14 ms·

Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

355 points by khc 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago
Lightspeed could be an interesting alternative browser, if it could be made without diverting too many resources from Firefox then I'd like to see more of it. Could be a good browser to recommend to the less tech savvy.
therealunreal 12y ago
Maybe "LightFx" would be a more fitting name for this experiment.
- catern 12y ago
  Or "Firelight".
- CmonDev 12y ago
  MetroBrowser or ModernGuiBrowser.
jfeser 12y ago
It's interesting that his concept for inline search looks almost exactly like a current google results page. It would be very cool to have something like that available without necessarily relying on google for it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a composite view like that, which queries multiple services, can be created quickly without aggregating the data before the search is performed. That's problematic if you want to avoid relying on a single search provider.
channikhabra 12y ago
I really like the popup from the url bar. Safari 8.0 on Yosemite already has it, but the one they show in the presentation is more interesting and useful. I already use Spotlight as the only way of accessing applications on OSX (habit most emacs users get from using smex), so I +1 a universal "Search interface"; it's much more useful/productive then moving your mouse and pointing to icons or open an application and look for stuff.
Pxl_Buzzard 12y ago
I wonder if this could be made into a modification of Firefox, such that a user could choose the "simple" version when installing for the first time. If you wanted to switch between browser modes, just visit "about:config" and flip the switch to have the full experience of Firefox. Not to say that Lightspeed would be bad as a standalone browser, but the install base and the code base already exist for Firefox.
owlish 12y ago
Disappointed that there isn't any innovation wrt tabs; they aren't mentioned at all. I understand Lightspeed aims to be minimalistic, but many of these defaults are just illogical. Default click-to-play at the moment already ruins many audio sites where the flash applet is hidden, and turns others into a game of Where's Waldo. Completely dropping extensions is antithetical to the central idea as well. Ideally, the browser would be barebones and fast (what Firefox once was) and any features would be an addon. Otherwise, you get sucked into the mentality of "if only there was this one feature". All in all, there seem to be several inconsistencies in the central idea, but it could definitely turn out to be an interesting idea.
- kibibu 12y ago
  Tabs are accessed through the URL popup overlay. I agree that it's difficult to imagine browsing without them, but I manage well enough on phones without them.
  - insky 12y ago
    On an Android tablet I have, tab switching under Chrome can be done with a thumb gesture. Tab switching under Opera for me is a fiddle and an annoyance. And that's on a larger device than a phone.
- fletchowns 12y ago
  He does mention tabs @ 4:18. The click to play behavior doesn't have to be on the actual applet, it could be a popup just under the top bar or something. Use some imagination. Dropping extensions is not antiethical. The people this browser is targeted for don't care about extensions. I don't see any of the "inconsistencies to the central idea" you are talking about.
  - krisgenre 12y ago
    In my experience with non technical people, they are always interested in that one addon that helps them download YouTube videos.
bane 12y ago
At first I thought "oh no, another distraction for Mozilla", but then I sat through the presentation and thought there was some really cool ideas (amazebar!). In fact, I think it can be simplified and paired down even more. Even better, some of the assumptions here even make the software portable (as in doesn't really need to be installed and could just run off a usb drive/out of my dropbox). Automatically being in a private/secure mode makes lots of sense to me as well. Some ideas I don't like: - get rid of loved sites/bookmarks altogether. Frequent usage should just percolate autocomplete suggestions to the top. This design doesn't really need them, and tbh I've barely used bookmarks in any browser in a long time. - too much going on in the amazebar, drop all the suggestion (which will quickly get stale, tabs, email search, etc. Just focus on most frequent sites and autocomplete, it feels like the presentation is just burying lots of the clutter that used to take up GUI space in the amazebar. - please don't default to a "downloads" folder. I've never liked it and before I bother to change it, my downloads folder quickly turns into a "random junk I've downloaded" folder. Forcing me to put it someplace actually is simplifying my workflow. It's almost the first option I change as soon as I install a new browser. - keep tabs more present, don't bury them in the amazebar
- mmastrac 12y ago
  > - please don't default to a "downloads" folder. I switched my default download directory to /tmp and haven't looked back.
  - the_french 12y ago
    But the whole point is that this browser isn't meant for technical people. It's not meant for the kind of people that feel the need for a different `Downloads` folder.
    - fournm 12y ago
      Most of the comments against it here are in this same line. If the concept of NoScript even vaguely makes sense to you, or you've even heard the words "window manager" together, you're probably not the target audience. I'll admit that most of these things (especially no settings) would make it a no-go for me, but I can definitely think of some relatives that I would love to stick on it and then not have to worry about them again.
ejr 12y ago
I had a flashback to the days of web portals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I like that they're trying something because complacency is never a good thing. You have to try things to see if they work. I think the biggest allure of this is that there are people with simple needs that want their technology to "just work" as they said. I also agree with owlish's comment in that there are some quirks that need rapid alleviation that aren't being addressed like click-to-play and dropping extensions doesn't seem like a good way to approach this. I applaud the experimentation so long as the end results are choices we can make for ourselves.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >I applaud the experimentation so long as the end results are choices we can make for ourselves. I don't understand why Mozilla works like this, but they won't be. They'll be pushed into an update with an option to turn them off, after 3 or 4 releases the old behavior will be pushed into the about:config, and 3 or 4 releases after that, it will be removed completely.
- nnethercote 12y ago
  > I like that they're trying something because complacency is never a good thing. You have to try things to see if they work. That's an admirable way of looking at things. I wish more people were as open-minded about software changes.
jbardnz 12y ago
Pretty interesting video. A few things of note: -Tabs are important to almost all web users these days. Maybe you could hide them and display them on hover but I don't think you should ever move them an extra click away. -Not a huge fan of the click-to-play feature. Maybe it would work if you could whitelist plugins rather than websites, I guess you lose most of your security benefits by doing this though. I think he actually raises a good point at the end though, he wouldn't use this for work but may use it elsewhere. That's great, but typical web users only want to use one browser, they get familiar with the interface and stick to that everywhere they go. If people use a certain browser at work chances are they use the same one at home, and I don't think this is powerful for many people to use at work.
- gioele 12y ago
  > Tabs are important to almost all web users these days Tabs would be a useless feature, if the window manager did a better job at what they should do. In a "tabbing" wm like the one BeOS has you are much better served by one-page-one-window application. With a bit of cooperation from the window manager you can get rid of tabs. I did it few years ago and my browsing behavior and habits have changed for the better.
  - radicalbyte 12y ago
    Exactly. OSX kinda does this via virtual screens. You can swipe between them or press fn+f3 to get a pretty navigation UI between them. It'd also make Windows 8 / Metro usable (along with a few other tweaks to make closing the metro-crap easier).
  - insky 12y ago
    Exactly, this is window managment territory. I think that tabs came about with Opera because they were essentially cheap windows, and as window management has been so dire on most mainstream OSs, tabs were really welcome. But at the end of the day, I think tabs like ephemeral/temporary bookmarks - and it's the bookmark part of the browser that sucks.
    - 12y ago
yeukhon 12y ago
The no setting part is not really an option. No matter how simple you want to the browser to be, if you want this to be the one browser for the personal use, you need some settings. * setting search engine - this should be dead simple to implement and totally should be customized. I don't mind using Google but some people just don't like that. Actually I don't get why Firefox search engine customization is the way it is. If you want to SE that is not part of Firefox's bundle choices, you have to install add-on. To me, this should be simple to implement. A user click on "manage search engine preference", press "Add", gives a URL of the search engine (e.g. https://google.com https://google.com) and then OK. Firefox should just take whatever user types into the search bar / address bar (this case needs to know whether the "keyword" is url or not) and just redirect user to http://mysearch-engine.com/?q= http://mysearch-engine.com/?q= / ?query=. I can even imagine this useful when I want firefox to do code search. Imagine instead of me going to dxr.mozilla.org to find the code I want, now I just need to set the search engine to http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?= http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?= yay! I can even write an addon that does that right now in probably 30-50 lines of JS right now. * home page. I think many older Internet users still set a home page. * Download folders - you still want to expose where to set it because some people prefer to set it somewhere else. * Bookmarks - if there is no concept of bookmark, how exactly do I find the things I want quickly? Imagine I <3 a bunch of stuff today and tomorrow I want to find that one awesome blog post I want to re-read. If I can't recall the blog title or the domain, how do I do search? What really helps users, including me, when I just want a browser. * security, private, clear cookies - awesome, lightspeed would be super awesome on shared computers * Big buttons. When I first install Lightspeed I should just be prompted a couple pages with big buttons and bars to set homepage / search engine preference * When I <3 a bookmark, fade in search bar or show me a page with big list of bookmark categories. And personally, a little cuteness like the wireframe in the demo is always welcome. See these scratch drawing 1 and 2. I am not a designer, so pardon me. I am also trying to do a mobile experience here. In the bookmark case, you can type, you can mouse over / click and expand to see the top 5 in that category. [1]: http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8 http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8 [2]: http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8#1 http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8#1 And yes, as a developer, Lightspeed is awesome to me.
- userbinator 12y ago
justfooit 12y ago
They should remove all the crap that is non-essential. For example, social and other things. Firefox size has nearly doubled in size between version 15 and 31. Also, I don't think that security would be good. I run noscript and similar. Notice how around slide 33 they said 3rd party cookies would be cleared? 3rd parties should not be allowed. Also, what if my trusted sites does not match their trusted list? Also, what if I don't want certain plugins to be enabled. Sounds less secure to me.
cypher543 12y ago
> Auto-updates are always on I really hope this isn't going to become a standard thing. There are still plenty of people like me who are stuck with something like satellite internet, which forces us to micromanage our data usage. I can't afford to just have things auto-updating whenever they want.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  It was the default in Chrome, and I believe its the default in IE as well. It has its upsides as well, you generally only need to target the latest stable version of Chrome.
  - krisgenre 12y ago
    Its been a while since I used Windows but doesn't IE update through "Windows updates"? Is it on by default?
    - fournm 12y ago
      It does now--older versions did not.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > It has its upsides as well, you generally only need to target the latest stable version of Chrome. That is an upside for developers; for users, there is an additional cost to using your website (i.e., updating Chrome, which they do seem to make as easy as possible).
- gioele 12y ago
  > I really hope this isn't going to become a standard thing. I think people are starting to realize that you cannot always live on the bleeding edge, even then the edge is not that sharp. IIRC Firefox ESRs (extended support releases) do not update automatically. Or they update automatically but only to other infrequent ESRs.
  - 12y ago
gatehouse 12y ago
Having an intelligent non https submission warning could be good... You could go so far as to flat out refuse to send a cc number in the clear. The degree of dependence on the search engine is troubling, would be interesting to see how much could be handled by a local mini index without involving a 3rd party. Also think browser history could be a lot more useful if it were organized better. For example, maybe grouping pages by the search terms that led to them... Also would be nice to have a quick way to get a detailed history on any given site, along with the pages led in and followed out. The main way I still use bookmarks is for organizing reference material, I think this could be automated partially as well.
- nightpool 12y ago
  I had similar concerns about the dependence on a search engine, but then I realized this could be the perfect "killer app" for a meta-search engine aggregator, one that thought of SERPs like zero-trust inputs to be mined for data. (and, similarly, not personalizing, aggregation by some "mixer" intermediary, and other privacy optimizations become much more feasible) This seems like it needs to be the end result of search, Google or no Google, but a privacy-conscious organization like putting this tech so front and center could definitely be a foot in the door to making this a reality.
- cpeterso 12y ago
  Here is a Firefox bug about highlighting or warning about insecure password fields: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748193 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748193 And a bug for Chromium (that also mentions credit card number fields): https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399416 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399416
greglo 12y ago
I like the idea, although really this is very similar to Chrome (and other browsers) where you just never open the settings tab. Except for the search bar, this is just one of today's browsers with tweaked defaults. I really don't see the disadvantage, minus the small developer overhead, of having all the choices they have made here configurable.
- golemotron 12y ago
  I wonder.. is it built on Chrome under the hood?
yarou 12y ago
The design choices really look interesting. But shouldn't Mozilla focus more on eliminating the ever persistent memory leak bug that has plagued it since forever? I can't even use Firefox on a netbook. I end up installing Midori.
- nsmartt 12y ago
  Mozilla is comprised of a lot of different people working on a lot of different things. There are people focusing on various memory and speed issues, but they can't (and shouldn't) allocate all their resources to focusing on just a few issues.
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    yarou obviously didn't say that they should focus everyone only on reducing Firefox's memory usage and performance problems. I'm not sure how you mistakenly got that impression, because that's clearly not what that comments suggests. The main issue here is that we've been hearing that these problems will be fixed, or even that they supposedly have been fixed, yet they're still present years later. Whatever work is being done clearly isn't having much of an impact. Users are still reporting problems with Firefox's performance and memory usage, even if those within the Mozilla community wish to deny these problems exist, or claim that they'll be fixed "soon". Users can only take so much of this. With Chrome and Firefox offering UIs that are pretty much identical these days, but Chrome offering significantly better performance and significantly lower memory usage, any reasonable user will obviously consider switching from Firefox to Chrome. Many have done so already, and many will continue to do so as time goes on.
    - nsmartt 12y ago
      yarou's comment is in response to a presentation about unrelated features, and his/her response suggests knowledge that Mozilla isn't focusing on memory and performance problems. Many of the memory leaks have been fixed over the years, benchmarks suggest [Firefox can compete with Chrome in terms of speed](www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html), and Mozilla, realizing their UI still feels sluggish, launched a project (called Snappy) to fight this UI sluggishness. Many improvements have been made over the years on all counts.
mproud 12y ago
This guy has too many ideas, and the ideas he has conflict. How can you offer contextual links without saving some information? I’m not sold yet.
jumpwah 12y ago
I already sort of have the amaze bar with pentadactyl and using duckduckgo bangs so... no, keep this to the buzybees and don't change firefox into this.
SaveTheRbtz 12y ago
Looks a lot like Yandex.Browser[1]. Also built around Search, Favorites, Quick Links, Synchronization and Security. [1] http://browser.yandex.com/desktop/ http://browser.yandex.com/desktop/
danialtz 12y ago
OT: anyone knows which tool he uses for the mockups?
phloxicon 12y ago
Wouldn't no plugins mean no adblock? I would never go back to not using it.
- biafra 12y ago
  If you can configure a proxy, you can use privoxy.
- ben0x539 12y ago
  Just lobby for adblock to be built-in with a Mozilla-curated block list. Seems to fit the idea of a safer/simpler-by-default web experience. ;)
murali89 12y ago
I don't know why this is getting up votes. This looks like a browser for bimbos. No, seriously. I don't want the browser telling me what sites to go to and while doing that, blocking my view when the address bar is in focus. 10 minutes (well, 6) wasted!
- userbinator 12y ago
  It's getting upvoted because it's interesting to discuss as well. A lot of users here don't seem to agree with the choices made in this UI either.
vacri 12y ago
I felt my hackles rising throughout the video, then I realised I'm not the target audience - I'd loathe most of these ideas to make it into a general-purpose browser (though I can't see FF's separate search box surviving much longer, sadly). Still, 'no settings'? How do you do 'no settings' and also do "with your permission, we'll search your email"? Ultimately I don't really understand the difference between a "no settings" browser, and a browser where you just don't bother to change the settings.
insky 12y ago
The problem I have with Firefox is that it just doesn't really innovate. We've had some small UI changes. But there's legacy cruft still in there that isn't addressed. Like the bookmarks and history manager. There isn't anything particularly wrong with these data-table windows, but I don't really enjoy using them either. In some ways I think they should be at the heart of the browser. I think a lot of people use tabs because bookmark management is so crap. The only bit I resonated with was the similar sites suggestions. But you'd need a setting to setup suggestion services. There's a privacy concern with that. Other helper features: Pagination buttons were built into Opera driven off the rel=prev and rel=next, link elements. Navigation could further be ripped out the page window into a browser control. Searching sites and pages could be friendlier. Better form helpers needed. A good feed reader would be good. Tools to help read web content more simply (readability style) would be nice. Plus I like personalising the look and feel of my web browser ever so slightly, and even Firefox doesn't do that particularly well (it ignores some of my desktop theming). So I think Firefox should really be thinking how to answer the question: 'How can we make it easier for users to consume web content?'. This has to go beyond the rendering engine. So actually a fatter featureful browser I think would be better - but with some very intuitive and simple controls.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > Like the bookmarks and history manager. There isn't anything particularly wrong with these data-table windows, but I don't really enjoy using them either. And here I was thinking every browser should have such powerful tools instead of optimized-for-grandma windows.
  - insky 12y ago
    There's nothing wrong with optimising for Grandma. The key is to make the most useful features easy to get at, and the more powerful ones discoverable. The bookmark/history manager could be better. It has no autocomplete/awesomeness in the search. It's actually quite an awkward UI. It's not keyboard friendly. And their are odd inconsistancies. Should the default behaviour of clicking on a link open it in new tab? Recent bookmarks and most visited are nice smart bookmark folder, these are useful but hard to reach in that tool. Some bookmark management feels a little like a black box. At least you can tag bookmarks. Scrolling through a massive list of tags isn't much fun.
lucb1e 12y ago
Something about the "there are no settings to adjust" makes me want to fork Firefox and only apply security updates from the version before this new UI gets out of beta. And tabs a click away? That's a nightmare. Mixing what I type with search results, history and suggestions? Hello Chrome lookalike. I thought the separate search bar and awesomebar was one of the killer features for Firefox. Once that's gone, odds are I'll be switching browser. Like with Firefox 4, it seems they are trying to redesign the browser like Chrome and doing it badly. Last time they did that I switched to Chrome for a few years before going back to open source (Firefox). Here we go again.
- Svip 12y ago
  But this Lightspeed experiment is at first, just an experiment. Moreover, it is heavily implied it is not going to be the new Firefox. He also suggests that the idea is targeted at more simple Internet users. As in, not us. I am not concerned.
  - userbinator 12y ago
    >As in, not us. The concern here is that this sort of dumbed-down UI is going to lead to there being less of users like us in the future, since by removing options and choice, it makes it easier to use, but also reduces the incentive to find out more about how things work. The browser turning into something like a TV, for consuming content and nothing more.
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    It may just be a thought experiment at this point, but I think it's pretty clear now that all of the major browsers are unfortunately headed in this direction. This rush to target "more simple Internet users" hasn't gone well for Mozilla and Firefox so far. All they've managed to do is create a dumbed-down UI that's harder and less efficient to use, and this has alienated a lot of Firefox's existing users. This is a big part of why we keep seeing Firefox's share of the market sliding lower and lower. Users can forgive Chrome for its bad UI experience because it offers quite good performance and resource usage. Firefox, unfortunately, does not offer that (I know, I know, Mozilla has benchmark results that will show the opposite, but these aren't indicative of actual user experiences). When faced with two browsers offering basically the same flawed UI, then users will use the one that offers the best runtime performance and the lowest resource usage. Going forward with this sort of a design, or even continuing down the existing path that Mozilla has been taking, ultimately won't be successful. Users have very obviously been rejecting Firefox because it now no longer offers a usable UI, nor does it offer acceptable performance and resource usage.
uint8_t255plus1 12y ago
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
mkohlmyr 12y ago
I was surprised to see this rise on the front page. Am I the only one who didn't get excited at all by this? When I see a post titled "a browser experiment" from mozilla.org I tend to think I'm going to get more than some wireframes and talk about "busybees". It will be an experiment once some (any) of it has been built. In any case from what I did see in the video I would say: 1) Bookmarks are broken, but removing them is probably the wrong approach. Tagged searchable bookmarks would be more useful - they don't need a bar in the ui, but make them full-text searchable and put them at the top of auto-complete options. 2) Tabs are an ingrained key-part of how people interact with browsers. They need to be (obvious) in the ui and easy to use. Do not go the mobile route if that is the plan. Tabs on mobile are the way they are because of constraints of the form - not because it is good ui. There are quite a few other suggestions I would take issue with but I realise I am not the target market. E.g. I don't want or need huge tiles of sites I love - I can enter their url and autocomplete. If its a site I frequent it should be at the top of the list - navigating to it is not a problem that needs solving with more ui.
- ersii 12y ago
  To nitpick, in the suggested experiment - bookmarks aren't removed. Although I guess you could compare the solution to "completely remove" them since they work a lot different, I guess you wouldn't "Love"-click something to read later or go back to, but their main site (Like NYT.com, BigBank.com etc). They'd be integrated into the ""amazebar"", but they'd still be there. As has been mentioned in other threads to this discussions, tabs aren't all that important for the thought of userbase. They are people who sometimes uses tabs or never uses tabs. Also, I, as a "Wizard/Enthusiast" user - got somewhat excited by the suggested experiment and think it kind of make sense. I wouldn't prefer using this myself, but I can certainly see benefits to a significant user share.
  - mkohlmyr 12y ago
    I understood that was the thinking re: tabs, I just think it's wrong. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't use tabs, including my parents. In fact anecdotally I would say that the considered user base might use (or abuse) tabs more than most. They are the people who have 40 tab sessions that they never close. As for bookmarks that is exactly my point. To "love" something is closer to marking as a favourite than as a bookmark. Bookmarks are things you want to go back to at a later date, favourites are things you go to a lot. I think the idea that they should experiment is a good one and the idea that they might start to is exciting. They should make a dozen experimental UIs to try things. This video however doesn't do much for me - if they had a basic build to showcase it would be different, but I don't see much point in publishing a 10 minute presentation about some wireframes.
marcoms 12y ago
See https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web/ https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web/ for a similar (released) approach
phlsa 12y ago
Hi, I'm one of the people who worked on this and I wanted to provide a little background and a few clarifications. Lightspeed is currently not a product. It's a collection of sketches and thoughts. It is also NOT the next version of Firefox. While some ideas might find their way into mainline Firefox at some point, many of the assumptions on which Lightspeed is based are the exact opposites of Firefox core values (e.g. no settings or customization in Lightspeed). More than anything else, Lightspeed helps us think outside the box that Firefox is. It's a place where we can dare to explore more radical thoughts like not having any settings or or even menus. Having constraints like these stimulates creativity much like, for example, the character limit on tweets forces you to make your message more concise. Ideas are worthless when they just exist in your head. Sketching out Lightspeed has helped us to make make lots of ideas more tangible, so they can be evaluated. That being said, just reading through this thread has sparked some interesting new thoughts – we'll keep experimenting :)
- ckluis 12y ago
  Search operators are super powerful and awesome to use in google - providing a way to use those from the browser itself can help provide a distraction free environment, but also opens up new possibilities: bm:“tag" - show list of all bookmarks with that tag Just a thought.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Windows tried to do that with their search (in Vista, 7, and 8). It has been a disaster. Hidden functionality is a UI and UX anti-pattern. How do people know to type "bm:" for Bookmarks? Google? Is a Google search now part of the UI's workflow? Or will people simply stop using Bookmarks because it is so obscure (you're seeing this with mobile browsers, Bookmarks are hidden so go unutilised). Ditto with Windows. In Windows 9x you had a nice UI for search that allowed the user to: Search file/folder names, search within (contents), and to filter by file type and file date(s). In Windows Vista+ it is now hidden strings like "filetype:" (and that is the least obscure example, try doing the between-dates thing WITHOUT googling how first). Plus now "unknown file types" cannot be search within at all (even if you alter the indexer's settings it no longer works, you have to add each file type in the registry as a "text file").
cowchase 12y ago
This is a great concept. Getting rid of settings, add-ons and plugins for people that "just want their browser to work" is a good thing, especially when this is paired with good privacy defaults. However, I see the auto suggestion features of the Awesome Bar at odds with the goal of protecting the user's privacy. This essentially means that all search terms that you enter into the search field will be sent to to all web services that were integrated by Mozilla, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Bing, Wikipedia, Amazon etc. Just imagine using the Awesome Bar to search your inbox for a (business) "proposal". Then, a little while later, your partner uses your laptop for online shopping and Amazon helpfully reminds him or her that you recently searched for "proposal". Depending on your relationship status, this could become very interesting...
cgio 12y ago
>Plugins are click-to-play everywhere except for a whitelist of trusted sites (e.g. YouTube, Netﬂix). what is the impact from a neutrality perspective?
zawaideh 12y ago
Bookmarks should be replaced by "app/website" drawer that shows up on your homescreen. They are useless when they are hidden in a separate window and you have to always remember to go to them. It is faster to search for them or have the them come up in the amazebar. Instead if the new tab window provided a list of "installed/bookmarked/recently used" webapps/websites, then it will make the experience of bookmarking a lot more relevant.
html5web 12y ago
Time to use Firefox!
izzydata 12y ago
The one thing I find very weird is how this guy designing this and other people are saying "Well, I can't use this for work of course because I have hundreds of tabs open." Wouldn't make so much sense to try and solve that problem in particular? It seems like everyone does this, but it seems worthwhile to ask why everyone does this. Do you have a tab open because you don't want to lose unsaved data? Do you want a tab open because it is faster switching to that tab than reloading the page? There must be some reason and I believe it can be integrated into a much simpler navigation than looking at hundreds 16 pixel icons squeezed side by side horizontally.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I believe it can be integrated into a much simpler navigation than looking at hundreds 16 pixel icons squeezed side by side horizontally. Try one of the vertical tab bar extensions (i.e., the tabs are stacked on top of each other in a sidebar) such as Tree Style Tabs. It displays many more tabs (mine displays ~40 before it overflows) and you always can see their titles.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
In only 20 short years, we've gone full circle back to AOL, but now with an amazing new interface. Feh.
webwanderings 12y ago
I would like to run this browser on an OS which is nothing but CLI. This imagined CLI based OS will come with two things only: A gigantic and thoroughly indexed PDF file containing hundreds of commands to do all kinds of things (so you would only use Ctrl+F to search what you're looking for); and a modern browser with least minimum settings.
- TuringTest 12y ago
  If you haven't yet, you may want to read The Humane Interface [1] (and test is working prototype Archy). It's a description of a user interface that works exactly as you say, yet looks completely different that what you describe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface
  - webwanderings 12y ago
    Well, this idea came to mind as I was taking that Linux Edx MOOC course. I am not a programmer, but if I were, I would have built that kind of OS for myself. I think the GUI movement in the history of computers, has fundamentally diverted the real nature of computers. I am not a CLI-Nazi but going back to basics in a substantive way, is not a bad idea. Besides, there has been too much significance for mouse/pointing-device. Could we possibly have directly jumped from keyboard-only computing to touch screen? I see why not.
ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
Not a bad start. This can be pared down even further: * Adjust search results based on your own clickthrough rates. If you bounce out of a site a few times (hello, quora) then it grays out or falls off. Sites you go to and stay on become more prominent. * Kill downloads. I know this won't be popular, but the ability to download a thing isn't necessary for everyday use. There would be a heightened awareness for the user if they had to switch browsers to download something. * No cross-site loading of any kind; all source material MUST come from the domain you are on. This would seriously break some sites but it would close large gaps in security and tracking. A browser just for browsing!
- lemieux 12y ago
  > No cross-site loading of any kind; all source material MUST come from the domain you are on. This would seriously break some sites but it would close large gaps in security and tracking. This would probably break almost everything. Who doesn't use some sort of a CDN nowadays?
  - Zikes 12y ago
    A better alternative would be to promote the use of Content-Security-Policy, perhaps by requiring it be used in order to load source material from an alternate domain.
  - ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
    You can still use a CDN through your own domain. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.
dclowd9901 12y ago
My first thought: "Well, this is just the new Spotlight isn't it? Why do we need another Spotlight?" My second, more intelligent thought: "Oh, most people don't have Macs." I think there's some pretty great ideas here, and since my gut tells me 95% of computer time is spent in a browser, it makes sense for it to be extremely intelligent about inferring what you want.
xj9 12y ago
I think Mozilla should focus on making Firefox fast and easy on memory usage before they start trying to "innovate" in the UI space, even if it's just conceptual.
- Zikes 12y ago
  This is assuming that everyone at Mozilla is capable of focusing on speed/memory. I'm betting there are several dedicated UI developers and designers who would not be able to meaningfully contribute to the core browser, and conceptualizing things like Lightspeed is their primary job role.
shurcooL 12y ago
A very specific thought on this: I love the fact that there are no settings because of one advantage it offers (it has disadvantages too, like any trade-off). Namely, that you can always be sure of what settings you've changed. The answer will always be none, since there are no settings. Removing settings altogether is not the only way to achieve that; for example see how Sublime Text does its settings, you have a very easy to read explicit list of all settings you've changed. So resetting to default or undoing a bad chance is as easy as removing unwanted entries from that Preferences.sublime-settings file. Having less choices is nice for when you don't want to change anything, since you know your settings are optimal defaults and you don't need to spend time on making sure that they are. If you use 100 apps and each offers 100 choices, that's 10000 settings to ensure are optimal. If you don't, they likely won't be. 99% of software pushes towards more choices, more settings, more customizability, which adds to cognitive overhead of using said software if you care about having optimal settings, so I'm glad to see an experiment that boldly pushes in the opposite direction.
GhotiFish 12y ago
Given your target demographic, I wouldn't willingly install this for a family member, as there is no ad block. Without being able to protect my family from scams/manipulation/malware, this is a non-starter. I'd have to alter the hosts file. I'd need to install something that updates it. Erk, and then some sites would just break permanently with no recourse. I would say the answer would be to add filtering as part of the interface. "Hey, lightspeed filters websites so you can read them easier, is the site misbehaving, try turning me off!" Or something. That said, even if everyone was fine with the UI proposed, there is no way the idea would be implemented. Regardless of how much of a benefit it is to the consumer.
ben0x539 12y ago
I'm surprised "private & secure" only goes as far as deleting the browser history and cookies every once in a while. Shouldn't a privacy-by-default experience get rid of many of the information leaks currently inherent in the web browsing experience? Shouldn't it disable the http referer header and third-party requests to tracking sites? Shouldn't it sandbox flash so that it respects the browser's proxy settings and doesn't persist its own cookie-like objects? Just hardwiring the current porn window behavior into the whole browser seems to create more problems than it solves privacy issues. (Makes search through weighted entries in the browser history impossible, which has 99% replaced bookmarks for me; makes restarting the browser a lot bigger of a deal, especially if it also disables opening recently closed tabs).
romaniv 12y ago
Okay, let me go over the things I don't like about this concept. 1. Everything is hidden by default. No signifies. That looks less confusing... until you want to find something or something changes and you don't even notice until it's not "there" anymore. It's not clear what will happen when you interact with the UI. 2. Everything is mushed together. I type something and zillion things pop up on the scree. How am I supposed to know what are they and where they come from? 3. No settings in this context sounds like no choice. I don't want every download go to Downloads folder, because it will become a bloated mess in about 3 days. .
NickWarner775 12y ago
I love the idea of the simplicity. Would be especially useful for not so tech savvy adults.
MarkMc 12y ago
I wonder if natural language processing could remove the need for a dedicated settings page. For example, just type "Change search engine" or "use this page as my homepage" or "search my bookmarks for obama" and the amazebar shows the appropriate widget or result. In fact, I think that Siri-fication could be a huge step for a vast number of applications. I develop an accounting app and it would be a huge benefit to my users to be able to just type, "pay invoice 364" or "print a statement for John Smith" or "add my logo to documents"
- Excavator 12y ago
  There was the Ubiquity project¹ by Mozilla Labs which was officially discontinued but still lives on as a community project². 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_%28Firefox%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_%28Firefox%29 2: https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity
yazaddaruvala 12y ago
If it doesn't have a debug console. I'm not supporting it :P
NanoWar 12y ago
Two questions: What are the 1 % wizards? :D And how can I block ads without add ons?
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  According to mozilla, only 1% of users are technically competent and customise their browser or use advanced features. As for blocking ads, you can't - lightspeed is designed to make the browser a passive content consumption device like a TV. Welcome to the Brave New World.
richard-cliqz 12y ago
Hi there, adding to the discussion a little late, but grateful for your comments on this one. We at the small Munich-based start-up cliqz are heading in a kind of similar direction - please have a look at https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cliqz-beta/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cliqz-beta/ German-heavy at the moment, but going international soon, hopefully by the end of August. Please let me know your thoughts - we would be happy to take your suggestions and together with you make it more "amazing"! Thank you! Richard (richard@cliqz.com)

355 points by khc 12y ago

Lightspeed could be an interesting alternative browser, if it could be made without diverting too many resources from Firefox then I'd like to see more of it. Could be a good browser to recommend to the less tech savvy.

therealunreal 12y ago

Maybe "LightFx" would be a more fitting name for this experiment.

catern 12y ago
Or "Firelight".
CmonDev 12y ago
MetroBrowser or ModernGuiBrowser.

jfeser 12y ago

It's interesting that his concept for inline search looks almost exactly like a current google results page. It would be very cool to have something like that available without necessarily relying on google for it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a composite view like that, which queries multiple services, can be created quickly without aggregating the data before the search is performed. That's problematic if you want to avoid relying on a single search provider.

channikhabra 12y ago

I really like the popup from the url bar. Safari 8.0 on Yosemite already has it, but the one they show in the presentation is more interesting and useful. I already use Spotlight as the only way of accessing applications on OSX (habit most emacs users get from using smex), so I +1 a universal "Search interface"; it's much more useful/productive then moving your mouse and pointing to icons or open an application and look for stuff.

Pxl_Buzzard 12y ago

I wonder if this could be made into a modification of Firefox, such that a user could choose the "simple" version when installing for the first time. If you wanted to switch between browser modes, just visit "about:config" and flip the switch to have the full experience of Firefox. Not to say that Lightspeed would be bad as a standalone browser, but the install base and the code base already exist for Firefox.

owlish 12y ago

Disappointed that there isn't any innovation wrt tabs; they aren't mentioned at all. I understand Lightspeed aims to be minimalistic, but many of these defaults are just illogical. Default click-to-play at the moment already ruins many audio sites where the flash applet is hidden, and turns others into a game of Where's Waldo. Completely dropping extensions is antithetical to the central idea as well. Ideally, the browser would be barebones and fast (what Firefox once was) and any features would be an addon. Otherwise, you get sucked into the mentality of "if only there was this one feature". All in all, there seem to be several inconsistencies in the central idea, but it could definitely turn out to be an interesting idea.

kibibu 12y ago
Tabs are accessed through the URL popup overlay. I agree that it's difficult to imagine browsing without them, but I manage well enough on phones without them.
- insky 12y ago
  On an Android tablet I have, tab switching under Chrome can be done with a thumb gesture. Tab switching under Opera for me is a fiddle and an annoyance. And that's on a larger device than a phone.
fletchowns 12y ago
He does mention tabs @ 4:18. The click to play behavior doesn't have to be on the actual applet, it could be a popup just under the top bar or something. Use some imagination. Dropping extensions is not antiethical. The people this browser is targeted for don't care about extensions. I don't see any of the "inconsistencies to the central idea" you are talking about.
- krisgenre 12y ago
  In my experience with non technical people, they are always interested in that one addon that helps them download YouTube videos.

bane 12y ago

At first I thought "oh no, another distraction for Mozilla", but then I sat through the presentation and thought there was some really cool ideas (amazebar!). In fact, I think it can be simplified and paired down even more. Even better, some of the assumptions here even make the software portable (as in doesn't really need to be installed and could just run off a usb drive/out of my dropbox). Automatically being in a private/secure mode makes lots of sense to me as well. Some ideas I don't like: - get rid of loved sites/bookmarks altogether. Frequent usage should just percolate autocomplete suggestions to the top. This design doesn't really need them, and tbh I've barely used bookmarks in any browser in a long time. - too much going on in the amazebar, drop all the suggestion (which will quickly get stale, tabs, email search, etc. Just focus on most frequent sites and autocomplete, it feels like the presentation is just burying lots of the clutter that used to take up GUI space in the amazebar. - please don't default to a "downloads" folder. I've never liked it and before I bother to change it, my downloads folder quickly turns into a "random junk I've downloaded" folder. Forcing me to put it someplace actually is simplifying my workflow. It's almost the first option I change as soon as I install a new browser. - keep tabs more present, don't bury them in the amazebar

mmastrac 12y ago
> - please don't default to a "downloads" folder. I switched my default download directory to /tmp and haven't looked back.
- the_french 12y ago
  But the whole point is that this browser isn't meant for technical people. It's not meant for the kind of people that feel the need for a different `Downloads` folder.
  - fournm 12y ago
    Most of the comments against it here are in this same line. If the concept of NoScript even vaguely makes sense to you, or you've even heard the words "window manager" together, you're probably not the target audience. I'll admit that most of these things (especially no settings) would make it a no-go for me, but I can definitely think of some relatives that I would love to stick on it and then not have to worry about them again.

ejr 12y ago

I had a flashback to the days of web portals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I like that they're trying something because complacency is never a good thing. You have to try things to see if they work. I think the biggest allure of this is that there are people with simple needs that want their technology to "just work" as they said. I also agree with owlish's comment in that there are some quirks that need rapid alleviation that aren't being addressed like click-to-play and dropping extensions doesn't seem like a good way to approach this. I applaud the experimentation so long as the end results are choices we can make for ourselves.

pessimizer 12y ago
>I applaud the experimentation so long as the end results are choices we can make for ourselves. I don't understand why Mozilla works like this, but they won't be. They'll be pushed into an update with an option to turn them off, after 3 or 4 releases the old behavior will be pushed into the about:config, and 3 or 4 releases after that, it will be removed completely.
nnethercote 12y ago
> I like that they're trying something because complacency is never a good thing. You have to try things to see if they work. That's an admirable way of looking at things. I wish more people were as open-minded about software changes.

jbardnz 12y ago

Pretty interesting video. A few things of note: -Tabs are important to almost all web users these days. Maybe you could hide them and display them on hover but I don't think you should ever move them an extra click away. -Not a huge fan of the click-to-play feature. Maybe it would work if you could whitelist plugins rather than websites, I guess you lose most of your security benefits by doing this though. I think he actually raises a good point at the end though, he wouldn't use this for work but may use it elsewhere. That's great, but typical web users only want to use one browser, they get familiar with the interface and stick to that everywhere they go. If people use a certain browser at work chances are they use the same one at home, and I don't think this is powerful for many people to use at work.

gioele 12y ago
> Tabs are important to almost all web users these days Tabs would be a useless feature, if the window manager did a better job at what they should do. In a "tabbing" wm like the one BeOS has you are much better served by one-page-one-window application. With a bit of cooperation from the window manager you can get rid of tabs. I did it few years ago and my browsing behavior and habits have changed for the better.
- radicalbyte 12y ago
  Exactly. OSX kinda does this via virtual screens. You can swipe between them or press fn+f3 to get a pretty navigation UI between them. It'd also make Windows 8 / Metro usable (along with a few other tweaks to make closing the metro-crap easier).
- insky 12y ago
  Exactly, this is window managment territory. I think that tabs came about with Opera because they were essentially cheap windows, and as window management has been so dire on most mainstream OSs, tabs were really welcome. But at the end of the day, I think tabs like ephemeral/temporary bookmarks - and it's the bookmark part of the browser that sucks.
  - 12y ago

yeukhon 12y ago

The no setting part is not really an option. No matter how simple you want to the browser to be, if you want this to be the one browser for the personal use, you need some settings. * setting search engine - this should be dead simple to implement and totally should be customized. I don't mind using Google but some people just don't like that. Actually I don't get why Firefox search engine customization is the way it is. If you want to SE that is not part of Firefox's bundle choices, you have to install add-on. To me, this should be simple to implement. A user click on "manage search engine preference", press "Add", gives a URL of the search engine (e.g. https://google.com https://google.com) and then OK. Firefox should just take whatever user types into the search bar / address bar (this case needs to know whether the "keyword" is url or not) and just redirect user to http://mysearch-engine.com/?q= http://mysearch-engine.com/?q= / ?query=. I can even imagine this useful when I want firefox to do code search. Imagine instead of me going to dxr.mozilla.org to find the code I want, now I just need to set the search engine to http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?= http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?= yay! I can even write an addon that does that right now in probably 30-50 lines of JS right now. * home page. I think many older Internet users still set a home page. * Download folders - you still want to expose where to set it because some people prefer to set it somewhere else. * Bookmarks - if there is no concept of bookmark, how exactly do I find the things I want quickly? Imagine I <3 a bunch of stuff today and tomorrow I want to find that one awesome blog post I want to re-read. If I can't recall the blog title or the domain, how do I do search? What really helps users, including me, when I just want a browser. * security, private, clear cookies - awesome, lightspeed would be super awesome on shared computers * Big buttons. When I first install Lightspeed I should just be prompted a couple pages with big buttons and bars to set homepage / search engine preference * When I <3 a bookmark, fade in search bar or show me a page with big list of bookmark categories. And personally, a little cuteness like the wireframe in the demo is always welcome. See these scratch drawing 1 and 2. I am not a designer, so pardon me. I am also trying to do a mobile experience here. In the bookmark case, you can type, you can mouse over / click and expand to see the top 5 in that category. [1]: http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8 http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8 [2]: http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8#1 http://imgur.com/Bvtrnhi&WjAoic8#1 And yes, as a developer, Lightspeed is awesome to me.

userbinator 12y ago

justfooit 12y ago

They should remove all the crap that is non-essential. For example, social and other things. Firefox size has nearly doubled in size between version 15 and 31. Also, I don't think that security would be good. I run noscript and similar. Notice how around slide 33 they said 3rd party cookies would be cleared? 3rd parties should not be allowed. Also, what if my trusted sites does not match their trusted list? Also, what if I don't want certain plugins to be enabled. Sounds less secure to me.

cypher543 12y ago

> Auto-updates are always on I really hope this isn't going to become a standard thing. There are still plenty of people like me who are stuck with something like satellite internet, which forces us to micromanage our data usage. I can't afford to just have things auto-updating whenever they want.

nemothekid 12y ago
It was the default in Chrome, and I believe its the default in IE as well. It has its upsides as well, you generally only need to target the latest stable version of Chrome.
- krisgenre 12y ago
  Its been a while since I used Windows but doesn't IE update through "Windows updates"? Is it on by default?
  - fournm 12y ago
    It does now--older versions did not.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > It has its upsides as well, you generally only need to target the latest stable version of Chrome. That is an upside for developers; for users, there is an additional cost to using your website (i.e., updating Chrome, which they do seem to make as easy as possible).
gioele 12y ago
> I really hope this isn't going to become a standard thing. I think people are starting to realize that you cannot always live on the bleeding edge, even then the edge is not that sharp. IIRC Firefox ESRs (extended support releases) do not update automatically. Or they update automatically but only to other infrequent ESRs.
- 12y ago

gatehouse 12y ago

Having an intelligent non https submission warning could be good... You could go so far as to flat out refuse to send a cc number in the clear. The degree of dependence on the search engine is troubling, would be interesting to see how much could be handled by a local mini index without involving a 3rd party. Also think browser history could be a lot more useful if it were organized better. For example, maybe grouping pages by the search terms that led to them... Also would be nice to have a quick way to get a detailed history on any given site, along with the pages led in and followed out. The main way I still use bookmarks is for organizing reference material, I think this could be automated partially as well.

nightpool 12y ago
I had similar concerns about the dependence on a search engine, but then I realized this could be the perfect "killer app" for a meta-search engine aggregator, one that thought of SERPs like zero-trust inputs to be mined for data. (and, similarly, not personalizing, aggregation by some "mixer" intermediary, and other privacy optimizations become much more feasible) This seems like it needs to be the end result of search, Google or no Google, but a privacy-conscious organization like putting this tech so front and center could definitely be a foot in the door to making this a reality.
cpeterso 12y ago
Here is a Firefox bug about highlighting or warning about insecure password fields: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748193 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748193 And a bug for Chromium (that also mentions credit card number fields): https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399416 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=399416

greglo 12y ago

I like the idea, although really this is very similar to Chrome (and other browsers) where you just never open the settings tab. Except for the search bar, this is just one of today's browsers with tweaked defaults. I really don't see the disadvantage, minus the small developer overhead, of having all the choices they have made here configurable.

golemotron 12y ago
I wonder.. is it built on Chrome under the hood?

yarou 12y ago

The design choices really look interesting. But shouldn't Mozilla focus more on eliminating the ever persistent memory leak bug that has plagued it since forever? I can't even use Firefox on a netbook. I end up installing Midori.

nsmartt 12y ago
Mozilla is comprised of a lot of different people working on a lot of different things. There are people focusing on various memory and speed issues, but they can't (and shouldn't) allocate all their resources to focusing on just a few issues.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  yarou obviously didn't say that they should focus everyone only on reducing Firefox's memory usage and performance problems. I'm not sure how you mistakenly got that impression, because that's clearly not what that comments suggests. The main issue here is that we've been hearing that these problems will be fixed, or even that they supposedly have been fixed, yet they're still present years later. Whatever work is being done clearly isn't having much of an impact. Users are still reporting problems with Firefox's performance and memory usage, even if those within the Mozilla community wish to deny these problems exist, or claim that they'll be fixed "soon". Users can only take so much of this. With Chrome and Firefox offering UIs that are pretty much identical these days, but Chrome offering significantly better performance and significantly lower memory usage, any reasonable user will obviously consider switching from Firefox to Chrome. Many have done so already, and many will continue to do so as time goes on.
  - nsmartt 12y ago
    yarou's comment is in response to a presentation about unrelated features, and his/her response suggests knowledge that Mozilla isn't focusing on memory and performance problems. Many of the memory leaks have been fixed over the years, benchmarks suggest [Firefox can compete with Chrome in terms of speed](www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html), and Mozilla, realizing their UI still feels sluggish, launched a project (called Snappy) to fight this UI sluggishness. Many improvements have been made over the years on all counts.

mproud 12y ago

This guy has too many ideas, and the ideas he has conflict. How can you offer contextual links without saving some information? I’m not sold yet.

jumpwah 12y ago

I already sort of have the amaze bar with pentadactyl and using duckduckgo bangs so... no, keep this to the buzybees and don't change firefox into this.

SaveTheRbtz 12y ago

Looks a lot like Yandex.Browser[1]. Also built around Search, Favorites, Quick Links, Synchronization and Security. [1] http://browser.yandex.com/desktop/ http://browser.yandex.com/desktop/

danialtz 12y ago

OT: anyone knows which tool he uses for the mockups?

phloxicon 12y ago

Wouldn't no plugins mean no adblock? I would never go back to not using it.

biafra 12y ago
If you can configure a proxy, you can use privoxy.
ben0x539 12y ago
Just lobby for adblock to be built-in with a Mozilla-curated block list. Seems to fit the idea of a safer/simpler-by-default web experience. ;)

murali89 12y ago

I don't know why this is getting up votes. This looks like a browser for bimbos. No, seriously. I don't want the browser telling me what sites to go to and while doing that, blocking my view when the address bar is in focus. 10 minutes (well, 6) wasted!

userbinator 12y ago
It's getting upvoted because it's interesting to discuss as well. A lot of users here don't seem to agree with the choices made in this UI either.

vacri 12y ago

I felt my hackles rising throughout the video, then I realised I'm not the target audience - I'd loathe most of these ideas to make it into a general-purpose browser (though I can't see FF's separate search box surviving much longer, sadly). Still, 'no settings'? How do you do 'no settings' and also do "with your permission, we'll search your email"? Ultimately I don't really understand the difference between a "no settings" browser, and a browser where you just don't bother to change the settings.

insky 12y ago

The problem I have with Firefox is that it just doesn't really innovate. We've had some small UI changes. But there's legacy cruft still in there that isn't addressed. Like the bookmarks and history manager. There isn't anything particularly wrong with these data-table windows, but I don't really enjoy using them either. In some ways I think they should be at the heart of the browser. I think a lot of people use tabs because bookmark management is so crap. The only bit I resonated with was the similar sites suggestions. But you'd need a setting to setup suggestion services. There's a privacy concern with that. Other helper features: Pagination buttons were built into Opera driven off the rel=prev and rel=next, link elements. Navigation could further be ripped out the page window into a browser control. Searching sites and pages could be friendlier. Better form helpers needed. A good feed reader would be good. Tools to help read web content more simply (readability style) would be nice. Plus I like personalising the look and feel of my web browser ever so slightly, and even Firefox doesn't do that particularly well (it ignores some of my desktop theming). So I think Firefox should really be thinking how to answer the question: 'How can we make it easier for users to consume web content?'. This has to go beyond the rendering engine. So actually a fatter featureful browser I think would be better - but with some very intuitive and simple controls.

lucb1e 12y ago
> Like the bookmarks and history manager. There isn't anything particularly wrong with these data-table windows, but I don't really enjoy using them either. And here I was thinking every browser should have such powerful tools instead of optimized-for-grandma windows.
- insky 12y ago
  There's nothing wrong with optimising for Grandma. The key is to make the most useful features easy to get at, and the more powerful ones discoverable. The bookmark/history manager could be better. It has no autocomplete/awesomeness in the search. It's actually quite an awkward UI. It's not keyboard friendly. And their are odd inconsistancies. Should the default behaviour of clicking on a link open it in new tab? Recent bookmarks and most visited are nice smart bookmark folder, these are useful but hard to reach in that tool. Some bookmark management feels a little like a black box. At least you can tag bookmarks. Scrolling through a massive list of tags isn't much fun.

lucb1e 12y ago

Something about the "there are no settings to adjust" makes me want to fork Firefox and only apply security updates from the version before this new UI gets out of beta. And tabs a click away? That's a nightmare. Mixing what I type with search results, history and suggestions? Hello Chrome lookalike. I thought the separate search bar and awesomebar was one of the killer features for Firefox. Once that's gone, odds are I'll be switching browser. Like with Firefox 4, it seems they are trying to redesign the browser like Chrome and doing it badly. Last time they did that I switched to Chrome for a few years before going back to open source (Firefox). Here we go again.

Svip 12y ago
But this Lightspeed experiment is at first, just an experiment. Moreover, it is heavily implied it is not going to be the new Firefox. He also suggests that the idea is targeted at more simple Internet users. As in, not us. I am not concerned.
- userbinator 12y ago
  >As in, not us. The concern here is that this sort of dumbed-down UI is going to lead to there being less of users like us in the future, since by removing options and choice, it makes it easier to use, but also reduces the incentive to find out more about how things work. The browser turning into something like a TV, for consuming content and nothing more.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  It may just be a thought experiment at this point, but I think it's pretty clear now that all of the major browsers are unfortunately headed in this direction. This rush to target "more simple Internet users" hasn't gone well for Mozilla and Firefox so far. All they've managed to do is create a dumbed-down UI that's harder and less efficient to use, and this has alienated a lot of Firefox's existing users. This is a big part of why we keep seeing Firefox's share of the market sliding lower and lower. Users can forgive Chrome for its bad UI experience because it offers quite good performance and resource usage. Firefox, unfortunately, does not offer that (I know, I know, Mozilla has benchmark results that will show the opposite, but these aren't indicative of actual user experiences). When faced with two browsers offering basically the same flawed UI, then users will use the one that offers the best runtime performance and the lowest resource usage. Going forward with this sort of a design, or even continuing down the existing path that Mozilla has been taking, ultimately won't be successful. Users have very obviously been rejecting Firefox because it now no longer offers a usable UI, nor does it offer acceptable performance and resource usage.

uint8_t255plus1 12y ago

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

mkohlmyr 12y ago

I was surprised to see this rise on the front page. Am I the only one who didn't get excited at all by this? When I see a post titled "a browser experiment" from mozilla.org I tend to think I'm going to get more than some wireframes and talk about "busybees". It will be an experiment once some (any) of it has been built. In any case from what I did see in the video I would say: 1) Bookmarks are broken, but removing them is probably the wrong approach. Tagged searchable bookmarks would be more useful - they don't need a bar in the ui, but make them full-text searchable and put them at the top of auto-complete options. 2) Tabs are an ingrained key-part of how people interact with browsers. They need to be (obvious) in the ui and easy to use. Do not go the mobile route if that is the plan. Tabs on mobile are the way they are because of constraints of the form - not because it is good ui. There are quite a few other suggestions I would take issue with but I realise I am not the target market. E.g. I don't want or need huge tiles of sites I love - I can enter their url and autocomplete. If its a site I frequent it should be at the top of the list - navigating to it is not a problem that needs solving with more ui.

ersii 12y ago
To nitpick, in the suggested experiment - bookmarks aren't removed. Although I guess you could compare the solution to "completely remove" them since they work a lot different, I guess you wouldn't "Love"-click something to read later or go back to, but their main site (Like NYT.com, BigBank.com etc). They'd be integrated into the ""amazebar"", but they'd still be there. As has been mentioned in other threads to this discussions, tabs aren't all that important for the thought of userbase. They are people who sometimes uses tabs or never uses tabs. Also, I, as a "Wizard/Enthusiast" user - got somewhat excited by the suggested experiment and think it kind of make sense. I wouldn't prefer using this myself, but I can certainly see benefits to a significant user share.
- mkohlmyr 12y ago
  I understood that was the thinking re: tabs, I just think it's wrong. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't use tabs, including my parents. In fact anecdotally I would say that the considered user base might use (or abuse) tabs more than most. They are the people who have 40 tab sessions that they never close. As for bookmarks that is exactly my point. To "love" something is closer to marking as a favourite than as a bookmark. Bookmarks are things you want to go back to at a later date, favourites are things you go to a lot. I think the idea that they should experiment is a good one and the idea that they might start to is exciting. They should make a dozen experimental UIs to try things. This video however doesn't do much for me - if they had a basic build to showcase it would be different, but I don't see much point in publishing a 10 minute presentation about some wireframes.

marcoms 12y ago

See https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web/ https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web/ for a similar (released) approach

phlsa 12y ago

Hi, I'm one of the people who worked on this and I wanted to provide a little background and a few clarifications. Lightspeed is currently not a product. It's a collection of sketches and thoughts. It is also NOT the next version of Firefox. While some ideas might find their way into mainline Firefox at some point, many of the assumptions on which Lightspeed is based are the exact opposites of Firefox core values (e.g. no settings or customization in Lightspeed). More than anything else, Lightspeed helps us think outside the box that Firefox is. It's a place where we can dare to explore more radical thoughts like not having any settings or or even menus. Having constraints like these stimulates creativity much like, for example, the character limit on tweets forces you to make your message more concise. Ideas are worthless when they just exist in your head. Sketching out Lightspeed has helped us to make make lots of ideas more tangible, so they can be evaluated. That being said, just reading through this thread has sparked some interesting new thoughts – we'll keep experimenting :)

ckluis 12y ago
Search operators are super powerful and awesome to use in google - providing a way to use those from the browser itself can help provide a distraction free environment, but also opens up new possibilities: bm:“tag" - show list of all bookmarks with that tag Just a thought.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Windows tried to do that with their search (in Vista, 7, and 8). It has been a disaster. Hidden functionality is a UI and UX anti-pattern. How do people know to type "bm:" for Bookmarks? Google? Is a Google search now part of the UI's workflow? Or will people simply stop using Bookmarks because it is so obscure (you're seeing this with mobile browsers, Bookmarks are hidden so go unutilised). Ditto with Windows. In Windows 9x you had a nice UI for search that allowed the user to: Search file/folder names, search within (contents), and to filter by file type and file date(s). In Windows Vista+ it is now hidden strings like "filetype:" (and that is the least obscure example, try doing the between-dates thing WITHOUT googling how first). Plus now "unknown file types" cannot be search within at all (even if you alter the indexer's settings it no longer works, you have to add each file type in the registry as a "text file").

cowchase 12y ago

This is a great concept. Getting rid of settings, add-ons and plugins for people that "just want their browser to work" is a good thing, especially when this is paired with good privacy defaults. However, I see the auto suggestion features of the Awesome Bar at odds with the goal of protecting the user's privacy. This essentially means that all search terms that you enter into the search field will be sent to to all web services that were integrated by Mozilla, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Bing, Wikipedia, Amazon etc. Just imagine using the Awesome Bar to search your inbox for a (business) "proposal". Then, a little while later, your partner uses your laptop for online shopping and Amazon helpfully reminds him or her that you recently searched for "proposal". Depending on your relationship status, this could become very interesting...

cgio 12y ago

>Plugins are click-to-play everywhere except for a whitelist of trusted sites (e.g. YouTube, Netﬂix). what is the impact from a neutrality perspective?

zawaideh 12y ago

Bookmarks should be replaced by "app/website" drawer that shows up on your homescreen. They are useless when they are hidden in a separate window and you have to always remember to go to them. It is faster to search for them or have the them come up in the amazebar. Instead if the new tab window provided a list of "installed/bookmarked/recently used" webapps/websites, then it will make the experience of bookmarking a lot more relevant.

html5web 12y ago

Time to use Firefox!

izzydata 12y ago

The one thing I find very weird is how this guy designing this and other people are saying "Well, I can't use this for work of course because I have hundreds of tabs open." Wouldn't make so much sense to try and solve that problem in particular? It seems like everyone does this, but it seems worthwhile to ask why everyone does this. Do you have a tab open because you don't want to lose unsaved data? Do you want a tab open because it is faster switching to that tab than reloading the page? There must be some reason and I believe it can be integrated into a much simpler navigation than looking at hundreds 16 pixel icons squeezed side by side horizontally.

hackuser 12y ago
> I believe it can be integrated into a much simpler navigation than looking at hundreds 16 pixel icons squeezed side by side horizontally. Try one of the vertical tab bar extensions (i.e., the tabs are stacked on top of each other in a sidebar) such as Tree Style Tabs. It displays many more tabs (mine displays ~40 before it overflows) and you always can see their titles.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

In only 20 short years, we've gone full circle back to AOL, but now with an amazing new interface. Feh.

webwanderings 12y ago

I would like to run this browser on an OS which is nothing but CLI. This imagined CLI based OS will come with two things only: A gigantic and thoroughly indexed PDF file containing hundreds of commands to do all kinds of things (so you would only use Ctrl+F to search what you're looking for); and a modern browser with least minimum settings.

TuringTest 12y ago
If you haven't yet, you may want to read The Humane Interface [1] (and test is working prototype Archy). It's a description of a user interface that works exactly as you say, yet looks completely different that what you describe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface
- webwanderings 12y ago
  Well, this idea came to mind as I was taking that Linux Edx MOOC course. I am not a programmer, but if I were, I would have built that kind of OS for myself. I think the GUI movement in the history of computers, has fundamentally diverted the real nature of computers. I am not a CLI-Nazi but going back to basics in a substantive way, is not a bad idea. Besides, there has been too much significance for mouse/pointing-device. Could we possibly have directly jumped from keyboard-only computing to touch screen? I see why not.

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago

Not a bad start. This can be pared down even further: * Adjust search results based on your own clickthrough rates. If you bounce out of a site a few times (hello, quora) then it grays out or falls off. Sites you go to and stay on become more prominent. * Kill downloads. I know this won't be popular, but the ability to download a thing isn't necessary for everyday use. There would be a heightened awareness for the user if they had to switch browsers to download something. * No cross-site loading of any kind; all source material MUST come from the domain you are on. This would seriously break some sites but it would close large gaps in security and tracking. A browser just for browsing!

lemieux 12y ago
> No cross-site loading of any kind; all source material MUST come from the domain you are on. This would seriously break some sites but it would close large gaps in security and tracking. This would probably break almost everything. Who doesn't use some sort of a CDN nowadays?
- Zikes 12y ago
  A better alternative would be to promote the use of Content-Security-Policy, perhaps by requiring it be used in order to load source material from an alternate domain.
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  You can still use a CDN through your own domain. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be something.

dclowd9901 12y ago

My first thought: "Well, this is just the new Spotlight isn't it? Why do we need another Spotlight?" My second, more intelligent thought: "Oh, most people don't have Macs." I think there's some pretty great ideas here, and since my gut tells me 95% of computer time is spent in a browser, it makes sense for it to be extremely intelligent about inferring what you want.

xj9 12y ago

I think Mozilla should focus on making Firefox fast and easy on memory usage before they start trying to "innovate" in the UI space, even if it's just conceptual.

Zikes 12y ago
This is assuming that everyone at Mozilla is capable of focusing on speed/memory. I'm betting there are several dedicated UI developers and designers who would not be able to meaningfully contribute to the core browser, and conceptualizing things like Lightspeed is their primary job role.

shurcooL 12y ago

A very specific thought on this: I love the fact that there are no settings because of one advantage it offers (it has disadvantages too, like any trade-off). Namely, that you can always be sure of what settings you've changed. The answer will always be none, since there are no settings. Removing settings altogether is not the only way to achieve that; for example see how Sublime Text does its settings, you have a very easy to read explicit list of all settings you've changed. So resetting to default or undoing a bad chance is as easy as removing unwanted entries from that Preferences.sublime-settings file. Having less choices is nice for when you don't want to change anything, since you know your settings are optimal defaults and you don't need to spend time on making sure that they are. If you use 100 apps and each offers 100 choices, that's 10000 settings to ensure are optimal. If you don't, they likely won't be. 99% of software pushes towards more choices, more settings, more customizability, which adds to cognitive overhead of using said software if you care about having optimal settings, so I'm glad to see an experiment that boldly pushes in the opposite direction.

GhotiFish 12y ago

Given your target demographic, I wouldn't willingly install this for a family member, as there is no ad block. Without being able to protect my family from scams/manipulation/malware, this is a non-starter. I'd have to alter the hosts file. I'd need to install something that updates it. Erk, and then some sites would just break permanently with no recourse. I would say the answer would be to add filtering as part of the interface. "Hey, lightspeed filters websites so you can read them easier, is the site misbehaving, try turning me off!" Or something. That said, even if everyone was fine with the UI proposed, there is no way the idea would be implemented. Regardless of how much of a benefit it is to the consumer.

ben0x539 12y ago

I'm surprised "private & secure" only goes as far as deleting the browser history and cookies every once in a while. Shouldn't a privacy-by-default experience get rid of many of the information leaks currently inherent in the web browsing experience? Shouldn't it disable the http referer header and third-party requests to tracking sites? Shouldn't it sandbox flash so that it respects the browser's proxy settings and doesn't persist its own cookie-like objects? Just hardwiring the current porn window behavior into the whole browser seems to create more problems than it solves privacy issues. (Makes search through weighted entries in the browser history impossible, which has 99% replaced bookmarks for me; makes restarting the browser a lot bigger of a deal, especially if it also disables opening recently closed tabs).

romaniv 12y ago

Okay, let me go over the things I don't like about this concept. 1. Everything is hidden by default. No signifies. That looks less confusing... until you want to find something or something changes and you don't even notice until it's not "there" anymore. It's not clear what will happen when you interact with the UI. 2. Everything is mushed together. I type something and zillion things pop up on the scree. How am I supposed to know what are they and where they come from? 3. No settings in this context sounds like no choice. I don't want every download go to Downloads folder, because it will become a bloated mess in about 3 days. .

NickWarner775 12y ago

I love the idea of the simplicity. Would be especially useful for not so tech savvy adults.

MarkMc 12y ago

I wonder if natural language processing could remove the need for a dedicated settings page. For example, just type "Change search engine" or "use this page as my homepage" or "search my bookmarks for obama" and the amazebar shows the appropriate widget or result. In fact, I think that Siri-fication could be a huge step for a vast number of applications. I develop an accounting app and it would be a huge benefit to my users to be able to just type, "pay invoice 364" or "print a statement for John Smith" or "add my logo to documents"

Excavator 12y ago
There was the Ubiquity project¹ by Mozilla Labs which was officially discontinued but still lives on as a community project². 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_%28Firefox%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquity_%28Firefox%29 2: https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity

yazaddaruvala 12y ago

If it doesn't have a debug console. I'm not supporting it :P

NanoWar 12y ago

Two questions: What are the 1 % wizards? :D And how can I block ads without add ons?

blueskin_ 12y ago
According to mozilla, only 1% of users are technically competent and customise their browser or use advanced features. As for blocking ads, you can't - lightspeed is designed to make the browser a passive content consumption device like a TV. Welcome to the Brave New World.

richard-cliqz 12y ago

Hi there, adding to the discussion a little late, but grateful for your comments on this one. We at the small Munich-based start-up cliqz are heading in a kind of similar direction - please have a look at https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cliqz-beta/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/cliqz-beta/ German-heavy at the moment, but going international soon, hopefully by the end of August. Please let me know your thoughts - we would be happy to take your suggestions and together with you make it more "amazing"! Thank you! Richard (richard@cliqz.com)