QoS is one thing but general protocol throttling (ie: leaving HTTP alone but reducing P2P to dialup speeds) is another.
QoS is also very subjective. Some users may want to ensure their gaming is unaffected by non-gaming traffic, others may want their webpages to load fastest, others yet may want their video to stream the best. Allowing the ISP to do so in a completely arbitrary manner that suits it's interests instead of the customer's is the real issue. It's also a slippery slope into companies paying to ensure they are given priority in the QoS setup even if generally they would normally be throttled.
Use UI customization and put the small version of buttons/search/address on the same line as your file menu and remove the navigation toolbar. End result? 1px more vertical space used than FF4.
I have zero interest in rewriting config files and for most users it is just out of the question anyway since it is beyond their abilities.
No config file rewriting required - simply right click any blank space in the UI and click "Customize" - it's all drag and drop.
This article is crap. The human mind is typically able to manage 7 pieces of information at once. The difference now is that we're given more than 7 pieces of information to pay attention to at once, so the mind prioritizes what information is most important to it and that's when details are dropped.
And as stated there was already multiple options already in place for users like yourself.
Using full screen (F11) to remove the UI while browsing is one. Not your cup of tea?
Use UI customization and put the small version of buttons/search/address on the same line as your file menu and remove the navigation toolbar. End result? 1px more vertical space used than FF4.
Your problem had solutions. The new UI creates problems for non-netbook/PDA users that have no easy solutions. So while my original post wasn't as detailed as it could have been the sentiment expressed is accurate.
Any intelligent company will know that soft costs are the real killer. It'll take a lot more in retraining/productivity loss working with a new program than simply shelling out the relatively small amount to buy a licence. If anything these times increase piracy and should the company survive (since it's obviously worried about $500, it may not survive) then they'll purchase a legit licence when they can afford it.
It's a statement based in fact and has nothing to do with arrogance or the "few" people I referred to. The simple fact is this: there was no bug where the community demanded a smaller UI.
The effects to a smaller UI are clear and obvious, increased space for websites/advertising, reduced "clutter", and something to market.
1) Space. Google is in the advertising business so it makes sense for them to want to maximize the available space for advertising in Chrome. The main push might be seen to be to adapt to Netbooks and PDAs. This would make sense if there weren't already built in options for those users such as full screen/UI customization.
2) Reduced clutter. This can be a good thing but they removed functional "clutter" and replaced it with things like bevelled tabs which look nice but reduce the number of tabs visible.
3) Something to market. It's work to justify the designer's pay and say they have a shiny new version everyone has to download.
Yeah they made that claim a year ago. Someone on digg did an excellent rundown on the math involved in this type of approach (voxels) and without cutting some serious corners it doesn't seem realistic. I'll remain unconvinced until I see a demo and more technical data.
While I don't think this tech is practical for anything but static environments, if you watched the video you'd note that they convert from standard industry tools to their "point cloud data" *cough*voxels*cough* so there's no extra work just extra processing time.
Except they already exist and they're pretty simple.
Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper.
Re:Don't care for it, but...
on
The Next Firefox UI
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The impact may seem small but because title space is limited instead of companies displaying their titles like so:
Document Title - Site Name [- Browser Name]
Because companies want their brand name read it will most likely become:
Site Name - Document Title [- Browser Name]
Now put this in context of tabs, as you start to have more tabs open at once you'll see less and less of the actual document title and tabs will start looking the same until you hover over or switch tabs. This is counter productive and inefficient.
Sure, I could do that sort of thing with the command prompt too, but I'd much rather have separate GUI interfaces. I'd also like my query to remain in place when doing a full search instead of being replaced by the address.
Firefox 4 vs Firefox 1-3.x with some simple modifications = 1px difference but then you also didn't have the annoying status popup over top of your page.
This sounds like a good plan but even at that there are a crazy number of soft costs associated with doing so that you'll never recoup.
#1 - get a lawyer #2 - don't cooperate. Agree to allow them to audit your systems so long as they cover all costs associated. That means soft costs including your time, lost productivity, etc. Get this in writing that above lawyer draws up and verifies. #3 - request specific grievances they have don't let them go fishing for just any licence infraction they can find. Be clear about what licences what sections of those licences and give them access to only what they need nothing more.
Establish the appearance of willingness to cooperate so long as it doesn't affect the ongoing operation of your company or it's "trade secrets". They will not agree to #2 or #3 because they don't want the costs and they're fishing for licence violations. By them not agreeing to the reasonable terms you've requested it will put them in a position of negotiating in bad faith. This means they are in a very poor legal position for any action they may take as you did not refuse to cooperate just laid out terms to protect your company while attempting to comply with their requests. Make sure everything is in writing and sent or vetted by the lawyer.
If they do agree to cover the costs and give you specific grievances & you're in compliance then you have nothing to worry about and they now have to pay for the inconvenience they've caused. Most likely though they'll leave you alone as the cost is not worth the benefit.
I don't know anyone who disables javascript. I disable scripts on an individual basis when I can see they're up to no good (ads/tracking/etc) but more often than not now sites require javascript just to load.
There's something else to add: They weren't the ones to do this first. I was just watching a show the other day about them doing the exact same thing in fruit flies giving them glowing spots on their wings by incorporating a DNA switch and jelly fish DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
QoS is one thing but general protocol throttling (ie: leaving HTTP alone but reducing P2P to dialup speeds) is another.
QoS is also very subjective. Some users may want to ensure their gaming is unaffected by non-gaming traffic, others may want their webpages to load fastest, others yet may want their video to stream the best. Allowing the ISP to do so in a completely arbitrary manner that suits it's interests instead of the customer's is the real issue. It's also a slippery slope into companies paying to ensure they are given priority in the QoS setup even if generally they would normally be throttled.
Use UI customization and put the small version of buttons/search/address on the same line as your file menu and remove the navigation toolbar. End result? 1px more vertical space used than FF4.
I have zero interest in rewriting config files and for most users it is just out of the question anyway since it is beyond their abilities.
No config file rewriting required - simply right click any blank space in the UI and click "Customize" - it's all drag and drop.
Thank you for the correction. The actual number is currently believed to be 3-4. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piq.20099/abstract;jsessionid=FEA7D98A86323E4886495C333ADED5A5.d01t01
This article is crap. The human mind is typically able to manage 7 pieces of information at once. The difference now is that we're given more than 7 pieces of information to pay attention to at once, so the mind prioritizes what information is most important to it and that's when details are dropped.
And as stated there was already multiple options already in place for users like yourself.
Using full screen (F11) to remove the UI while browsing is one. Not your cup of tea?
Use UI customization and put the small version of buttons/search/address on the same line as your file menu and remove the navigation toolbar. End result? 1px more vertical space used than FF4.
Your problem had solutions. The new UI creates problems for non-netbook/PDA users that have no easy solutions. So while my original post wasn't as detailed as it could have been the sentiment expressed is accurate.
Exactly, a lot of companies will put off upgrading to a new version during down times or skip over a version unless absolutely necessary.
Any intelligent company will know that soft costs are the real killer. It'll take a lot more in retraining/productivity loss working with a new program than simply shelling out the relatively small amount to buy a licence. If anything these times increase piracy and should the company survive (since it's obviously worried about $500, it may not survive) then they'll purchase a legit licence when they can afford it.
It's a statement based in fact and has nothing to do with arrogance or the "few" people I referred to. The simple fact is this: there was no bug where the community demanded a smaller UI.
The effects to a smaller UI are clear and obvious, increased space for websites/advertising, reduced "clutter", and something to market.
1) Space. Google is in the advertising business so it makes sense for them to want to maximize the available space for advertising in Chrome. The main push might be seen to be to adapt to Netbooks and PDAs. This would make sense if there weren't already built in options for those users such as full screen/UI customization.
2) Reduced clutter. This can be a good thing but they removed functional "clutter" and replaced it with things like bevelled tabs which look nice but reduce the number of tabs visible.
3) Something to market. It's work to justify the designer's pay and say they have a shiny new version everyone has to download.
Yeah they made that claim a year ago. Someone on digg did an excellent rundown on the math involved in this type of approach (voxels) and without cutting some serious corners it doesn't seem realistic. I'll remain unconvinced until I see a demo and more technical data.
While I don't think this tech is practical for anything but static environments, if you watched the video you'd note that they convert from standard industry tools to their "point cloud data" *cough*voxels*cough* so there's no extra work just extra processing time.
There are 24 unique search operators for Google let alone setting them up for multiple search engines/site searches.
http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators.html
CTRL+T or ALT+Enter may open in a new tab but it can't distinguish between I'm feeling lucky and full search as it does in 3.x
Except they already exist and they're pretty simple.
Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper.
The impact may seem small but because title space is limited instead of companies displaying their titles like so:
Document Title - Site Name [- Browser Name]
Because companies want their brand name read it will most likely become:
Site Name - Document Title [- Browser Name]
Now put this in context of tabs, as you start to have more tabs open at once you'll see less and less of the actual document title and tabs will start looking the same until you hover over or switch tabs. This is counter productive and inefficient.
Sure, I could do that sort of thing with the command prompt too, but I'd much rather have separate GUI interfaces. I'd also like my query to remain in place when doing a full search instead of being replaced by the address.
Firebug asks you why indeed...
Tabs on top isn't a problem. The problem is that the design harmed function.
Firefox 4 vs Firefox 1-3.x with some simple modifications = 1px difference but then you also didn't have the annoying status popup over top of your page.
Examples of why a combined search is terrible:
1) define:
Firefox treats anything with a : as part of a protocol so that search functionality is only available by first going to google.
2) I'm feeling lucky vs full search.
Currently address bar does the former and search does the latter. This allows me to dictate behaviour, use multiple search engines, and such.
3) Further to #2 tab behaviour can be dictated. Address bar with I'm feeling lucky = don't open new tab. Search with full search = open in new tab.
This is a feature I use daily and would not give up easily. It makes navigating so much easier.
The FF4 and 5 UIs do not solve any real problems users have/had. It's purely design over function with no benefit to the user.
I hate Mozilla's designers. First they screwed up Firefox 4 (still have not upgraded).
Then they did this to Thunderbird:
http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/thunderbird_5_default_theme_on_windows_7_looks_like_a_pile_of_emesis
Now this crap? Have they actually found out what they're users want/expect or are they just playing about with the lead designer's theme of the day?
This sounds like a good plan but even at that there are a crazy number of soft costs associated with doing so that you'll never recoup.
#1 - get a lawyer
#2 - don't cooperate. Agree to allow them to audit your systems so long as they cover all costs associated. That means soft costs including your time, lost productivity, etc. Get this in writing that above lawyer draws up and verifies.
#3 - request specific grievances they have don't let them go fishing for just any licence infraction they can find. Be clear about what licences what sections of those licences and give them access to only what they need nothing more.
Establish the appearance of willingness to cooperate so long as it doesn't affect the ongoing operation of your company or it's "trade secrets". They will not agree to #2 or #3 because they don't want the costs and they're fishing for licence violations. By them not agreeing to the reasonable terms you've requested it will put them in a position of negotiating in bad faith. This means they are in a very poor legal position for any action they may take as you did not refuse to cooperate just laid out terms to protect your company while attempting to comply with their requests. Make sure everything is in writing and sent or vetted by the lawyer.
If they do agree to cover the costs and give you specific grievances & you're in compliance then you have nothing to worry about and they now have to pay for the inconvenience they've caused. Most likely though they'll leave you alone as the cost is not worth the benefit.
I don't know anyone who disables javascript. I disable scripts on an individual basis when I can see they're up to no good (ads/tracking/etc) but more often than not now sites require javascript just to load.
on Friday?
Brought to you by Ryan Industries.
There's something else to add: They weren't the ones to do this first. I was just watching a show the other day about them doing the exact same thing in fruit flies giving them glowing spots on their wings by incorporating a DNA switch and jelly fish DNA.
So we now know that genetic switches exist which activate specific genes.
Can this knowledge be applied to things like cancer treatment to effectively "deactivate" a cancer by targeting a specific cancer's on/off switch?