3 ms·
Honestly the implementation seems half baked, it's very hard to move sites to new containers, there is no list of sites with containers they belong to, etc. I d
by soheil 4y ago
Honestly the implementation seems half baked, it's very hard to move sites to new containers, there is no list of sites with containers they belong to, etc. I don't know why you'd add a feature in the first place and then decide to hide it for vast majority of users instead of going the extra mile of making it user friendly and intuitive.
- toyg 4y agoProbably because it's a bit of a difficult thing to explain to users in the first place. Instead, by providing just "primitives", they opened the doors to focused add-ons (like the one that isolates Facebook, effectively the first large-scale deployment that used it) without spending too much time on a feature that folks might have found difficult and might result in increased support issues. The status quo is that power-users can make it work, add-ons can use it if they wish, and the overwhelming majority of users can carry on happily ignoring its existence; not a terrible trade-off. But I agree that the management add-on could be better. I believe Apple is doing something similar with their virtualization API - it's there, some folks can use it, but they don't want to surface it to the masses.
- soheil 4y agoI mean relative to the effort put into building this feature making the UI intuitive shouldn't be a huge task. Think when FF released "tabs" for the first, super intuitive and instant adoption. I wonder if FF is short on UI/UX contributors.