Chrome has introduced vertical tabs, and I have to admit: this is one of those ideas that feels so logical after the first use that you immediately start wondering why it did not become standard years ago.

Modern monitors are widescreen. We have plenty of horizontal space and relatively little vertical space, yet browsers have consistently placed tabs at the top of the screen, taking up room exactly where it is most valuable.

With only a few pages open, the problem is barely noticeable. With a dozen, things start to feel crowded. With several dozen, tab names turn into a collection of icons, abbreviations, and guesswork about what is actually open.

A vertical panel solves this problem elegantly.

Tabs have more room, which means users can see the beginning of each page title. The panel can be opened and collapsed, so it does not occupy space when it is not needed. At the same time, it uses a part of the screen that widescreen monitors usually provide in abundance.

This is not a cosmetic change. It is a far more intentional use of the proportions of modern hardware.

Onboarding That Required Action

The feature was introduced through an onboarding flow based on tooltips pointing to specific areas of the interface.

This approach worked well because I was not given a separate screen describing the feature, followed by a “Next” button that could be clicked through without much thought. I had to read the instructions and perform a specific action at the same time.

That is an important distinction.

The user does not merely learn that a feature exists. They immediately start using it. As a result, it becomes easier to understand how the feature works and remember where to find it later.

At one point, however, the onboarding asked me to click on an empty area. The tooltip pointed towards the right place, but the area itself did not look interactive. At first, it was unclear whether I was supposed to click exactly there or select an element nearby.

It was a minor issue, but it illustrates the difference between giving an instruction and making something look clickable.

When users are expected to click a button, the button itself communicates that it can be clicked. When they are expected to click an empty area, the interface needs to communicate that possibility more explicitly.

A pulsing dot, a subtle circle, a highlighted area, or a short animation suggesting a click would have been enough.

Once I selected “Show tabs vertically,” the rest of the onboarding went smoothly. A clear interface element appeared, the action produced an understandable result, and the following steps no longer required me to guess the designer’s intention.

This suggests that the overall mechanism was designed well. It simply needed more refinement at the one moment when the user was expected to interact with an area that had no visible marker.

A Good Feature, but Not Yet a Flexible Layout

My main reservation is not about how the feature works, but about where it is positioned.

The vertical tabs panel appears on the left-hand side. That will feel natural to many users, but I am right-handed and would prefer to place it on the right side of the screen.

This is not only a matter of dominant hand. The layout of the workspace, the position of an additional monitor, the placement of a laptop, the way someone uses a mouse, and the type of applications opened in the browser all make a difference.

Many tools already have their own panels on the left. Figma, WordPress, Notion, CMS platforms, analytics applications, and design tools frequently use the left-hand side for their primary navigation.

When Chrome adds another panel in the same place, it is easy to end up with a browser sidebar positioned directly next to an application sidebar. Suddenly, a significant part of the left side of the screen becomes one large command centre for managing everything.

That is why the ability to move the panel to the right would not be a minor extra. It would be a natural extension of a feature whose main advantage is more efficient use of space.

Adobe Understands That One Layout Does Not Fit Every Task

Adobe applications have offered one of the most flexible approaches to interface layout for years.

Panels can be moved, grouped, collapsed, expanded, and arranged according to the user’s needs. More importantly, the application can save different arrangements as separate workspaces.

Photo retouching requires one layout. Working with text requires another. Preparing graphics for print calls for something different again, as does animation.

Instead of forcing users to constantly adapt to the interface, the software allows the interface to adapt to the task.

It may appear to be a small distinction, but it determines whether a product is merely usable or genuinely supports the way a particular person works.

After all, we do not perform only one type of task in a browser either.

Sometimes we write. Sometimes we design. Sometimes we analyse data. At other times, we work in an administrative system, compare offers, or conduct research with thirty tabs open.

Each of these scenarios may require a different layout.

Flexibility Is Not a Luxury

In interface design, personalisation is often treated as an optional extra. Something that can be introduced later, provided there is enough time and budget.

In tools used every day, however, layout flexibility has very practical value.

It reduces unnecessary movement. It limits visual overload. It helps users make better use of the screen. It also prevents conflicts between browser navigation and the interface of the application currently open.

Not every user needs complete freedom. Not everyone will rearrange panels or create custom workspaces. But people who spend many hours a day working in a browser will quickly appreciate the ability to adapt their environment to their own workflow.

Vertical tabs in Chrome are an excellent idea precisely because they respond to the realities of modern computer use. They account for widescreen monitors, large numbers of open pages, and the need for clearer tab management.

The feature is clever, useful, and demonstrates its value very quickly.

To become fully successful, however, it still needs something that the best professional tools have understood for years: users should not be the only ones expected to learn and adapt to an interface.

The interface should also be able to adapt to the user.