Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Add-on Rewrites the User Interface of IE11
An anonymous reader writes "This is how Internet Explorer would look if you move the tabs to the top like in other browsers. Developed as a design and UX study, the open source add-on replaces the default navigation bar and combines three traditionally separate toolbars into one. The UX project started in 2004 to demonstrate that it is feasible to combine the address, search, and find box into one. Additionally, Quero offers a variety of customization options for IE, including making the UI themeable or starting Microsoft's desktop browser always maximized."
This is how Internet Explorer would look if you move the tabs to the top like in other browsers.
Turns out that it would look pretty much the same as the other browsers. Thanks timothy, I never could have figured that one out!
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
This is how Internet Explorer would look if you move the tabs to the top like in other browsers.
I have yet to understand the reason for the UI change in the other browsers.
I feel so sig.
Not sure if stupid or trolling. IE has been an excellent browser since version 9.
Put the tabs underneath the bookmarks toolbar (just above the webpage you're viewing) where they make sense, then we can talk about maybe using the browser again.
I feel like my response is supposed to be "Ohh! That's what it would look like if it were different!"
But the reality is that I didn't have much of an idea of what it looks like now.
Sure.
AdBlock Plus supports IE.
As for blocking Flash, click the gear menu and tick Safety -> ActiveX Filtering. As Flash is an ActiveX plugin in IE, this blocks Flash by default. You then can whitelist individual sites by using the blue address bar icon.
I'm a web developer. Firefox is fine. If I develop a site for Firefox, or Chrome, or Opera, or Safari it will work in any of those four browsers without issue, but I have to redevelop the site for IE. If I develop for IE I have to redevelop the site again to work in the other browsers.
I will give that my company recently decided to stop supporting IE 6, 7, and 8. IE 9 isn't nearly as bad, and doesn't require as many workarounds as the previous iterations. IE 10 is a little better, it's still slow as shit for mapping applications that HTML 5 and javascript (not written by me) for the mapping engine (works great in Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari), and I haven't used IE 11 as of yet. Hopefully with IE 11 they'll finally have it right and I won't have to waste time rewriting sites and having to explain over and over to management why it's necessary. It's so stupid, our management insists sites work in all major browsers, but then they get pissy when extra time is needed to actually make sure things are working correctly.
I'd also like to know who sets the metrics for how long development should take, because it's not me.
It suffers from one basic major flaw. The same flaw the MS Antivirus suit suffers from: It is the one thing most people have, and the one thing no malware author can avoid.
Malware is the biggest reason to avoid the IE like the plague. No, not because it's more susceptible. I don't even want to discuss whether it is more secure or less secure than $obscure_browser. It is simply the bigger target. It would be more sensible for a malware writer to try to infect via a timing hole that allows one out of ten attempts to succeed (because the IE was so superspecialawesomely secured that this remained the only way to use it for an infection) than writing one that succeeded every single time with a trivial exploit that even an idiot could find and write attack code for for some obscure, unknown browser. He'd STILL infect way more people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Personally, I like the obsession with menu bars at the top and bottom. It ensures that applications aren't hungry for additional monitor width, which means I can actually run two of them side-by-side on the same monitor. If they start making use of that additional width then I'll no longer be able to do that.
Menus on the left or right also take up far more pixels than menus on the top or bottom simply because text is written left to right. So applications that use menus on the left or right easily eat away the additional width that comes with wide-screen monitors, putting us right back in the situation we were in with 4:3 monitors where most applications (particularly web browsing) are impossible to use without consuming the entire screen.
It never fails to amaze me that no one seems to get the negative security implications of an integrated url/search bar, especially given the underwear knots some smart people seem to get over truly esoteric 1 in a billion use case vulnerabilities.
If the URL bar performs search, it is ripe for a mistyped URL to lead you to a fishing site (hell, bad guys don't even need to register every typo iteration in DNS anymore, they can just pollute search results; it's like DNS hijacking made simple.) I have seen my wife and kids do it time and time again, no matter how many times I tell them. They don't type in URLs anymore, they just type in "youtube" or "amazon" or "runescape" and then click on the first link that shows up.
Obviously this is dangerous, but more than that it broadcasts your URLs to Google or Bing or whatever. There is a mountain of information that can be culled from those queries that can compromise not only you but your business/employer. If it were reported that Firefox was sending every URL you entered to Microsoft or Google, people would lose their shit about it. But when the browser is designed to do that deliberately, no one seems to give a flying ----. THIS is the reason that I do not use Chrome. It's a gaping security hole, but because it is Google (who i am generally a fan of) it gets a free pass. That said, all browsers seem to exhibit the same behavior regardless of whether they have a separate search box.
If the URL I entered isn't found, return a 404. End of damn story. THIS is also the reason to still type http:/// or https:/// in the address bar.
But this is all just symptomatic of the larger problem of security in general. To pass my audits I have to take a hit either for being somewhat vulnerable to BEAST or for using the weak RC4 algorithm, pick one. And I don't process financial information of individuals in any way shape or form. But companies like Pandora get away with putting a credit card processing form in an https IFRAME inside a non-https url. And those frigging morons, when explained to them why this is monumentally stupid and that part of the reason for HTTPS is for the user to be able to verify that they are giving their credit card information to the people that they intend to (and to verify the certificates), just don't understand the issue. Their explanation is that it is too intensive to stream music over https so they have to do it this way. How can they be this successful and be this completely brain f'ing dead. Hey, Pandora: _blank. Look it up ass hats!
Or my bank totally not understanding that when I go to the bank page URL and it says "John Smith and 3 other friends like Dumb-Ass Credit Union. Like us on Facebook" that they have just communicated sensitive personal financial information to an incalculable host of 3rd parties. Why in the F does my credit union need to use social media? What the hell is wrong with people? Their response "Dumb-Ass Credit Union doesn't send any personally identifiable information to Facebook, blah blah blah". Seriously? Can they really be this stupid? Here is a hint, I now know that "John Smith" likely has a Dumb-Ass Credit Union account, step 1 in identity theft process complete. Of course, he WAS dumb enough to like it on Facebook, so there's that. I, however, had no intention of telling anyone I had an account at Dumb-Ass Credit Union, but the frigging Credit Union decided to tell Zuckerberg themselves, and they just don't get it.
What quirks are in IE 10 where it has to be rewritten?
IE 6 I can see. So buggy you need to rewrite it just to make sure bugs dont do what other browsers dont.
But IE 10 does not render different. It maybe missing some things but it is pure fud to say it is so horrible you need a 500 line CSS rewrite for formatting errors which is what you are implying. It is 2013 not 2003.
http://saveie6.com/
Another vote for vomit-inducing. DICE please take notice because it was strongly conveyed in comments of the beta announcement: I, and many like me, have had /. our homepage for 15+ yrs and read it several times a day. If you go with this godawful layout I expect you'll be lucky to have 10% of your current traffic. I will certainly not be one of those remaining... It makes me sad that a single company can singlehandedly kill a beloved site/brand like this... It now seems inevitable...
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).