Chrome 15 Is Now World’s Most Popular Browser (Version)

Just out of curiosity, what observations concerning the way regular people use computers are you basing all this on? Most of the people I'd describe as regular people don't even know what RSS feeds are, and I don't know a single person who uses them.

Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial. Usually when I watch someone try to find a site, they just search for it in Google, and if Google isn't the default search provider, they search for Google in whatever search engine is the default. They also rarely use any browser "feature" except the back button, and they're afraid to try out new features. Even tabs and multiple windows are often underutilized or avoided by simply using one window at a time and closing it if they want to start over or visit a new site.

In fact, whenever they accidentally activate a feature they don't use (history, right-click context menu, rss feed view, gestures, etc.), it often just leads to confusion because they weren't paying attention to what they did to set off the unfamiliar feature's action. As a result, they just close the window and start over, and if it happens again they get frustrated and do something else.

Also, learning new features isn't free. There's a cognitive cost involved and it takes a certain amount of training and repetition to solidify the ability to use new features. For some people, it's higher than for others, and eventually it gets to a point where people like my Dad have to basically relearn the same features over and over again every time they use a computer. Listening to older relatives talk about their computer experiences, it also sounds like most of the time they're too deeply afraid of accidentally breaking their computer by clicking or doing the wrong thing to learn features by experimenting, further reducing the ability for them to solidify their learning through repetition and practice.

By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.

So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate. But that's just based on my casual observations of people using computers, which is why I'd love to hear yours, since apparently you disagree.

I think your biases are showing here. No one said anything about hating anyone. It's about companies (with fudiciary obligations which aren't to the customer) are taking very strong dominating positions in key technologies.

Being Free Software really isn't a concern to most people. Try being a small company that tries to block aggression from Google or Microsoft. Will it matter that Chrome is free? It's not like you can go in and say, "Here I changed Chrome. All users now use this version." For 99.999% of users free software is meaningless.

What would make Chrome much more interesting is if they gave maintanance of it over to a standards body or even a university. At this point "free software" is just nice window dressing.

There are various levels of "regular" people, you could almost classify them by ADD rules such as "regular curious", "regular neutral", "regular adverse to learning" and so on.

> By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.

Those would be the "regular curious". Sure they could figure out by themselves how to install extensions but why would they? Before speed dial nobody felt the need to have such a feature (so why search for an extension?), but now a lot of people can't live without it (same for multiple tabs, sessions, mouse gestures, integrated search, closed tabs bin, and so on). Until you have a feature at your finger tips you will almost always not feel the need to have it, thinking "meh, I can live without it". Once you start using it your perspective changes.

Basically, a regular user who always had a minimalistic browser will hardly feel the need to go looking for extra functionality except for dire cases (ad-block or something). So the fact that he is technically capable of installing extensions is a moot point. He first needs to become aware of that functionality and the process of testing it out should be easy enough for the curiosity to surpass the "don't need it" feeling. Sure, you could live with just a unique tab and an address bar. it's nice and minimalistic. How many regular users would bother installing extensions?

> Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial.

These would be "regular adverse to learning". But seriously, have you ever used speed dial? It's much easier to use than bookmarks. I explained it to a lot of regulars in 50 words or less "click the 'plus' button, enter the address of a website you want to visit later". It's difficult to explain this to people who can't quite hold a mouse in their hands but for regulars like my mother, girlfriend, whoever, it's very easy to explain.

Let's take the case of my mom. First I showed her how to open Opera instead of IE. Then, after she got used to it, I showed multiple tabs. Then, after a while, speed dial. Then I moved the tabs on the left side so that she had more space. In the case of my girlfriend I also showed her RSS so that she wouldn't check every day for new blog posts.

The trick is to introduce these features/changes gradually, depending on one's level of comfort with technology. At one point I actually managed to get a person with a rather ossified brain to use speed dials and multiple tabs.

Obviously, if a person were using a browser without a certain feature then I wouldn't go about installing extensions for them. For one, I would have to search for a decent extension since their quality is most of the times inferior to the out-of-the-box feature, the user would most likely receive strange notifications about them and wouldn't know what to do, they could pose a security risk, and so on. I'd just say "oh, you're using browser X? I could try installing an extension... ah, screw it. Carry on with business as usual, searching on google the website that you visit 10 times a day".

> So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate.

Well it's not a mutually exclusive affair. Opera has a truckload of features and a minimalist interface. The speed and resource consumption are as good as Chrome's (and much better when large amounts of tabs are involved, because of the one-process-per-tab slowness). So what is the reason for choosing Chrome over Opera then? Just curious.

These stats are absolutely inaccurate. According to their FAQ:

"We do not manipulate the data in any way. We do not collate it with any other information sources. No artificial weightings are used. We simply publish the data as we record it."

Yet, 25% of their hits are recorded in the United States. Their recordings are not distributed in a same way users are. Data should be weighed up/down according to how much data they got from a region, how many people live there and what is the Internet penetration. I think that the graph (and not just this one) would look VERY different. Conclusion: Title is misleading. You can't say something is world's whatever when you have data from four countries.

edit: Inaccurate in the context of how they are interpreted.

I prefer Chrome's dev tools, but there have been really nice speed improvements in Firefox 9 and 10 you should try out if you're thinking about giving up on it.