Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Labs' "Ubiquity" Helps Automate Web Interactions
Martin writes "Mozilla Labs have released a prototype version of the Firefox add-on Ubiquity. It is basically Launchy (the application launcher) for Firefox with the difference that Ubiquity makes use of web APIs and the Firefox browser. The official website contains examples, a command list, information about creating your own commands and of course the Ubiquity extension that is compatible with Firefox 3.x. Ubiquity can pull and send data to various services like Twitter, display, find and embed Google Maps, perform searches, write emails, add entries to the calendar, digg stories and more."
I thought I'd heard this name before.
So correct me if I am wrong, but could the Black hats write something that could hijack this? Suddenly I am seeing bogus emails going out to my credit card companies, etc..
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
This is very handy - especially since it's much easier to code up a Ubiquity command than a ful fledged Firefox plugin. And the fact that it's interactive differentiates it from Greasemonkey.
Interesting choice of name, given that IBM recently announced Ubiquity XForms, a 100% AJAX implementation of XForms which lets web application authors to use markup to control DOJO and YUI and other libraries, and which runs in Firefox, IE, Safari, and Opera.
when the CEO accidentally twitters the list of layoffs thanks to a hotkey.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Some of the examples seem nice, but I'm not quite convinced. How is this substantially different from the various site-specific Firefox extensions, like the kind Flock uses to help you integrate Flikr photos with your blog?
I'm the sort that is always conflicted about whether I really want my browser to be a web-application platform or I'd rather keep it as a plain document viewer. The latter seems safer and more efficient for a lot of things, but here I am posting on Slashdot, and webforms already make it more than a passive viewing application. But anyway this sort of thing exacerbates the tension for me because I can't quite figure out what new direction the devs are pushing the browser towards.
Don't we hit a point where we take a step back and ask, "What are we really trying to do here?" and then build a system for that purpose? If we want to standardize web application interaction, then it makes me want to ask: Should we really be trying to rebuild the browser to use the backwards hacks that people are currently using to make web applications, or do we want to build a new web application framework and a new sort of web-application platform built for that purpose? Must we squeeze everything into the web browser?
But I might just have a mental block on what they're trying to do. And besides, they're only claiming to have made an experimental prototype/tech-demo, so I guess there's no point in getting into a huff.
Now, someone tell me that I don't understand what the Internet is.
This entire article reads as if the new FF extension at least solves world hunger and maybe even provides world peace. It's a command line interface that pops up in some black dialog box, where you can type commands instead of pointing and clicking with a mouse. It's great, but users will have to learn those commands, won't they?
You can't handle the truth.
This is a classic case of "because we can build it"-based design instead of "what problems can we solve for users"-based design.
In the Tutorial: "
...On Linux, we don't have a good messaging system yet. If you have a suggestion for how Ubiquity can display messages on Linux (preferably in a way that will work on all major distros and window managers), please tell us about it. "
It's working fine for me on Fedora 9 x86_64.
As I was saying above, it's working fine for me on Fedora 9 x86_64.
I don't see the "enter key" problem the OP was referring to.
Comparing this to "Launchy" is pretty silly. Recognize this for what it is, the first steps of a new wave of Interface Design brought about by Interface Engineering.
Ubiquity's pedigree is MUCH older, going all the way back to the Canon Cat and the late Jef Raskin's idea of The Humane Interface, this being a subset closer related to The Humane Editor and Aza Raskin's Enso.
The Humane Interface is, in fact, an entire rethinking of human computer interaction, restructured around what Cognitive Science has to say about human mental capabilities instead of a strange, cobbled together desktop metaphor and separate applications.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
(2)Those of Linux/Firefox + ubiguity with less/no money who don't pay the browser/OS/soc network but still have their online life lived for them, so they can live in the real world
First we need decent support for Linux in Ubiquity, which doesn't seem to be immediately forthcoming. They can't seem to decide on a toolkit to use for their transparent popup window a la Mac and Windows, so those of us using a free system are, for the time being, without many of Ubiquity's features. Since I'm not going to change platforms just to try it out, that makes it a lot less interesting than it might have been.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Really, I'm getting a bit tired of the comments on the 140-character limit that Twitter imposes. The idea behind the limit is something tha
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?