Asa Dotzler: Firefox and more

I agree with most of your comments, but Page Source and Page Info are definitely NOT developer tools. Every modern web browser has this info by default and Firefox should be no different. I often rely on Page Source when I'm helping my dad figure out why Firefox isn't working on some website he visits and he shouldn't have to install an extension to get me that info.

And including *any* type of Ad-Blocker by default is a bad decision. Blocking pop-ups by default is a good thing, and people who are annoyed enough by ads can add the feature, but it's not Firefox's place to determine which ad publishers are "good" or "bad" by default. Who would make these decisions? It would surely raise the ire of those publishers, and you've already seen how the mere existence of Ad Block will cause some publishers to respond.

Toby, you say that Page Source and Page Info are "NOT developer tools" and then you explain how you're using them to debug page problems. How is that not explicitly using them as developer tools?

As for ad blocking, why is it OK to block one kind of ads, pop-ups, but not another kind of ad, say flash banners?

- A

"I would cut the remaining Web developer tools and make them optional at install-time or part of an alternate Firefox version."

I am a professional web developer (it's my day job), and I agree with this. Most users don't need nor want those features, and if you make it an install time option and/or a separate Firefox version, that would be fine with me.

"I'd add a light-weight version of Ad Block Plus with a default well-owned and maintained filter list subscription."

If you add that, Mozilla is going to get sued by a lot of companies. Having a 3rd party addon is fine, but building ad-blocking into the base product would make a LOT of companies very angry. And I am talking about companies that have a LOT of money to waste with lawsuits. Mozilla would go bankrupt fighting such a fight.

I agree with most of your other additions though. :)

Jake, I'll ask you the same question, (and I have my own answers here but I'm interested in your's,) why is it completely OK for all of the web browsers to block pop-up ads, but not other ads? Because pop-ups are "annoying"? Who gets to decide when something is an annoyance? I happen to think that flashy banners are annoying and I think most Web surfers agree. I also find text ads annoying but there I'm not confident that most agree. Still, level of annoyance cannot be why you'd be OK with one form of ad blocking and not another. Care to explain?

- A

I have to agree with Toby... Page Source should be an integral part of *every* web browser. One of the reasons the web took off like it did back in the 90's is that anyone (*anyone*) could easily view the source of a page they were looking at, and learn from it, copy it, etc. Everyone, including non-developers and even non-technical users of any stripe, should have the option of viewing the source of any web page, at any time.

I also agree that adding any sort of page-source filtering (ad blocking) in the default install is a bad idea. IANAL, but I'd be willing to wager some blocked advertiser would sue Mozilla. It's one thing for a user to decide not to look at ads (I use a very aggressive userContent.css file to do just that) but it's another thing for a browser vendor to use their market position to decide who can and cannot advertise on the web. Don't do anything that people (or other companies) would vilify Microsoft for doing.

As for what I would add... A few things:

* If FF crashes, it asks me if I'd like to reopen the tabs I last had open. I'd like an option to do this without a crash. So I'd add an option on the File menu to 'Exit and remember open tabs'. I don't need full tabset management, named tabsets, etc.; I just want the ability to shut down Firefox, and have it remember where I was when I restart it. For example, many IT departments ask users to log out each evening, or each weekend, to facilitate system updates. I want my open tabs back next morning.

* I have about a dozen Extensions installed, but they're really all aimed a development or advanced features. The one I'd almost recommend for inclusion in FF is Aardvark. I'm not sure it should be built in, it would likely confuse some users. But a built in way to clean up a page before printing would be very nice... I'm not sure how easily you could build a 'grandma-friendly' page cleanup feature, but if you could, it would be great.

* I'd add Wikipedia to the default list of search plugins... I don't think it's already there, sorry if it is. Same goes for a web dictionary in the build's default language.

Jason, and I'll ask you :-) Why didn't advertisers sue Firefox when we started blocking their pop-ups? Why is blocking one kind of ad, pop-ups, different than blocking another kind of ad, say flashy banners?

- A

Follow-up to my prior comment; Asa, you've asked why one form of ad-blocking (pop-ups) is good, and another sort (ad-block) is bad. Here's my opinion:

Pop-up ads take an action outside the current browser window (or tab) without the user's consent. Because of this, they are also dangerous... remember the pre-FF days of pop-ups that open more pop-ups in an unending race to click 'close' buttons?

In-page ads, on the other hand, (even annoying flash ads) are part of the inline content of the page. The user always has the choice to leave the offending page... not always an option with pop up ads.

Asa,

I think Pop-ups take advertising too far. I'd also agree for flashy banners. I'd think that most ad companies with integrity don't do either. If that is what you are talking about, than I'd agree with you. However, if you take it all the way to blocking ALL ads, you are going to get sued. Take a look at all the pressure TiVo is under from TV ad companies, if you don't believe me.

Jason, (I'm not saying I disagree with you) just to clarify, you're saying that if a form of advertising can be determined to be a security risk, that's the only time it's reasonable for the browser to block it? Or are you also adding in a usability component to your decision making process for what's OK and what's not?

Jake, who gets to define what's "too far"? We were apparently the right people to do that for pop-ups back in the day. Are we no longer the right people to make that decision for other forms of advertising? Is there some objective criteria you could offer up for where that line gets drawn so that we could actually start to define that more?

Now, guys, I'm really not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to get at the root of what's really being talked about here. I think this would be a good topic for a top-level blog post and maybe I'll get to that today.

Thanks for your responses.

- A

Pop-ups are a different beast than flashy ads. They create extra windows that intrude onto screenspace beyond that of the web browser, and over the lifespan of the Popup marketing phase they grew wilier and wilier, with unpredictable behaviors such as reopening themselves, or masquerading as real dialogs.

Integrated advertisements, on the other hand, live within the domain of the web browser, and therefore are acceptable. They don't pose a significant convenience or security risk, and therefore are not on the same level of evilness as popups. "Annoyance" isn't the keyword here.

Also, I find it hard to believe that video downloader should be considered a more core feature than page source or page info. There is absolutely no reason page source needs to be removed from the core set of browser options. Every modern browser has it, and there is absolutely no confusion among non-technical users as to what it does, and whether or not they should use it. On the other hand, resizable textareas can break webpage layouts and confuse users. I think these may be misguided suggestions based on your personal usage model of Firefox, not based on considerations of the general userbase.

Asa, we've been through this discussion before, over three years ago, and none of the reasons for not removing "View Page Source" have changed. Here's my initial Bugzilla comment for Bug 256213 dated 2004-08-19, and I think it still applies:

I don't agree that View Source is a 'developer tool'. While it is used by developers, that doesn't mean that non-devs don't use it. One example is the everyday blogger user, who may want to refer to the source of someone else's blog or website to see how some aspect was implemented. This doesn't make them developers, persay, and these people most likely will not select 'developer tools' when installing. I think it will come across to most users as a loss, feature-wise, when compared to other browsers, namely IE.

In the last three years, think of how many people have used this feature for creating their own "Web 2.0" user-generated content, even if for something as inane as a customized MySpace page. Removing this simple and integral feature only hurts the users.

You could move the rest of the other development features into an extension, and most users wouldn't miss it.

Apart from that, I'm guessing that people use the character encoding menu (everyone in the US doesn't only browse the American web), and a similar group probably still works offline. As for Personas and AdBlock, I'm with you there.

Clint, how is a second browser window (a pop-up) outside of the domain of the web browser? I have several windows open all the time. Even if I only had one, we could have said unrequested pop-ups open in tabs and then they'd be in the same window but not blocked.

Second, so are you saying that your criteria for what can be blocked by a browser vendor is "pose[s] a significant convenience or security risk"? How do you draw that line? Who draws that line? And what's convenient for one person may not be for another. If I'm visually impaired and have to have my fonts all jacked up 3 levels, then inline ads which take up significant screen real estate are a serious inconvenience.

- A

Your several windows were requested by you. Popups aren't. I also think that it's pretty clear that the cases I mentioned (self-reopening popups or ones that masquerade as real dialogs) are far more obtrusive and dangerous than inline ads. Sometimes lines draw themselves.

However, I'm actually not wholly against putting a light version of Adblock in Firefox, I was just pointing out that popups are far more grievous an issue.
...this is as long as it doesn't automatically preload or sync with a list of blocked servers.

The only thing I'd add to Firefox by default are two of the extensions I've got installed:

1. History Submenus, which makes the history menu more Safari-style, by adding "Yesterday", "Two days ago", etc submenus. I hate opening the history sidebar. (Maybe this is better solved by a better History sidebar, aka Places?)

2. Long Titles, which prevents tooltips from being cut off. It's my understanding that Firefox 3 already does this, so you're halfway there!

I'm with the others who say that Page Source and Page Info shouldn't be lumped in with the other developer tools. As more and more people get into content creation rather than just content reading, they're going to want/need to know how things work without becoming full fledged web developers. Page Source + Page Info lets them do this.

The difference between blocking popups and blocking ads is that one is general and the other is targeted.

Blocking popups effects all advertisers more or less equally, and it can be argued that it was done without any intention of blocking ads. On the other hand adding ".doubleclick." to your adblock list has the direct intention of blocking content from that site.

To me that difference makes you much more open to a lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer though, so I can't say if it would be a successful lawsuit or not.

Personally I would prefer adblocking not to be included with firefox by default simply because it "lowers the bar" to block ads, which may make advertisers take more drastic measures to display ads, and I'm currently quite comfortable with my personal ad blocking setup.

Good point Allan.

@Asa I'm not sure where to draw the line. I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned usability, though. If you guys were to setup some surveys to ask the general Firefox public what kinds of ads they find annoying, and then use those metrics to define the ad-blocking, I think you'd be ok. Especially if you can somehow programmatically identify and block a cross-section of annoying ads, like all moving images/flash (if the usability survey deems that to be annoying for most). But if you target specific ad networks as a whole (instead of just their moving ads), you could get into hot water.

Jake, what about this? If we included a simple ad blocking feature that didn't include any list but gave the user a simple "block ads from this ad nework" context-menu item or similar so that all users had to do was right-click on an ad and say "I don't want any more of this"?

- A

Asa, you asked:

"...just to clarify, you're saying that if a form of advertising can be determined to be a security risk, that's the only time it's reasonable for the browser to block it? Or are you also adding in a usability component to your decision making process for what's OK and what's not?"

If a form of advertising is a security risk, then yes, it is reasonable for (and I'd say incumbent upon) a browser to block that behavior. I believe pop-ups fall into this category. Clint's example of a popup masquerading as an OS dialog is one good example.

Usability on the other hand is not as black-and-white as security. I would assert that any advertising (or other content) that impedes the usability *of the browser or OS* should be blocked. Content that impedes the usability *of the content* should not (at least not, by default- user always has the final say). Pop-up windows change focus away from the browser, which I'd call a usability issue with respect to my browser. Pop-ups which open other pop-ups can (and do) overwhelm a desktop, can impact OS performance, and/or affect browser performance. Even if shunted to a new tab, these can affect performance and usability of the browser ("I can't find the tab I need for all the popup tabs!").

Content (such as ads) that impede the usability of content, on the other hand, are more subjective, and frankly, if a content author wants to impede his site's usability (witness in-frame javascript-driven popups), it is the author's content. If the user wants to take steps to prevent some content from being displayed in the user's browser, that's the user's right.

In summary, a browser should protect the user from content that poses a security risk, impedes usage of, or degrades performance of the whole browser or the OS. It should not "protect" the user from content based on the browser publisher's judgement of the value of the content. By making the user select and install an ad-blocking extension, the user is making those judgments. (You could argue the ad-block author is making the judgment, but the user is still choosing to use a tool, and which tool to use).

You've mentioned Flash ads several times... Mozilla could choose not to install Flash by default (I'm assuming it's part of the default install? Can't remember the last time I installed Flash), allowing users to choose to install flash, and thereby allow flash-based ads. After all, Flash was originally a browser add in, and is not part of HTML. You'd be choosing not to support a *feature*, as opposed to choosing not to support certain *content* (ads). I'm not saying I'd recommend it, just that there's a difference between filtering content and protecting users or (not) supporting features.

BTW- this is an excellent discussion you're hosting here. Thanks for asking the questions.

Asa: I think that's a good idea for the limited AdBlock, but I think consideration has to be taken that many ad networks supply ads for multiple clients, and users may not want to block all of that ad content. Perhaps a warning.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2002/04/do_you_understand_the_words.html

Colin, that's a screwup with Movable Type at MozillaZine. That post actually belongs to Hyatt (I think.)

- A

Page Source?! That's what you use to hunt for the hidden url for the video that won't play because it's wrapped up in too much gosh darn special plug-in BS to actually *work* in the browers! (but mplayer will play the file just fine after you grab it) A must have!

Keep Page Source as stated above.

"Users should be able to save anything they see on a page"
Vote for this and it should be easy. Firefox should by default defeat all techniques (invisible layers etc.) that are currently used to trick Save image as... feature.

Option to save embedded audio or video would be nice. Since it is possible to see all(?) file requests made by flash player for example, perhaps simple media file sniffer and ui for save somehow in context with media-elements would do the job.

I think that adblock like content filter should be available by default.
In ideal world it should work so that people select what kind of ad-types they would like not to see and ai would then do the filtering. Perhaps option to choose what to do with client side statistic scripts should also be available.

As for the Adblock issue, We've already seen that at least a few sites are blocking Firefox because of the Adblock extension. The problem is not that it blocks ads. The problem is that it blocks so many KINDS of ads. Firefox blocks popups by default, and with adblock 99% of all web ads are blocked. If a high percentage of web users were to install adblock then that would be the end of web advertising unless strategies were completely rethought, which would just start the whole cycle from scratch. However, if you were to add a LIMITED version of Adblock as mentioned then I would not see a problem with it, however I believe it would have to be so limited that it almost wouldn't be worth it. If you blocked much more than just the most annoying flash seizure inducing ads, I can definitely picture a lawsuit coming because companies would consider that to be cutting into their profits. I'd personally rather just have the Adblock extension myself. It's causing enough trouble as it is. Just my 2 cents.

@Asa I do think have an ad-block framework installed by default, with no predefined list of ads would work fine. But like Eric said, once we go down this route, we are opening up the possibility of having a majority of the Internet's users blocking ads, and then frankly the Internet wouldn't work. We HAVE to make money somehow, to pay for this content. Tastefully presented ads are fine, in my opinion. But popups, flashy dancing monkeys, and simulations of OS errors should be blocked. But that's just me. Every user has their own tolerance level. In fact, I still know people that kill popups everyday as they browse the web (because of the web browser they use).

I see no reason why Firefox should by default defeat content protection techniques. That belongs to the author of a website, and it should be up to them to allow or disallow what their users may do to the best of their own ability. There are many ways you can do this with extensions.

Likewise with video download, it's just not a core browser feature; there are already extensions that will do this for you, and if a content provider chooses not to provide this option, it's not Firefox's place to enable it for the user by default.

I fail to see why Video Downloader should be worth more than Page Source in a default Firefox installation. Basic browser functionality is forbidden, but mucking with content providers is?

Clint, users don't understand that video is different from images. They see no reason why if they can save one, they can't save the other and I agree.

There is no such thing as "content protection" on the Web. Once it's in my browser, it's available for me to do with it what I will. Content producers are free to enforce their rights under copyright laws.

Besides, most video on the web is not unable to be downloaded because of "content protection" schemes. It's because it's in Flash and browsers don't deal with Flash very well. We should treat Flash like any other content and make it super-easy to save. It's really no different than the text on the page or the images on the page. If you put it out there and my browser displays it, I should be able to download it to my hard-drive.

And finally, it's technically already in my cache which may be in RAM or on disk already and who are you to say how I may view and manipulate files on my machine.

- A

Right, once it's in your browser, it's available for you to do as you will, but the job of a browser is to display the content the providers give, not to change it for the greatest convenience of the user. That's for extensions to do. Jason Clark said it best: if the provider wants to make things hard on the user, that's their own choice.

And the reason most video on the web is not downloadable is because the revenue or usage model of websites don't call for it; it's either not in their best interest to process out a desktop-consumable format (.flv videos are not playable by standard media players), or not in their best interest to free content of their protected environment (the page) in the first place. Providers like NBC, for instance, stream in ads before the main video content they have on their page. On YouTube, content belongs to the uploader (in theory), and therefore it doesn't have to right to redistribute the video. The browser shouldn't, by default, change how the web was meant to be presented by the content provider. Extensions are fair game, because those are user-selected and downloaded.

I simply don't see how Video Downloader is a core feature of a web browser, *especially* if Page Source isn't.

Also, speaking as a Chinese American with a non-technical parent with many non-technical friends, the character encoding menu is essential to other people, even if it isn't essential to you. Those who need it know where and what it is.

Now with the Video Download issue, I'd just like to mention that the MPAA has sued makers of software that cracks DVD copy protection before. You're setting yourself up for a fall if you go down that route also. The position of major media companies is that just because it's on our machines doesn't mean we can do ANYTHING we want with it. I disagree with that opinion, but that's what they say and they're not afraid to sue over it. There are alot of uses that are very legitimate for a feature like that, but in the eyes of the major companies, illegitimate uses outweigh legitimate uses and they'll go to great lengths to stop those things. Personally, I'd love to see somebody finally tackle this issue once and for all and give us a set of clearly defined legal use of media, but I'm not sure Mozilla wants to be the one to do it. I'd let the MPAA, RIAA, and file sharing companies fight it out, and once the smoke clears we'll be able to better determine the usability of a feature like this. I'd hate to have a feature like this enabled just to anger some bigshot with his underwear in a knot and have to remove it because a few people used it to download south park reruns on youtube...

I think that page styles might need to be kept. For me at least, I use the "no style" setting for many sites that have horrible-looking styles. Perhaps not many people use this, though. Also, character encoding should be kept for foreign sites. I would agree that the majority of developer stuff should not be default. One question: what is the difference between themes and personas? I have not heard of personas.

Video downloading is definitely a "cool" feature, but I still don't see why it needs to be installed by default. The slippery slope here is that with your line of argument, every embeddable object, be it FLV, QuickTime, Windows Media, or something else, should be easily downloadable in Firefox. That's fine with me, but why put so much effort and code for that into Firefox itself when there are functional add-ons for this already out there? Aren't features like these why add-ons exist in the first place?

As for the advertisement issue, I haven't heard a response from you as to why it's ok (from Mozilla's standpoint) to circumvent a legitimate revenue model of any content producer. Much of the web's success (and consequently Firefox's) has to do with ad-supported websites, whether revenue is used to support content creation or distribution costs. As others have written above, blocking pop-ups by default is a different case due to their intrusive and harmful nature. The Mozilla Manifesto calls for "[promoting] models for creating economic value for the public benefit" -- are you claiming that online advertising is not a permissible model?

You asked this question before. I don't know where the other blog is, but you got many of the same answers.

I told you before. If you threaten advertisers, expect repercussions. Don't start fights, especially this kind of fight. Fights are nothing but trouble, and we don't need that. Whether you like it or not, a threat against advertisers will be seen as a threat to the Web. They are paying the bills, and they WILL retaliate. Whether or not their business strategy and Web presentation makes sense isn't for you or me or Mozilla to determine. It's for the people who pay for the Web sites. I happen to like the content that they provide. Don't drag me and millions of other users into this through the browser.

Let me ask you this. Are you prepared to block Google ads? Suppose someone figures out a way. Assuming it's technically feasible, don't you think Firefox should block those? You challenged users to tell you why popups should be blocked if other ads are not blocked. Now I'm challenging you to tell me why Firefox should not block Google ads if it blocks other ads. Or are you prepared to recommend implementation of this feature?

VanillaMozilla, I'd block Google ads first. They're the most pervasive :-)

- A

I see.

Try installing Firebug without having DOM inspector installed and see how far you get.

To follow up on your question to me regarding Page Source and Page Info... the reason these need to be in there by default is that when I'm helping my dad debug a web problem over email or the phone, I don't want to have to explain to him how to install an extension. It should just be there by default. With Firebug, I would never ask him to fire it up and report back to me, but I often would ask for info from Page Source or Page Info.

There's one other important distinction to be made here. Removing features just to remove features isn't going to reduce "bloat". The extra functionality provided by Page Source/Info is virtually "free"... they don't increase memory size or download size significantly because they're just reporting back info that's already there.

However, adding something like AdBlock would certainly increase memory and CPU usage because now Firefox has to inspect all incoming traffic for various patterns and maybe adjust the content if patterns are found. Yet you say "Having freed up some featurespace" as if removing X number of features means you get to add back X number of features "for free".

If Menu space is what you're worried about, fine, most people who would use it are gonna hit CTRL+U anyway. But simply removing the feature for the sake of removing a feature is pointless if the benefit isn't there, which it's not in this case.

I don't think that blocking pop-ups is much different from blocking inline ads, but I think the difference commentors are reasoning is one that could be used as an argument if sued:

Pop-ups affect the browser chrome by adding a new window that wasn't explicitly requested. So preventing pop-ups is not tremendously different from preventing altering status bar text, preventing the hiding of the location bar, etc. So blocking pop-ups only indirectly suppresses ads, since the primary purpose is preventing alteration of browser chrome.

Blocking inline ads serves no purpose other than denying advertisers income.

~

It's all a pretty weak argument, but maybe it's feasible. I think the concern shown by commentors is more flattering than necessarily warranted.

"I would cut the remaining Web developer tools and make them optional at install-time or part of an alternate Firefox version. This would include Page Source, much of Page Info, and the Error Console."

Why? You talk about "featurespace", but all of these things have a UI footprint of 1 menu item. Or are you talking about download size?

With particular regard to Page Source, I think it's interesting to note that the OLPC folks are going in the opposite direction - having a View Source key for every application the child runs. The ability to look under the hood, learn and tinker is what characterises an open system. And that's what we want the web to be.

"I'd pull DOM Inspector completely and make it an extension for XUL developers. I'd also whack the Page Style feature, Themes, the Character Encoding menus for en-US releases, and the current Work Offline feature. I'd pull the Creative Commons search service."

Just because a browser is an en-US release doesn't mean it won't be used by non en-US people. As an en-GB person, I use the Character Encoding menu occasionally (as our autodetection isn't perfect).

"I'd add Text Area Resizer without a second thought."

For multi-line text areas only, I hope? I found it so irritating and intrusive for single-line text areas that I had to turn the whole thing off.

I like some of your other ideas, though. Bundling Firebug in some way is a no-brainer.

Gerv

please do not remove page source/info

…removing Character Encoding from everything at all would be damaging, because even in “en-US” Web, there are ISO-8859-1 pages.

I'm all for switching everything to Unicode, but this way is hardly viable ATM. :(

…removing Character Encoding from anything at all would be damaging, because even in “en-US” Web, there are ISO-8859-1 pages.

I'm all for switching everything to Unicode, but this way is hardly viable ATM. :(

This very server is sending this page with ISO-8859-1 in HTTP headers, instead of UTF-8 specified in meta.

View -> Page Source is needed for people who don't know they're developers yet.

How do you think the current generation of web developers got started? I guarantee you when I was 13 I would never have started tinkering with HTML if an extra download was required just to view the source. I would have had no idea it was even possible.

First, Page style is vital to me and my partner for when we find a site that is unreadable because of non-standard HTML or poorly chosen colour schemes. When for some reason Firefox wants to display the text as scrolling several times wider than the window, or when someone has implemented CSS sidebar menus so poorly that they lie on top of the page content, or when I find a site with a hideous red-on-black or purple-on-purple colour scheme, Page style->no style blows away all that visual crap and enables us to read the page content on a hopelessly poorly designed site simply and easily. Please do not assume that it's a discardable feature.

Second, there's two kinds of ads. There are text ads, like google, and static banner ads. They take up a bit of space but they don't bother me at all. THen there are flash ads, animated gif ads, and those CSS/javascript ads that "pop up" inside the browser window on top of the stuff I want to read and require me to click somewhere to make them go away (or that "float" somewhere in the window and remain always visible no matter how far I scroll). The reason I put adblock on my browser is not because of the first kind of ad but because of the second kind.

Saying "we're going to put an ad blocker that will block 90% of all ads by default out of the box" is clearly controversial... but I doubt a blocker that would block those annoying animated ads (flash and gif) and those new-fangled in-window popups would be very controversial at all. Make it able to allow gif animation and flash animation when told, and give it an out-of-the-box whitelist of sites (like youtube videos) that won't be blocked.

The Error Console is still used pretty regularly in providing user support. It's also a way to shield end-users from errors unless they're explicitly expecting to see an error report and go looking for one.

If a web page has a JavaScript error in Firefox, that error goes in the console. In Internet Explorer, you are presented with a highly annoying modal alert. I prefer the former to the latter. I don't understand how silent failure can even be considered as an option.

I agree entirely with DOMi being replaced with Firebug. Firebug is only a few features away from completely replacing DOMi anyway, it'd be worthwhile making sure that the feature parity is there and dropping DOMi forever as supported Mozilla code.

Make a "Big brother" version of FF. Record what menu items user will click, in what order, what tools they use. Collect this data. Analyze.

I guess you only need 1\1000 of the user base to help you in this way to make FF a better browser.

- Removing Page Style
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/conform.html -> If the source document comes with alternate style sheets (such as with the "alternate" keyword in HTML 4.0 [HTML40]), the UA must allow the user to select one from among these style sheets and apply the selected one.

- Removing Page Source
You want to break http://www.deathball.net/notpron/ ?