6 ms·
I've been using vi-like shortcut plugins (vimperator, pentadactyl, vimium, vim vixen and many others, currently using tridactyl) for quite a few years now, and
by jyoshi 6y ago
I've been using vi-like shortcut plugins (vimperator, pentadactyl, vimium, vim vixen and many others, currently using tridactyl) for quite a few years now, and its never been quite the smooth experience I hoped for.
Not even talking about interfaces where you'd expect to need to use mouse (javascript components and others), but there is always the page in which the shortcuts will fail, or some input which will be blocked because the plugin is fighting the webpage for focus. Its pretty much what the article says at the conclusion, it helps reducing, but I still view it as a hassle.
Browsers developed with vi-like modes built-in (vimprobable, vimb, qutebrowser) fared better for me, but then there's other issues like incompatibility or lack of plugins which keeps me from fully using them.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago> Browsers developed with vi-like modes built-in (vimprobable, vimb, qutebrowser) fared better for me, but then there's other issues like incompatibility or lack of plugins which keeps me from fully using them. I've had this issue too with qutebrowser. I'm not very familiar with how these things work, but I wonder why plugins written for a given engine (say webkit) wouldn't work on all browsers using that engine. In the case of qutebrowser it uses chromium under the hood, so I would expect extensions that work on chromium to work on qutebrowser, just as most chromium limitations also apply to qutebrowser.
- The-Compiler 6y agoExtensions are tied to the browser pretty tightly (think UI, bookmarks, open tabs access, etc. etc.), while QtWebEngine (which qutebrowser uses) uses a more low-level part of Chromium which only shows a single tab (the so called "content API").