Firefox tab "close" button to appear when you hover over a tab?


Recommended Posts

I am trying to find a Firefox add-on/extension or hack that will enable or make a Firefox tab "close" button (x) appear when you hover over an inactive tab (all tabs except the currently viewed (active) tab) so that one doesn't have to click on the tab and then click the close button. In the case of Chrome, the tab close buttons are always visible on all tabs, but the close button doesn't light up until the mouse cursor is over the close button. In the case of IE8 and IE9, you don't even see the tab close buttons on inactive tabs until you hover over an inactive tab with the mouse cursor. When you do hover over an inactive tab, the close button appears and if you hover over the close button, then the tab close button lights up (like Chrome).

I should point out that I prefer the IE8/IE9 functionality where I don't even see the tab close buttons until I hover over an inactive tab. I think I can get what I'm looking for with Tab Mix Plus, but I don't want all the "stuff" and bloat that it brings. I would think what I'm looking for is either already out there or could be developed in a tiny little tweak/hack/add-on.

I'm familiar with the Firefox "browser.tabs.closeButtons" preference (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.tabs.closeButtons), but that doesn't seem to help.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Which version of Firefox are you using? As far as I'm aware, the tabs in Firefox 4 behave the same way as the tabs in Chrome 10. The only difference is the colour of the "x" button when you hover your cursor over it.

501521885.png

552178835.png

I am using Firefox 4.0 and I do NOT have that functionality. So, I'm guessing that maybe one of my add-ons is messing with Firefox's default functionality. I'll look into it. Thanks, Anaron.

I am using a couple of non-default profiles for testing since my default profile is still linked to Firefox 3.6.16. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? I would think it is a add-on conflict or something along those lines.

That's odd. I took the screenshots with a default installation of Firefox 4 (that was installed over Firefox 3.6). I am, however, using a new profile. As for my settings, the only things I changed related to hardware acceleration. You can restart Firefox 4 with add-ons disabled. Just click on the Firefox button and hover your cursor over "Help". From there, you should see "Restart Firefox with Add-ons Disabled".

Question for Anaron or anyone else...

I currently have 39 tabs open in Firefox 4 so I can't easily test this without saving my session or closing tabs. I just want to make sure of something. The close tab buttons like Anaron showed do still appear when you open many more tabs, correct? In my current case, the tab width of each tab is probably about half (maybe even a little less) than what he is showing in his Firefox 4 pictures because I have so many tabs open.

That's interesting. I've never had that many tabs open before. Anyway, I just opened a bunch of tabs and noticed that the "x" button disappears after opening an 11th tab. This is with Firefox 4 at fullscreen (1680x1050). I assume the point at which the "x" button disappears varies with resolution. Chrome 10 acts the same way but with a slight difference. Instead of the button disappearing after opening an 11th tab, it disappears after opening tab #25.

That's odd. I took the screenshots with a default installation of Firefox 4 (that was installed over Firefox 3.6). I am, however, using a new profile. As for my settings, the only things I changed related to hardware acceleration. You can restart Firefox 4 with add-ons disabled. Just click on the Firefox button and hover your cursor over "Help". From there, you should see "Restart Firefox with Add-ons Disabled".

I restarted Firefox in Safe-Mode (Add-ons disabled) and it didn't change anything. As mentioned in my previous post, I wonder if Firefox 4 is really like Chrome or IE8/IE9 even when many tabs are open and the tab widths are a lot smaller. I need to test that to make sure.

Thanks for the help fr33k, but I don't want the size/bloat and everything else that comes with Tab Mix Plus for something so simple. If needed, I'll make a tiny little add-on for this myself. It would be nice if that wasn't necessary, but it might be.

That's interesting. I've never had that many tabs open before. Anyway, I just opened a bunch of tabs and noticed that the "x" button disappears after opening an 11th tab. This is with Firefox 4 at fullscreen (1680x1050). I assume the point at which the "x" button disappears varies with resolution. Chrome 10 acts the same way but with a slight difference. Instead of the button disappearing after opening an 11th tab, it disappears after opening tab #25.

I didn't test that far with Chrome 10 or IE 9. Thanks for the feedback.

You can control the point when the close button disappears with browser.tabs.tabClipWidth setting in about:config.

The setting is used to set the point where the close button disappears, e.g. setting it to 50 pixels will keep close button on background tabs until the tabs are shorter than 50 pixels (which should never happen) effectively forcing the close buttons to appear always.

You can control the point when the close button disappears with browser.tabs.tabClipWidth setting in about:config.

The setting is used to set the point where the close button disappears, e.g. setting it to 50 pixels will keep close button on background tabs until the tabs are shorter than 50 pixels (which should never happen) effectively forcing the close buttons to appear always.

Thank you very much, macel. I think this is as simple and tiny a solution as I am going to find or could even create. It works beautifully. I still would prefer the IE8/IE9 functionality where tab close buttons don't appear until you hover over an inactive/background tab, but I will be thankful and count my blessings.

Here is the scoop or summary of what I found:

In testing on my install of Firefox 4.0 on Windows 7 x64,

For 1-14 tabs, the tab width varies between a max of 250 pixels and about 108 or 109 pixels.

For 15 or more tabs, the tab width is 100 pixels.

So, I entered "about:config" into the address bar to change the Firefox "browser.tabs.tabClipWidth" preference. (see http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.tabs.tabClipWidth for more info.) For those not clear, once you enter about:config and are in the advanced settings area, just paste in browser.tabs.tabClipWidth to filter that result or scroll down to it. The default setting is 140. 0 (zero) is an invalid entry. Since the minimum tab width is 100 pixels, 99 or less makes the tab close buttons always appear and useable no matter what.

100 or greater = tab close buttons do not appear until you click on an inactive/background tab (see the mozillazine link above for exceptions or issues with this)

1-99 = tab close buttons appear always on both the active/foreground tab and inactive/background tabs and are useable WITHOUT first having to click on an inactive/background tab

Since 96 is a nice number that 2, 8, 16, 32, etc goes into, I used 96 for the preference. It doesn't matter I suppose. The bottom line is the tab close button always appears on all tabs and you can close an inactive/background tab without having to first click on it to see the tab close button.

Thanks to macel, Anaron, and fr33k for the interest and help! ;)

I'm editing this post to add a caveat. If one uses the "browser.tabs.tabMinWidth" preference (removed from Firefox 4.0, but see http://kb.mozillazine.org/browser.tabs.tabMinWidth for more info) or Custom Tab Width add-on/extension (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/custom-tab-width/) to change the minimum tab width, then obviously the preference changed mentioned above that worked for me will not work necessarily and/or will have to be modified.

I still would prefer the IE8/IE9 functionality where tab close buttons don't appear until you hover over an inactive/background tab

This is pretty easy to do with some CSS styling. Here, paste this bit of text into either userchrome.css (in your profile folder), or use the Stylish extension:

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
	visibility: hidden !important;
	margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
	visibility: visible !important;	
	margin-left: 0px !important;
}

  • Like 3

This is pretty easy to do with some CSS styling. Here, paste this bit of text into either userchrome.css (in your profile folder), or use the Stylish extension:

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
	visibility: hidden !important;
	margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
	visibility: visible !important;	
	margin-left: 0px !important;
}

Thanks. I had seen solutions involving the Stylish extension, but nothing for sure that involved just modifying the userchrome.css file. I'll check out the code.

This is pretty easy to do with some CSS styling. Here, paste this bit of text into either userchrome.css (in your profile folder), or use the Stylish extension:

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
	visibility: hidden !important;
	margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
	visibility: visible !important;	
	margin-left: 0px !important;
}

CSS code works like a charm and gives you functionality just like how IE8/IE9 handles the tab close buttons, with the exception that the tab close buttons in Firefox do not light up red or anything like that. Hitchhiker, could you easily add that?

CSS code works like a charm and gives you functionality just like how IE8/IE9 handles the tab close buttons, with the exception that the tab close buttons in Firefox do not light up red or anything like that. Hitchhiker, could you easily add that?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're looking for red close buttons, you can try the Windows 7 style close buttons that I use for my tabs:

.tab-close-button {
  list-style-image: url("") !important;
}

.tab-close-button:not([selected]) {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 16px, 16px, 0) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover,
.tab-close-button:hover[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 32px, 16px, 16px) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover:active,
.tab-close-button:hover:active[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 48px, 16px, 32px) !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
        visibility: hidden !important;
        margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
        visibility: visible !important; 
        margin-left: 0px !important;
}

If you're looking for something exactly like IE9 (gray 'x' that turns red when hovering), here (I just changed the embedded image):

.tab-close-button {
  list-style-image: url("") !important;
}

.tab-close-button:not([selected]) {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 16px, 16px, 0) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover,
.tab-close-button:hover[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 32px, 16px, 16px) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover:active,
.tab-close-button:hover:active[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 48px, 16px, 32px) !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
        visibility: hidden !important;
        margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
        visibility: visible !important; 
        margin-left: 0px !important;
}

This is pretty easy to do with some CSS styling. Here, paste this bit of text into either userchrome.css (in your profile folder), or use the Stylish extension:

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
	visibility: hidden !important;
	margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
	visibility: visible !important;	
	margin-left: 0px !important;
}

Works great (Y)

As an aside, why not just middle click to close? Vastly more simple than tweaking around with Firefox.

I use Logitech mice with a micro-gear/ratchet middle button that switches between smooth, hyper-fast scrolling and the common click-to-click/notched scrolling. These don't have middle-clicking, which is fine for me since I never middle-clicked anyway. Middle-clicking on these switches the scrolling of the the wheel, literally changing gears or ratchets. I love the mice, but the bottom line is what you suggest isn't an option.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you're looking for red close buttons, you can try the Windows 7 style close buttons that I use for my tabs:

.tab-close-button {
  list-style-image: url("") !important;
}

.tab-close-button:not([selected]) {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 16px, 16px, 0) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover,
.tab-close-button:hover[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 32px, 16px, 16px) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover:active,
.tab-close-button:hover:active[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 48px, 16px, 32px) !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
        visibility: hidden !important;
        margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
        visibility: visible !important; 
        margin-left: 0px !important;
}

If you're looking for something exactly like IE9 (gray 'x' that turns red when hovering), here (I just changed the embedded image):

.tab-close-button {
  list-style-image: url("") !important;
}

.tab-close-button:not([selected]) {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 16px, 16px, 0) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover,
.tab-close-button:hover[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 32px, 16px, 16px) !important;
}

.tab-close-button:hover:active,
.tab-close-button:hover:active[selected="true"] {
  -moz-image-region: rect(0, 48px, 16px, 32px) !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
        visibility: hidden !important;
        margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
        visibility: visible !important; 
        margin-left: 0px !important;
}

Thanks for the code, but neither one of these seem to change anything from the first CSS code you posted except for making the tab close buttons appear all the time. That is the only difference I see. The first CSS code you posted was more like IE in that it didn't show the tab close buttons on inactive/background tabs until you hovered over them. Not sure what is wrong with these larger code snippets. It would be cool if tab close buttons would "light" up when you hover over them and I think that is what you are saying these larger code snippets are supposed to do in some fashion. I'm willing to play with this a bit more if you find the problem in these larger code snippets or know what the problem is. Thanks for all the work and help, Hitchhiker...

Yeah, the base64 was screwed up. Here:

Win7 Close Buttons

IE9 Close Buttons

Yeah, I had a feeling dnast was correct and thought that might be the case when I posted my findings, but wasn't sure. I should have articulated that in my post. Thanks to you as well as dnast for being on top of it. I'll test out the 2 options.

This is pretty easy to do with some CSS styling. Here, paste this bit of text into either userchrome.css (in your profile folder), or use the Stylish extension:

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]) .tab-close-button {
	visibility: hidden !important;
	margin-left: -16px !important;
}

.tabbrowser-tab:not([selected]):hover .tab-close-button {
	visibility: visible !important;	
	margin-left: 0px !important;
}

CSS code works like a charm and gives you functionality just like how IE8/IE9 handles the tab close buttons, with the exception that the tab close buttons in Firefox do not light up red or anything like that. Hitchhiker, could you easily add that?

In working with a different profile, I just realized that you have to use this code in addition to changing the Firefox preference "browser.tabs.tabClipWidth" to a value less than 100 if you want the functionality of having tab close buttons that do not appear on inactive/background tabs unless you hover over them. I had already changed this preference before and as a result, when I created a userChrome.css file and added this code, it worked as I intended. But, when creating a userChrome.css file with this code for another Firefox profile where I had NOT changed the "browser.tabs.tabClipWidth" preference, the results were not the same and I realized that you have to use the preference change along with the userChrome.css file.

I hope that makes sense to those that care...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!