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!

Mozilla Preparing To Scrap Tabbed Browsing?

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-it-ain't-broke-fix-it dept.

Mozilla 554

Barence writes "Mozilla Labs has launched a design competition that aims to find an alternative to tabbed browsing. 'Tabs worked well on slow machines on a thin internet, where ten browser sessions were "many browser sessions,"' Mozilla claims on its Design Challenge website. 'Today, 20+ parallel sessions are quite common; the browser is more of an operating system than a data display application; we use it to manage the web as a shared hard drive. However, if you have more than seven or eight tabs open they become pretty much useless.' Aza Raskin, the head of user experience at Mozilla Labs, has already blogged on the possibility of moving tabs down the side of the browser, with tabs grouped by the type of activity involved (i.e. applications, work spaces)."

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

I can see it now (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994077)

We need a ribbon!

maybe you need a dick... (-1, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994121)

...be it to sit on it or to suck on it, while somebody bangs your s.o..

Re:I can see it now (0, Troll)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994123)

Yes, one with tabs. Lots of tabs. In different colors...

Re:I can see it now (5, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994163)

From the article:

Mozilla has already given serious thought to the idea of replacing tabbed browsing itself. Aza Raskin, the head of user experience at Mozilla Labs, has already blogged on the possibility of moving tabs down the side of the browser, with tabs grouped by the type of activity involved (i.e. applications, work spaces).

Oh man. The very, very first thing I ever do on a fresh Windows XP installation is turn off folder grouping. And now Firefox wants to implement this stupidity? NOT a good idea.

Note to the Mozilla devs: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:I can see it now (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994365)

Note to the Mozilla devs: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

More directly: if it ain't broke, don't break it!

With all the 16:9 and 16:10 wide format screens now, moving the tabs to the side would make more sense. A lot more can be usefully fit in that way (about 30-60, depending on font preference & screen size), even with the current tabbing metaphor. In fact, it would work for me on a regular 4:3 screen as well, since I usually keep the web page displayed in a sort of "portrait" aspect ratio, leaving a lot of spare room beside the browser - enough for tabs to fit easily.

Re:I can see it now (4, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994455)

and then we get into hissy fits as more and more designers design pages based on their shiny new 16:9 display...

designs that break on screens that are 4:3 or in any other way width "challenged".

Re:I can see it now (5, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994521)

Tree Style Tab does this... it's a very nice Add-on.

Tree Style Tab [mozilla.org]

Re:I can see it now (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994655)

Problem with your idea is that current tabs have a width to height ratio of about 5:1. Without implementing tricks that a lot of users won't like (popping out the tab on a mouseover for example, or worse, having the tabs read down sideways), you can't really make the tabs that much more narrow.

So yes, there is more physical screen real estate from side to side, but from a percentage of the total dimension standpoint, it makes sense to keep the horizontal rather than vertical. Or more simply, 100 pixels shaved off the side of my screen is a bigger negative to me than 20 shaved off the top.

Re:I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994371)

but it is broke. I have 4 firefox windows each with over 20 tabs, and I have 2 IE8 windows also with 0ver 20 tabs each. Last, I have 5 bookmark folders of tab windows so I did not have to keep more windows open. I need to find a new way to deal with this.

Re:I can see it now (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994457)

Ever heard of opening a new window?

I concede that Sidebars, as mentioned by someone else further on down, would be OK if they are optional. But for most people, the solution to the problem is not really a solution at all. Tabs are popular because (gasp!) they work extremely well in a browser. Why do you think that Microsoft eventually capitulated and included them in IE7?

I guess what surprises me the most is that I'd have thought the biggest problem with having 20 tabs open is... you have 20 tabs open. Are you seriously reading all those websites at the one time? If so, then you must have the worst case of ADHD I've ever come across! Please, get some help :-)

Re:I can see it now (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994537)

Hmmmm... rereading that previous comment, I think I entirely missed the sarcasm of the parent poster. I'm pretty certain I just demonstrated a very clear and obvious *whoosh* moment. Sigh.

Re:I can see it now (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994725)

while you did admit it. As a point of refrence I load up all my news, and web comics first thing in the morning. I click three buttons and 30 odd tabs begin to load. I read and close each tab.

Given the amount of images,flash and javascript in the average webpage 30 second load and render times with even 15mbs connection isn't abnormal. By loading many tabs at the same time I can read the webpage instead of waiting for it

Re:I can see it now (5, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994467)

Simple fix: Adopt video-only policy for porn.

Re:I can see it now (4, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994505)

but it is broke. I have 4 firefox windows each with over 20 tabs, and I have 2 IE8 windows also with 0ver 20 tabs each. Last, I have 5 bookmark folders of tab windows so I did not have to keep more windows open. I need to find a new way to deal with this.

Close something.

I'm not being sarcastic. You're telling us your productivity flow involves 120+ simultaneous web views. Your workflow is what's broken, not the browser.

Re:I can see it now (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994599)

That's over 100 tabs. Perhaps you should try working on a subset of things instead of multiple things at once.

Re:I can see it now (5, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994423)

What they really need to do is making "tabs" VS "bookmarks" seamless.

The concept of a live bookmark comes to mind.

Bookmarks that when you click, act just like tabs, the site should just pop open, in the exact same state as it was when the bookmark was saved, scroll position, etc.

Then comes the possibility of "archiving" tabs.

i.e. tabs that haven't been accessed in a few days get transformed into "Live bookmarks" that you can call up by using your location bar to "Search for tabs"

Re:I can see it now (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994501)

These are the people who thought up the awesome bar.

Re:I can see it now (1, Interesting)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994125)

It would be amazing. The ribbon is indeed a wonderful UI design, and if proper organized can make for a much smoother experience. If they worked a ribbon-like interface, that would be sweet.

Re:I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994697)

I think that the fact that your comment was rated +1 interesting is like being damned with faint praise. Yes, your ideas are interesting but they aren't insightful in any way. And when I mean "interesting", I mean "not the perspective of normal users".

Re:I can see it now (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994155)

Can we call it the awesome ribbon?

Re:I can see it now (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994237)

or a wider monitor...

Re:I can see it now (1)

powerslave12r (1389937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994567)

The thought of icons comes to mind, minimizing tabs to icons with preview by pressing 'Ctrl+Tab' or something similar. Something akin to the browser being your desktop, with each icon being a tab (tab equivalent).

We need a taskbar (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994597)

I normally open each web session in a new browser window and use the taskbar. It works for me because I really cannot see the point of having 20+ parallel sessions, I just close the windows that don't interest me at the moment.

Scrap is the wrong word here (1)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994117)

Sounds more like they're looking for intelligent incremental improvement to me. And why not? Tabbing has taken over the browsing world entirely! Even the Redmondites can't throw an ad campaign accusing tabs of being evil after being the final adopter of the technology. . . .

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (4, Interesting)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994197)

Even the Redmondites can't throw an ad campaign accusing tabs of being evil after being the final adopter of the technology. . . .

This is funny as the first place I remember seeing a tabbed interface was MS Office, back before I knew of Linux. For example, the different sheets in a spreadsheet program are exactly like tabs, both in look and feel, and function. It's funny how much hype and 'innovation' it has taken to bring such a common UI element into web browsers.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994661)

Yeah, I remember that. When they did that, I was finally able to ditch my (by then ancient) copy of Quattro Pro...

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994255)

When the folks at Opera solve this "problem", I'm sure everyone else will adopt it about a decade later.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (4, Informative)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994593)

In Opera, when I have more than a few tabs open I already ignore the tab bar. You can hold the right mouse button and roll the scroll wheel to bring up a list of all the open tabs. I don't think its the solution Mozilla is looking for, but when I have 25-30 tabs open it certainly is an easier way for me to browse through them than trying to flip through the tabs.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994675)

You can already put the tabs on the side in Opera.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994315)

Tabbing has taken over the browsing world entirely!
Except for the fact that only people who are technical seem to use them. All my non technical friends when I watch them browse the Internet it is quite painful. They keep on clicking a new application to open the browser for every page they want open at the same time. Google the URL (which I won't correct them as it is probably safer that way as they don't go to a mistyped URL and get a bunch of junk). When they have a lot of browsers open they Minimize and maximize or move windows around until the find the right one.

I would say more effort would be to making tab browing easier for the non tech person (Yes it is really easy for the tech person a click of the mouse or a Alt/Ctrl/Command - T) but the non-technical people will not experiment with their computer. When we see a funny little Icon we click on it and see what it does, a non technical person will just leave it alone. And don't even bother trying to get them to go threw the menu.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (1)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994341)

I agree. Non-techies and/or older folks who are unaware of tabbing don't use it. But they would if they were shown it or if they had the mental capacity to try something aside from AOL.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (2, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994367)

perhaps a default to open new application requests as a tab. Then all the power users need to do is turn it off.

I know when I want a new browser (to seperate out one set of work from another) but grandma doesn't configure her web experience like that.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994475)

Suggest the default for clicking a URL shortcut should be to open a new tab (if browser already opened)

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (1)

Carik (205890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994585)

I know an awful lot of non-technical people who use tabbed browsing. My parents, for instance, are not exactly technical (or at least, not with modern computers...), but they both used tabbed browsing. It took them a while to get the hang of it, but once I'd explained how it worked, they were fine.

It's not that difficult, it's just not intuitive. Some clear instruction makes a big difference.

Re:Scrap is the wrong word here (1)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994717)

I disagree. In my office our Customer Service Reps use both IE and Firefox. Every single one of them uses a minimum of 6 tabs in Firefox all day long. Not a single one of them is a technical person.

My non-technical 60 year old parents don't seem to have a problem with figuring out tabbed browsing either. Come to think about it mt 85 year old grandmother who is slightly crazy even uses tabs in IE.

Blanket statements are rarely accurate

20+ (2)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994135)

20+ tabs? Damn, when i have 10 tabs i'm already lost, even with addons to view thumbnails of those tabs...

I'm rather intrigued what will come out of this design contest...

Personally i don't think the sidebar is that good of an idea. Eats away too much space of my screen.

Re:20+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994261)

Let me know how lost you are when that tab count extension hits 100+. Some of us don't shut down firefox for weeks at a time.

Re:20+ (2, Interesting)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994291)

It's a bit like the windows start bar tbh. If you routinely have a tonne of apps open, move the bar to the side (instead of the bottom) - give you readable text for all of those apps. Surely the same could be true of browsing.

Re:20+ (0, Troll)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994331)

get off the web old man!

I wish they would take someone's browser license away when he/she gets to old to keep track of their browsing, they just clog up the tubes.

Re:20+ (3, Funny)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994387)

You can come & pry the license from my cold, dead fingers.

Now get off my lawn you long-haired no-gooder!

Not quite right (3, Interesting)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994137)

Sounds less like ditching tabs, and more like adding grouping. Make it optional, and I don't see a problem.

Re:Not quite right (2, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994355)

You can already do this.
I use the "tree style tab" extension on the side on my widescreen desktop, and it works well.
On my smaller laptop screen I use the normal tabs on the top.

Bah (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994149)

Mozilla claims on its Design Challenge website. "Today, 20+ parallel sessions are quite common; the browser is more of an operating system than a data display application; we use it to manage the web as a shared hard drive.

And here we see the next step in FireFox going down the drain. I want a browser not an OS. FireFox is bloated and crash prone, even more so that IE7. If Opera had the plug-in capability of Firefox, I'd move back to it.

Re:Bah (0)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994337)

well... add fast javascript, and it really does become an OS, one where you run your online applications in and barely ever visit the local filesystem.

That's the way things are going, Google wants it, Microsoft is scared sh**less about it. I can't see it not happening for mainstream users as we move the primary computer from a desktop to a netbook to your television set.

Sure Firefox is getting more bloated, and I think some of that fat needs to be removed and placed in plugins or extensions; but the basic mechanism of choosing a page to view is one of the basic essentials that needs to stay.

Re:Bah (1, Troll)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994459)

And one more thing. Javascript the lingua franca of the web? It makes me ill.

Stupid. (4, Insightful)

Miladinoski (1280850) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994169)

Aza Raskin, the head of user experience at Mozilla Labs, has already blogged on the possibility of moving tabs down the side of the browser, with tabs grouped by the type of activity involved (i.e. applications, work spaces).

Insanely stupid IMO! I personally because I want browser space, totally remove every toolbar - including the tab bar (scroll through them with Ctrl-Tab in Opera) - and now some idiots want to waste more space.

I don't want a 'Safari look' on my browser, I just want it to be functional and work the way I want. What turns me on is the fact that I can open more than 10 tabs freely on a PC with 512 megs of RAM and not be hogged.

Sadly, more and more people turn on to other browsers because of their pimped looks (IE) only later to find out that they're peace of crap in the features included.

Re:Stupid. (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994211)

I know - to see what a bad idea it would be, just look at the screenshot of the proof of concept [azarask.in] . Notice how you have to scroll to the side in gmail just to see you mail subject lines. Hardly a good use of screen real-estate.

To be honest, the sidebar is very Windows Explorer Active Desktop-ish. And the first thing many people do is turn off the sidebar.

Re:Stupid. (4, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994421)

That's clearly an artifact of lazy mock up screenshot generation. Screenshot of browser, move the web page part across a bit and stick in the new "frame". Note, no scrollbar at the bottom.

There is a minimum width gmail requires to not scroll horizontally, but that's google's fault (since it's bigger than what is actually needed).

It is too wide in that mock up, but usually there's more space across than up/down - though my browser is in a pane that is 837x1028...

Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (4, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994175)

Traditionally when competition exists it pushes the technology (or industry) forward but unfortunately that hasn't been the case with browsers.

While browsers improve they also remain very much the same. If you pull up a copy of Netscape Navigator 4.0 you'll find that most things are still identical to today's browsers.

Just to give one example, look at bookmarks, they rarely have even basic search capabilities (e.g. title) and never have more sophisticated searches (e.g. content). Organisation is horribly difficult and finding anything often takes longer than googling it.

To give another example, history, it is a basic list of websites you've visited but often containing random javascript pages and giving no visual representation of what you visited (visual memory is useful). Search is bad here too.

I could list more and more examples but I think you get my point.

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (2, Interesting)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994239)

So what about a graph of sites you visited, instead of a list?

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (5, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994565)

So what about a graph of sites you visited, instead of a list?

You mean like IBM Web Explorer did in 1994?
It arranged the session history into a tree according to the path you traversed. It did not arbitrarily truncate the tree into a linear sequence the way almost all browsers do now.

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994243)

you should try Chrome

imho it solves the points you brought up nicely

and the browser is quite "different" in a good clean UI kinda way from the rest

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (5, Informative)

andi75 (84413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994279)

The 'awesome bar' in firefox automagically searches your bookmarks.

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (2, Informative)

Ndymium (1282596) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994609)

And so does Opera.

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (2)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994411)

If you pull up a copy of Netscape Navigator 4.0 you'll find that most things are still identical to today's browsers.

Hardly. The atrocious CSS support in Netscape Navigator 4 was based around transcoding to JSSS - it was a last-minute bolt-on. There's virtually nothing in common with today's browsers, rendering-wise. Same goes for the DOM - back then, there were essentially two incompatible APIs, now we have standardised ECMAScript and a DOM that is mostly compatible, not counting events. The methods available for extending browsers have changed dramatically, with things like user JavaScript and Firefox's addons taking the place of plugins. There's countless ways in which the technologies have been pushed forwards. To refute your examples, Opera has full-text search across your entire browsing history.

I could list more and more examples but I think you get my point.

But examples can't prove your point. Sure, you can make up features you would like to see, and you can complain that they haven't been implemented, but that doesn't mean browsers have stagnated, because there are plenty of other examples of browser technology improving.

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (3, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994613)

Technical mumbo jumbo was not his point, you are beating strawman out here.

Point is GUI, which was, indeed, nearly identical for past 20 year. We still have legacy buttons like home (WTF!).

Re:Innovation is lacking in the browser market... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994529)

I think people are pretty happy with how their browsers work. Making a massive change would be risky; the average user probably would not like it.

A massive overhaul in UI would scare and aggrivates people, esp. non-technical users, who don't easily learn the new interface.

They'd switch back to IE6...

I like tabs (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994179)

I routinely deal with more than 20 open tabs, and upwards of 60-80 open tabs at times. It isn't a problem, from a performance perspective.

What is an issue is managing all those open tabs, and being able to find the one I want. I use a number of extensions which help with this, but it can still get burdensome at times. Still, I don't think it's a huge problem, and it doesn't really bother me.

Re:I like tabs (2, Interesting)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994271)

Similar story here, though never as many as 60 tabs! How do you keep track of them?

For academic purposes it can get a bit out of hand when I have 20-30 tabs open, each one containing a journal paper. Trying to juggle them, find the one that I need to look at right now, then another that I need to quote etc. can be difficult. An intelligent way of managing this would be a godsend. TFA is quite correct when it says that browsers are becoming less and less about pure data display - they're a portal to what has become a major part of everyday life - the Internet.

Re:I like tabs (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994649)

If I'm working on something in particular, I rip off one of the tabs into a new window and move the related ones into that window. I also group them along the top by relatedness(they tend to cluster anyway when opening a new tab).

Then I usually put them in order by the last time I looked at them. If anything on the far side is older than a few days, I make a new bookmark folder and drag those tabs into it, as it is no longer "short term", and revisit it later.

That gives me enough spatial memory so that If I hover over one tab, its title lets me roughly where all the other pages are. It'd be nice if I could color the tabs.

Re:I like tabs (2, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994451)

Hell yeah. They can have my tabs when they pry them from my cold dead hands. My browsing habit is basically to google something, middle click a bunch of likely looking links and then go look at them - hopefully they've loaded up by then.

Still... if they can come up with something better i'm willing to give it a go.

moving tabs down the side of the browser ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994191)

would be indeed a good idea, IMHO.

CC.

Re:moving tabs down the side of the browser ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994487)

This is a TERRIBLE idea. What would be a good idea would be allowing the user to turn off the tab bar, and use something else instead, like an extension. The most logical place to put them is in the sidebar. You [probably] don't need tabs and bookmarks (or whatever) at the same time.

Re:moving tabs down the side of the browser ... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994553)

Don't we pick open source to have a choice?

Why not make the tab bar dockable, with an option to lock it to the top, the side, the left, bottom, or even have a floating tab bar?

Group by site? (4, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994199)

Whenever I run into massive multiplication of tabs, it's rarely dozens of entirely separate sites. I'll have three or four /. stories open, and I'll have opened a few subthreads in each one to follow them separately. I'll have several Wikipedia pages open. I'll have the BBC writeups of all football matches of interest from the previous day. So, dozens of tabs in all, but mostly from the same few domains.

Obvious solution, group them together by site. Instead of a dozen separate tabs which say 'Slashdot Co...' have one tab saying 'slashdot.org' and when I click on that it can show me everything I have open. In fact this is too obvious to be a new idea: surely someone's already programmed an extension that makes this happen?

Re:Group by site? (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994525)

Except that when I have that grouping by site makes little sense.

There's a slashdot article, the link from the article (no, seriously), maybe some additional links open, maybe a wikipedia page if something was interesting enough, a google search page and maybe a couple of result pages open if it was *really* interesting.

Then there's a google maps page, a google search page, some real estate lising pages.

Then a bugzilla page, a calendar, some task pages, a google search page, some search result pages, maybe some mailing list archive pages, and the damn documentation for the obscure library function I actually was looking for.

The groupings are not by site, they're by activity with multiple overlapping sites in each activity. Of course at some point multiple browser *windows* makes sense...

Re:Group by site? (2, Interesting)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994571)

Tab Mix Plus [mozilla.org] . Don't let the "last updated" date fool you.

Not to disappoint, but... (1)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994205)

Tabkit anyone? Granted it's not exactly the same as their idea, but it can easily manage 20+ tabs in a readable fashion....

Great! :) (1)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994217)

I always find myself ending up with loads and loads of tabs after a few hours of fascinated clicking [xkcd.org] or slacking off (which is good... right?). Tabs are not really helping when you start off reading manuals for some API you're trying to tame, get distracted by a really interesting concept mentioned in there, and finally end up with nine tabs of Wikipedia, a few eBay tabs, thirty webcomics and two blog posts about cabbage. I really can't "find" the three tabs with documentation if I want to go back to work.

So the idea of grouping tabs sounds appealing to me. Maybe the groups of tabs could even get a different kind of behaviour, e.g. the anonymous browsing feature. Or a merge with the 'profiles' feature.

dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994221)

oh god what fresh bloat is this

Default tabbed browsing to off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994225)

Sounds strange but it would actually be a good idea. People who know what they are doing will just turn the functionality back on.

However I've seen far too many non-technical people end up with a browser full of tabs. Everytime they click a link in an email program it opens another tab. They generally don't realise what they are or how to close them.

Re:Default tabbed browsing to off (1)

Miladinoski (1280850) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994289)

Everytime they click a link in an email program it opens another tab.

And if tab browsing is off, they'll have a cluttered workspace because every link will open in a new window.

Think of the big picture :)

More of an operting system? Err , what? (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994233)

"the browser is more of an operating system than a data display application"

Err no, it isn't. Its not even close to being an OS. A data display application with some built in interpreters is ALL it is and hopefully is all it will be since most browsers are bloated enough already.

"we use it to manage the web as a shared hard drive"

Speak for yourself pal - not all of us want to manage our private files or even lives online. Just because you do doesn't make it so for everyone.

Re:More of an operting system? Err , what? (1)

techiemikey (1126169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994483)

Just because you do doesn't make it so for everyone.

And just because you don't doesn't make it so for everyone. Alot of online companies recently have been moving to online apps instead of static pages. Look at Picassa and Google docs. Parts of the internet is moving towards being a shared hard drive and they want to be able to handle it.

That being said, it will all be in the implementation on how it goes and how great or terrible their idea is.

Re:More of an operting system? Err , what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994719)

Absolutely. I am finding more and more, Web developers seem to be trying to come up with new whiz-bang functions and features to appease the Web 2.0 crowd. Of course, that's natural since these folks ARE the Web 2.0 crowd.

I just want a simple, fast browser with NO whacky extra functions. That's what plug-ins are for! I'm sick of these whacky new functions being floated for mass adoption based solely on the groundswell support in San Francisco.

a browser is not an operating system (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994245)

it was never designed to be so, and probably should never be. If there are elements of the web that you are using as if they were part of your operating system, e.g webstorage, google docs... then those services should develop applications to integrate themselves into your OS (c.f web/netowrk disks).

Oh no! (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994265)

But then what are we going to do when Windows 7 limits us to only having 3 windows at a time (because 3 windows should be more than enough for anybody)?

well let's stop right there. (3, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994273)

First, the browser isn't an OS. (It's a browser, stupid!)

Second, someone's pissed about chrome's separate processes per tab. (now, just close the process on that tab and no more crashes.)

Third, to make firefox useful, you must bloat it up with addons. (evidenced by the 12+ addons I have loaded right now)

Fourth, someone's also pissed about chrome being so fast. (let's not argue, it's just way faster.)

Fifth, If I could load addons into chrome, I'd be a fanboy. (specifically adblock)

Sixth, make firefox able to use different javascript engines and perhaps different rendering engines, then we'll talk about tabs. (which, if you think about it is the main appeal of firefox. It's why people started switching in the first place.)

Is the entire browser singlethreaded? (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994275)

That's what bothers me more, that my browsing experiences hangs with one page. Perhaps every tabs should be it's own thread/process/whatever.

I don't know about alternatives to tabs, but whatever they come up with (like Google's Chromium), I'm pretty sure it will be still tabs but just an alternative presentation adding up to the same thing - even if becomes like the mulitple desktops Linuxes have. I don't think anyone wants to go to the pre-tab days of having 20 browser apps crowding out the other apps.

I wish they would concentrate on making the browser better at sorting information, an update to the dated bookmark concept, maybe with a profile that automatically transfers (if you want it too) to your other computers, making your experience more seamless. Or just being able to save a webpage as a PDF (take a hint from OS X) without using add-ons.

Re:Is the entire browser singlethreaded? (1)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994405)

Hmm, I can't seem to find it now, but there was an article up earlier about switching FF over to being multi-threaded. They'd probably do both things if they end up working out.

Poll! (2, Interesting)

cyberbill79 (1268994) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994281)

Let's get a poll up for this. # of tabs used regularly. I hope there's a Cowboy Neal option! ;)

sigh, marketroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994317)

The browser is not an OS.

Web 2.0 is slow, clunky, feature-lacking, rough-edged substitute for the native UI.

If I wanted a dumb terminal I'd fire up one of my VTx20s. You know what that had? Multiple screens. So, there's your fucking innovation. DEC VT screens. Perhaps give familiarity to Linux console users by mapping to keypresses Alt-F1..F8. Each browser "window" just occupies the whole screen, of course, since apparently it's the whole OS.

Then people can migrate from Office to the super-functional, super-stable, super-available Google Docs, run Final Cut over an ADSL line, make do with Wolfram Alpha instead of a local copy of Mathematica, and generally make the Mozilla "Foundation" richer than.. oh, that's right, it's not a charity at all...

the list is very personal - here is my answer (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994339)

0 Proprietary Software will be there always - True

but Software covering basic cultural techniques like

calculating/spreadsheet

Document writing

Pixel Graphics/ photo processing

Vector/Line Graphics

CAD

will be forced into Public Domain - simply because the TCO of proprieatry software in this field is too high to allow propretary solutions to continue - with their vendor lock ins and un-maintainable document retention

1 sound system - true - is a mess now

2 X-system - can not say - have not experienced unstable GUI

3 Linux Distros: variety is good

maybe the big Desktop Distro's should agree on some standrads - if needed by a public polll to select the favorites

3.4 Applications for Windows suffer the same problem -

at least in the field of scientific software .

Whereas if I have the source I can compile for the new OS version myself, in case of proprietary SW I have to pay both the OS vendor as well as the scientific SW vendor for the new thing.

Most often in the scientific world there is no one who can and/or wants to write a new version! Then I am on my own and better off with OSS ( if not FOSS )

4 GUI for everything is not a must - but consistency within a distribution and maybe between distros would be nice.

5 I can not see so many basic SW tools missing! Only one I reckon is Visio.

AutoCAD will not publish for Linux - they have a closed philosophy.

On the other side there is Blender which is ahead of the proprietary solutions.

Same true for R, the statistics package. ( True there is no integrated GUI yet )

5.3.1 if you leave out the CPU to do the work?

5.3.2 WebCams - true - WebCam manufacturers - why not release some drivers for Linux?

5.4 can not answer - ask Hollywood and Sony

5.5 US is interested in getting revenue for plastic ( SW see:

http://www.worldmapper.orgdisplay.php?selected=99 [orgdisplay.php]

6 can no answer that except: happens to Windows applications too

7 that is a point - suggest some Universities adopt certain aspects of a FOSS OS

8 good interoperability depends on good data and interface specifications and a rigorous compliance to standards

9 slowness - the OO example is true, not true for other thingssuch as inkscape versus CorelDraw

13 can not agree - see point 3.4

14 big distro's like RedHat and Novell/SuSE as well as Ubuntu could do something about it

Please... (4, Insightful)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994347)

"Today, 20+ parallel sessions are quite common; the browser is more of an operating system than a data display application; we use it to manage the web as a shared hard drive. However, if you have more than seven or eight tabs open they become pretty much useless."

Sure, maybe the Mozilla folks like their browser so much they use it as an OS and open up 20+ tabs at once with it, but I'm pretty confident the average user just browses the web with it, and doesn't open more than 3 or 4 tabs at once. At least I don't (or anyone I know, for that matter) and I even consider myself a power user, I spend about 2 hours a day in my browser.

Maybe the Mozilla devs should consider gathering some statistics to back up their assumptions about browser use because this really sounds like they don't really get the difference between the 1% power users and the 99% casual users that just visit the same few websites they visit everyday.

Until that, just keep the tabs please.

Is New Window considered harmful? (5, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994353)

Tabs and new windows are not mutually exclusive. I group my tabs just fine by having a separate window for each set of tabs. To me it makes a lot of sense since I can ALT-tab between subjects and CTRL-tab between tabs in that subject. I don't see their sidebar solution as being any better.

I suggest... (2, Insightful)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994399)

As others have said, the first thing I do in Windows is turn off window grouping, and in firefox is turn off all the extraneous, real estate-sucking bars they haven enabled.

I suggest that they implement whichever solution(s) they like as an extension, and let people vote with their downloads which one they like best before drastically changing the browser. Let the users decide.

We don't need no stinkin' groupin'. (5, Funny)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994401)

Grouping tabs wouldn't work. All those hundreds of tabs would still end up in the same group: porn. And I'd be just as lost.

No Thanks (1)

Null Nihils (965047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994437)

I often have about 50 tabs open in Opera, and I can handle them just fine. Right now I have about 25 tabs open. Most of them are documentation (eg. mysql, posix threads) or work-related (lua binding tutorial, stackoverflow threads [stackoverflow.com] ) or news (Slashdot!).

In Notepad++ [sourceforge.net] I also have lots of tabs open. I need lots of tabs in order to do my work; I always have lots of things on the go. I like to have as much information layed out as possible, with everything I have worked on recently open and "stacked" much like papers or books would be on a real desktop. I guess I'm a very spacial thinker.

A few times I lost my Opera or Notepad++ sessions, and then I felt very lost.

Book Metaphor? (2, Insightful)

BBCWatcher (900486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994509)

I think the correct metaphor for organizing a large number of (Web) pages is a book. A book can have hundreds or even thousands of pages, referenced by page number at least. The pages can be organized into sections, chapters, and subsections, all of which are listed in a hierarchical table of contents. The pages can also be indexed according to key words and topics. And there's a level of abstraction above a book if needed: a bookshelf. In terms of user interface design, all of these bookish elements have been implemented pretty well in other contexts. Coverflow-style page flipping would probably be one navigation option, for example.

Question marks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994519)

Is your mother a whore?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=117466

463 open tabs in Epiphany; 1.3GB of memory usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994523)

What?? 20 tabs are common? I have 463 open tabs right now. I use an extension on Epiphany (Gnome's browser) to place the tab bar as a vertical bar on the left of the screen (it's widescreen so I have to save vertical space by removing all horizontal bars, I have also done the same with the menu, bookmark bar, and Gnome's panels: everything is on the left). My htop (like top but with more colours) says that Epiphany right now uses about 1.3GB of memory (out of 3GB).

Favicons Help (2, Interesting)

WebmasterNeal (1163683) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994559)

I've always made it a point to add favicons to any sites I develop because when I'm using my browser, it helps me find the tab I'm looking for quicker. If more websites took advantage of favicons that would sort of take care of the problem. If the site didn't have one, perhaps the browser could use a small thumbnail of a screenshot of the site?

Here we go again. (-1, Offtopic)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994561)

This is the work of a guy who initially had a good idea (to make devs aware of the holes and have them fill them) but then got caught into the listing and thus began the fill-out bullshitting you do when you write an essay for your teacher in high school.

I won't quote the points because that will make my post look very long and we all know /. is full of lazy asses such as yours truly. However...

0. This is not a problem of Linux nor does it have anything to do with Linux being ready for the desktop or not. This is solely a matter of ideology, which Linux stays neutral to. It promotes FOSS but never forces it.
1. This is a matter of hardware. I've had problems with my sound twice in Linux, once when I had a creative live 1024 (I know, but I learned from my mistake) and once when I had a USB headset back when USB audio was fairly new. Same goes for the sub points, however 1.3 is a vendor problem that affects Linux. Vendor problems affect Windows as well, nobody blames Windows for those. Peri-fucking-od.
2.1 I don't really understand this one. I have hundreds of GTK applications, all which work just fine. 2.2 Composite is the new desktop. Make peace with it or be information technologically retarded.
2.4.3 There's alot of points about fonts, which I cannot say are true or not as I really am not that into fonts. However this point is merely a matter of opinion.
2.4.3.2 That's because MS owns those fonts. Should dists pay MS to use a handfull of fucking fonts? Get the fuck out of here man. That's the dumbest shit I've heard.
3. This is a matter of mentality. The common user isn't accustomed to the freedom of choice, thus the new Linux user needs to rewire his brain. This is a part of Linux which cannot be changed because it is the very fundaments of it, and nor do we want this to change. Important side note: when using Linux, don't think Windows. K? Thx.
3.3 In a perfect world. It's pretty fucking close already, but Utopia doesn't exist. Impossible demand, next.
4. This can be applied to a certain extent but if you strive to do this fully you'd end up with more problems than what the GUI was going to solve. People can learn the ping command, no need to assume that they are retarded vegetables.
5. This is a self solving point as stated. We realise the issues at hand but only by allowing Linux to grow can these issues be resolved. We're all anticipating.
7. See above statement.
8.1 Most distros? Then don't use those "most distros". Not all distros are aimed towards you, make sure you find one that is.
11. See point 5.
13. In comparison to what? Windows? Really now, don't even get me started.

Re:Here we go again. (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994619)

Appendix:

I was wondering why the guy was so caught up in this bullshit about fonts as if it was the alpha and omega of an OS, then I noticed the URL. One clearly sees what the guy knows about, too bad fonts is about the least of our concerns.

Tabs are irrevelant in windows. (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994563)

Just to be clear, I do use tabs, but I only use them for one reason; I can middle mouse click to generate a tab.

Before tabs were vogue, I constantly used Multiple browsing sessions by right clicking a link and opening the link as a new window. If IE5 or IE6 had the middle click functionality it would have functioned just like tabs except the taskbar itself would be the tab instead of a redundant tab bar in the browser itself.

In the Mac and Unix worlds, tabs make sense since OSX and many Unix window managers do not have a tab like taskbar like windows. In the Windows world, it's a redundant taskbar to group sessions that don't necessarily need to be grouped.

If you remove tabs, you had better be right (2, Interesting)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994625)

Removing tabs would be a big deal, and if you do it. You had damn well better be right.

Coke thought the people wanted something new with "New Coke". That didn't go over well and the backlash damaged Coke as many Coke drinkers, went with other products and some didn't come back with Coke Classic came out.

Misuse of term "operating system" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994631)

> the browser is more of an operating system than a data display application

It's not an operating system. It's an "execution environment". And if people got in the habit of recognising and securing all the execution environments (including word-processors and media players) we'd probably be getting less spam.

Let the users choose (1)

ap7 (963070) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994635)

Tabbed browsing has become a familiarity for millions of users now. I am not sure what getting rid of it means. Is Mozilla expecting people to get used to a different interface? I am not sure thats the right way to go about it. Nor does forcing people to use an extension to add tabbed browsing. I think Opera had the option of tabs or no tabs very early on. Perhaps doing the same won't hurt for Mozilla?

Besides, should mobile browsers be treated in the same way as desktop browsers in the need for tabs? A mobile device is a completely different environment. People use it in ways that are quite different from the way they would use a desktop. Do you need tabs there? Maybe, or maybe not. Perhaps this depends more on the device? Would customizing the browser better for the type of device involved not be an option here? Opera seems to do it.

If tabs are fine for you, please move along (1, Troll)

paulkoan (769542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27994683)

In summary there are two short-sighted points of view in this commentary:

1) "I don't use many tabs, so there is no need to change tabs"

2) "I have hundreds of tabs open and don't have a problem, so there is no need to change tabs"

Guess what, no one gives a crap if tabs are fine for you. The reason why this is being explored is for those people who tabs do *not* work for.

I know, it is obvious now I have explained it, but don't feel embarrassed or anything.

I've already ditched Firefox anyway....Chrome.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27994693)

...dominates Firefox. In Chrome you can have 20 tabs open and it doesn't even flinch, isn't slow or bogged down like IE or Firefox.

Firefox has gotten away from lean & mean and turned into bloatware. So long Firefox.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?