3 ms·

I can point to a dozen examples of far better usability in the WebKit Inspector, but rather than do that, I'll just note that almost all of these are fixed in t

by boucher 17y ago

I can point to a dozen examples of far better usability in the WebKit Inspector, but rather than do that, I'll just note that almost all of these are fixed in the Chrome version of the Web Inspector.

lftl 17y ago
Really? I'm using Chrome on Linux, and most of these points still seem to be present on my build. Maybe Ubuntu is serving me up a stale version of the dev build?
- notauser 17y ago
  I have been using the Safari/Chrome inspector a lot recently to clean up the cross-browser version of The Plan Is. I'm probably biased because I learned how to use Firebug first, but it always feels like Firebug was designed to do what developers needed, and the Web Kit inspector was designed to copy as many of the Firebug features as possible. There are some sharp and pointy edges that look good but introduce friction. That may be because Firebug is an extension and was mostly built by people who needed the functionality. (Similarly the IE8 inspector, whilst horrible, feels like something that was (badly) designed rather than copied.)
  - boucher 17y ago
    That Firebug is an extension is one of its worst features. Every version of Safari or WebKit I download has a working inspector built in. Every time I launch an archived version of Firefox, or get a new version of Firefox, I get warnings about incompatible Firebug plugins. It's a real pain when it comes to testing across multiple versions.
csallen 17y ago
Firebug has better usability in the places where it counts. The result is that using Firebug is, in general, faster than using Web Inspector. Let's take editing, for example: * WI requires double-clicking, whereas FB allows single-clicking. If you think this is trivial, then try this out: Spend a day on the web double-clicking textboxes, links, and other elements that normally require single clicks. It will annoy the hell out of you, especially if you use a trackpad instead of a mouse. * On a related note, FB shows you a text-editing cursor when you hover over an editable field. WI, on the other hand, shows you the same cursor no matter what you're hovering over. It fails to provide context clues as to what can be edited. * When editing a field, WI doesn't update the page with your changes until you press enter. Firebug, however, updates the page in real-time, so you can see your changes before submitting them. This is huge. * EDIT: After spending the last hour working with Web Inspector, I was reminded of something else: For no apparent reason, WI will sometimes reject my edits. I will edit a style, press enter, and it simply reverts to the previous value. Ugh. I don't know if this is a bug or not, but I remember running into it almost a year ago (admittedly much more often than I do now, though it shouldn't be happening at all). Using Firebug is just faster by comparison. If you're a light user then it might not matter to you. If you do heavy DOM manipulation and design work on a regular basis, however, then speed is everything.
- boucher 17y ago
  where it counts.... to you. Not where it counts to me. WebKit has an actually usable JavaScript profiler, the one in Firebug is useless. WebKit can debug into eval'd code, Firebug is terrible at it. Chrome's version of the inspector has a heap profiler, Firebug doesn't. Same goes for decent cookie and local storage viewing. WebKit's resource monitor is more intuitive. Etc.
  - csallen 17y ago
    Good point. Those are all aspects of Firebug and Webkit that I don't use on a regular basis. It seems they each have a lot to learn from each other.

by boucher 17y ago

I can point to a dozen examples of far better usability in the WebKit Inspector, but rather than do that, I'll just note that almost all of these are fixed in the Chrome version of the Web Inspector.

lftl 17y ago

Really? I'm using Chrome on Linux, and most of these points still seem to be present on my build. Maybe Ubuntu is serving me up a stale version of the dev build?

notauser 17y ago
I have been using the Safari/Chrome inspector a lot recently to clean up the cross-browser version of The Plan Is. I'm probably biased because I learned how to use Firebug first, but it always feels like Firebug was designed to do what developers needed, and the Web Kit inspector was designed to copy as many of the Firebug features as possible. There are some sharp and pointy edges that look good but introduce friction. That may be because Firebug is an extension and was mostly built by people who needed the functionality. (Similarly the IE8 inspector, whilst horrible, feels like something that was (badly) designed rather than copied.)
- boucher 17y ago
  That Firebug is an extension is one of its worst features. Every version of Safari or WebKit I download has a working inspector built in. Every time I launch an archived version of Firefox, or get a new version of Firefox, I get warnings about incompatible Firebug plugins. It's a real pain when it comes to testing across multiple versions.

csallen 17y ago

Firebug has better usability in the places where it counts. The result is that using Firebug is, in general, faster than using Web Inspector. Let's take editing, for example: * WI requires double-clicking, whereas FB allows single-clicking. If you think this is trivial, then try this out: Spend a day on the web double-clicking textboxes, links, and other elements that normally require single clicks. It will annoy the hell out of you, especially if you use a trackpad instead of a mouse. * On a related note, FB shows you a text-editing cursor when you hover over an editable field. WI, on the other hand, shows you the same cursor no matter what you're hovering over. It fails to provide context clues as to what can be edited. * When editing a field, WI doesn't update the page with your changes until you press enter. Firebug, however, updates the page in real-time, so you can see your changes before submitting them. This is huge. * EDIT: After spending the last hour working with Web Inspector, I was reminded of something else: For no apparent reason, WI will sometimes reject my edits. I will edit a style, press enter, and it simply reverts to the previous value. Ugh. I don't know if this is a bug or not, but I remember running into it almost a year ago (admittedly much more often than I do now, though it shouldn't be happening at all). Using Firebug is just faster by comparison. If you're a light user then it might not matter to you. If you do heavy DOM manipulation and design work on a regular basis, however, then speed is everything.

boucher 17y ago
where it counts.... to you. Not where it counts to me. WebKit has an actually usable JavaScript profiler, the one in Firebug is useless. WebKit can debug into eval'd code, Firebug is terrible at it. Chrome's version of the inspector has a heap profiler, Firebug doesn't. Same goes for decent cookie and local storage viewing. WebKit's resource monitor is more intuitive. Etc.
- csallen 17y ago
  Good point. Those are all aspects of Firebug and Webkit that I don't use on a regular basis. It seems they each have a lot to learn from each other.