> the effective draggable area in Chrome is a thin 10px strip at the top of the window.
Weirdly enough, if you use a tiled window manager (http://awesome.naquadah.org/) this is a feature instead of a detriment. On my netbook pixels really are at a premium and chrome is admirable in its space-saving efforts. I wish they would fix the download bar thing, but they're aware of that and I believe it's a priority for some of the next releases.
> if you use a tiled window manager... this is a feature instead of a detriment
Isn't it a detriment for tiling WM users, too? Since Chrome tries to eliminate the title bar, it requests for the WM to not put a title bar on it and then tries to fake a smaller, kind-of title bar. So it's still allocating some space--more than any traditional application; since X apps normally leave the title bar drawing up to the WM, traditional apps should have their inner UIs flush with whatever your tiling WM puts around it, while Chrome's still got that sliver.
Comments
> the effective draggable area in Chrome is a thin 10px strip at the top of the window.
Weirdly enough, if you use a tiled window manager (http://awesome.naquadah.org/) this is a feature instead of a detriment. On my netbook pixels really are at a premium and chrome is admirable in its space-saving efforts. I wish they would fix the download bar thing, but they're aware of that and I believe it's a priority for some of the next releases.
> if you use a tiled window manager... this is a feature instead of a detriment
Isn't it a detriment for tiling WM users, too? Since Chrome tries to eliminate the title bar, it requests for the WM to not put a title bar on it and then tries to fake a smaller, kind-of title bar. So it's still allocating some space--more than any traditional application; since X apps normally leave the title bar drawing up to the WM, traditional apps should have their inner UIs flush with whatever your tiling WM puts around it, while Chrome's still got that sliver.