41–50 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tree Style Tabs were released for Firefox around 2007 https://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_treestyletab.html.en#history I am not sure if someone like Opera was earlier, but Arc is likely copying this.
> I am not sure if someone like Opera was earlier OmniWeb 5.0, 2004: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2004/02/ow5/3/#tabs
It's strange to me how a key selling point of these vertical tabs is "save on vertical space", but they almost always still include a header bar. You can see in the video they posted that it saves almost no vertical space, while now taking up a massive amount of horizontal space.
> It's strange to me how a key selling point of these vertical tabs is "save on vertical space", but they almost always still include a header bar. Honestly, that's not the main selling point of vertical tabs for me. Horizontal tabs don't scale for more than a dozen or so, but vertical tabs do. The "wasted" horizontal space is useless for reading most page, but displays enough data for practical navigation, and the v…
Firefox also lets you scroll the tabs horizontally. Which I prefer to Brave's approach of simply not displaying the last tabs in the bar if it's too many, which means newly opened tabs simply never show up while the others are shrunk so far they become difficult to hit with the cursor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tree Style Tabs were released for Firefox around 2007 https://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_treestyletab.html.en#history I am not sure if someone like Opera was earlier, but Arc is likely copying this.
> I am not sure if someone like Opera was earlier OmniWeb 5.0, 2004: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2004/02/ow5/3/#tabs
The concept of “drawers” that OS X had at the time was well suited for this kind of thing, with some “free” (in terms of dev effort) flexibility of allowing the user to choose which edge they unfurled from. It’s too bad they fell out of style in favor of much more static sidebars.
Why do people need dozens or hundreds of tabs to the point that they need groups for them? We've had bookmarks (and folders for them) for decades... It made way more sense when you could expect tabs to always be loaded, and not behave like another set of bookmarks.
I see the name “Brave Browser” and my brain just refuses to engage. Their marketing team ruined the product for me before I ever got the chance to try it.
I jest, but I don't think I get what you are implying. What is the difference between this fantasy name and any other that is also an existing noun?
It's strange to me how a key selling point of these vertical tabs is "save on vertical space", but they almost always still include a header bar. You can see in the video they posted that it saves almost no vertical space, while now taking up a massive amount of horizontal space.
They certainly do save space on Firefox (with the right config). In the default setting, there is OS title bar, then a address+icon bar, then the tab bar. After installing sidebar tabs, you can remove the tab bar with some css, which saves about 5% of the vertical screen space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not sure if someone like Opera was earlier OmniWeb 5.0, 2004: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2004/02/ow5/3/#tabs
Windows common controls had side-aligned tabs around 1997
I see the name “Brave Browser” and my brain just refuses to engage. Their marketing team ruined the product for me before I ever got the chance to try it.
What do you mean? Do you feel anxious about having to rent a tuxedo when someone mentions Opera? I jest, but I don't think I get what you are implying. What is the difference between this fantasy name and any other that is also an existing noun?
For once can we just skip the inevitable discussion that takes place in every single brave thread?