because it would block landing improvements. So we'd end up causing you frustration twice. We totally understand your point of view on this matter, unfortunately sometimes changes must happen, to be able to evolve things.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  Wontfixzilla with comments disabled is a clear statement. Is a wontfix with lots of comments more expensive, than a wontfix with comments blocked? Shame you cant "give the devs opinion" on bugzilla.
  - sfink 6y ago
    I'm not totally following what you're saying, but I can answer this: > Is a wontfix with lots of comments more expensive, than a wontfix with comments blocked? Yes, it is more expensive. When 100 developers are CC'd on a bug that is generating regular "but did you consider this argument?" comments, it's a lot of overhead. You could argue that everyone CC'd should remove themselves from the CC list when this happens, but by that time we'd already have taken the hit. These bugs are not fun for anybody, dev or unhappy user alike.
    - account42 6y ago
      > These bugs are not fun for anybody, dev or unhappy user alike. Then fix them.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        This isn’t a bug though. It’s a feature request where the devs have already vocally said no. This idea that opening an issue for a feature somehow implies that it will eventually get implemented seems so wild. If I opened an issue asking Firefox to switch their rendering engine to Blink you better bet it would be closed wontfix and stay that way for a long ass time.
function_seven 6y ago
I just laughed when I saw your comment, and the bugzilla links are styled as "visted" (i.e. gray instead of black.) I hate that behavior. When I click in the address bar, it's because I want to edit the URL. If I want to go somewhere else, I'll open a new tab, or use a bookmark, or click a link on a page. In the rare case that I want to type a whole new URL, but keep the same tab, I can easily triple-click or [Cmd]+A before I begin typing.
- kovac 6y ago
  That's interesting. In my case, I hardly edit urls manually in the address bar. Usually I end up on a site either by clicking on links or copying and pasting a whole url from elsewhere. So, when I click on the address bar it's almost always to copy that url. Exception may be if you are front end dev testing different paths on the browser in which case editing in the address bar could be common.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    I forgot about that use case. I paste into and copy from the address bar all the time. But I still get myself sideways because I treat it like any other text box, and end up de-selecting the URL and having to try again! You'd think after so long, I'd get used to the behavior and just single-click it. But apparently Pavlov would have me culled from his experiment :)
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      Time doesn't matter, because you probably interacts with many more normal text fields than browsers URL fields. And since they look the same, and act mostly the same, you won't learn to handle it correctly.
  - penteract 6y ago
    But the automatic single-click selection doesn't fill the X clipboard (meaning it isn't pasted by middle click), so when I want to copy it I have to triple click anyway. Since it looks like it's selected, I frequently forget to do so, which results in pasting something I didn't mean to.
rvba 6y ago
This change was introduced at the same time when google.amp was introduced. Now both firefox and chrome dont allow you to change the adress easily to manually remove amp. I wonder if some Firefox developer was bribed
- sellyme 6y ago
  > Now both firefox and chrome dont allow you to change the adress easily to manually remove amp. I don't see what the single-click functionality has to do with removing something from a URL (as almost all users would perform selection with click-and-drag or a double-click). The primary use case would be for adding text.
A12-B 6y ago
This is how it works in all browsers and is useful because more people on average will click the url to remove all the text so they can type something new
dillondoyle 6y ago
UGH the recent Chrome update also adds on top of this if you select then hit left arrow it doesn't even go to start it starts after https:// https:// soooo annoying I don't remember it doing that before but maybe i have a bad memory
- SamBam 6y ago
  Huh, just tried that on Chrome/macOS on Reddit and it actually went to the end of the www, no less. So news.ycombinator.com it goes to the right of https:// https:// and www.reddit.com it goes to the right of https://www https://www. Madness.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    Google's (standardised![1]) destruction of the URL in action. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20574210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20574210 Personally, my preferred way of displaying a URL and interacting with it is a full, unmolested URL, in a regular UI edit control.
a1369209993 6y ago
> single click selects all in address bar and search box. FWIW, this is fixed in Firefox 3.6; you should probably upgrade.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  This behavior is the bug. We would prefer the pre-3.6 behavior where the address bar and search box works like a normal textbox.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    That is the behavior in 3.6; I'm pointing out that the earlier version (3.6) is a upgrade from the later version (70-something?), because Mozilla is making the browser worse over time.
chme 6y ago
I use mostly Firefox, but that behavior change didn't trigger me. However I can relate: When I tried to use chromium I got really annoyed that clicking and dragging the selection with the mouse up or down would not automatically select the complete text in front or behind the cursor in the url bar. Firefox still allows to do that under Linux. Hopefully they will not change that as well.
chmod775 6y ago
Are you a touchpad user? On a PC you get that behavior by simply clicking again, but accurate double clicks are somewhat hard on touchpads, so I get why that'd be annoying. This may just be laptop/touchpad users complaining, and mouse users not comprehending what the big deal is.
- Izkata 6y ago
  Double-click selects the word under the cursor (at least for me on Ubuntu). To get the cursor at the position, it's click-wait-click.
userbinator 6y ago
IE, the first browser I started using and still use regularly now alongside others, behaves the same with single-click selecting all in the address bar (and it's NOT configurable AFAIK), so I'm used to that; but I also see the value in making it user-configurable. Unfortunately, that dumpster-fire of a bug-report/thread is a horrible abomination that shows massive hubris on the part of the developers; and I say this as a developer myself --- and one who fights against this sort of thing far too often to count. Change the defaults if you really want, but never remove the choice. (The argument that it has "costs" is stupid --- yes, everything has costs, but they actually have perceived value in this case, unlike working on something else, often of much greater complexity and cost, that your users never even asked for in the first place!)
_peeley 6y ago
Interesting, I've always loved this feature. I guess in my use cases, whenever I go to click the URL bar I'm intending to copy/paste it more often than edit. Either way, it's deeply ingrained into my muscle memory by now to go click -> pause -> click to edit.
- _coveredInBees 6y ago
  Yup, same here. I get that some people don't like it, but it's making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I bet that if you do user studies, you will find that a majority of times people click in the URL bar, they are doing so to either copy the entire URL or paste in a new URL. I know I am and I much prefer the current behavior.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Ctrl+L/F6 already supports that use case and more quickly since you'll need to paste or edit.
tus89 6y ago
A variation on this - Chrome also select the whole address bar, but if you then click a fraction of a second later hoping to position the cursor where you clicked, you find that the https:// https:// appears at the beginning, meaning your cursor is several characters to the left of the position you were hoping for.
- Daneel_ 6y ago
  Agreed! I find this infuriating. To fix it there’s a flag for “always show full URL”, which I’ve turned on. Fixes it completely.
  - scatters 6y ago
    There may be a flag to "always show full URL"; if it isn't available (in the address bar context menu) you need to go to chrome://flags/, enable the "Context menu show full URLs" option, restart Chrome, and then enable the option.
graphpapa 6y ago
Using the shortcut CMD+L (changes focus to and selects the whole url) Makes this a non issue personally, your mileage may vary
the_pwner224 6y ago
Fortunately it can still be reverted if you are willing to compile FF yourself. I've been using Firefox Nightly for a few years (newer features + unsigned addons, and very stable) and recompile it every few weeks to update. https://the-pwner224.neocities.org/compiling-firefox/ https://the-pwner224.neocities.org/compiling-firefox/
- dankerr 6y ago
  Thank you for these instructions! I've got a patched version compiling right now.
Izkata 6y ago
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133 No longer shows up here, because it's now 135 votes.
- andredz 6y ago
  Not anymore ;) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=136&list_id=15610429 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=136&list_id=1...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cpeterso 6y ago
If you click+drag or double-click to select the substring of the URL you plan to edit anyways, then the click won't select all the URL.
jokoon 6y ago
Hum there is a setting to change that behavior
Daneel_ 6y ago
Agree with the sentiment in those bug report threads. The one that grinds my gears is that when you select the URL bar in Chrome it shifts the whole thing to the right, so if you want to edit text you have to reposition the cursor, you can’t just click, pause, then click again.
cannam 6y ago
Agreed, maddening. I kept my Firefox installation pinned to 74 for as long as I could because of this, but I had to give in and update to 85 a couple of weeks ago for something. I scan the release notes for each release in hope, but no. I don't really care about consistency with other browsers - I don't use other browsers very much. I care about consistency with everything else on my desktop. (It's not just about the option - I didn't even use the browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll option myself. The clickSelectsAll=false behaviour - the one that was removed - had been the default on Linux.)

by gdrift 6y ago

Spivak 6y ago

Even if you disagree with the reason might as well give the devs’ stance on it. > it [single clicking not selecting all] was a special behavior only implemented for Linux, it was not consistent with Firefox on other OSes, and with other browsers on Linux itself. The prefs were causing broken edge cases complicate to handle, taking into account all the possible pref combinations (for example under certain combinations it was not possible to select a word), and having to execute more tests for them. Not removing the prefs would have not saved many resources, since we still need to maintain them. Why can’t you just have both options? > Most of the tests should then be able to run with both setups, everytime we touch something around that we'll have to check not breaking it, and so on. Yes, even the simplest pref skipping a line has a cost, and that's why they must be weighted with a benefit. > Apart from what I already said regarding the will to unify the behavior for the more commonly found case of users moving across OS and browsers, and the cost of options in general, I'd like to explain a further reason why it's not just matter of reintroducing a pref; the change we made here will allows us to experiment more broadly with the unfocused Address Bar contents, for both UX and security reasons. Keeping browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll around would make experiments a lot more problematic, and at a certain point we may have to remove the pref regardless, because it would block landing improvements. So we'd end up causing you frustration twice. We totally understand your point of view on this matter, unfortunately sometimes changes must happen, to be able to evolve things.

teknopaul 6y ago
Wontfixzilla with comments disabled is a clear statement. Is a wontfix with lots of comments more expensive, than a wontfix with comments blocked? Shame you cant "give the devs opinion" on bugzilla.
- sfink 6y ago
  I'm not totally following what you're saying, but I can answer this: > Is a wontfix with lots of comments more expensive, than a wontfix with comments blocked? Yes, it is more expensive. When 100 developers are CC'd on a bug that is generating regular "but did you consider this argument?" comments, it's a lot of overhead. You could argue that everyone CC'd should remove themselves from the CC list when this happens, but by that time we'd already have taken the hit. These bugs are not fun for anybody, dev or unhappy user alike.
  - account42 6y ago
    > These bugs are not fun for anybody, dev or unhappy user alike. Then fix them.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      This isn’t a bug though. It’s a feature request where the devs have already vocally said no. This idea that opening an issue for a feature somehow implies that it will eventually get implemented seems so wild. If I opened an issue asking Firefox to switch their rendering engine to Blink you better bet it would be closed wontfix and stay that way for a long ass time.

function_seven 6y ago

I just laughed when I saw your comment, and the bugzilla links are styled as "visted" (i.e. gray instead of black.) I hate that behavior. When I click in the address bar, it's because I want to edit the URL. If I want to go somewhere else, I'll open a new tab, or use a bookmark, or click a link on a page. In the rare case that I want to type a whole new URL, but keep the same tab, I can easily triple-click or [Cmd]+A before I begin typing.

kovac 6y ago
That's interesting. In my case, I hardly edit urls manually in the address bar. Usually I end up on a site either by clicking on links or copying and pasting a whole url from elsewhere. So, when I click on the address bar it's almost always to copy that url. Exception may be if you are front end dev testing different paths on the browser in which case editing in the address bar could be common.
- function_seven 6y ago
  I forgot about that use case. I paste into and copy from the address bar all the time. But I still get myself sideways because I treat it like any other text box, and end up de-selecting the URL and having to try again! You'd think after so long, I'd get used to the behavior and just single-click it. But apparently Pavlov would have me culled from his experiment :)
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Time doesn't matter, because you probably interacts with many more normal text fields than browsers URL fields. And since they look the same, and act mostly the same, you won't learn to handle it correctly.
- penteract 6y ago
  But the automatic single-click selection doesn't fill the X clipboard (meaning it isn't pasted by middle click), so when I want to copy it I have to triple click anyway. Since it looks like it's selected, I frequently forget to do so, which results in pasting something I didn't mean to.

rvba 6y ago

This change was introduced at the same time when google.amp was introduced. Now both firefox and chrome dont allow you to change the adress easily to manually remove amp. I wonder if some Firefox developer was bribed

sellyme 6y ago
> Now both firefox and chrome dont allow you to change the adress easily to manually remove amp. I don't see what the single-click functionality has to do with removing something from a URL (as almost all users would perform selection with click-and-drag or a double-click). The primary use case would be for adding text.

A12-B 6y ago

This is how it works in all browsers and is useful because more people on average will click the url to remove all the text so they can type something new

dillondoyle 6y ago

UGH the recent Chrome update also adds on top of this if you select then hit left arrow it doesn't even go to start it starts after https:// https:// soooo annoying I don't remember it doing that before but maybe i have a bad memory

SamBam 6y ago
Huh, just tried that on Chrome/macOS on Reddit and it actually went to the end of the www, no less. So news.ycombinator.com it goes to the right of https:// https:// and www.reddit.com it goes to the right of https://www https://www. Madness.
- userbinator 6y ago
  Google's (standardised![1]) destruction of the URL in action. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20574210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20574210 Personally, my preferred way of displaying a URL and interacting with it is a full, unmolested URL, in a regular UI edit control.

a1369209993 6y ago

> single click selects all in address bar and search box. FWIW, this is fixed in Firefox 3.6; you should probably upgrade.

jobigoud 6y ago
This behavior is the bug. We would prefer the pre-3.6 behavior where the address bar and search box works like a normal textbox.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  That is the behavior in 3.6; I'm pointing out that the earlier version (3.6) is a upgrade from the later version (70-something?), because Mozilla is making the browser worse over time.

chme 6y ago

I use mostly Firefox, but that behavior change didn't trigger me. However I can relate: When I tried to use chromium I got really annoyed that clicking and dragging the selection with the mouse up or down would not automatically select the complete text in front or behind the cursor in the url bar. Firefox still allows to do that under Linux. Hopefully they will not change that as well.

chmod775 6y ago

Are you a touchpad user? On a PC you get that behavior by simply clicking again, but accurate double clicks are somewhat hard on touchpads, so I get why that'd be annoying. This may just be laptop/touchpad users complaining, and mouse users not comprehending what the big deal is.

Izkata 6y ago
Double-click selects the word under the cursor (at least for me on Ubuntu). To get the cursor at the position, it's click-wait-click.

userbinator 6y ago

IE, the first browser I started using and still use regularly now alongside others, behaves the same with single-click selecting all in the address bar (and it's NOT configurable AFAIK), so I'm used to that; but I also see the value in making it user-configurable. Unfortunately, that dumpster-fire of a bug-report/thread is a horrible abomination that shows massive hubris on the part of the developers; and I say this as a developer myself --- and one who fights against this sort of thing far too often to count. Change the defaults if you really want, but never remove the choice. (The argument that it has "costs" is stupid --- yes, everything has costs, but they actually have perceived value in this case, unlike working on something else, often of much greater complexity and cost, that your users never even asked for in the first place!)

_peeley 6y ago

Interesting, I've always loved this feature. I guess in my use cases, whenever I go to click the URL bar I'm intending to copy/paste it more often than edit. Either way, it's deeply ingrained into my muscle memory by now to go click -> pause -> click to edit.

_coveredInBees 6y ago
Yup, same here. I get that some people don't like it, but it's making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I bet that if you do user studies, you will find that a majority of times people click in the URL bar, they are doing so to either copy the entire URL or paste in a new URL. I know I am and I much prefer the current behavior.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
Ctrl+L/F6 already supports that use case and more quickly since you'll need to paste or edit.

tus89 6y ago

A variation on this - Chrome also select the whole address bar, but if you then click a fraction of a second later hoping to position the cursor where you clicked, you find that the https:// https:// appears at the beginning, meaning your cursor is several characters to the left of the position you were hoping for.

Daneel_ 6y ago
Agreed! I find this infuriating. To fix it there’s a flag for “always show full URL”, which I’ve turned on. Fixes it completely.
- scatters 6y ago
  There may be a flag to "always show full URL"; if it isn't available (in the address bar context menu) you need to go to chrome://flags/, enable the "Context menu show full URLs" option, restart Chrome, and then enable the option.

graphpapa 6y ago

Using the shortcut CMD+L (changes focus to and selects the whole url) Makes this a non issue personally, your mileage may vary

the_pwner224 6y ago

Fortunately it can still be reverted if you are willing to compile FF yourself. I've been using Firefox Nightly for a few years (newer features + unsigned addons, and very stable) and recompile it every few weeks to update. https://the-pwner224.neocities.org/compiling-firefox/ https://the-pwner224.neocities.org/compiling-firefox/

dankerr 6y ago
Thank you for these instructions! I've got a patched version compiling right now.

Izkata 6y ago

> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=133 No longer shows up here, because it's now 135 votes.

andredz 6y ago
Not anymore ;) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=136&list_id=15610429 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?votes=136&list_id=1...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cpeterso 6y ago

If you click+drag or double-click to select the substring of the URL you plan to edit anyways, then the click won't select all the URL.

jokoon 6y ago

Hum there is a setting to change that behavior

Daneel_ 6y ago

Agree with the sentiment in those bug report threads. The one that grinds my gears is that when you select the URL bar in Chrome it shifts the whole thing to the right, so if you want to edit text you have to reposition the cursor, you can’t just click, pause, then click again.

cannam 6y ago

Agreed, maddening. I kept my Firefox installation pinned to 74 for as long as I could because of this, but I had to give in and update to 85 a couple of weeks ago for something. I scan the release notes for each release in hope, but no. I don't really care about consistency with other browsers - I don't use other browsers very much. I care about consistency with everything else on my desktop. (It's not just about the option - I didn't even use the browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll option myself. The clickSelectsAll=false behaviour - the one that was removed - had been the default on Linux.)