Hierarchical web browsing navigation is something that's been around in NetSurf for a while, more browsers need it:
http://www.netsurf-browser.org/documentation/guide.html#Hist...
Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
51–60 of 82 posts
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#52Does anyone here make money through these browsers? Either by selling ads or by some other means.
I have a few ideas in this space, but I am not sure about monetization strategies.
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#53What problem is this solving exactly?
The analogy of it being an IDE is telling. You can think of some browsers as the equivalent of being a text editor, some as intermediates (Sublime Text), then this as an IDE.
I'm excited for it.
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was too power-user for what we were going for Chrome might as well support the Sidebar API to make this possible like Firefox will do with Tree-Tab-Style Add-on iirc. I read a bug report once at the Chromium bug tracker saying roughly "Sidebar API wont be implemented because UI needs to stay simple".
I hate the "UI must be simple" aspect of chrome so much. So many features don't get implemented because of it.
Modern product managers and data science folks have a very inflated view of their ability to anticipate their user's desires, IMO. "Simplicity" has killed so much useful-to-the-user functionality in the past decade, like star ratings (fortunately iTunes still has them, at least), intuitive queues (remember the old Netflix DVD queue?), linear feeds of chronological data (hi Facebook and Twitter)...
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#55This is a great use of Chromium! Storytime! When we started designing Chrome back in 2006, and despite having spent the past year working on Google's Firefox team, my favorite browser was iRider, which was an IE shell with tree-style-tabs. It was too power-user for what we were going for, but some of the concepts (pinning) live on in Chrome today.
Yeah, too bad some losers at Google killed off vertical side tabs which were working perfectly fine and were even a 'hidden feature' that had to be enabled manually... because they 'didn't like how it looked.' Of course they provided no alternative other than having a ton of nearly useless tiny little tabs which apparently looks 'better' to someone somewhere. Yes, I am bitter, why do you ask?
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#56This is a great use of Chromium! Storytime! When we started designing Chrome back in 2006, and despite having spent the past year working on Google's Firefox team, my favorite browser was iRider, which was an IE shell with tree-style-tabs. It was too power-user for what we were going for, but some of the concepts (pinning) live on in Chrome today.
> It was too power-user for what we were going for Chrome might as well support the Sidebar API to make this possible like Firefox will do with Tree-Tab-Style Add-on iirc. I read a bug report once at the Chromium bug tracker saying roughly "Sidebar API wont be implemented because UI needs to stay simple".
Chrome had side tabs for years. Never overtly, but you could enable them manually. But they took them out because someone 'didn't like how they looked' and despite thousands of people starring the bug and hundreds of comments, they refused to even tolerate their existence as a hidden feature. They're very serious about making sure you use their software only the way they want.
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#57This is a great use of Chromium! Storytime! When we started designing Chrome back in 2006, and despite having spent the past year working on Google's Firefox team, my favorite browser was iRider, which was an IE shell with tree-style-tabs. It was too power-user for what we were going for, but some of the concepts (pinning) live on in Chrome today.
I wish you guys would build a multiple rows of tabs UI, like Opera for desktop had. It was self-balancing (since you would eventually run out of browsing space), but in a better way than having everything just made tiny per column. The one UX challenge you would need to solve though, that Opera did not, is how much horizontal space to use per tab, after it gets cramped. No-one would be happy with any particular defau…
Some people have widescreen monitors, which makes side tabs the only sensible choice, really.
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#58I switched to Firefox (dev edition) a month or so ago almost completely becuase the TreeStyleTabs extension is better than anything for chrome. I LOVE having nested tabs. It totally prevents me from getting lost when I'm links deep in technical documentation.
it will change a bit though. A rewrite for firefox' new plugin architecture is on the way
Will the rewrite reduce it to the utterly-useless form of a button that drops down a list of open pages? I've seen that sort of thing attempted a few times by browsers that are idiots about their UI and don't let extensions change it and it's really garbage. Firefox going that route just makes me profoundly sad.
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#59I wish someone would create an Emacs buffer style browser where we could easily switch between tabs similar to how Emacs lets you switch buffers. I know you can do this in Emacs, but I just think for all the work people do to get tabs working nicely, maybe the way Emacs has done it actually works pretty well without overwhelming the screen with so much information all the time. That tree on the left would be better i…
What page uses the full horizontal width of your browser?
Re: Show HN: Doogie – A Chromium-Based Browser with Tree-Style Pages
#60Great work! I never understood why this isn't the default. Hopefully this will finally gain traction in mainline Chrome. But I'm not holding my breath...
Never. Chrome had side tabs, but some being wiser than all others determined unreadable microtabs to be the appropriate punishment for the sin of opening too many (good thing there isn't a big movement towards web-based apps!). They were removed, multiple bugs opened begging for them to brought back, merged together, starred by thousands of fools (like myself), but the word came down. Someone didn't like how it looked. And that was that.