Bug 622477 made me think of this, and it turned out to be a bad corner of our ux: STR: 1. Start with one group, with two tabs in it. 2. Make the first tab in there an app tab. 3. Go back to Panorama. Drag the second tab out of the group to orphan it. 4. The group disappears, as it thinks it is empty. At this point, the app tab has completely disappeared from Panorama. if you go into the orphan tab (second tab), it does show the app tab. I think this may be a reason to reconsider our wontfix decision on bug 622477... thoughts all?

It's a tough space. I am not sure that having app tabs should prevent empty groups from closing; that seems like an easy way to get a lot of clutter & extra clicks to close groups (though we have bug 596781 for exactly that). Another options is to revisit the discussion of allowing orphan tabs...

(In reply to comment #1) > It's a tough space. I am not sure that having app tabs should prevent empty > groups from closing; that seems like an easy way to get a lot of clutter & > extra clicks to close groups (though we have bug 596781 for exactly that). > Another options is to revisit the discussion of allowing orphan tabs... Indeed, those do seem like the two possibilities...

Given our current design, the fix is that the group shouldn't go away (if it's the last group) in step 4. I believe the patch for bug 612470 will fix this, actually.

bugspam s/ux-feedback/uiwanted/ ;)

Assigning to faaborg for ux opinion. In particular, should this make it onto our list of twenty #1 priorities for beta 11? If this is a bad enough situation, in your opinion, we should nominate it for blocking.

It's kind of hard to formulate an opinion since I don't think app tabs should be placed in every group to begin with. Ian's fix in comment #3 is fine for now. Overall I don't think this is a big enough issue to block. The user knows where their app tabs are, so it isn't that bad. It's just that in some circumstances they have to do an extra navigational step to get to them.

(In reply to comment #6) > It's kind of hard to formulate an opinion since I don't think app tabs should > be placed in every group to begin with. Ian's fix in comment #3 is fine for > now. Overall I don't think this is a big enough issue to block. The user > knows where their app tabs are, so it isn't that bad. It's just that in some > circumstances they have to do an extra navigational step to get to them. I'd be interested in seeing some alternate mock-ups for app tabs! A universal app tab bar (like the doc on Mac)?

(In reply to comment #3) > Given our current design, the fix is that the group shouldn't go away (if it's > the last group) in step 4. I believe the patch for bug 612470 will fix this, > actually. This does not fix this issue. I'm still able to reproduce this bug with teh STR in comment 0. Unfortunately, I think it's time to punt on this, though.

bugspam

bugspam

bugspam

Bug 654721 has landed.