Slashdot Mirror
10 Years of the World Wide Web
NCSA Mosaic was first released ten years ago today (oh, I guess you could mark time from the 1.0 release, but who's counting), marking the first milestone in the evolution of the graphical World Wide Web. HTTP was originally developed between 1989-1991, but didn't take off until there was a useful browser which could display inline images. You can still download old versions of Mosaic from browsers.evolt.org. So, all you folks who think you have a real handle on technological progress: what will information-access-over-electronic-networks look like in 2013?
The DOM. Basically, the browser itself is now scriptable and the page can interact via Javascript or anything else aware of the DOM. Although a result of evolving document standards, that's actually a browser feature since the processing for it has to be done locally.
We also have the mobile browsers on phones/PDAs with auto-resizing etc.
Beyond that, I'd pretty much agree with you. If it's not broken...
Cheers,
Ian
With as little the browser has changed, its amazing how much code-bloat there is in the new browsers of today (ok, not counting Opera, etc...)
Lots of the "improvements" (I use the term loosely) are in the form of supported formats/scripts, plugins, handling of international character sets, etc...
AND a ton of CRAP. BUT- just for fun, have you tried surfing using Lynx lately? It just doesn't fly anymore. Just like if you tried the original Mosaic, you'd lose quite a bit (or at least lots of pages would work).
But yeah, as far as design, and apparent usability to the user, the browser hasn't changed much.
LosT
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
what will information-access-over-electronic-networks look like in 2013?
:(
Television
Game... blouses.
The current "computer industry" doesn't see the web as an application development enviornment. They see it as an advertising/marketing showplace. Some people (education/individuals/orgs) see it as an information sharing and collecting service (which is what www was supposed to be). However the only new thing that I've seen that made me go "hey, that's pretty nifty, and sort of new" has been the advent of "Web Services" such as XML based applications like Watson and now Sherlock 3 from Apple. Where content is pulled from a source but the source isn't exactly all planned out. It's annoying to have to look at some websites that are just flash animations and pretty fonts that look like scribblings of a demented 4 year old. I want the info, the words that mean something, the movie clip, the data. I don't want your love of the color puce to make me want to retch when I'm trying to look up a flight time, or read and article (web designers, take note, you know who you are, and I hate you because of it).
We should be using the web more as a resource for storing and retrieving data. Graphics and pretty page layouts are nice and all but if I could, I'd abolish most of it and just look for a summary of the info with a little link saying "Want to know more? Click here..."
Blarg.
It's the data.
It's all about the data.
Information wants to be in your pants.
In Soviet Russia, the pants are in the hot grits.
Bleh.
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
When I remember how excited everybody got with the introducion of the <CENTER> tag
Every damn page became centered overnight.
And the day the <BLINK> tag first made an entry, I wanted to go shoot a large hoarde of web "designers".
Each time a new advance was made, there was always a bunch of people who never learnt the rule - "Just because you can doesn't mean you should".
I think they design Flash web sites now.
My prediction is that they'll still be doing whatever the equivalent is in 2013 :)
.02
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
I could go on, but you get the point. Browsers have progressed tremendously in the last 10 years, but mostly in ways that are not immediately visible to a layman - the progress has mostly been in enabling support for various things, although significant progress has also been made in design and usability.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
The two most commonly used browsers on my systems are lynx (my girlfriend's browser of choice) and w3m (my browser of choice).
Only when we're desperate do we resort to Opera, and only when completely desperate (need to view a flash) do we crank up Netscape 4.7.
I use the internet as a library, a resource for information. 99% of the sites I go to can be browsed perfectly as plain text. Keeps it quick, keeps it easy.
So it may not be powered flight any more, but text-mode browsing is still a nice glide most of the time.
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Microsoft has left IE virtually unchanged for quite a while, because they don't need put any effort into it anymore. They have a 70-80% market share that isn't going anywhere quickly so why bother?
IE does not has not moved an inch standards wise since IE 4, so "new" things like XHTML are not supported and only work because IE will support virtually any markup. Just try using a correct XHTML MIME type, or using XHTML DOM (which is read-only in XHTML) or CSS (changes to case rules in XHTML) in IE and it will fail. Mozilla and Opera (and no doubt Konq also) do all the above just fine.
Maybe they will do tabbed browsing to stop people saying it is behind for features, maybe they will gruddingly to pop-up blockers, or maybe they will just keep the ad revenue from MSN.
Until MS update IE the web stays looking just as it does now for 70-80% of users, however innovative the rest of the world gets.
DWR is Ajax for Java
I'm honestly curious, what major innovations have we seen?
Don't forget Forms. Forms are what really changed the web into an application base rather than a hypertext document reader.
> It was invented by xerox but quickly perfected by Microsoft and has
> stayed pretty much unchanged in over 20 years. People keep talking
> about new 3D OS's and stuff but the fact is that that most of the design
> in current OS's is excellent and needs no improvement, browsers included.
Bah, I declare shenanigans on that. There's tons of room for improvement in the windows ui for both power users and normal people.
The Start Menu needs a complete overhaul. It's not intuitive once you open up the "Programs" list. Currently, if you want to find a mail program, you'd have to search through each container, since each container typically refers to a company. Want to write a composition (high school term meaning "text file")? What is your choice of programs for that? Where are they located? Well, on my machine, two of them are in "Accessories" (NotePad and WordPad), one is in "EditPad Lite", one is under "OpenOffice.org 1.0" and one is at the bottom of the list, not in any particular container. That's really inconsistant, and it would confuse users who weren't already totally used to it.
The intuitive way would be to categorize programs. That's how they do it in linux. It's how I categorize my programs in Windows 2000 (though I have to manually hack stuff around, and that breaks the uninstallers a little). Yeah, it's not always easy to put everything into unique categories, but it's a heck of a lot easier than having a flat list of mixed between company names and program names. All the programs for the above task are under either "Applications -> Text Editors" (for simple text editors) or "Office -> Wordprocessors" (for more complex editors). I don't have to hunt through my entire list of programs to find something that does what I want, and I don't have to rely on some default link button on my application bar in the hopes that it'll take me to the best program.
I also like having every executable in the path. This may be a bit power-userish, but it's sometimes a lot faster and easier to hit "ALT-F2" (to bring up the "Run" dialog) and type in "opera" than wasting time reaching for the mouse and hunting out where the link to the program is. I wish that I could type Win-R and "opera" on this Win2k machine, but it would simply take forever to put every single applicable directory into the file path.
Meh, there's a lot of things that could change to substantially improve the usability of the interface for normal users. People still don't understand the difference between a button (one click to run this program) and an icon (two clicks to run this program, unless you have it configured for one click, but then get ready to confuse people who actually got used to double clicking, because they double click everything, even web links!). Many people still don't understand that you can open more than one program without needing to close the current program. These things are not obvious to most people because the system does not make it easy enough to understand. Heck, it was probably a huge mistake to put both the current task list and the shortcut icons on the same bar. If the taskbar were just a vanilla taskbar, then maybe the masses would have taken to the concept of "if I see a name on this bar, that means that the program/application with this name is doing something even though I can't see it". But now, if a button is on the bar, it might be a task that's running, it might be a launchable program that's not running, it might be in that bizarre in-between realm of the system tray, or it might make that list pop up with the "Settings" and the "Programs" and the list of fifteen AOL and MSN related buttons above the "Programs" thing.
Heck, I'm not even touching the power user stuff, like mouse gestures and virtual desktops and soforth. The reason why people don't move to newer interfaces isn't because the interface is excellent. It's because these people spent a decade struggling
I still remember the very first time I saw Mosaic: I was at a computer lab and a friend just told me about this "cool" thing that just came out. Needless to say, me being a geek and all, it took me only 5 minutes later to create my first web page (back then, HTML was *ultra* simple). I also vividly remember saying to my friend "this is the future of the Internet".
I actually remember that at one point it was possible to view *ALL* the websites on the planet (tell that to the younger generation today!), and how every single day was very exciting to discover new things (the birth of yahoo, altavista, ebay, and amazon come to mind).
That day I saw mosaic is on my list of days I could never forget, like the challenger explossion, the berlin wall coming down, the wall trade center attacks, and recently the columbia tragedy...
I'd write this off as a troll, but it's modded insightful so I'll debate.
CSS is an incredibly useful thing. Though it is only for decoration, it's still nice to be able to change fonts on all pages of a website with just a few keystrokes. Sure you could use PHP variables for the same purpose, but why when it's already built in?
I'll admit that frames are usually used poorly, and in such cases take away from a website. However, in some scenarios it's incredibly useful. When I'm working with a database, I often need to switch between tables for whatever reason. The frame on the left side of the window saves lots of time that would be otherwise spent scrolling.
Basically, I'd hate to get rid of features such as CSS and frames, as that would make things I do much harder.