I'm a geek, programmer, physics nerd.
~1986 BASIC on ZX81, then MS-DOS Turbo Pascal + ASM, now mostly C/C++ and Perl; twitch.tv/edwinst
I'm a geek, programmer, physics nerd.
~1986 BASIC on ZX81, then MS-DOS Turbo Pascal + ASM, now mostly C/C++ and Perl; twitch.tv/edwinst
I'm a geek, programmer, physics nerd.
~1986 BASIC on ZX81, then MS-DOS Turbo Pascal + ASM, now mostly C/C++ and Perl; twitch.tv/edwinst
I'm a geek, programmer, physics nerd.
~1986 BASIC on ZX81, then MS-DOS Turbo Pascal + ASM, now mostly C/C++ and Perl; twitch.tv/edwinst
edwinst
BTW, thanks for the recent updates to remedybg! I'm finding that the removal of the tab-closing Xs alone is already a big improvement and makes remedybg much more comfortable to use. (I think the addition of those Xs was a historical/cultural mistake probably introduced by web browsers. It is not as bad in web browsers, though, as they usually have the tabs at the very top of the screen and one can "slide" the pointer along the top edge of the screen when changing tabs and thereby avoid clicking the X unintentionally. Also with web browsers, closing tabs is quite frequent, so it's a better trade-off in this case.)
I'm a geek, programmer, physics nerd.
~1986 BASIC on ZX81, then MS-DOS Turbo Pascal + ASM, now mostly C/C++ and Perl; twitch.tv/edwinst
mrmixer
I don't agree with that. I prefer the x in the tab as it makes more sense to me. It makes it directly obvious to me that it will close the selected tab. The x in to top right corner to me means "close the whole view/all the tabs". It's probably a perception thing, but I'm not sure that most people prefer it the way it is now.
A detail for @x13pixels: if you keep it without the x in the tab, there is now an empty space next to tab titles that is wasted space.
edwinst
P.S.: I think I have a second argument to defend that the Xs are objectively bad user-interface design, in addition to the point that it is a bad trade-off to use ~20% of screen area of an UI element for clicks that happen <10% and maybe less than a couple percent of the time and have a relatively high "annoyance cost" when they are made inadvertently: If you switch tabs going from right to left, the X is actually in the first area of the new tab that you reach. That means that its "effective area" (which quantifies how large of an obstacle it presents) is actually even bigger than its pixel share in the tab. It is precisely where you would prefer to click when you switch to a tab that is to the left of your initial pointer position.
mrmixer
Again I don't care much about that issue