How to disable Firefox's new emoji picker(emsh.cat)
emsh.cat
How to disable Firefox's new emoji picker
https://emsh.cat/en/how-to-disable-firefoxs-emoji-picker/
75 comments
> the default keyboard shortcut for the emoji picker on GNOME/GTK is ctrl-. (same as the Firefox shortcut).
Hmm, I wonder how new that is? Could be possible that my GNOME installation is old enough to predate that, and they didn't overwrite the config like Firefox did? Because I've been using Firefox + 1Password + GNOME for years, and for as long as I can remember, `ctrl + .` has opened 1Password dialogue in Firefox, and I'm not sure I've ever seen an Emoji picker in GNOME, although I know it exists somewhere.
Hmm, I wonder how new that is? Could be possible that my GNOME installation is old enough to predate that, and they didn't overwrite the config like Firefox did? Because I've been using Firefox + 1Password + GNOME for years, and for as long as I can remember, `ctrl + .` has opened 1Password dialogue in Firefox, and I'm not sure I've ever seen an Emoji picker in GNOME, although I know it exists somewhere.
Check this article: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/manage-extension-shortc...
For me, "Ctrl + ." was being used by two different extensions: Raindrop and Mult-account containers.
I deleted both of these shortcuts since neither were useful for me. I'd much rather have the Firefox emoji picker respond to "Ctrl + ." in the same way as other Gnome apps.
For me, "Ctrl + ." was being used by two different extensions: Raindrop and Mult-account containers.
I deleted both of these shortcuts since neither were useful for me. I'd much rather have the Firefox emoji picker respond to "Ctrl + ." in the same way as other Gnome apps.
[deleted]
> I don't really write any emojis in anything I use a browser for anyways
Proceeds to use an emoji as favicon :D
Proceeds to use an emoji as favicon :D
Heh fair :) For the lack of a better icon to use, I did copy paste a emoji to be used as the favicon, I hope my readers can eventually forgive me for this transgression.
An Emoji picker should be an OS-level feature. If the OS doesn’t provide the feature, then that is the OS’s decision to make, and the browser should respect it.
Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
It is an OS-level feature, or at least desktop environment level. Far as I know, it's always been Ctrl-. or Ctrl-; for any GTK app, but Firefox had apparently bound Ctrl-. to something else. So basically, this "added" feature is Firefox getting out of the way of the built-in picker that was already there.
On macOS, it still opens the multi-account container panel, and the emoji picker is still brought up by tapping Fn.
On macOS, it still opens the multi-account container panel, and the emoji picker is still brought up by tapping Fn.
Okay, in that case, I completely misunderstood the issue. If the change is that Firefox now allows the system-level picker to get through instead of blocking the keyboard shortcut, that’s a win.
I thought Firefox was adding its own Emoji-picker UI.
I thought Firefox was adding its own Emoji-picker UI.
> If the change is that Firefox now allows the system-level picker to get through instead of blocking the keyboard shortcut, that’s a win.
You're almost there :) Firefox now opens the system-level picker for that shortcut, regardless of what global keyboard shortcut you might have configured system-level. So system-level, I have nothing done on "CTRL + .", in Firefox, I have 1Password browser extension triggered by "CTRL + ." so when Firefox version 150 was launched, instead of seeing 1Password when I did the shortcut, it instead showed my system-level emoji picker (which I have no shortcut for), triggered by Firefox.
You're almost there :) Firefox now opens the system-level picker for that shortcut, regardless of what global keyboard shortcut you might have configured system-level. So system-level, I have nothing done on "CTRL + .", in Firefox, I have 1Password browser extension triggered by "CTRL + ." so when Firefox version 150 was launched, instead of seeing 1Password when I did the shortcut, it instead showed my system-level emoji picker (which I have no shortcut for), triggered by Firefox.
Okay, now I’m back to being annoyed. :)
Why can’t Firefox respect system-level custom keyboard shortcuts? This has been a bug on Mac for like 15 years and they don’t seem to care about it at all, which IMO is ridiculous, it’s core system functionality.
Why can’t Firefox respect system-level custom keyboard shortcuts? This has been a bug on Mac for like 15 years and they don’t seem to care about it at all, which IMO is ridiculous, it’s core system functionality.
[deleted]
> but Firefox had apparently bound Ctrl-. to something else.
I think up until version 150 it was nothing, as 1Password had `ctrl + .` as the default shortcut for opening up their autocomplete thing, and feels like they wouldn't have chosen that shortcut years ago if Firefox was already using it for something, but maybe I misremember.
I think up until version 150 it was nothing, as 1Password had `ctrl + .` as the default shortcut for opening up their autocomplete thing, and feels like they wouldn't have chosen that shortcut years ago if Firefox was already using it for something, but maybe I misremember.
Hmmm. Let me preface here that I think Mozilla invests its energy in a strange way.
On the other hand, I am not sure I can agree with "OS-level feature".
An emoji is essentially something simple, right? I am thinking of an "Unicode symbol" here. So to me, I would like to use any emoji or unicode as-is, anywhere, when it comes to user input - copy/paste, perhaps even converting it to a real image. You mentioned that "browsers should respect if emojis are forbidden by the OS", in essence, and I am not sure I agree with that. If an OS does not allow me to use an emoji, then I would not want to use that OS (well, I use Linux, so that does not matter anyway; and I avoid GNOME since it is too opinionated - I want to decide what I can do, I don't want remote developers decide what to do; this is also why I stopped using KDE, after the donation-daemon was added by Nate not so long ago).
> Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
That is a valid question but would I want to give up on emojis because "the OS does not support it"? I'd much rather use emojis, even IF an OS does not support it. I really don't want to be limited like that by an OS.
Perhaps this simply refers to different assumptions. I think we can agree that Mozilla invests their resources in a strange way though.
On the other hand, I am not sure I can agree with "OS-level feature".
An emoji is essentially something simple, right? I am thinking of an "Unicode symbol" here. So to me, I would like to use any emoji or unicode as-is, anywhere, when it comes to user input - copy/paste, perhaps even converting it to a real image. You mentioned that "browsers should respect if emojis are forbidden by the OS", in essence, and I am not sure I agree with that. If an OS does not allow me to use an emoji, then I would not want to use that OS (well, I use Linux, so that does not matter anyway; and I avoid GNOME since it is too opinionated - I want to decide what I can do, I don't want remote developers decide what to do; this is also why I stopped using KDE, after the donation-daemon was added by Nate not so long ago).
> Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
That is a valid question but would I want to give up on emojis because "the OS does not support it"? I'd much rather use emojis, even IF an OS does not support it. I really don't want to be limited like that by an OS.
Perhaps this simply refers to different assumptions. I think we can agree that Mozilla invests their resources in a strange way though.
Allow me to rephrase: If the OS doesn’t provide X, the end user should have no alternative for X.
I use both macOS and Pop!OS. The latter doesn't include an emoji picker by default, so I'm precluded from using a 3rd-party picker?
There is no issue as long as a 3rd-party app doesn't override built-in functionality. If you don't want it, it is easy to disable.
I use both macOS and Pop!OS. The latter doesn't include an emoji picker by default, so I'm precluded from using a 3rd-party picker?
There is no issue as long as a 3rd-party app doesn't override built-in functionality. If you don't want it, it is easy to disable.
Especially on a Linux distro, you could install a 3rd-party package that adds an emoji picker system-wide, as opposed to in one app.
If every app brings its own emoji picker, then you end up with a different interface everywhere.
If every app brings its own emoji picker, then you end up with a different interface everywhere.
> then you end up with a different interface everywhere.
This whole post is about someone being upset that Firefox finally did support the system level interface and shortcut. And you're upset about that while asking for consistent interfaces. Some people can just never be happy I guess.
This whole post is about someone being upset that Firefox finally did support the system level interface and shortcut. And you're upset about that while asking for consistent interfaces. Some people can just never be happy I guess.
Just to put the record straight, I'm (author of the post) not upset, mad or sad about anything, it is what it is, I'm sure some like it, others don't. I'm glad I have the option to turn it off, like most stuff I don't like in Firefox, it tends to be easy to get rid of it.
I shared it as a blog post as I've already had two people asking me privately if I know how to get rid of it, as I'm the reason they use 1Password in the first place, not because "I got so upset I couldn't contain it" or something like that. Surely there are more wondering it then.
I also don't think parent seem upset either, but I won't attempt to speak for them. But arguing for/against a position doesn't mean they aren't happy or that they are upset, conflicting views and perspectives is normal, even within the same person sometimes :)
I shared it as a blog post as I've already had two people asking me privately if I know how to get rid of it, as I'm the reason they use 1Password in the first place, not because "I got so upset I couldn't contain it" or something like that. Surely there are more wondering it then.
I also don't think parent seem upset either, but I won't attempt to speak for them. But arguing for/against a position doesn't mean they aren't happy or that they are upset, conflicting views and perspectives is normal, even within the same person sometimes :)
I understand that, but as someone who was an engineer at both Microsoft and Apple, I see absolutely no problem with 3rd-parties adding useful features.
As I said, as long as 3rd parties aren't overriding the built-in functionality by default (e.g., using the same keyboard shortcuts), there's no problem. 99% of FF users will probably never even know it has its own picker.
As I said, as long as 3rd parties aren't overriding the built-in functionality by default (e.g., using the same keyboard shortcuts), there's no problem. 99% of FF users will probably never even know it has its own picker.
As a user of these OS's, I wish you would have a problem with this. I want text input to work the same way across every app.
It is of course great for third parties to add features, they should just work system wide. If text entry looks different in every app, that sucks.
It is of course great for third parties to add features, they should just work system wide. If text entry looks different in every app, that sucks.
Neither MS nor Apple has the best track record of building full-featured utility tools (which is why there are thousands of incredibly useful 3rd-party utility applications). I wish end-users would understand that giving them a choice is more important than forcing them to use only OS-provided functionality.
You aren't required to use anything that you don't like. The fact that you are complaining about a non-problem is odd.
Lastly, incremental improvements generally come from outside the OS. If FF ends up adding something novel/interesting to their emoji picker, the major OS's will probably adopt it at some point. That would never happen in your world, where only the biggest companies get to innovate.
You aren't required to use anything that you don't like. The fact that you are complaining about a non-problem is odd.
Lastly, incremental improvements generally come from outside the OS. If FF ends up adding something novel/interesting to their emoji picker, the major OS's will probably adopt it at some point. That would never happen in your world, where only the biggest companies get to innovate.
> An Emoji picker should be an OS-level feature.
Why ? Every program shall be free to implement its own Emoji picker. For example systemd or bash or even iptables.
Why ? Every program shall be free to implement its own Emoji picker. For example systemd or bash or even iptables.
> An Emoji picker should be an OS-level feature.
This is an "OS"-feature, where OS means the GUI-Framework that Firefox is using to integrate with the DE.
> If the OS doesn’t provide the feature, then that is the OS’s decision to make, and the browser should respect it.
That's a very strange claim. Nearly everything in any app is something the OS is not providing; that's why apps exist in the first place, to enhance the environment.
> Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
Why should they cripple themselves willingly; just to align with others? Especially as this is a web browser, which has become the main way of interaction with a big part of the world.
This is an "OS"-feature, where OS means the GUI-Framework that Firefox is using to integrate with the DE.
> If the OS doesn’t provide the feature, then that is the OS’s decision to make, and the browser should respect it.
That's a very strange claim. Nearly everything in any app is something the OS is not providing; that's why apps exist in the first place, to enhance the environment.
> Why would I want text input in one app to have a feature that text input in other apps lacks?
Why should they cripple themselves willingly; just to align with others? Especially as this is a web browser, which has become the main way of interaction with a big part of the world.
While there might be a use case for emoji picker in the browser, I don’t see how hiding one behind such an obscure shortcut brings an emoji picker to anyone who doesn’t already know how to use the one built in to their os.
What I really want is an emoji explainer feature to help me read other people's emoji. I currently copy+paste a lot of them into a search engine to find out what they're supposed to be.
For me there are 4 emojis: :), :(, :/, and :D. Anything that uses fancier characters is needlessly complicated and looks like clutter to me. For me this means that whenever I use one of those in Google Chat I need to type Esc before i can send my message lest what I typed be replaced by a goofy yellow face.
Sounds like the real problem was that 1Password had hijacked the same keyboard shortcut that other Gnome apps use for the Emoji picker. For me, "Ctrl + ." was being used by two different extensions: Raindrop and Multi-account containers. I deleted these shortcuts since I would *rather* have the Firefox emoji picker. :-)
I despair at some of the comments on posts like this.
"Mozilla needs to attract new users!!"
Mozilla proceeds to add new features which new users might like
"No! Not like that"
Like, what do you actually want? A browser with a UI that hasn't changed since Stallman was in nappies? Things have to change in order to grow. Not everything is going to be right for you and that's OK.
"Mozilla needs to attract new users!!"
Mozilla proceeds to add new features which new users might like
"No! Not like that"
Like, what do you actually want? A browser with a UI that hasn't changed since Stallman was in nappies? Things have to change in order to grow. Not everything is going to be right for you and that's OK.
> Not everything is going to be right for you and that's OK.
Yes, this is exactly right, some things won't be for everyone. The best part of Firefox (for me, besides being able to have vertical tree-style tabs) is that more times than not, you can disable and/or hide the change you don't like, as demonstrated by the blog post.
Sure, I might not agree with every change they make to default choices but they at least let us power users configure the browser so it ends up just like how we want it to be, and for that I'm very grateful, as it tends to be uncommon in this day and age.
Yes, this is exactly right, some things won't be for everyone. The best part of Firefox (for me, besides being able to have vertical tree-style tabs) is that more times than not, you can disable and/or hide the change you don't like, as demonstrated by the blog post.
Sure, I might not agree with every change they make to default choices but they at least let us power users configure the browser so it ends up just like how we want it to be, and for that I'm very grateful, as it tends to be uncommon in this day and age.
I don't understand what you're upset about here. Firefox added this feature and, like all features, it gets in the way for some people. This article is explaining how to disable it if you're one of those people.
Nobody is saying the feature should be removed or scolding Mozilla for adding it, they're just explaining how to get rid of it if it annoys you.
Nobody is saying the feature should be removed or scolding Mozilla for adding it, they're just explaining how to get rid of it if it annoys you.
The post is fine. People can disable whatever they want - I certainly do. But (at the time of writing) half a dozen comments were complaining about "useless cruft" being added.
Same as the AI integrations. There's obviously a market for them so FF has done some fairly sensible work to add them. And then people here explode like Mozilla has kicked their puppy.
Same as the AI integrations. There's obviously a market for them so FF has done some fairly sensible work to add them. And then people here explode like Mozilla has kicked their puppy.
Welcome to the amazing firefox user community. Out of 10 commenters, you hear 15 different complaints, very often contradictory but always stated very strongly as the absolute way that firefox should be (even when it lets you configure it that way anyway).
But in all seriousness, it seems to me that firefox has relatively more opinionated users, or users who are very specific/strict about their setup and what they want, and many are often fast and vocal in expressing opinions compared to the other browsers. I don't think we see posts around with people complaining about features in other major browsers in the same way (of course I could just miss them because I would pay less attention to other browsers).
I am pretty sure somebody must have complained about the ff quantum update too, back in the days.
But in all seriousness, it seems to me that firefox has relatively more opinionated users, or users who are very specific/strict about their setup and what they want, and many are often fast and vocal in expressing opinions compared to the other browsers. I don't think we see posts around with people complaining about features in other major browsers in the same way (of course I could just miss them because I would pay less attention to other browsers).
I am pretty sure somebody must have complained about the ff quantum update too, back in the days.
> I am pretty sure somebody must have complained about the ff quantum update too, back in the days.
You're right, a bunch of extensions weren't working initially, large parts of the community were upset about that. Eventually, as more extensions were supported and new alternatives emerged, it eventually died out and was almost completely forgotten about, until you reminded me of it just now.
You're right, a bunch of extensions weren't working initially, large parts of the community were upset about that. Eventually, as more extensions were supported and new alternatives emerged, it eventually died out and was almost completely forgotten about, until you reminded me of it just now.
> You're right, a bunch of extensions weren't working initially, large parts of the community were upset about that.
Honestly, I'm still sad about that. It caused a hit to the usability and functionality of Firefox. Some of that has since been compensated for, but parity has not yet been achieved and probably never will.
But even with the functionality reduction, Firefox is still better than the alternatives for me, so I continue to use it regardless. Perhaps, eventually, something better will come along.
Honestly, I'm still sad about that. It caused a hit to the usability and functionality of Firefox. Some of that has since been compensated for, but parity has not yet been achieved and probably never will.
But even with the functionality reduction, Firefox is still better than the alternatives for me, so I continue to use it regardless. Perhaps, eventually, something better will come along.
Isn't the point that browsers should, ideally, be for web-browsing and nothing more? Even embedding a PDF reader is controversial, but it seems entirely unnecessary that a browser should come with its own emoji-picker—what's wrong with the system's own?
I'm old enough to remember people grumbling when audio and video elements were added. Useless crap in a browser! Just compile your own MP3 player if you want to listen to music on a website!
Same as WebUSB - heaven forbid that a website can become more useful by flashing firmware to a device!!
The web is a platform. It will grow and mature into something we can't possibly imagine. It's OK for browsers to try new things to see what sticks.
I assume that Mozilla have done some research showing people like typing emoji but don't know how to use their system emoji picker. Even in an ultra-purist world where a browser does nothing other than render HTML (death to JS!!!) surely people will want to type into boxen and POST text somewhere?
Same as WebUSB - heaven forbid that a website can become more useful by flashing firmware to a device!!
The web is a platform. It will grow and mature into something we can't possibly imagine. It's OK for browsers to try new things to see what sticks.
I assume that Mozilla have done some research showing people like typing emoji but don't know how to use their system emoji picker. Even in an ultra-purist world where a browser does nothing other than render HTML (death to JS!!!) surely people will want to type into boxen and POST text somewhere?
> Same as WebUSB - heaven forbid that a website can become more useful by flashing firmware to a device!!
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Even before that, there were folk moaning that "Mosaic has ruined the web with its pesky IMG tag - images should be opened in a user-specified viewer app rather than inline!".
Similarly, there were people who complained about forms and buttons at roughly the same time and, a few years later, img maps, frames, layers (okay, with good reason), and CSS.
They (or their spiritual heirs) always pop up on Firefox threads, for some reason. For those people, I want to point out that Lynx is right here and is as usable as it's ever been: https://github.com/ThomasDickey/lynx-snapshots
Similarly, there were people who complained about forms and buttons at roughly the same time and, a few years later, img maps, frames, layers (okay, with good reason), and CSS.
They (or their spiritual heirs) always pop up on Firefox threads, for some reason. For those people, I want to point out that Lynx is right here and is as usable as it's ever been: https://github.com/ThomasDickey/lynx-snapshots
> Same as WebUSB - heaven forbid that a website can become more useful by flashing firmware to a device!!
Useful for whom ? The CIA ?
Useful for whom ? The CIA ?
I used it for both GrapheneOS (it flashed a new OS to my Android phone) and for updating the firmware for a niche LoRaWAN electronics board.
The alternative would have been booting to Windows, downloading some dodgy .exe from an advert infested site, and running untrusted code which inexplicably required my admin password.
I'm pleased the Web is able to put a stop to nonsense like that.
The alternative would have been booting to Windows, downloading some dodgy .exe from an advert infested site, and running untrusted code which inexplicably required my admin password.
I'm pleased the Web is able to put a stop to nonsense like that.
People with devices to flash firmware to? Which basically is a lot of things, from musicians to physicians, and a lot in-between.
They can start by supporting more standards. It's getting harder and harder to view any modern site on this engine and the page load times are insane when compared to a Chromium stepchild like Vivaldi
> It's getting harder and harder to view any modern site on this engine
Is it? What website can you not view in Firefox today? I almost exclusively use Firefox on my computer (Safari on mobile), and can't remember the last time I encountered a website that wasn't viewable in Firefox. Even my bank, which tends to be whiny about what browser you use, works 100% in Firefox too, even with all the warnings.
Is it? What website can you not view in Firefox today? I almost exclusively use Firefox on my computer (Safari on mobile), and can't remember the last time I encountered a website that wasn't viewable in Firefox. Even my bank, which tends to be whiny about what browser you use, works 100% in Firefox too, even with all the warnings.
I'm sorry, but that's bollocks. I browse exclusively in FF and I can't remember a single page in the last couple of years that refuses to work on it (unless it's a weird web experiment).
> ... harder to view any modern site ...
Seriously? Have a few concrete examples to back that up?
Seriously? Have a few concrete examples to back that up?
I've used Firefox since it's early days and I don't want UI changes. The move from XUL was bad, but I moved on. Since Photon, and even with Australis the UI changes have been undesirable to me.
The only modern Firefox feature I like is the omnibar and the "bangs" - * for bookmarks, % for tabs, ^ - for history, @ for named search engines etc. But we have lost far more features then we have gotten. We don't even have configurable search engines from the settings anymore.
Emojis always felt juvenile to me, call me a boomer (not really a boomer in age), but they are an eyesore for me.
My ideal Firefox build would regain classic chrome from pre-Australis days with integrated omnibar. The UI would never change. Along this I would like some plugins that were only possible with XUL. But I know we will never get this unless someone actually makes these classic forks as secure and performant as modern Firefox.
If it weren't for prefs and userChome.css I would have long since abandoned Firefox. Those are the only things that makes it still worth using.
The only modern Firefox feature I like is the omnibar and the "bangs" - * for bookmarks, % for tabs, ^ - for history, @ for named search engines etc. But we have lost far more features then we have gotten. We don't even have configurable search engines from the settings anymore.
Emojis always felt juvenile to me, call me a boomer (not really a boomer in age), but they are an eyesore for me.
My ideal Firefox build would regain classic chrome from pre-Australis days with integrated omnibar. The UI would never change. Along this I would like some plugins that were only possible with XUL. But I know we will never get this unless someone actually makes these classic forks as secure and performant as modern Firefox.
If it weren't for prefs and userChome.css I would have long since abandoned Firefox. Those are the only things that makes it still worth using.
> We don't even have configurable search engines from the settings anymore
It's annoying, but you can still toggle `browser.urlbar.update2.engineAliasRefresh` to true and it will restore the add/edit/remove buttons for search engines.
It's annoying, but you can still toggle `browser.urlbar.update2.engineAliasRefresh` to true and it will restore the add/edit/remove buttons for search engines.
> Things have to change in order to grow.
so does cancer.
so does cancer.
I'm on Firefox 150.0.1 on Windows, and Ctrl+. consistently opens up the Firefox Multi-Account Containers panel, regardless of hitting that shortcut while focusing this same text box I'm writing on right now, or not.
So this sounds like not working as expected I guess.
So this sounds like not working as expected I guess.
Might depend on when you first launched Firefox, so it tries to "grandfather" some settings across the versions?
That `ctrl + .` now opens the emoji picker on Linux seems to very much be intended, judging by this release post: https://www.firefox.com/en-US/firefox/150.0/releasenotes/
> Added support for the GTK emoji picker on Linux, allowing users to insert emoji using the system shortcut (typically Ctrl+.).
That `ctrl + .` now opens the emoji picker on Linux seems to very much be intended, judging by this release post: https://www.firefox.com/en-US/firefox/150.0/releasenotes/
> Added support for the GTK emoji picker on Linux, allowing users to insert emoji using the system shortcut (typically Ctrl+.).
>> Windows
> Linux [...] system shortcut
So it makes sense that they do not get the emoji picker, as they are in windows. I use macos and I also get the multiacccount container. On macos the emoji system-wide shortcut is ctrl+cmd+space.
> Linux [...] system shortcut
So it makes sense that they do not get the emoji picker, as they are in windows. I use macos and I also get the multiacccount container. On macos the emoji system-wide shortcut is ctrl+cmd+space.
Oh, totally yes, missed that they wrote that, thanks! This change from Firefox only applies to Linux, so Windows and macOS users shouldn't notice any difference compared to before in regards to `ctrl + .` as far as I understand.
...whose idea it was to have shortcuts differ by OS??
It is not uncommon at all? A lot of programs have slightly (or majorly) different shortcuts in windows vs linux vs macos. There are usually differences in the keyboard layouts themselves (command key in macos, super key in linux, windows(?) key in windows), as well as in system shortcuts generally.
If in most linux distributions ctrl+. opens the emoji pickers, it is not weird that they implemented it there, and not in other OSes where it would not make sense.
If in most linux distributions ctrl+. opens the emoji pickers, it is not weird that they implemented it there, and not in other OSes where it would not make sense.
I think it's more that no one tried to align shortcuts across OSes, and it'd also be a huge endeavor and to be honest, sounds like it wouldn't be worth it. Takes a couple of seconds to adjust and orient yourself even if you switch between Linux, Windows and macOS multiple times per day.
it literally takes more effort to make code differ - instead of 1 code you write 3
Another option on macOS is fn+e which I’ve always found easier to remember. I’m not sure why there’s two shortcuts in the first place, but maybe this information is useful to someone.
Does any OS get keyboard shortcuts even slightly right? I only really have experience with macOS right now, but it's terrible—just trying to find out which shortcuts are in use is non-trivial.
Is there some kind of Linux standard for this? Something that stores shortcuts in a single plain text file, so they're all visible and easily manageable?
Is there some kind of Linux standard for this? Something that stores shortcuts in a single plain text file, so they're all visible and easily manageable?
Odd, I am on firefox 150, and Ctrl + . doesn't seem to do anything.
On my case, It opnes the KDE emoji picker ... But this emoji picker walys show with that key combination in any program. I think that Firefoxs nevers gets the Ctrl+. key shortcut
What OS? Might just be while focused in text inputs as well, in case you've been trying it without an input.
[deleted]
Strange...clicking Ctrl+. in my Firefox (which I just updated to 150.0.1) did not bring up the Emoji Picker, but instead brought up Firefox Multi-Account Containers.
Sounds like you might be on macOS? (or Windows, given you write Ctrl rather than Cmd?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47961337
In hindsight, I probably should have made it clear that this change is for Firefox 150 on Linux specifically.
In hindsight, I probably should have made it clear that this change is for Firefox 150 on Linux specifically.
My input method's emoji picker is bound to Super+. and works fine in Firefox... ESR 140.10. WTF did they even need to change?
> Annoyingly enough, Mozilla decided to add a emoji picker to Firefox 150, which fair enough, probably some people like
Mozilla is really focusing on how to break the Google monopoly.
With the POWER of the Emoji, Mozilla will succeed here. I ... suppose?
Mozilla is really focusing on how to break the Google monopoly.
With the POWER of the Emoji, Mozilla will succeed here. I ... suppose?
Is Firefox turning into Edge?
The list of things I don't want in a browser is growing.
Perhaps they need to consider a "basic" version
The list of things I don't want in a browser is growing.
Perhaps they need to consider a "basic" version
The Firefox UI is getting worse and worse with every version, because they are constantly adding more useless features. Any time you accidentally hit the wrong button, it launches something, because everything is a shortcut now. The latest being their split tabs, which I also had to disable. Maybe they should stop trying to turn their browser into an OS.
just use seamonkey oor palemoon
Actually, on most distros, the default keyboard shortcut for the emoji picker on GNOME/GTK is ctrl-. (same as the Firefox shortcut). This only works on apps that support it. Older Firefox versions did not support GNOME's emoji picker at all, but Firefox 150 supports GNOME's emoji picker using the expected keyboard shortcut.