Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Do You Want On Future Browsers?

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the fewer-crashes dept.

The Internet 628

Coach Wei writes "An industry wishlist for future browsers has been collected and developed by OpenAjax Alliance. Using wiki as an open collaboration tool, the feature list now lists 37 separate feature requests, covering a wide range of technology areas, such as security, Comet, multimedia, CSS, interactivity, and performance. The goal is to inform the browser vendors about what the Ajax developer community feels are most important for the next round of browsers (i.e., FF4, IE9, Safari4, and Opera10) and to provide supplemental details relative to the feature requests. Currently, the top three voted features are: 2D Drawing/Vector Graphics, The Two HTTP Connection Limit Issue, and HTML DOM Operation Performance In General . OpenAjax Alliance is calling for everyone to vote for his/her favorite features. The alliance also strongly encourages people to comment on the wiki pages for each of the existing features and to add any important new features that are not yet on the list."On a related note, an anonymous reader writes "The Tao of Mac has put up pretty interesting list of five things that are still wrong with browsers these days, and I have to wonder — with things like AIR starting to be accepted by developers, do we still need the browser at all?"

cancel ×

628 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Personally I want... (4, Funny)

Verdatum (1257828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005637)

Laserbeams....oh yeah...and Ninjas!!!

Re:Personally I want... (4, Funny)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005669)

No, no, you want frickin' ninjas with frickin' laser beams on their heads. That's obviously superior to individual ninjas and laser beams.

Modular design (3, Funny)

lazyDog86 (1191443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006071)

I think that you have to make the design modular so the ninjas can be made available either with or without laser beams. While we're at it, we will really need an open standard bus supporting ninja-laser interconnectivity. I should think that we could interest an IEEE working group in such an activity. It's important that we develop a generic enough command set so that our ninjas and lasers can interact with as rich a set of other devices as possible. (i.e. ninja-laser-television-beer cooler interoperability would be high on my list)

Re:Personally I want... (5, Funny)

Zencyde (850968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005699)

Laser beams? Hell, I want porn! Porn with frickin' laser beams!

Re:Personally I want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005767)

And a PONY!!!

Re:Personally I want... (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005929)

How about something that gives this kind of flexibility?

cocoa [slashdot.org]

stability? (3, Interesting)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005653)

I upgraded firefox and now it decides to crash every 15 minutes, when it used to only crash every half our. So yeah, I'd just like a browser that lets me complete all my web tasks without dying on me.

Re:stability? (4, Insightful)

Victor_0x53h (1164907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005751)

I upgraded firefox and now it decides to crash every 15 minutes, when it used to only crash every half our. (...)

What could you possibly be doing to crash Firefox every 15 minutes? It sounds like you've got something else wrong to me. Time for a system reload.

Re:stability? (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005985)

Slashdot, some mangasites, some download sites, and email. Only started getting bad once I upgraded.

Re:stability? (1, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006173)

FF 3.0 crashes a lot more than FF 2.0 ever did for me.

It's not every 15 minutes, but it's at least once a day.

Found the problem for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006241)

some mangasites,


Right there.

Re:stability? (4, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005893)

Agree with sibling post. The only time any FF install I've got crashes it's the Linux one, whenever I try to kill a flash video before the system is done processing it.

Otherwise it never blips, and I'm a hardcore tab whore: if I can hit CTRL-T I will.

Re:stability? (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006039)

My ff on linux isn't that cranky-it's just the one on windows. It's got a tendency to crash on slashdot and mangaupdates (specially when I'm downloading stuff), doesn't really care if I've got 5 or 25 tabs open.

Re:stability? (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006165)

*headdesk* and yes that should be cranky -- it's or cranky — it's, I did just get the whole lesson.

Re:stability? (2, Informative)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006075)

In case you didn't know, unless you've specified it to do otherwise, clicking the mousewheel/center clicking on a link will open it in a new tab. I don't think IE had that feature when I first came across it, or if it exists now, but it was/is one of the features I love most about FF.

Re:stability? (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005945)

The important words there are web tasks. I don't want a browser that does e-mail, instant messaging, feed aggregation, balances my check book and feeds my dogs. I want a browser where the unnecessary features have been removed, and those who want them can add them themselves. No add-ons as default, thanks!

Seamonkey works best for me at present -- you can at least choose to install it without all the features, unlike Firefox with comes with the kitchen sink as standard. Which is kind of ironic, considering that Firefox was meant to be the leaner alternative to the Mozilla Suite, and Seamonkey is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite.

Re:stability? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005989)

How? Honestly, they seem to be roughly the same to me, just Seamonkey looks older so it is assumed to be faster. Firefox comes with no addons by default.

Re:stability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005969)

Switch to Opera. Opera 9.5 is an amazing browser, and Opera adopts features (such as tabbed browsing) far earlier than the competitors.

Re:stability? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006193)

There are a few reasons why I don't use Opera except on my Wii and DS (yes, I have installed it on a few of my Linux boxes and have used it but not as my primary browser). Number 1, it isn't open source. Now besides my tinfoil hat reason that I can't be sure where and what it is sending, it also makes it impossible to optimize for lower-end systems. For example I can compile Firefox -O3 (or get a Swiftweasel binary) and it will run at a fast speed on lower-end hardware, Opera being binary-only doesn't allow this. Number 2, it used to be adware and how can I really trust a browser that used to be adware, something that my browser is the first line of defense in combating it? Also, even though it isn't adware, there could still be bits of the adware code in the source slowing it down, Opera being non-free doesn't let you look at the source to see if that is the case. Sure Opera has some nice features, but using Opera as a main browser just makes me uneasy.

Re:stability? (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006055)

I was having similar problems last week. Thanks to some helpful posts, suggesting I delete my user profile, I have now reloaded firefox 3 and it is going swimmingly. The only thing I really lost is the stored passwords, which is probably a good thing anyway.

Re:stability? (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006083)

People here will tell you that you are doing something wrong, but it crashes constantly for me as well. Some blame it on flash, but why should a plugin crash my browser? This isn't 2002, browsers should be above that.

Re:stability? (-1, Flamebait)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006099)

Well, I can't speak for your experience, but I've had a lot of similar annoyances.

1) LiarSucks deletes my bookmarks and javascript whitelist every time I upgrade, even though this bug has officially been "fixed". Yeah, I just *love* having to recover my bookmarks and re-authorize every single page I go to. (If your response is "Hey, you can rescue your bookmarks by following the instructions on an obscure web page", please kill yourself. You just. don't. get it.)
2) The memory on forms is more of an annoyance: the list of entries I've previously put in a field pops up, but I have to move my hand away from its natural position, and back, to use it, defeating the convenience purpose of it. Plus, the list obscures stuff I want to see.
3) Clicking on a web address in the address drop-down bar doesn't make a page load until I hit enter. Moreover, previous versions of LIARsucks did, yet they try to delete evidence of this! (IE has this funcitonality btw...)
4) If you don't know to regularly clean your downloads list, downloads will take longer and longer to start, and LiarSucks will freeze.
5) Any form involving a complicated, secure transaction? Just pray.

Solve these problems, and you've got a better browser.

Re:stability? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006139)

Windows XP... have never had a firefox crash with version 1 or 2. Now promoted so I have to use a company laptop without admin rights so I'm stuck with I.E.

Still on firefox 2 at home on XP. No crashes there.

I use NOSCRIPT and flashblocker. Noscript could protect you from a lot of crud.

Sharks with freaking lasers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005657)

All I want is sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads!

Not just support for SVG, but mixed SVG/XHTML (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005677)

So browsers other than IE support (to varying degrees) referencing SVG drawings using the <img> or <object> tags. But that doesn't go far enough, IMHO; since both SVG and XHTML are both XML, I'd like to be able to embed either within the other, e.g. by putting a SVG polygon or circle on a webpage (surrounded by HTML), with another field of HTML embedded inside it.

Re:Not just support for SVG, but mixed SVG/XHTML (4, Informative)

jesser (77961) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005867)

Firefox 3 does support mixed SVG and XHTML. I think the other non-IE browsers do as well.

Re:Not just support for SVG, but mixed SVG/XHTML (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006237)

Not just that, but there needs to be inherent support for inline SVG's into some of the W3 specs.

I want what most users want. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005687)

More speed and less bloat.

Make it launch in 1 second and run for years without consuming much ram as well as render the page and all text FIRST before loading graphics and other crap.

I am tired of the bloated dead fish that browsers have become.

Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005753)

Mod parent up.

I used up all of my mod points on that story about the shitty Model M knockoff keyboard.

Re:I want what most users want. (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005809)

Spot-on!

Also, to have that browser stay that way, no bloating and feature creep in subsequent versions.

Re:I want what most users want. (5, Funny)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005827)

You'll be wanting Lynx, my friend.

Re:I want what most users want. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006061)

Make it launch in 1 second and run for years without consuming much ram as well as render the page and all text FIRST before loading graphics and other crap.



There are a few reasons that this won't work. First, HD transfer speeds simply won't load the binary in one second for a modern browser. As we move to SSDs perhaps it will be a reality but for standard HDs that is only a dream, unless say you have a large RAID.

As for the RAM usage, yes that is a problem, but it is either use up RAM or cache the page to HD which would be slower. And not using a cache isn't a good idea because you can create an unintentional DoS attack and it will be very slow for slower connections.

Re:I want what most users want. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006137)

First, HD transfer speeds simply won't load the binary in one second for a modern browser.

The Firefox 3 installer is under 8 MB. Even an 8x DVD-ROM drive can move 8 MB in a second. What bottleneck are you thinking of?

Re:I want what most users want. (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006073)

More speed and less bloat.

and it should browse the internet of course. If it doesn't do that, it's not a browser.

I don't want it to...
make coffee, I have a coffee maker for that.
wash dishes, I have a dishwasher for that.
drive me to work, I have a car for that.

It should do it's job, nothing more, nothing less.

What do _I_ want? (5, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005689)

What do _I_ want? HTML and CSS compliance. That's it. Get that done first then worry about the 'features'.

Re:What do _I_ want? (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005795)

+1. What good are fancy new features when the core functionality is buggy or broken?

Re:What do _I_ want? (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005799)

What about <MATH>

Re:What do _I_ want? (3, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005841)

Shouldn't reply to myself, but also what about media besides images and text?

I don't mean plugins, but a standard.

Re:What do _I_ want? (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005973)

I can understand wanting something like that, but again, we're discussing getting the basic standards working correctly first. would be incredibly useful (indeed, you may want to check out MathML), but it's not part of the actual HTML standard.

Re:What do _I_ want? (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005847)

What do _I_ want? HTML and CSS compliance. That's it. Get that done first then worry about the 'features'.

The problem with that equation is, the non-compliant crap still has major sway over the market since Average Joe Luser has it already installed on his new Windows box. You need to get the compliant browser into the average home, and the only way to do that is to give Average Joe the bells and whistles he wants and do it better than that pile of crap MSIE. The non-geeks need a reason to switch beyond "it follows some invisible rules you don't know or care about."

Re:What do _I_ want? (1)

drfrog (145882) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005999)

yes
cross platform and cross application interoperability

ive been screaming about this since '97

Force feedback (4, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005697)

Teledildonics. Mmm.

Re:Force feedback (3, Funny)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006235)

That will take a while. But in the meantime, here's the best next thing [rent-a-dildo.com] .

mathml support and full unicode (5, Interesting)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005701)

and a decent h&j algorithm --- if only TBL had taken a closer look at TeXview.app on his NeXT Cube before writing worldwideweb.app

William

Re:mathml support and full unicode (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005911)

What is an "h&j algorithm"?

Re:mathml support and full unicode (5, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005967)

>What is an ``h&j algorithm''?

hyphenation and justification --- instead of just setting one line at a time, the system should consider the entire paragraph and set it so that all lines are as nice as possible w/ the best possible breaks.

See the Knuth and Plass paper on it:

http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SFCS.1979.46 [ieeecomputersociety.org]

Or look at Knuth's book _Digital Typography_

William

Re:mathml support and full unicode (2, Interesting)

jesser (77961) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006209)

Ahh. I think browsers tend to go for the greedy / line-by-line algorithm because it's fast and works well with incremental layout (e.g. if you receive the page from the server slowly). The speed argument may be less important since it can be argued that reading speed is more important than layout speed (cf the recent change to support kerning and ligatures). There are also internationalization issues with hyphenation. See Mozilla bug 67715.

Is entire-paragraph hyphenation always expected, or only expected for justified text?

Re:mathml support and full unicode (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006029)

An algorithm for introducing random actions [wikipedia.org] into any situation.

Re:mathml support and full unicode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006159)

Hyphenation and justification. The idea is that text should fill the space, not be left-justified (aka. ragged-right), and that one of the ways to accomplish this is to choose when to hyphenate words. The trick is to avoid leaving rivers of whitespace in your text. That's what a good h&j algorithm will ensure for you, TeX's being the gold standard in the area.

Re:mathml support and full unicode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006181)

What is an "h&j algorithm"?

Hyphenation & Justification

Stable plugins (5, Interesting)

Chlorus (1146335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005703)

I want some degree of protection from the entire browser crashing when a plugin misbehaves(***cough*** flash ***cough***)

Re:Stable plugins (2, Interesting)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005965)

For me it's been QuickTime, but I second your plugin-protection request... That is, I would, if this were actually the place to make the requests.

Customizable on/off switches in status area (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006065)

How about some customizable on/off toggles, or dials for stuff like Javascript, cookies, etc. Hace it so that you can put it on the browser surface - like right next to the printer icon. Easily accessible, and not down 4 layers of menus.

Some tabs I don't mind cookies/java, and some tabs I don't want it. I need cookies when on ebay, but then don't want them when I click to some link on a foreign newspaper article. Or don't want java on when visiting pron sites, etc.

Maybe have a site "paranaoia" slider for security, or a "wife" button to erase all recent cookies from that particular tab ;-)

Other than that, FF is pretty perfect just as it is, with the exception of fixing crashes.

Re:Customizable on/off switches in status area (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006243)

You can accomplish the same thing with a few different settings. I have firefox configured to delete all cookies when I exit, except ones on my whitelist. You can change what each site in the exception list does. You can configure it to not accept cookies at all, and then sites in the exception list can keep them for the session or until they expire, as per your configuration. I also have it configured to clear out my cache and history when I exit too. If you don't want to go that far, you can go to tools->clear Private Data, to clear that stuff whenever you want.

Why only 2D Vectors? (4, Funny)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005709)

Give me 3D vector graphics, and let me play Battlezone in the browser!

Re:Why only 2D Vectors? (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005941)

Give me 3D vector graphics, and let me play Battlezone in the browser!

3D vector graphics sounds nice, but (and no offense) I'd rather there was less convergence of the browser and the desktop environment.

Browsers are inherently buggy and exploitable, or include technologies that are. Until security is locked down tight, IMHO, we should not be moving to a place where the browser does more.
 
/If it isn't clear, I'm also not a fan of browser based webapps.

Re:Why only 2D Vectors? (1)

sohp (22984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006195)

Windows operating systems are inherently buggy and exploitable, or include technologies that are. Until security is locked down tight, IMHO, we should not be moving to a place where the Windows operating system does more.

Fixed.

Re:Why only 2D Vectors? (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005983)

A game like Battlezone is actually well served by 2D vector drawing. All you have to do is do a quick rasterization of the vertexes (x2d = x3d/z3d, y2d = y3d/z3d), then pass the result to the 2D vector routines. Rendering engine done.

While I can't view the site right now, COMET support sounds like one of the more interesting feature requirements. The only thing that I don't get is (and maybe this is explained on the currently-slashdotted site), isn't this solved by Server-Sent DOM Events [whatwg.org] ? That effectively provides a smooth and scalable form of COMET support. Of course, only Opera supports it at the moment, so maybe that's the problem...

Stating the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005713)

Flying car functionality...

A less "Awesome" URLBar Would be Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005719)

I'd like a URL bar that searches, you know, URL's when I type them in instead of matching unrelated text that happens to be somewhere in the title of the pages I've visited.

Re:A less "Awesome" URLBar Would be Nice! (2, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005879)

Bullshit, if they did that, then you'd come back and bitch that it doesn't search thoroughly enough.

Opera's searches both, if the URL, or the Title contain the query, it displays the URL and associated Title, or vice-versa, with the query in bold.

Firefox does the same, just displays it a bit differently, and IE doesn't seem to do it at all, just the normal auto-complete type thing.

So, i'll presume, and simply say "stop using IE"

Re:A less "Awesome" URLBar Would be Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006025)

I'd like a URL bar that searches, ...

searches where. the web? the search box in top-right already does that and suggests popular related words. plus, if you are typing in URLs, you probably don't need search.

FF3 (5, Funny)

pla$+!k (1314047) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005723)

Firefox 3 ought to be enough for everybody

Slashdot effect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005735)

First of all, I want them to fix the Slashdot effect so I can read about the other probems.....

An upload meter? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005755)

I'd like an upload meter.

Fast and clean (1, Interesting)

us7892 (655683) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005757)

Not a bloated piece of garbage. That would be a good "feature".

Re:Fast and clean (4, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005901)

"Fast and clean"

Guess what ideal webbrowser and ideal hookers have in common.

Upload progress bar (5, Interesting)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005759)

I know what I want: an upload progress bar. We've had download progress bars for nearly two decades now, so why not the same for uploading? In this age of YouTube and such, users are uploading files in their browsers more often than ever before, and the addition of an upload progress bar in the browser (not implemented as a hackish AJAX/Flash application) would be very much appreciated.

Re:Upload progress bar (5, Insightful)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005855)

Two more things I'd like to see: native support for vector graphics (in the form of SVG) and native support for video (in the form of the <video/> tag and a Free codec such as Ogg Theora). The latter is actually already written, but Mozilla isn't going live with it yet because of patent fears from certain large companies.

How nice it would be to have integrated video support directly in the browser, though. No need for all of the hackish solutions, such as anything Flash-based, that have grown up around this gaping capability hole in the original spec. Make embedding videos into a webpage as easy as embedding text. That would be an amazing feature for a future browser.

Re:Upload progress bar (5, Interesting)

jesser (77961) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005977)

Firefox had the progress bar working for uploads for a while, but then it broke [mozilla.org] . There is pretty much nobody working on Firefox's networking code, so minor bugs like that tend to pile up more so than in other components of Firefox :( If you know someone who enjoys working on C++ networking code, please send them our way!

Re:Upload progress bar (3, Informative)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006123)

I know that you probably realize this, but the reason for the lack of upload progress is because it's a limitation of the HTTP protocol itself. In order to upload you have to send the data in one big POST request and there's no way, via HTTP, to poll the results on the server.

That's why, currently, upload progress bars are implemented in HTML/javascript/server-side scripting. It requires a server side script to dump the current file size on the server and some javascript to poll the server-side script. In order to get upload progress bars standard in all browsers there would be have to be a standard way, via HTTP, to poll the status of the upload on the server.

So don't blame the browsers solely. To get this feature implemented would require modifications to the servers too. So the best way to get this feature implemented in all browsers (in a widely-accepted, standard fashion) is to call for an addition to the HTTP protocol.

More porn obviously! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005771)

Whew that was a easy question. ; )

Am I the only one who doesn't mind that much? (4, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005779)

I do enjoy a minimum browsing quality. However, personally, all of the competing browsers currently on the market do what I ask them to. Yes, this includes IE7. Microsoft has vastly improved their browser and I applaud them for it. However, I think there's a point where feature packing has its limit. I guess you could compare it to Microsoft adding tons of bloat to XP and making Vista instead of fixing the outstanding issues of XP. I believe there's a point where browsers are just fine, and extra features would be superfluous. I thought Firefox 2 had attained that point until Firefox 3 came out, with its many performance improvements. At this point I only think that bug fixes and even more performance improvements are necessary. Vector graphics? No thanks. My work computer already has enough trouble loading Toms hardware and slashdot properly as it is.

Re:Am I the only one who doesn't mind that much? (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005797)

On another note, I'm guessing the two HTTP connection issue is the issue where the server the link points to doesn't accept any more than 2 HTTP connections at a time, because I certainly can't see what it is about; it won't load....

Re:Am I the only one who doesn't mind that much? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005919)

Vector graphics could actually allow your computer to load pages faster. Vector graphics are almost always smaller than raster images for images that contain vector qualities.

Re:Am I the only one who doesn't mind that much? (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005953)

Yes, but doesn't it induce higher CPU load? This is what I'm mainly concerned about.

Re:Am I the only one who doesn't mind that much? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006087)

I don't think that converting a vector graphic to a bitmap in memory, to display it on the screen would be any more processor intensive than decompressing a JPG. If I had to guess, I would say that it would be less work than decompressing the equivalent jpg/gif/png image.

More Pr0n! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005783)

'Nuff Said.

Boobies! (4, Insightful)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005859)

Seriously though how about some decent security for a change. It would be nice to have a browser that doesn't let malware pown you system with a million vulnerabilities or so. Integrate an adware/spyware protection system.

That and boobies.

and tabs, and decent memory management. Speed is good also. Sharks with frikin' lasers...

Make it possible to select multiple files (5, Insightful)

siDDis (961791) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005875)

and not just one single file when I want to upload. I really hate to go that java/activex way to solve this issue today.

Native AdBlock Support (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005881)

Although the Adblock plugin works wonderfully in Mozilla, I'd like to see more features in it. Wonder if there is something similar in IE? It'd be great if Mozilla would take charge of the development of that plugin and start to release it with Firefox instead of an add-on.

Not yet, probably never (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005899)

with things like AIR starting to be accepted by developers, do we still need the browser at all?"

Until AIR is open source or the open source community releases an AIR-compatible runtime, we will always need a browser. Even then, we will probably still need it for the developers who believe that AIR development is terrible on anything but Windows.

I want the tag! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24005943)

Using the HTML 5.0 Video tag in SVG to implement a Silverlight style demo in Firefox 3:

http://www.zappinternet.com/video/FuVbJidVax/SVG-Video-Demo

Detect Slashdot supes (0)

christurkel (520220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24005963)

A feature that detects duplicate stories on Slashdot so you don't waste your time reading them only to realize it's a dupe. That'd rock.

a rich-text editing standard (3, Insightful)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006007)

browser based rich-text editing is a huge mess. of the browsers that claim to support it, there's very few functions that work universally, and everything else has to be hacked together. one of the 4 major browsers, up until the latest version, couldnt even create hyperlinks!

we need a standard desperately, and we needed it years ago.

Henry Ford (4, Insightful)

Lank (19922) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006027)

"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."

Maybe we should be thinking what do we want _beyond_ a web browser?

I want my broswer to well, browse the web. (4, Insightful)

shypht (1267660) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006033)

I don't want it to read my email, or be my RSS reader. I don't want it to be an image editor, or a word processor, or MP3 player or media library. I would like it to be standards compliant, render web pages quickly, not consume loads of ram, and be stable. If I want any of the various 'features' as above, I'll take them in a plugin-format, or through a web application programmed to standards that can accomplish that task. Or, use a stand alone program for it. I want my applications to specialize in a few things and do them VERY well, I dont want 'jack of all trades, master of none' applications that implement dozens of features (most I dont want/use anyways), that don't do them very well, and add to overall bloat/instability in the application.

A sleep() function in JavaScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006063)

I'd like a proper sleep() function in JavaScript .

Better Cookie Handling (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006077)

Better cookie handling

A Mute Button (4, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006091)

I would like firefox to have a "kill the sound" button like IE does. If I'm on a site that plays background music, I can press [esc] in Internet Explorer and get silence. In Firefox, I don't think there is such a keystroke.

SAFETY (4, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006101)

Kill 10% of the performance but bounds check everything.

I use "noscript" and flashblocker and I havn't gotten anything yet. but a friend using firefox was trashed by a link a friend sent her. A lot of "legit" sites (esp lyrics) now inject stuff into your computer.

I want safety first, then after that ,, safety. THEN maybe some new feature.

Built-in server overload protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006103)

Browsers should be able to automatically detect if the server the user requested is overloaded and, if so, automatically try to fetch a copy from other users.

This would end slashdotting once and for all.

There are so many things I want (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006109)

IMO the most important things for browsers in the near future is the following:

  • XHTML and CSS compatibility - To save us all a lot of trouble.
  • Memory footprint - It needs to be smaller.
  • Stability - When I've got fifteen tabs open I don't want something in one of those tabs to crash the browser.
  • Some form of page rendering where browsers are able to render page layout and text without waiting for larger images and such, perhaps by figuring out how to just fetch the dimensions of images from the server somehow.
  • Properly sandboxed plugins - I want to be able to let flash run but limit the resources available to it, same for javscript and java applets..

If all this could be done then I'd be pretty happy with the state of web browsers and would stop complaining...

/Mikael

Re:There are so many things I want (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006211)

Standardized JavaScript handling, currently IE and Mozilla handles some aspects differently.

Improved security - compartmentalization of data, better cookie filters.

SVG support in IE.

Is client programming really all that bad? (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006183)

People are looking for 14 different flavors of HTML, different scripting languages, plug ins, sandboxes and more and they somehow want all of this slop to throw in graphics ...

maybe, just maybe, the idea of a single application that accesses all information is a dumb idea, and the right place for this sort of integration is on the desktop, after all.

Mainly what I want... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006227)

...are things like declarative animation so that well produced sites continue to degrade gracefully when the whopping security hole known as javascript is disabled. I know the ajax alliance aren't the best group to discuss that one with but some of the items on the list are odd. CSS gradients and blur have been implemented in WebKit but the work on CSS animation is far more important. Why wouldn't they just ask for SVG in IE instead of lumping it with canvas support?

For other stuff like coroutines in javascript, Brendan's already talked about that extensively. [mozillazine.org]

Unimpressed.

Wish list (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006249)

TFA is already slashdotted.

Things I'd like to see:

  • Javascript v2.x and higher. Please include as an option typed datafields and standard inheritance (this prototype inheritance is too weird— some great ideas should never be implemented).
  • More modular construction: the ability to upgrade different parts of the browser at different times. Should be possible to upgrade the HTML parser separately from the DOM manager, and either separately from Javascript. Etc.
  • Extensibility, like XUL, ideally implemented in an agnostic fashion.
  • SVG or an equivalent. Should support embedded HTML within SVG objects.
  • A larger set of standardized widgets for gathering user input.
  • Improved mechanisms/protocols for linking with external client-side and server-side software. Aim at making the browser the primary output from other software.

Probably other stuff. I plan on visiting TFA tonight, at a quieter time, when they maybe have recovered from the meltdown.

Better Javascript controls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006251)

NoScript is nice, but isn't selective enough. I'd like to be able to
* allow scripts to manipulate document elements only (no submitting form data, downloading data, manipulating windows, etc.)
* allow scripts to manipulate document elements and download content from the originating site only (i.e., a script from foo.com could download content from foo.com but not from bar.com)
* allow scripts to maniuplate document elements, download content from and upload content to the originating site only
* allow scripts to do anything (not reccomended)
When running in one of these modes, any attempt by a script to do something else should silently fail.

Unfortunately, the current state of affairs seems to be to allow scripts to do anything by default, while third-party plugins/extensions can be used to block scripts altogether or to restrict a handful of actions (opening windows, resizing windows, etc.). This is not adequate.

One word: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24006255)


Push. Of course, 99.99% of Slashdotters don't have any idea of this concept.

Back in the day.... (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24006279)

when I first heard of bittorrent, I always thought it would make an excellent addition to the http protocol to utilize bittorrent or something like it to share the content of a page, including embeded images and other media content, for as long as a browser window is open on that page, with the web site itself acting as an initial seed if nobody else is currently viewing the page. Instead of the data transfer load being placed entirely on the web server, the task could be delegated to other machines that are viewing that page, all of which ought to have the information readily available. This would have the upshot of keeping smaller websites from being crippled due to sudden surges in traffic, such as what is all too often caused by news stories on sites such as slashdot and numerous others on the web. Had things gone this way back in the day, I think I can safely say we would not be seeing P2P throttling happening the way it is today, because it would be too prevalently used by the mainstream population for general purpose browsing for the ISP's to pull it off without legitimate complaint from everyday users.

I have to say I'd still like to see something like that... although I suspect now it may be too late, because broadband ISP's are already throttling protocols like bittorrent, so most of its potential benefit may already be gone.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>