Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#31

Post by fournm »

the_french wrote: post #23
mmastrac wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - please don't default to a "downloads" folder. I switched my default download directory to /tmp and haven't looked back.

But the whole point is that this browser isn't meant for technical people. It's not meant for the kind of people that feel the need for a different `Downloads` folder.

Most of the comments against it here are in this same line. If the concept of NoScript even vaguely makes sense to you, or you've even heard the words "window manager" together, you're probably not the target audience.

I'll admit that most of these things (especially no settings) would make it a no-go for me, but I can definitely think of some relatives that I would love to stick on it and then not have to worry about them again.

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#32

Post by Laremere »

nanexcool wrote: post #27
troymc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with not defaulting to saving downloads in the "downloads" folder. Many people don't really know how to use their file manager. (For years, my mom would open Microsoft Word and organize files there.) Why not default to saving downloads on the Desktop? Where did that file get saved? Oh, there it is!

I used to think that too. But then, why have a Downloads folder if you're not going to put Downloads in there? I agree that every once in a while you have to do some cleaning, but that's on the user.

I think you could have shortened your question to "why have a Downloads folder?"

Downloads folders are where files go to sit unused. I personally send everything to my desktop so files won't sit out of sight forever, but I think in a browser which is meant to be simple that asking where they want the file is a good choice. Why defer user action to a time where they have to do a large amount of a boring task when you can ask them to do it right there when they're most likely to know what they want to do with it?

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#33

Post by yarou »

The design choices really look interesting. But shouldn't Mozilla focus more on eliminating the ever persistent memory leak bug that has plagued it since forever? I can't even use Firefox on a netbook. I end up installing Midori.

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#34

Post by krisgenre »

bane wrote: post #9

At first I thought "oh no, another distraction for Mozilla", but then I sat through the presentation and thought there was some really cool ideas (amazebar!). In fact, I think it can be simplified and paired down even more. Even better, some of the assumptions here even make the software portable (as in doesn't really need to be installed and could just run off a usb drive/out of my dropbox). Automatically being in a…

I agree with "- keep tabs more present, don't bury them in the amazebar"

Also, default settings are good but "No Settings" seems like a bad idea.

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#35

Post by krisgenre »

nemothekid wrote: post #24
cypher543 wrote: post #16

> Auto-updates are always on I really hope this isn't going to become a standard thing. There are still plenty of people like me who are stuck with something like satellite internet, which forces us to micromanage our data usage. I can't afford to just have things auto-updating whenever they want.

It was the default in Chrome, and I believe its the default in IE as well. It has its upsides as well, you generally only need to target the latest stable version of Chrome.

Its been a while since I used Windows but doesn't IE update through "Windows updates"? Is it on by default?

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#36

Post by _pmf_ »

troymc wrote: post #25
bane wrote: post #9

At first I thought "oh no, another distraction for Mozilla", but then I sat through the presentation and thought there was some really cool ideas (amazebar!). In fact, I think it can be simplified and paired down even more. Even better, some of the assumptions here even make the software portable (as in doesn't really need to be installed and could just run off a usb drive/out of my dropbox). Automatically being in a…

I agree with not defaulting to saving downloads in the "downloads" folder. Many people don't really know how to use their file manager. (For years, my mom would open Microsoft Word and organize files there.) Why not default to saving downloads on the Desktop? Where did that file get saved? Oh, there it is!

> Why not default to saving downloads on the Desktop?

Because defaulting to having 35890 icons on the desktop has its own share of problems.

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#37

Post by krisgenre »

fletchowns wrote: post #10
owlish wrote: post #6

Disappointed that there isn't any innovation wrt tabs; they aren't mentioned at all. I understand Lightspeed aims to be minimalistic, but many of these defaults are just illogical. Default click-to-play at the moment already ruins many audio sites where the flash applet is hidden, and turns others into a game of Where's Waldo. Completely dropping extensions is antithetical to the central idea as well. Ideally, the br…

He does mention tabs @ 4:18. The click to play behavior doesn't have to be on the actual applet, it could be a popup just under the top bar or something. Use some imagination. Dropping extensions is not antiethical. The people this browser is targeted for don't care about extensions. I don't see any of the "inconsistencies to the central idea" you are talking about.

In my experience with non technical people, they are always interested in that one addon that helps them download YouTube videos.

Re: Lightspeed – A Browser Experiment

#39

Post by nightpool »

gatehouse wrote: post #20

Having an intelligent non https submission warning could be good... You could go so far as to flat out refuse to send a cc number in the clear. The degree of dependence on the search engine is troubling, would be interesting to see how much could be handled by a local mini index without involving a 3rd party. Also think browser history could be a lot more useful if it were organized better. For example, maybe groupin…

I had similar concerns about the dependence on a search engine, but then I realized this could be the perfect "killer app" for a meta-search engine aggregator, one that thought of SERPs like zero-trust inputs to be mined for data. (and, similarly, not personalizing, aggregation by some "mixer" intermediary, and other privacy optimizations become much more feasible)

This seems like it needs to be the end result of search, Google or no Google, but a privacy-conscious organization like putting this tech so front and center could definitely be a foot in the door to making this a reality.

Post reply on HN