• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Eh, I honestly don’t notice it. There’s a very small (like <5px) gap between the tab and the next bar down, and it’s only noticeable when I’m looking at it, which is pretty much never. I’ve attached a screenshot for reference (I use the built-in dark theme, Container Tabs, and shrunk my tabs in about:config).

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          I use container tabs, which fills the space at the top on most of my tabs. In my screenshot, that is literally the top of my screen, there’s no extra space above it. Here’s a slightly bigger screenshot just above my extensions:

          I used a screen measuring tool, and the black gap (the floating part) between the tab and my extensions bar is 2-3px (hard to tell exactly). The tab itself is ~30px (give or take 1-2px). So if Firefox used non-floating tabs, it would save about 2-3px. That’s it.

          Chrome doesn’t have floating tabs, and it takes up more space than Firefox, here’s a screenshot comparing the two:

          Brave has floating tabs, and is also bigger, here’s a screenshot comparing Brave and Firefox:

          This is on my Macbook Pro, so YMMV on Windows, but it looks very similar to what I have on my Linux devices. At least for me, Firefox is plenty compact and more compact than its main competitors.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I showed the other two since they’re popular, and what others would be comparing against. Firefox (on my machines) is more compact than them. So it’s not like Firefox is especially wasteful here. One has worse floating tabs, and the other has worse non-floating tabs. So it could be way worse.

              Removing all the space would make it super cramped, and I don’t think it’s worth it for 10-20px. On a typical 1080p screen, that’s like 1-2% of the vertical resolution.

              That said, it should be configurable. You can probably get what you want with the userChrome.css or whatever it’s called.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  They have other things to consider as well, such as accessibility. You can’t just eliminate all whitespace without consequences.

                  I do agree it should be easily configurable, but my point is that they’re better than pretty much every competitor, so I’m satisfied.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          It was one of the major enshittification updates for Firefox

          That’s not what that term means. That term specifically and explicitly means “making a service worse for the user in order to wring more money out of it.” It doesn’t mean “feature or design change I didn’t like.”