4 ms·
As a Firefox user who uses this feature, I am going to emphatically declare I don't care. We are talking about approximately 2% of a small screen and about 0.5
by II2II 6y ago
As a Firefox user who uses this feature, I am going to emphatically declare I don't care.
We are talking about approximately 2% of a small screen and about 0.5% to 1% of typical screens. Much more screen real estate can be regained by entering full screen mode and much more screen real estate is lost to the typical design of web sites. While there are problems with how the project is managed, this case is a poor illustration of developers ignoring users since the users who are complaining are making a mountain out of a molehill. If the developers expend their energy addressing small things they would be able to accomplish little else.
- cge 6y ago>We are talking about approximately 2% of a small screen and about 0.5% to 1% of typical screens. While that is true now, it's worth noting that this removal is meant to coincide with a redesign that will also make the toolbar and tabs take up much more vertical real estate to begin with.
- SECProto 6y ago> We are talking about approximately 2% of a small screen and about 0.5% to 1% of typical screens My (corporate-issued) laptop has a 1366x768 screen. The proposed changes will result in Firefox wasting 12% of my screen. It's an additional 3-4 percentage points, which is 30-50 percent more.
- Sharlin 6y ago> Much more screen real estate can be regained by entering full screen mode Ironically, they already butchered full screen mode years ago by not hiding the browser chrome anymore, making any real estate gain rather minimal at least on macOS.
- postalrat 6y ago2% of pixels or vertical space?
- II2II 6y agoApproximately 2% of a screen 480 pixels high and 1% of a screen 1080 pixels high. The figures are the same for both vertical space and pixels since doubling the width doubles both the number of wasted pixels and total number of pixels.