5 ms·

RSS support in FF was always poor, but that was often enough to preview a subscription. It didn't need to be more complicated than that. On the other hand, or

RSS support in FF was always poor, but that was often enough to preview a subscription. It didn't need to be more complicated than that. On the other hand, or hay, Firefox Screenshots!! Sooo useful. Pocket? It doesn't get more federated than that! Or the dozen of DOM APIs added every year, which are probably much more complicated to maintain than a simple RSS preview feature. I really hate the general direction of how browsers are developed.

mindcrime 8y ago
I really hate the general direction of how browsers are developed. I've hated it for a while, especially as browsers move more and more away from "browsing" and become more and more of a half-ass "universal application runtime" combined with "something kinda like an X-server but not really". I kinda think we need to split browsers so they support two "modes": content mode, and application mode (or something like that) where the core functionality of the browser is rendering HTML content and, well, browsing. But a given page should be able to signal (through a meta tag or an HTTP header or something) "I'm an application" where it gets run as an application... which could still mean running in the browser as JS, or it could mean handing the thing off to a content handler to run the application outside of the browser. In my vision, the difference between "application mode" and "content mode" would be things like: in "application mode" all keybindings would pass through to the application, so you could - for example - use F1 for context sensitive help, instead of F1 triggering the browser's help menu. Also, app mode could allow things like altering the right-click context menu, while content mode might disable that. Etc. etc.
- robocat 8y ago
  I would love browsers to split document-mode (think static content) and application mode (think single-page web app). When browsing documents, I don't want application cruft (I probably don't want JavaScript). I really don't want "application" features getting abused by adverts. For our SPA we have needs that are not related to documents (restricting the viewport zoom, fixed toolbars at top and bottom, preferably hide browser URL and toolbars). Heaps of modern browser functionality such as WebWorkers and notifications is only really relevant to web apps.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    I would love browsers to split document-mode (think static content) and application mode (think single-page web app). Yeah, exactly. A given page should be able to request "application mode" and the user should be able to say "OK" or "NO", or just navigate away if they don't want an "application" doing stuff. For our SPA we have needs that are not related to documents (restricting the viewport zoom, fixed toolbars at top and bottom, preferably hide browser URL and toolbars). Heaps of modern browser functionality such as WebWorkers and notifications is only really relevant to web apps. Yep, yep. Glad I'm not the only one who agrees with this. I've been thinking about floating this idea for a while, but I kinda figured everybody would just say "that's stupid". :-)
    - richardwhiuk 8y ago
      Welcome to saying OK to every site. Not sure how you've improved things.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      That's not stupid. That's awesome, and probably the right thing to do. Except it won't happen, because users and publishers have conflicting interests in this. I refer to it as war over control over presentation. This is why publishers say that ad-blocking is wrong (they assume it's their right to tell you exactly how you should consume content). This is why you get DRM. This is part of the reason why Flash used to be popular with companies. This is why RSS is not. I believe that if given a chance, most companies would gladly send you their webpages as opaque .exe files. We just got lucky that the Web, down to HTTP protocol itself, was initially designed to give users most of control. I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now. Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals.
      - mindcrime 8y ago
        I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now. Yeah, that's a real problem for sure. Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals. I know, I've been railing against this for probably 8 or 9 years now... with little to show for it, unfortunately. Probably for the reasons you just cited. sigh
- icebraining 8y ago
  Prediction: 99% of sites would signal "I'm an application", including those that obviously are content sites. The only ones who wouldn't (personal blogs and the like) are already pretty usable, so they wouldn't gain much.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    You may be right. And honestly, I haven't spent a ton of time yet thinking about all the ways "content mode" and "application mode" would differ. A couple of obvious ideas jump out, but there's probably more to be said about this. It might also be that the right thing to do is have a fine-grained permission model where pages request specific capabilities from the browser, and the user can allow or deny, with the ability to revoke permissions if abused, or white-list sites in advance, etc.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Browsers already have a permission model - sites have to ask to access the webcam or microphone or location or show notifications. But when 99% of sites are already using a feature, introducing a permission dialog would just be hell for users, since they'd have to click Allow hundreds of times a day.
      - mindcrime 8y ago
        Browsers already have a permission model - sites have to ask to access the webcam or microphone or location or show notifications. True enough. And it does get tiring having to click "no" all the time on those notification dialogs. But again, this is a very nascent idea. I've spent more time thinking about in the last 20 minutes than I had in aggregate before today. I'm not convinced that there isn't a way to make something like this work, but the details are a bit fuzzy. Of course it's also possible that it's just a dead-end from the start. But it sure feels like there needs to be some way to distinguish "apps" and "regular content" and the way browsers handle each.
        8y ago
- nercht12 8y ago
  I've considered this same approach, but I would create two different applications instead of one. The first one would be a light-weight "browser" with built-in layout styles. The site would merely have to specify the content, and the browser could display it in a way that fits the user's screen size. Content could be laid out in a way the user approves, eliminating the need for special site design. Payment information security could be built in. Companies would love to target this application because their online stores would already be optimized for user viewing and click-through. (It's easier than a company having to ask "How would you like us to send you content in a way that would get you to click on it". No more guessing game! No more client-side analytics!) And heck - RSS could be made useful by there being a built-in feed-reader. The other program would be an application runner with internet capabilities (and permissions settings), tailored more towards heavy-weight applications that need lots of features (like audio editing), but they have to do it manually - no built-in play(audio.ogg) like in the first program. Of course, there are a number of downsides. Users don't generally want to open separate programs much less download them (unless they're bundled). But the way apps are these days, I don't think people would mind.
laken 8y ago
I feel the same way about Pocket, and I didn't like the idea of Screenshots being merged into core (was a test-pilot extension for quite some time before). I have found though that Screenshots built-in is really nice for less technical users, especially for some more "complex" screenshot types, like webpage only, or full page screenshots. I rarely use it, but I've gotten many of my less-technical co-workers to use Firefox's screenshotting feature quite often.
netghost 8y ago
So one thing I'm going to be looking into is whether this let's plugins handle / intercept the feed content now instead of Firefox's rather confusing preview. All in all, I'd say this had just about zero impact on folks who actually use feeds.

mindcrime 8y ago

I really hate the general direction of how browsers are developed. I've hated it for a while, especially as browsers move more and more away from "browsing" and become more and more of a half-ass "universal application runtime" combined with "something kinda like an X-server but not really". I kinda think we need to split browsers so they support two "modes": content mode, and application mode (or something like that) where the core functionality of the browser is rendering HTML content and, well, browsing. But a given page should be able to signal (through a meta tag or an HTTP header or something) "I'm an application" where it gets run as an application... which could still mean running in the browser as JS, or it could mean handing the thing off to a content handler to run the application outside of the browser. In my vision, the difference between "application mode" and "content mode" would be things like: in "application mode" all keybindings would pass through to the application, so you could - for example - use F1 for context sensitive help, instead of F1 triggering the browser's help menu. Also, app mode could allow things like altering the right-click context menu, while content mode might disable that. Etc. etc.

robocat 8y ago
I would love browsers to split document-mode (think static content) and application mode (think single-page web app). When browsing documents, I don't want application cruft (I probably don't want JavaScript). I really don't want "application" features getting abused by adverts. For our SPA we have needs that are not related to documents (restricting the viewport zoom, fixed toolbars at top and bottom, preferably hide browser URL and toolbars). Heaps of modern browser functionality such as WebWorkers and notifications is only really relevant to web apps.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  I would love browsers to split document-mode (think static content) and application mode (think single-page web app). Yeah, exactly. A given page should be able to request "application mode" and the user should be able to say "OK" or "NO", or just navigate away if they don't want an "application" doing stuff. For our SPA we have needs that are not related to documents (restricting the viewport zoom, fixed toolbars at top and bottom, preferably hide browser URL and toolbars). Heaps of modern browser functionality such as WebWorkers and notifications is only really relevant to web apps. Yep, yep. Glad I'm not the only one who agrees with this. I've been thinking about floating this idea for a while, but I kinda figured everybody would just say "that's stupid". :-)
  - richardwhiuk 8y ago
    Welcome to saying OK to every site. Not sure how you've improved things.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    That's not stupid. That's awesome, and probably the right thing to do. Except it won't happen, because users and publishers have conflicting interests in this. I refer to it as war over control over presentation. This is why publishers say that ad-blocking is wrong (they assume it's their right to tell you exactly how you should consume content). This is why you get DRM. This is part of the reason why Flash used to be popular with companies. This is why RSS is not. I believe that if given a chance, most companies would gladly send you their webpages as opaque .exe files. We just got lucky that the Web, down to HTTP protocol itself, was initially designed to give users most of control. I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now. Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      I don't know of a solution. I know we can try to win battles, by building and proposing software that lets more people exercise more control over their browsers. Unfortunately, I feel that organizations responsible for the Web - the consortia and browser vendors - are all fighting on the side of publishers now. Yeah, that's a real problem for sure. Browsers are starting to function less as User Agents, and more as remote terminals. I know, I've been railing against this for probably 8 or 9 years now... with little to show for it, unfortunately. Probably for the reasons you just cited. sigh
icebraining 8y ago
Prediction: 99% of sites would signal "I'm an application", including those that obviously are content sites. The only ones who wouldn't (personal blogs and the like) are already pretty usable, so they wouldn't gain much.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  You may be right. And honestly, I haven't spent a ton of time yet thinking about all the ways "content mode" and "application mode" would differ. A couple of obvious ideas jump out, but there's probably more to be said about this. It might also be that the right thing to do is have a fine-grained permission model where pages request specific capabilities from the browser, and the user can allow or deny, with the ability to revoke permissions if abused, or white-list sites in advance, etc.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Browsers already have a permission model - sites have to ask to access the webcam or microphone or location or show notifications. But when 99% of sites are already using a feature, introducing a permission dialog would just be hell for users, since they'd have to click Allow hundreds of times a day.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Browsers already have a permission model - sites have to ask to access the webcam or microphone or location or show notifications. True enough. And it does get tiring having to click "no" all the time on those notification dialogs. But again, this is a very nascent idea. I've spent more time thinking about in the last 20 minutes than I had in aggregate before today. I'm not convinced that there isn't a way to make something like this work, but the details are a bit fuzzy. Of course it's also possible that it's just a dead-end from the start. But it sure feels like there needs to be some way to distinguish "apps" and "regular content" and the way browsers handle each.
      - 8y ago
nercht12 8y ago
I've considered this same approach, but I would create two different applications instead of one. The first one would be a light-weight "browser" with built-in layout styles. The site would merely have to specify the content, and the browser could display it in a way that fits the user's screen size. Content could be laid out in a way the user approves, eliminating the need for special site design. Payment information security could be built in. Companies would love to target this application because their online stores would already be optimized for user viewing and click-through. (It's easier than a company having to ask "How would you like us to send you content in a way that would get you to click on it". No more guessing game! No more client-side analytics!) And heck - RSS could be made useful by there being a built-in feed-reader. The other program would be an application runner with internet capabilities (and permissions settings), tailored more towards heavy-weight applications that need lots of features (like audio editing), but they have to do it manually - no built-in play(audio.ogg) like in the first program. Of course, there are a number of downsides. Users don't generally want to open separate programs much less download them (unless they're bundled). But the way apps are these days, I don't think people would mind.

laken 8y ago

I feel the same way about Pocket, and I didn't like the idea of Screenshots being merged into core (was a test-pilot extension for quite some time before). I have found though that Screenshots built-in is really nice for less technical users, especially for some more "complex" screenshot types, like webpage only, or full page screenshots. I rarely use it, but I've gotten many of my less-technical co-workers to use Firefox's screenshotting feature quite often.

netghost 8y ago

So one thing I'm going to be looking into is whether this let's plugins handle / intercept the feed content now instead of Firefox's rather confusing preview. All in all, I'd say this had just about zero impact on folks who actually use feeds.