Home Page Lo-Fi Wireframes: It's content time!
vseerror at lehigh.edu
Wed Mar 13 09:22:44 UTC 2019
On 3/13/2019 5:09 AM, Mihovil Stanić wrote:
> 13.03.2019 u 9:56, Matt Harris je napisao/la:
>> Do we really want folks searching add-ons in a browser? while it
>> might be good for Firefox where the browser is the destination, we
>> really don't want to show them the add-ons that only work for V2 of
>> the product and will not install in their version. That is just poor
>> public relations. Add-on perhaps should be a "feature" and describe
>> hot to locate/ search them in the product, not a menu item at all.
> Yes, "we" really do want to search add-ons in a browser. It's easier,
> faster, you can open multiple tabs, compare add-ons etc.
> Thunderbird should discourage web surfing inside mail client, not
> promote it. A lot of security risks are connected to that part of TB
> and in the end, it's not Thunderbird goal to be web browser.
The fact that Thunderbird is based on Firefox's core doesn't mean it is
by default susceptible to ALL of the Firefox's vulnerabilities. So
AFAIK your comment about browsing is largely irrelevant - unless the
user has enabled thunderbrowse or changed the settings which reduce the
default security of Thunderbird.
> Just came to my mind when I was writing this reply, if TB ever decides
> to implement Firefox Sync, for any reason, it can be upgraded with
> "Send add-on to Thunderbird" option, just like you can send app from
> Google Play website to your mobile phone for installation.
I think Matt's main point is that for the vast majority of users (which
does not include power users), the web version of AMO causes real
problems, and it is far preferable that they use the in-product
interface to AMO. That of course requires that there is great
functionality in the interface.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tb-planning