Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (5)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 1 day, 9 hrs ago -
Handbook (2)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 8 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-03-09
, 07:38
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#82
|
it's probably more this:
the "intended audience"-theory seems more logical to me: probably those who are content with fennec would also use it on a desktop.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
than this:
I don't think you're the intended public.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
what i need in a mobile browser was never less than i needed on my desktop. i need all the function plus the ability to, say, tell the browser to request the mobile stylesheet rather than the standard one. (neither microb nor fennec do this.) - you know, i don't browse differently (or go to different sites) only because i'm on the train rather than in my office. i don't switch personalities according to where i am.
The workflow of a mobile browser is just doifferent than a desktop browser. For this one has to adapt and relearn a different albeit more efficient workflow.
the "intended audience"-theory seems more logical to me: probably those who are content with fennec would also use it on a desktop.
 |
|
2009-03-09
, 08:05
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#83
|
Usually pages have a specific page for a mobile version of their website. Sometimes these are optimized for phones with keypads, sometimes for smartphones/mids/tablets/netbooks. These pages start with http://m.website.invalid or have http://invalid.mobi.
With intended audience I refer to people who do not wish to mimic their desktop browser experience on their mobile device. Instead, they will use the pros and cons of the mobile device and adapt the mobile browser to that.
No, I would not want to use Fennec on my desktop. I don't have a small screen on my desktop. I don't have a touchscreen there. I have far more RAM and CPU power there. And I don't have to think about battery power either. I can imagine people who are used to Opera gestures easily falling in love with [such] gestures as on Safari mobile or Fennec.
Back in the 90s we had some of the above restrictions but we usually simply used thin clients, and we had synchronisation with LDAP. Microsoft won the browser war and didn't implement LDAP in their browser.
Xulrunner still uses a lot of space on the tablet, and this won't change. I haven't tried uninstalling it. But I can understand why you'd want to do that.
Keep in mind its an rc of the first beta (b1rc2).
My experience with this release is as follows. Compared to MicroB and Safari mobile it renders the pages in an acceptable speed. Zooming in on text by double clicking doesn't work well. When trying to do this on a page with a lot of links (such as http://www.nu.nl which is a popular Dutch news site) this creates trouble. For such, I use multi touch on Safari Mobile and whether I like it or not: it is in such case easy and necessary. On Fennec this is problematic. After having clicked a link on nu.nl I try to zoom in on the text. Doesn't work. The other pages I tried were http://www.maemo.org and http://lifehacker.com (which first got me to the mobile version). Both rendered good and acceptable speed, and the zooming in worked. While browsing around on http://www.nu.nl trying to zoom in on text and scrolling around Fennec crashed. Twice. Zooming in is important on Fennec more so than Safari mobile because the fonts are worse on Linux.
With intended audience I refer to people who do not wish to mimic their desktop browser experience on their mobile device. Instead, they will use the pros and cons of the mobile device and adapt the mobile browser to that.
No, I would not want to use Fennec on my desktop. I don't have a small screen on my desktop. I don't have a touchscreen there. I have far more RAM and CPU power there. And I don't have to think about battery power either. I can imagine people who are used to Opera gestures easily falling in love with [such] gestures as on Safari mobile or Fennec.
Back in the 90s we had some of the above restrictions but we usually simply used thin clients, and we had synchronisation with LDAP. Microsoft won the browser war and didn't implement LDAP in their browser.
Xulrunner still uses a lot of space on the tablet, and this won't change. I haven't tried uninstalling it. But I can understand why you'd want to do that.
Keep in mind its an rc of the first beta (b1rc2).
My experience with this release is as follows. Compared to MicroB and Safari mobile it renders the pages in an acceptable speed. Zooming in on text by double clicking doesn't work well. When trying to do this on a page with a lot of links (such as http://www.nu.nl which is a popular Dutch news site) this creates trouble. For such, I use multi touch on Safari Mobile and whether I like it or not: it is in such case easy and necessary. On Fennec this is problematic. After having clicked a link on nu.nl I try to zoom in on the text. Doesn't work. The other pages I tried were http://www.maemo.org and http://lifehacker.com (which first got me to the mobile version). Both rendered good and acceptable speed, and the zooming in worked. While browsing around on http://www.nu.nl trying to zoom in on text and scrolling around Fennec crashed. Twice. Zooming in is important on Fennec more so than Safari mobile because the fonts are worse on Linux.
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
 |
|
2009-03-09
, 08:22
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#84
|
Fennec still strikes me as a piece of demo software; they are showing off a new UI, but not really producing a very usable browser yet. Lots of little things are still missing, and several big things, too.
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
| The Following User Says Thank You to qole For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-03-09
, 08:59
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#85
|
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
This plague started only recently and breaks the web.
Usually pages have a specific page for a mobile version of their website. Sometimes these are optimized for phones with keypads, sometimes for smartphones/mids/tablets/netbooks. These pages start with http://m.website.invalid or have http://invalid.mobi..
Established web technology offers enough mechanisms to detect the capabilities of a browser/device and deliver content accordingly. Putting "mobile" versions off to their own domains is a little bit like WAP.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
What are the "pros and cons" of a "mobile device"? Comparing my three cell phones and the tablet (all of which are mobile devices), they don't have a lot in common.
With intended audience I refer to people who do not wish to mimic their desktop browser experience on their mobile device. Instead, they will use the pros and cons of the mobile device and adapt the mobile browser to that.
Also, how would working on a mobile keep my brain from thinking "Hey, the bottom of this page doesn't render correctly, go look at the HTML source to find that one link you're looking for"?
Do we have "View source..." on microB? No. What's the reason? "Because it's a mobile device and people don't do that on mobile devices". WTF? It would be one more item in a sub-menu; how could it make a UI more complicated? And if I want to examine the source of a boken page, why would I want to wait the whole weekend until I return to my desktop? I bought a mobile device so I wouldn't need to return to my desktop for such tasks!
The assumption that people "simply don't do" things on "mobile devices" isn't logical. So the idea to strip away functionality from a mobile browser isn't, either.
What is true, though, is that on a device that doesn't feature a 1024x768 display, a full keyboard and a mouse you need to adapt when it comes to displaying a page. You also need to map what you have as input methods (maybe only a numerical keypad and a D-pad, maybe a touchscreen, maybe a alpha-keaboard) to a cleverly designed user interface. The point here is "cleverly designed". You don't design a user interface by not offering anything that would need a user interface in the first place. That's not designing a user interface, that's not accepting the challenge. (Like: Want to improve the UI for MS Office? Oh yes, just remove all functions except "File|Open" and "File|Save". Great! Such a simple, easy to use interface!)
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I know. In my wording, though, a "beta" is supporsed to be more or less feature complete, at least the UI and the overall look&feel should be. Otherwise there'd be no point in testing.
Keep in mind its an rc of the first beta (b1rc2).
It being a beta excuses that it's still slow and it still has the same rendering bugs as the first alpha (these are bugs you can report and that can be fixed under the hood), but I hardly have any hope that we'll see a functional UI in the final release. (Which is a pity, because a XULrunner-based browser would offer quite a lot of funky things to play with... It just isn't worth the hassle if the browser itself sucks.)
|
|
2009-03-09
, 09:02
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#86
|
Originally Posted by qole
This is my impression, too. OTOH, they say they're about to release a "beta", which is far from "demo" (unless you interpret this as "the beta of what will eventually be a piece of demo software when ready". well, maybe that's it...)
Fennec still strikes me as a piece of demo software; they are showing off a new UI, but not really producing a very usable browser yet. Lots of little things are still missing, and several big things, too.
|
|
2009-03-09
, 11:35
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#87
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
Its been going on ever since day 1. Some pages were still in HTML 3.2. We had WAP indeed. We had JS and Flash while many were still in dial-up. That too, broke the web. There is no 1 web. There is no 1-size-fits-all.
This plague started only recently and breaks the web.
Established web technology offers enough mechanisms to detect the capabilities of a browser/device and deliver content accordingly.
Putting "mobile" versions off to their own domains is a little bit like WAP.
What are the "pros and cons" of a "mobile device"? Comparing my three cell phones and the tablet (all of which are mobile devices), they don't have a lot in common.
Also, how would working on a mobile keep my brain from thinking "Hey, the bottom of this page doesn't render correctly, go look at the HTML source to find that one link you're looking for"?
For them your feature would be bloat just like e.g. kinetic scrolling is bloat for you. One could however add this functionality in an extension. For example a so-called web developer extension.
It would be one more item in a sub-menu; how could it make a UI more complicated?
And if I want to examine the source of a boken page, why would I want to wait the whole weekend until I return to my desktop? I bought a mobile device so I wouldn't need to return to my desktop for such tasks!
The assumption that people "simply don't do" things on "mobile devices" isn't logical. So the idea to strip away functionality from a mobile browser isn't, either.
Sometimes less is more. Some people collect stamps. They wouldn't toss any stamp away. Most people don't collect stamps. Most people toss away things they don't use. Only some oddballs tend to keep everything they might need forever. And their house is a gigantic mess.
I can't seem to explain this to you. You don't seem to want to understand.
And, I feel sorry for you, because this is what mobile devices will move towards. They will adapt to 1) the hardware (which, like I said, has pros and cons) 2) what users want to run on it. I'm pretty sure that if there are going to be web developers who run Fennec and who'd like to view source code on their mobile device, they will make it easily work. However, I believe they'll be far better off with a 3rd party text editor or text viewer with kinetic scrolling and syntax highlighting. And those are usually not part of the web browser. Not even on the desktop.
You don't design a user interface by not offering anything that would need a user interface in the first place.
If I browse to http://www.nu.nl for news I don't want a shitty Flash banner. I don't want to download a 1 MB Flash movie about the latest car while downloading the page. I want to see the headlines and being able to easily click on them, and zooming in on (certain) text. Thats what I want. Cause I want to read the news. I don't want to view the source code of the page to verify its W3C compliant.
Say you are using N810 and select an input box (for example to type URL). There are some likely things the user wants to do:
1) Remove a part of the URL
2) Remove whole URL and fill in new
3) Use http://
4) Insert URL
For option #1 you have in Safari mobile a small looking glass which allows you to easily select the part of the URL you want to edit. Because you're on a small screen this is useful on the device. On a desktop or laptop this feature would be utter nonsense. Except for disabled people. But they are a minority, an exception. The OS doesn't assume the user is disabled. (The OS won't assume the user is a web developer either...)
For option #2 you would select the whole URL on Maemo and then delete it using del or right click -> Delete. In Safari mobile you click once on the URL to select it, and then you press the X on the right of the URL to remove it. Simple, yet brilliant. Often used.
For option #3 all modern browsers assume http:// as default protocol. Small feature, but it saves you some typing.
For option #4 on a N810 with a slided out keyboard you would not want the virtual keyboard (a mobile-only feature which would be BS in standard desktop browser) but on a N800 you would want this unless you have a keyboard attached to it. For this, the N800 must know if it has a keyboard attached (HAL does this).
That's not designing a user interface, that's not accepting the challenge. (Like: Want to improve the UI for MS Office? Oh yes, just remove all functions except "File|Open" and "File|Save". Great! Such a simple, easy to use interface!)
I know. In my wording, though, a "beta" is supporsed to be more or less feature complete, at least the UI and the overall look&feel should be. Otherwise there'd be no point in testing.
PS: Virtual keyboards suck IMO. I'd rather use a good hardware keyboard on the device. Even if the buttons are small the typing is much more efficient on such. This is clearly something users have different opinions about. That is why there is several choices in this aspect, in the form of different devices.
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
|
|
2009-03-09
, 12:59
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#88
|
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
WAP did, yes. JS and Flash are bad habits, but don't break the architecture of the web.
Its been going on ever since day 1. Some pages were still in HTML 3.2. We had WAP indeed. We had JS and Flash while many were still in dial-up. That too, broke the web. There is no 1 web. There is no 1-size-fits-all.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I don't have to. Your browser tells me.
How are you able to detect my available up and downstream?
Not breaking the web means that, for example, when you're on WLAN, a browser on a Maemo device could request a full desktop version of the site, while it could specifilally request a mobile version when on a slow data connection like GPRS. It would always do so, not needing to know whether the mobile version is available at all, if it's domain.mobi or m.domain.com or www.domain.com/mobile/ ...
The architecture of the web says that this should be done using specific MIME-types in the HTTP-request and/or loading the mobile style sheet rather than the regular one. The URI should remain the same, though. Creating domains/subdomains/... for what should be handled in the HTTP protocol is not The Right Thing. Instead, my mobile browser on low bandwidth should send a request for www.domain.com, saying it would, if available, please prefer a mobile-friendly version, in German, if possible, encoded in UTF-8. It's as simple as that.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
That's what it's all about. Same content=same URI. Layout and other issues to be negotiated within the HTTP-session, not by typing whatever URI the company chose for their mobile version.
The content matters. The content is similar or the same. (Some heavy bandwidth stuff is left out). The layout is indeed different.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
That's probably it. ... Best explanation.
I outlined some in my previous post, but I don't think you want to see these points.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
Which doesn't affect my browsing experience much.
They have tons of things in common especially when comparing them with desktops and laptops. They're all running a RISC processor, probably all ARM.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
Except that my N800 has a relatively large screen. Remember "desktop-size" was 640x480 not so long ago.
They all have a relatively small screen.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
That's exactly the point. You have cell phones
There are ofcourse differences in a touchscreen mobile device and a non-touchscreen mobile device
- with touch screen and no hardware keys
- with touch screen and some hardware keys
- with touch screen and a full QWERTY keyboard
- without touch screen and some hardware keys
- without touch screen and a full QWERTY keyboard
- ...
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
You consider looking at the HTML source a "strange obsession" that "normal" people don't have.
Normal users (the goal of RX-51 and Fennec) don't have this strange obsession. They just want to look something up on the web. When it looks odd, they might start to wonder.
Me not being normal aside (second time you get personal here btw), what you say here just backs my original claim:
Reduced functionality has nothing to do with mobily use. If I have this bizarre fetish of looking into the HTML source, I will want to do it regardless of which device I'm at. Those who don't do it in the first place would also accept something like Fennec as their desktop browser, because they don't even realize there's something missing.
So the point remains that Fennec is a stripped to the bare minimum browser that maybe appeals to a certain type of users. Its user interface is in no way optimized, though, for mobile usage, as "mobile usage" as such doesn't mean less functionality, but only a different UI.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
View?
Which sub-menu?
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
No, that's what a mobile PC is for. rdesktop would require me to have my desktop PC up and running and connected to the net plus i'd need a way to get around the dynamic-IP-stuff... why would I want that if all I need is right in my hand?
Well, thats what rdesktop et al is for.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I can see a pattern here....
I can't seem to explain this to you. You don't seem to want to understand.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
Mobile devices are the hardware, they don't adapt to it. And the hardware is getting more powerful with each generation.
And, I feel sorry for you, because this is what mobile devices will move towards. They will adapt to 1) the hardware (which, like I said, has pros and cons) 2) what users want to run on it.
I don't see my laptop moving in this direction (it is a mobile device, isn't it), I don't see netbooks moving there... And as for the tablets: Yes, we see some strange things coming in the Maemo5 UI, but then: I can use any decent browser on it the same way I can use Claws instead of Modest. It's not a matter of "the device". It's a matter of software. And Fennec isn't particularly good software.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
If I only want to read/write a text, I'd not install a heavy Office suite that has all it's UI removed. I'd maybe use Leafpad.
If all you have to do is reading documents such as .xls and .doc that'd be more than enough functionality.
|
|
2009-03-09
, 14:54
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#89
|
Originally Posted by benny1967
Strange when you're talking W3C standards.
WAP did, yes. JS and Flash are bad habits, but don't break the architecture of the web.
I don't have to. Your browser tells me.
Not breaking the web means that, for example, when you're on WLAN, a browser on a Maemo device could request a full desktop version of the site, while it could specifilally request a mobile version when on a slow data connection like GPRS. It would always do so, not needing to know whether the mobile version is available at all, if it's domain.mobi or m.domain.com or www.domain.com/mobile/ ...
The architecture of the web says that this should be done using specific MIME-types in the HTTP-request and/or loading the mobile style sheet rather than the regular one. The URI should remain the same, though. Creating domains/subdomains/... for what should be handled in the HTTP protocol is not The Right Thing. Instead, my mobile browser on low bandwidth should send a request for www.domain.com, saying it would, if available, please prefer a mobile-friendly version, in German, if possible, encoded in UTF-8. It's as simple as that.
In the current way we assume based on browser id string what the user wants to see. They can easily click through to the full, non-bandwidth friendly version. They can even bookmark the full or the mobile version. The user can easily specify the URL, and m.website.com is very easy to type compared to www.website.com or website.com. So the current solutions are practical whereas yours aren't practical sound.
Which doesn't affect my browsing experience much.
Except that my N800 has a relatively large screen. Remember "desktop-size" was 640x480 not so long ago.
That's exactly the point. You have cell phonesThe challenge for the UI is not the fact that they are mobile devices (which cell phones, of course, are). The challenge is that for each of them, you need to find user interfaces and workflows that best adapt to their specific input capabilities. For a touch screen without any hardware keys this will need to be radically different than for a phone that has no touch-screen, but QWERTY plus 10 additional function keys.
- with touch screen and no hardware keys
- with touch screen and some hardware keys
- with touch screen and a full QWERTY keyboard
- without touch screen and some hardware keys
- without touch screen and a full QWERTY keyboard
- ...
If you take Opera, then you also had to say which phone you ran. For compatibility reasons.
The challenge is that for mobile phones and low-end mobile devices we had a good browser owning the market for years: Opera. Now we have mobile hardware with touchscreen, relatively more powerful processor, and hardware rendering. So we make use of that.
You consider looking at the HTML source a "strange obsession" that "normal" people don't have.
Me not being normal aside
what you say here just backs my original claim:
Reduced functionality has nothing to do with mobily use.
If I have this bizarre fetish of looking into the HTML source, I will want to do it regardless of which device I'm at.
Those who don't do it in the first place would also accept something like Fennec as their desktop browser, because they don't even realize there's something missing.
So the point remains that Fennec is a stripped to the bare minimum browser that maybe appeals to a certain type of users. Its user interface is in no way optimized, though, for mobile usage, as "mobile usage" as such doesn't mean less functionality, but only a different UI.
No, that's what a mobile PC is for.
rdesktop would require me to have my desktop PC up and running and connected to the net plus i'd need a way to get around the dynamic-IP-stuff... why would I want that if all I need is right in my hand?
Mobile devices are the hardware, they don't adapt to it. And the hardware is getting more powerful with each generation.
I don't see my laptop moving in this direction (it is a mobile device, isn't it), I don't see netbooks moving there... And as for the tablets: Yes, we see some strange things coming in the Maemo5 UI, but then: I can use any decent browser on it the same way I can use Claws instead of Modest. It's not a matter of "the device". It's a matter of software. And Fennec isn't particularly good software.
Presto, WebKit, and Gecko have all been optimized a lot past years. Especially on JS. Do you think that is for fun? Its incredibly useful on mobile devices including laptops, netbooks, and smartphones.
Maybe you need to learn how and why Mozilla suite and Mozilla Phoenix got started. Mozilla Milestones were slow too. And unstable. Mozilla Phoenix was naked too in the 0.x series. Then it got extended. Features were added and added. But the developers do their best to keep people using extensions instead. Which, *gasp* are not enabled by default.
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
|
|
2009-03-09
, 16:59
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#90
|
allnameswereout, should we just jump right to the point in this thread where one of us mentions "hitler"? Might save our fellow readers some time.
I cannot follow you any more. Flash breaking web architecture, .mobi-domains being legacy, ARM affecting my browsing experience, the N800 not being a mobile PC (Hey? What's this thing I have then? It sure is a mobile PC, and it sure has N800 printed on it), WebKit, Gecko, SSH.... you could start 34 threads with all this.
All I wanted to say is that I see nothing in Fennec that is specifically designed for mobile use (whatever "mobile use" may be in this context). I see a browser with basically no UI at all that requires an explanation on how to use the most basic functions (back, enter URI, ...). I can understand which type of users wants such a browser. And I predict that these users may eventually want such a browser on their desktops, too, because why they want it has nothing to do with mobile use.
Oh, and I don't like it, because it doesn't meet my demands. (Which isn't a crime, nobody said it was made specifically for me.)
Last edited by benny1967; 2009-03-09 at 17:06.
I cannot follow you any more. Flash breaking web architecture, .mobi-domains being legacy, ARM affecting my browsing experience, the N800 not being a mobile PC (Hey? What's this thing I have then? It sure is a mobile PC, and it sure has N800 printed on it), WebKit, Gecko, SSH.... you could start 34 threads with all this.
All I wanted to say is that I see nothing in Fennec that is specifically designed for mobile use (whatever "mobile use" may be in this context). I see a browser with basically no UI at all that requires an explanation on how to use the most basic functions (back, enter URI, ...). I can understand which type of users wants such a browser. And I predict that these users may eventually want such a browser on their desktops, too, because why they want it has nothing to do with mobile use.
Oh, and I don't like it, because it doesn't meet my demands. (Which isn't a crime, nobody said it was made specifically for me.)
Last edited by benny1967; 2009-03-09 at 17:06.
How has it improved since the last alpha?