The way that profiles works today is the reason I don’t use it. Chrome just handles it all so gracefully between profiles and opening links from other applications.
Pretty please, fuck off with the AI. It’s really not something I need from a browser, don’t inflate your download size for a screen reader, just MAKE IT OPTIONAL in every way.
I totally agree regarding making it optional, but I have to say the idea of auto generating alt texts sounds like a really useful application of AI - no one really likes to do that manually yet a significant number of beautiful people rely on it.
I do agree with your point about auto-generated captions being better than no captions. But isn’t it bad to insert them automatically on creation? If we use these models to caption images shouldn’t it be done by the screen reader instead? That way people can benefit from future advancements of the tech and customize the captioning system for themselves. With the current system there is no way to tell if you got a crappy AI caption that you may want to replace with a better auto-generated caption or a human written caption.
So - I don’t think Firefox would be generating captions for PDFs on PDF creation.
But of the major ways that PDF’s do get created - converted from text editors or design software, I know that Microsoft Word automatically suggests captions when the document creator adds an image (but does not automatically apply captions), and I believe that some design software does, as well.
I think that, functionally, both suggesting captions at time of document creation, or at time of document read are prone to the same issues - that the software may not be smart enough to properly identify the object, and if it is, that it is not necessarily smart enough to explain it in context.
By way of example, a screenshot of a computer program will have the automatic suggestion of “A graphical user interface” (or similar), but depending on the context and usage, it could be “A virus installer disguised as ___ video game installer.” Or “The ___ video game installer.” Between the document creator and the creation software or screen reader, only the document creator would really know the context for the image.
Which is all to say that I think that Mozilla has the right idea with auto-tagging, but it will always fail on context. The only way to actually address the issue is to deal with it within the document creation software.
But I wouldn’t be opposed to ML on those that can auto-suggest things or even critique how content authors write their descriptions.
So - I don’t think Firefox would be generating captions for PDFs on PDF creation.
I’m not sure. The blog post is not entirely clear on that.
Between the document creator and the creation software or screen reader, only the document creator would really know the context for the image.
Agreed. Context is usually very important for images. But with an auto-generated caption embedded in the document itself, you already lose some context. Because if the automatic caption is incorrectly stored as “The ___ video game installer” you cannot decide anymore if this was written by the author with the context in mind or just generated. Which I would argue is worse than no caption, as it lowers your trust in all captions.
But I wouldn’t be opposed to ML on those that can auto-suggest things or even critique how content authors write their descriptions.
Absolutely, I think that will be by far the best solution. It could massively encourage users to write their own captions if in most cases you only need to accept the suggestion. But so far, that seems unlikely to be the way forward. Why do that when you can just throw even more “AI” at the problem?
You sound like you have no disabilities that make it hard for you to use the Internet. Good for you.
If AI can add usability features that help people use the Internet easier then that’s a good thing. You don’t need to use it. Why complain about software being capable of helping others?
JMINS (just make it not suck). Fix the existing brokeness before adding more useless stuff. E.g. bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1749612 open for 2+ years and marked “enhancement” even though it’s a bug that makes the feature unusable a lot of the time.
How is displaying a password in a certain font “broken” when you can easily copy/paste it? People who rally against Firefox sure do point to ridiculous, non-existent “problems” as an excuse to keep using laughable Chromium/derivatives.
Hardy har har. I have a saved password on my phone and I want to use it on my laptop. This happens now and then but not often enough to want to introduce another software dependency and its security problems. It’s a password (randomly generated, but still), not War And Peace. Simple enough-- read it off the phone and type it into the laptop, but no. They used a font that makes some characters indistinguishable, there is a 2 year old open ticket to fix it, and you sit there making wisecracks. Found the issue:
So copy and paste it into something else on your computer if you’re too blind to see the difference in letters in that font (I can tell, easily) and tell it to use another font. PEBCAK issue, not a real one.
This is on my phone (Android Firefox), not the computer (desktop Firefox). Yes some of the characters in the font are indistinguishable. That’s why there’s a ticket open after all. And even if crappy workarounds exist, it can and does still suck. Thus, JMINS.
Why do you defend this crap? I never understand what makes people do that.
“FIREFOX SUX BECAUSE MY OUTSIDER 0.00000001% USE CASE AND I OPENED A TICKET BOOHOO!”
This is how you sound. Just because there’s a ticket open for outlier bullshit doesn’t make it valid to gripe about endlessly, especially when there are so many possible, simple ways around it. Slightly annoying does not mean broken.
I didn’t open that ticket. I encountered the issue, went to the tracker, and found there was already a ticket open.
Tickets have priority labels. The existence of a workaround like pasting the password to a program with a different display font means this bug is not a showstopper. That doesn’t mean it is not a bug.
No it’s not just this one bug. There are plenty more. I can link more tickets if you want. I was going to do that but the discussion about the password font bug spiralled.
What is happening is mostly an attitude problem, it seems. People like you, seeing a code bug, instead of fixing it (or in this case at least recognizing that it should be fixed), go around searching for rationalizations for leaving it unfixed. It being unfixed while Mozilla continues to bloat up the browser with more new crap is instead evidence of Mozilla’s priorities being screwed up.
I will have to check whether the font in the address bar has the same issue (edit: yes it does). But the reason the “make password visible” feature exists at all (instead of just “copy password to clipboard”) is to make the password readable by eyeball. It fails to do that. That failure is why there is an open Bugzilla ticket. If it worked properly, there would be no ticket or it would have been closed. But making it work is treated as an enhancement rather than a fix. Gack.
Also, pasting the password into the address bar drops it into the search system and maybe leaks it, who knows. Not a good idea.
Good points, why not change it and recompile Firefox and see what font works. Then you can submit a pull request for this issue and they might actually accept it
That’s interesting. Last time I did it I had to manually install a ridiculous amount of dependencies one by one, among other things. I will have to try Nixos (or Guix) sometime. Computers are faster now too. I remember taking way more than 2 hours but it was on a slow machine by today’s standards. Thanks.
That’s why I love NixOS, some dude (okay sometimes it’s me) already figured out how to compile all the software and built the binaries if you want them
That's not the browser doing that. That's whatever website(s) you're heading to that are making that many memory requests. The entire firefox binary isn't anywhere near that value.
Y'all got to remember, HTML5 is almost like it's own OS at this point. Your web browser is just a typewriter into the kernel and the sites you visit are the programs being managed. If you run /usr/bin/really_large_program, it shouldn't surprise you when your terminal is reporting the kernel allocing 8GB.
And boy are there a lot of very bad web programmers out there.
But only if it results in reclaimed vertical real estate! Vertical tabs in edge is a a net loss in screen space, which makes it pointless in my opinion
I’ve heard a lot of people talk about vertical tabs but personally I don’t see the appeal. Can you explain to me what is desirable about vertical tabs?
Im a simple man, less browser UI = good. I only want to see what I need to see. I’d hide the address bar if it wasn’t cumbersome to use with hover (as in hover at the top of the browser window to show the address bar).
It’s more efficient to stack wide elements on top of each other than next to each other.
Especially with websites that are optimised for mobile which means they use only the middle 60% of the whole 16:9 screen, not to mention ultrawide. So vertical space is needed more than horizontal space.
In addition, you can have the vertical tabs hide the text, so you can only see the favicon, unless hovered over. I basically have a 50px bar on the left and top. So this (without the right sidebar, I’m not at my PC so I stole the photo from Reddit :P) :
Thanks for the response! I guess it’s still not for me. I often have several tabs from the same site or tabs from websites who’s favicon I don’t recognize so the text is relevant to me.
When I want more real estate I just go full screen with F11.
As for focusing a hidden address bar, doesn’t ctrl-L do the trick?
It does, but… it’s sounds cool to do everything with the keyboard and all, but in everyday use sometimes you have the mouse in your hand, or only one hand available. I don’t want to be thinking „oh yeah I need to do that instead”, it’s not comfortable anymore, even if it’s not as efficient
You can have tons of tabs open while still being able to read what they are
Moving the tabs to the side of your browser window frees up more vertical real estate which better matches the webpage layout of most websites, which otherwise have wasted space on the left and right sides of the page when viewing them on a computer
We are approaching the use of AI in Firefox — which many, many of you have been asking about — in the same way. We’re focused on giving you AI features that solve tangible problems, respect your privacy, and give you real choice.
We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models — i.e., more private — to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.
NO! I don’t want AI in my Firefox. If Mozilla really adds AI, I will consider switching my main browser since Firefox 1 came out.
The visually impaired will certainly agree that not helping them with a local AI model is a sacrifice worth being made for the purely moral stance of “no AI at all”.
/s obviously
Do you use autocomplete? AI in some of the various ways that's being posited is just spicy autocomplete. You can run a pretty decent local AI on SSE2 instructions alone.
Now you don't have to accept spicy-autocomplete just like you don't have to accept plain jane-autocomplete. The choice is yours, Mozilla isn't planning on spinning extra cycles in your CPU or GPU if you don't want them spun.
But I distinctly remember the grumbles when Firefox brought local db ops into the browser to give it memory for forms. Lots of people didn't like the notion of filling out a bank form or something and then that popping into a sqlite db.
So, your opinion, I don't blame you. I don't agree with your opinion, but I don't blame you. Completely normal reaction. Don't let folks tell you different. Just like we need the gas pedal for new things, we need the brake as well. I would hate to see you go and leave Firefox, BUT I would really hate you having to feel like something was forced upon you and you just had to grin and bear it.
Thank you for the understanding and not getting stuck on the choice of my words. I have to say that local AI is much more acceptable to me and remedies some key points I dislike about AI usage in normal cases. But I don’t like the idea of an AI, as it is a black box and it is not possible to verify. I mean in source code we can look at it, test it, modify it, build it. But with an AI like this, we cannot. There is a lot I don’t like about AI.
But autocomplete question? Well yes off course I use autocomplete for my programming, just not with AI. Only simple autocomplete. And I like that.
Generative AI will be forced on you, regardless of whether you want it in your life. The entire world is moving in that direction very rapidly. We are not just talking micro scale like which web browser you use - every institution you rely on in your daily life will have AI implementation at some level.
Generative AI will be forced on you, regardless of whether you want it in your life. The entire world is moving in that direction very rapidly.
No. Sad that you don’t know what freedom means. AI is marketing bullshit and the way to control you. Nobody will force me to use it and you know it. Just because you tell me that I have no choice does not take away my choice. You are a Linux user godamn, you should know that better.
Don’t let corporations control you with AI. Don’t be a lemming.
How exactly do you think stuff around you works? Machine learning is everywhere gobbling up massive swaths of data wherever possible. Insurances, work shift planning, goddamn Spotify. All are using ML and have for years. To think you can just stay away from those Models is ridiculous.
Which does not mean that I HAVE TO USE IT ON MY MACHINE! Shift planning, inusurances are not software I am using and it is not MY RESPONSIBILITY. I don’t use Spotify and also that is not an important program such as my Firefox. You guys search for reasons to accept AI and let you control by every company for no reason. All in the name of “accessibility”, when in reality this is not needed.
The problem is, this should be an addon that people can install or at least, remove. I don’t want AI in my text editor, in my browser or in my operating system.
I mean the address bar. If I type in a port which I know something is on locally, it shows me five different entries pointing to the same thing. I’m saying they should be merged. You and I know that this is programmatically simple and should be the default behaviour, however in this age, at least according to marketing, it’s AI.
Why not? I think you are ridiculous. Just for two identical rows to merge them is not a good reason to introduce AI into the system. This could have been done without AI, but if they really want an AI, then it has to be an addon. If its really that simple, then there is no need for an AI.
I’m guessing you haven’t had your coffee yet, because I blatantly said
You and I know that this is programmatically simple and should be the default behaviour, however in this age, at least according to marketing, it’s AI.
If you want to fight for the sake of fighting, please go find someone else. It’s too early for this stupidness.
Maybe you should stop insulting people like an idiot.
You asked me why this AI for this simple two line merger should be an addon and I explained to you it should because its an AI. If you have no good argument, then insulting people won’t make you right. You make an dumbass example, I give you an answer and you give me this stupid reply. idiots get blocked.
I honestly don’t think you’re a bad person, I just think that you’re blinded by a red mist right now. You’ll think back to this later and laugh about it, I’m sure. Have a good day.
You have no idea why I dislike it and create nonsense judgement over my disliking. I think this is a normal human defending position of you, because I dislike something (there are good reasons for) that you like.
I don’t want AI in my Firefox. If Mozilla really adds AI, I will consider switching my main browser
Don’t know why you anti-AI so much. An on-device AI is absolutely fine to me, and it’s not like Mozilla will force you to use it. Remember the world is not about only you but also people having disabilities.
Remember the world is not about only you but also people having disabilities.
Remember the world is not about only for people with disabilities. Secondly, this is a nonsense argument, because this does not “require” Ai. Especially not for every user. If its integrated into Firefox and I cannot remove it, then its very much forced. Why not make an extension for people who need or want it? (nobody needs this)
You just got good advice. Remember that the world is not only for you.
Like, it's super not for you. It's mostly not for you at all. If you ask me whether I care about things for people with disabilities or things for you, you don't even chart. That's only two options and you're not even second on that list.
I think there is only one thing worth answering in your reply:
Why not make an extension for people who need or want it?
For web page translation, it is considered a very basic feature that should be there by default in all mainstream browsers (e.g. Chrome), but Firefox hadn’t provided this feature for a very long time.
For any AI-assisted accessibility feature such as image tagging, my opinion is that it is even more important to make it easily turn on, rather than requiring user to search and download some extensions, which might be a too hard task for a disabled person.
You missed my point entirely. If it is an extension that is installed by default, because a minority needs it, then at least the majority who don’t want it can remove the extension. This is especially more important because it is AI and not a regular program. AI is always a black box that cannot be verified.
And if its too hard for a disabled person to install extension, then its probably too hard to use Firefox in the first place. That’s nonsense argumentation. But that’s not even my actual argumentation and I think you guys try to misunderstand me, just because I don’t like what you like. AI in the browser is bullshit idea, it does not matter if its disabled or not person. And not something “required” as the base minimum, that cannot be removed.
+1 for LibreWolf. I’ve been using it for ~2 years and it’s better than Firefox from a privacy perspective. Development is active, so updates are being pushed regularly. As for vertical tabs, you can easily achieve it with Tree Style Tabs. I strongly recommend it.
I’ve looked at alternative forks of Firefox before, but there were two problems for me: a) most are not up to date or slow to update, and b) hard to trust my browser to any community or other company. You see, I actually trust Mozilla, specifically Firefox and Thunderbird. At least the AI is local only, but it would add another attack vector and bloat for no reason to me. We’ll see if it can be disabled.
AI generated alt-text running locally is actually a fantastic accessibility feature. It's reliable, it provides a service, it can absolutely be deployed securely.
It's fine to be critical of technology, it's not fine to become as irrational about it as the tech bros trying to make a buck.
Not irrational to be concerned for a number of reasons. Even if local and secure AI image processing and LLMs add fairly significant processing costs to a simple task like this. It means higher requirements for the browser, higher energy use and therefore emissions (noting here that AI has blown Microsoft’s climate mitigation plan our of the water even with some accounting tricks).
Additionally, you have to think about the long term changes to behaviours this will generate. A handy tool for when people forget to produce proper accessible documents suddenly becomes the default way of making accessible documents. Consider two situations: a culture that promotes and enforces content providers to consider different types of consumer and how they will experience the content; they know that unless they spend the 1% extra time making it accessibile for all it will exclude certain people. Now compare that to a situation where AI is pitched as an easy way not to think about the peoples experiences: the AI will sort it. Those two situations imply very different outcomes: in one there is care and thought about difference and diversity and in another there isn’t. Disabled people are an after thought. Within those two different scenarios there’s also massively different energy and emissions requirements because its making every user perform AI to get some alt text rather than generate it at source.
Finally, it worth explaining about Alt texts a bit and how people use them because its not just text descriptions of an image (which AI could indeed likely produce). Alt texts should be used to summarise the salient aspects of the image the author wants a reader to take away for it in a conscise way and sometimes that message might be slightly different for Alt Text users. AI can’t do this because it should be about the message the content creator wants to send and ensuring it’s accessible. As ever with these tech fixes for accessibility the lived experience of people with those needs isn’t actually present. Its an assumed need rather than what they are asking for.
Local and secure image recognition is fairly trivial in terms of power consumption, but hey, there's likely going to be some option to turn it off, just like hardware acceleration for video and image rendering, which uses the same GPU in similar ways. The power consumption argument is not invalid, but the way people deploy it is baffling to me, and is often based on worst-case estimates that are not realistic by design.
To be clear, Apple is building CPUs that can parse these queries in seconds into iPads now, running at a few tens of watts. Each time I boot up Tekken on my 1000W gaming PC for five minutes I'm burning up more power than my share of AI queries for weeks, if not months.
On the second point I absolutely disagree. There is no practical advantage to making accessibility annoying to implement. Accessibility should be structural, mandatory and automatic, not a nice thing people do for you. Eff that.
As for the third part, every alt text I've seen deployed is not adding much of value beyond a description of the content. What is measurable and factual is that the coverage of alt-text, even in places where it's disproportionately popular like Mastodon, is spotty at best and residual at worst. There is no question that automated alt-text is better than no alt-text, and most content has no alt-text.
That is only the tip of the iceberg for ML applied to accessibility, too. You could do active queries, you could have users be able to ask for additional context or clarification, you could have much smoother, automated voice reading of text, including visual description on demand... This tech is powerful in many areas, and this is clearly one. In fact, this is a much better application than search, by a lot. It's frustrating that search and factual queries, where this stuff is pretty bad at being reliable, are the thing everybody is thinking about.
I am just hoping governments will see the massive issues and copyright problems with AI and ban that garbage outright soon so all these companies eager to add their AI trash to every single product they ship will stop.
I’m not a fan of automated data collection, regardless of the reason. I see the merit, though, but I won’t allow it. The post is very clear about the preserved anonymity of the collected data, which is good, and on how to easily opt out, which is great.
This statement, however, was a bit strange. Almost like they are being flippant on local laws. Since I know this isn’t the case here, they should have phrased it different. (Emphasis mine)
Your search activities are handled with the same level of confidentiality as all other data regardless of any local laws surrounding certain health services.
That’s what I also understood. It’s just an odd, almost incorrect, phrasing. Unless our understanding is wrong, and they actually mean that they won’t follow the local laws if said laws require them to violate privacy.
blog.mozilla.org
Hot