If every requested feature was toggle-able via a preference pane, safari would soon resemble a MS app. There should not be options for trivial things like hiding the favicon. Fight the feature creep! Luckily, apple has once again provided us with an alternative that is light on features but optimal as a whole for the majority of users.
With that said, there is definite room for improvement.
All in all, I would characterize safari's progress as spectacular, not sluggish. Browser development is a truly Herculean task.
Try hitting the delete key once you are done typing in the address you want. I have not noticed a pattern, but sometimes auto complete will finish with .com, even when there are other addresses that continue on past .com, and other times it goes past .com.
Try hitting the delete key once you are done typing in the address you want.
This is exactly what I do. Let me elaborate: for me it is a minor annoyance (having to type the address and hit delete) but for a computer novice it can actually be quite confusing. I gave my old Mac to my (elderlyish) parents and had to install firefox for them *only* because they were so confused by address autocomplete on Safari.
What really bugs me is that I'm always persuading people who are light computer users to switch because the Mac is simpler to use. It's embarrassing when they ring up and say "this computer you told me to buy - it keeps going to random web addresses - my old one never did that."
When something seems very simple to you, it is easy to forget how complex it is for beginners*. Apple are one of the few companies that understand that, but they forgot it in this one instance.
*my favourite example was one of those computers-for-dummies type books that I almost bought as a gift until I realised the first sentence included the phrase "click on the icon", which somewhat defeated the object of the book.
The reason is because these features are not requested by the majority. These are quite honestly advanced features that would bloat an otherwise simple UI. Safari is *supposed* to be simple...
If you want such advanced features, use Firefox or OmniWeb.
Apple isn't trying to complicate things for the un-tech savvy.
I know there's going to be an outcry when some of you read this post (there always is). Some of you will tell me "But you're wrong!"...but I'm not...for many reasons, I assure you.
These arn't exactly advanced features I'm talking about. Even a beginner who knows how to use tabs (which will soon become commonplace after IE starts supporting them) will appreciate being able to be able to move their tabs around.
This simplicity is causing more problems than not sometimes. I've known people who hat Safari because they think they can't use tabs until you show them how to turn them on.
I know most of these options can be found at Pimpmysafari.com (although, some you have to pay for) but they should come standard with Safari. I really don't understand why they don't.
I don't understand either why they have to charge u for every little stupid detail. In my opinion apple computers have super features that are free, but I don't understand why they charge for things that should be free. For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web, I work on a website of a company and I use firefox because it has far more features than safari, also safari is not compatible with what I have to program on the website. Look at Opera, when it was released first it was far more better than firefox or other (even if it had some incompatibility issues with some websites) but the good version wasn't free, and the freeware version was very low. Now they made Opera to be free, I think hoping to recover the lost users, but firefox does so well right now.
Another example about programs that I think they should be free is proteus. Why isn't that free? not to mention that adium is very very good.
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good, not necesarily free the real ones.
I am gonna stand up for Safari here, They started with Konqueror, which to be honest is a terd, but the KHTML engine is solid, think of it like a solid foundation that could hold a palace, but all that is built on it is a shanty; they demolished the shanty and have built the frame and exterior walls of a beautifull palace, but it takes time, wait a year or two and see where it is at.
FireFox is bacesd on Mozilla, which has been going for many years, mozilla is baced on Netscape, which means that FF has been in development to one level or another since 1994. Same with IE
KHTML is MUCH newer, and still needs a little work, but because it is newer, and has been built from the ground up with things like Java and flash in mind, it has much potential. Apple is the first and thusfar only commercial developer using KHTML, and they have been doing browsers since 2002, that is just three years vs ~11 for the other guys. Just wait to see what they do to it in 10.5, I dont think you will be disappointed.
For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web
Can't argue with that. I'd like free stuff to drop from the sky, too.
Quote:
I work on a website of a company and I use firefox because it has far more features than safari, also safari is not compatible with what I have to program on the website.
And this is not the fault of the website? Just checking.
Quote:
Look at Opera, when it was released first it was far more better than firefox or other (even if it had some incompatibility issues with some websites) but the good version wasn't free, and the freeware version was very low.
There's some word missing that would make sense of your sentence...
The free version was full featured, the only difference was an ad banner.
Quote:
Another example about programs that I think they should be free is proteus. Why isn't that free? not to mention that adium is very very good.
Then what do you care about Proteus? They aren't coding just for fun, you know. The money has to come in from somewhere.
Quote:
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good, not necesarily free the real ones.
This happens because you are preferring that site, you have visited that site more often than www.appleinsider.com goto that base address few times, and don't use that autocompleted one, should fix that. This happens when you first time stumble to some site, thru some link. But I don't think this is so much of a bug, because how could safari know better? Of course it could try to cut that base address from your link, but I don't know is it really worth it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Artanis
For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web
In my experience safari has the best combatibility out there it was the first mainstream browser that passed ACID2 test, most browsers still don't. It's not safaris fault that people don't know how to write proper(standard) websites. And if you were talking those sites who require Activex, 99% of them that I have stumbled upon, were only trying to give me spyware, so I don't count that as a major set back. And who do you think writes these super duper plugins for marginal browser?
I use firefox on my pc, and I'm loving it there, but on Mac I find it too slow, and why can't firefox use quicktime to play videos from web? That WMP is fugly. What I'm missing in safari is proper adblock, remembering tab content on exit and foxytunes Also we should have gotten rid of the crashing by now.
This happens because you are preferring that site, you have visited that site more often than www.appleinsider.com goto that base address few times, and don't use that autocompleted one, should fix that. This happens when you first time stumble to some site, thru some link. But I don't think this is so much of a bug, because how could safari know better? Of course it could try to cut that base address from your link, but I don't know is it really worth it?
Yep, if safari were to always take you to the base address, some sites wouldn't work as the base address isn't a valid url.
The best solution is to to default to the one you choose most often... which it does. It's easier to overide and delete something mistakenly appended. It is difficult to remember and type a long url that is mistakenly omitted.
Not as easy of a design tradeoff as it might first seem...
Yep, if safari were to always take you to the base address, some sites wouldn't work as the base address isn't a valid url.
The best solution is to to default to the one you choose most often... which it does. It's easier to overide and delete something mistakenly appended. It is difficult to remember and type a long url that is mistakenly omitted.
Not as easy of a design tradeoff as it might first seem...
By FAR the best way to do it is to do what Firefox and (gulp) IE do - have a drop down list below the the address bar - then you just press the down arrow if you want to use the address. There should be a keypress to USE the autocomplete, not to AVOID it. Or they could just put a tickbox in preferences to turn it off (like they do for every other kind of autocomplete, just not address autocomplete, for some reason).
Can't argue with that. I'd like free stuff to drop from the sky, too.
For firefox it drops from the sky
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
And this is not the fault of the website? Just checking.
No, because firefox and netscape work fine.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Then what do you care about Proteus? They aren't coding just for fun, you know. The money has to come in from somewhere.
Well for adium the money comes from nowhere. I don't know about you but I hate spending money on a product wich can't even beat a freeware one. Not to mention that adium is far more featured than proteus.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Hold on.. I think I get it.. dang. No. I don't. [/B]
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good.They don't need to be free.
Another thing, today when I tried to answer to your post, safari had an continously authentication error on this forum. I used firefox and it worked perfectly.
Well for adium the money comes from nowhere. I don't know about you but I hate spending money on a product wich can't even beat a freeware one. Not to mention that adium is far more featured than proteus.
That's because it's based on libgaim, which does the most important part of the work - connect to all the protocols.
It probably was. Their website is kind of silent about that now, though.
I just had a look at it and could only think "wow, hmm, I really feel compelled to use this over Adium... not".
It might provide a better default appearance than Adium, I suppose. Heck, some might even prefer its icon design and all. But in the end, that's not worth the additional money. (Incidentally, even its Buy page doesn't appear to list an amount. Wtf? Of course, after going to the PayPal page, it became clear they want $15, which really isn't so bad at all.)
Still, I'd much rather donate to Adium than buy this.
Just for the sake of competition, it would be nice if Fire could be worked on more again. It's been almost-dead for a long time, ever since Eric Peyton stopped investing time into it.
You know, I just wish GAIM was working on audio/video faster, then Adium could use it as it became available. And all our IM problems would end.
And by video, I mean MSN and Yahoo! as well, not just AIM.
Adium currently vaguely anticipates voice and video capabilities by next spring/summer, all based on Gaim 2.x work, whose "spokespersons" are even more vague and contradictory.
Comments
If every requested feature was toggle-able via a preference pane, safari would soon resemble a MS app. There should not be options for trivial things like hiding the favicon. Fight the feature creep! Luckily, apple has once again provided us with an alternative that is light on features but optimal as a whole for the majority of users.
With that said, there is definite room for improvement.
All in all, I would characterize safari's progress as spectacular, not sluggish. Browser development is a truly Herculean task.
Originally posted by Mr Skills
Argghhhh... my pet Safari hate: the blasted address autocomplete, which cannot be switched off. I hate quickly typing "appleinsider.com" only to find that it's taken me to "http://forums.appleinsider.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=59355".
Originally posted by Mr Skills
Argghhhh... my pet Safari hate: the blasted address autocomplete, which cannot be switched off. I hate quickly typing "appleinsider.com" only to find that it's taken me to "http://forums.appleinsider.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=59355".
Try hitting the delete key once you are done typing in the address you want. I have not noticed a pattern, but sometimes auto complete will finish with .com, even when there are other addresses that continue on past .com, and other times it goes past .com.
Originally posted by troberts
Try hitting the delete key once you are done typing in the address you want.
This is exactly what I do. Let me elaborate: for me it is a minor annoyance (having to type the address and hit delete) but for a computer novice it can actually be quite confusing. I gave my old Mac to my (elderlyish) parents and had to install firefox for them *only* because they were so confused by address autocomplete on Safari.
What really bugs me is that I'm always persuading people who are light computer users to switch because the Mac is simpler to use. It's embarrassing when they ring up and say "this computer you told me to buy - it keeps going to random web addresses - my old one never did that."
When something seems very simple to you, it is easy to forget how complex it is for beginners*. Apple are one of the few companies that understand that, but they forgot it in this one instance.
*my favourite example was one of those computers-for-dummies type books that I almost bought as a gift until I realised the first sentence included the phrase "click on the icon", which somewhat defeated the object of the book.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
*raises hand*
The reason is because these features are not requested by the majority. These are quite honestly advanced features that would bloat an otherwise simple UI. Safari is *supposed* to be simple...
If you want such advanced features, use Firefox or OmniWeb.
Apple isn't trying to complicate things for the un-tech savvy.
I know there's going to be an outcry when some of you read this post (there always is). Some of you will tell me "But you're wrong!"...but I'm not...for many reasons, I assure you.
These arn't exactly advanced features I'm talking about. Even a beginner who knows how to use tabs (which will soon become commonplace after IE starts supporting them) will appreciate being able to be able to move their tabs around.
This simplicity is causing more problems than not sometimes. I've known people who hat Safari because they think they can't use tabs until you show them how to turn them on.
Originally posted by Sekio
I know most of these options can be found at Pimpmysafari.com (although, some you have to pay for) but they should come standard with Safari. I really don't understand why they don't.
I don't understand either why they have to charge u for every little stupid detail. In my opinion apple computers have super features that are free, but I don't understand why they charge for things that should be free. For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web, I work on a website of a company and I use firefox because it has far more features than safari, also safari is not compatible with what I have to program on the website. Look at Opera, when it was released first it was far more better than firefox or other (even if it had some incompatibility issues with some websites) but the good version wasn't free, and the freeware version was very low. Now they made Opera to be free, I think hoping to recover the lost users, but firefox does so well right now.
Another example about programs that I think they should be free is proteus. Why isn't that free? not to mention that adium is very very good.
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good, not necesarily free the real ones.
Originally posted by theapplegenius
make it stop crashing!
Yeah this should be fixed in some way.
FireFox is bacesd on Mozilla, which has been going for many years, mozilla is baced on Netscape, which means that FF has been in development to one level or another since 1994. Same with IE
KHTML is MUCH newer, and still needs a little work, but because it is newer, and has been built from the ground up with things like Java and flash in mind, it has much potential. Apple is the first and thusfar only commercial developer using KHTML, and they have been doing browsers since 2002, that is just three years vs ~11 for the other guys. Just wait to see what they do to it in 10.5, I dont think you will be disappointed.
Originally posted by Artanis
For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web
Can't argue with that. I'd like free stuff to drop from the sky, too.
I work on a website of a company and I use firefox because it has far more features than safari, also safari is not compatible with what I have to program on the website.
And this is not the fault of the website? Just checking.
Look at Opera, when it was released first it was far more better than firefox or other (even if it had some incompatibility issues with some websites) but the good version wasn't free, and the freeware version was very low.
There's some word missing that would make sense of your sentence...
The free version was full featured, the only difference was an ad banner.
Another example about programs that I think they should be free is proteus. Why isn't that free? not to mention that adium is very very good.
Then what do you care about Proteus? They aren't coding just for fun, you know. The money has to come in from somewhere.
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good, not necesarily free the real ones.
Hold on.. I think I get it.. dang. No. I don't.
Originally posted by Mr Skills
Argghhhh... my pet Safari hate: the blasted address autocomplete, which cannot be switched off. I hate quickly typing "appleinsider.com" only to find that it's taken me to "http://forums.appleinsider.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=59355".
This happens because you are preferring that site, you have visited that site more often than www.appleinsider.com goto that base address few times, and don't use that autocompleted one, should fix that. This happens when you first time stumble to some site, thru some link. But I don't think this is so much of a bug, because how could safari know better? Of course it could try to cut that base address from your link, but I don't know is it really worth it?
Originally posted by Artanis
For example they should improve safari with super free pluggins and high compatibility over the web
In my experience safari has the best combatibility out there it was the first mainstream browser that passed ACID2 test, most browsers still don't. It's not safaris fault that people don't know how to write proper(standard) websites. And if you were talking those sites who require Activex, 99% of them that I have stumbled upon, were only trying to give me spyware, so I don't count that as a major set back. And who do you think writes these super duper plugins for marginal browser?
I use firefox on my pc, and I'm loving it there, but on Mac I find it too slow, and why can't firefox use quicktime to play videos from web? That WMP is fugly. What I'm missing in safari is proper adblock, remembering tab content on exit and foxytunes
Originally posted by Project2501
This happens because you are preferring that site, you have visited that site more often than www.appleinsider.com goto that base address few times, and don't use that autocompleted one, should fix that. This happens when you first time stumble to some site, thru some link. But I don't think this is so much of a bug, because how could safari know better? Of course it could try to cut that base address from your link, but I don't know is it really worth it?
Yep, if safari were to always take you to the base address, some sites wouldn't work as the base address isn't a valid url.
The best solution is to to default to the one you choose most often... which it does. It's easier to overide and delete something mistakenly appended. It is difficult to remember and type a long url that is mistakenly omitted.
Not as easy of a design tradeoff as it might first seem...
Originally posted by dfiler
Yep, if safari were to always take you to the base address, some sites wouldn't work as the base address isn't a valid url.
The best solution is to to default to the one you choose most often... which it does. It's easier to overide and delete something mistakenly appended. It is difficult to remember and type a long url that is mistakenly omitted.
Not as easy of a design tradeoff as it might first seem...
By FAR the best way to do it is to do what Firefox and (gulp) IE do - have a drop down list below the the address bar - then you just press the down arrow if you want to use the address. There should be a keypress to USE the autocomplete, not to AVOID it. Or they could just put a tickbox in preferences to turn it off (like they do for every other kind of autocomplete, just not address autocomplete, for some reason).
Originally posted by Kickaha
Just FYI, most of the features people are requesting are available in OmniWeb.
And I've got a license for said browser, but until it at least approaches Safari in speed that browser is granted no space on my harddrive.
Originally posted by Gon
Can't argue with that. I'd like free stuff to drop from the sky, too.
For firefox it drops from the sky
Originally posted by Gon
And this is not the fault of the website? Just checking.
No, because firefox and netscape work fine.
Originally posted by Gon
Then what do you care about Proteus? They aren't coding just for fun, you know. The money has to come in from somewhere.
Well for adium the money comes from nowhere. I don't know about you but I hate spending money on a product wich can't even beat a freeware one. Not to mention that adium is far more featured than proteus.
Originally posted by Gon
Hold on.. I think I get it.. dang. No. I don't. [/B]
As a mac user I will always prefer the applications that are coming from apple, but they have to be good.They don't need to be free.
Another thing, today when I tried to answer to your post, safari had an continously authentication error on this forum. I used firefox and it worked perfectly.
Well for adium the money comes from nowhere. I don't know about you but I hate spending money on a product wich can't even beat a freeware one. Not to mention that adium is far more featured than proteus.
That's because it's based on libgaim, which does the most important part of the work - connect to all the protocols.
libgaim is the core of GAIM.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That's because its based on libgaim, which does the most important part of the work - connect to all the protocols.
In all fairness, Proteus is based on Libgaim just as well. At least it was in version... 4? Whatever.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It probably was. Their website is kind of silent about that now, though.
I just had a look at it and could only think "wow, hmm, I really feel compelled to use this over Adium... not".
It might provide a better default appearance than Adium, I suppose. Heck, some might even prefer its icon design and all. But in the end, that's not worth the additional money. (Incidentally, even its Buy page doesn't appear to list an amount. Wtf? Of course, after going to the PayPal page, it became clear they want $15, which really isn't so bad at all.)
Still, I'd much rather donate to Adium than buy this.
Just for the sake of competition, it would be nice if Fire could be worked on more again. It's been almost-dead for a long time, ever since Eric Peyton stopped investing time into it.
I'm rambling.
And by video, I mean MSN and Yahoo! as well, not just AIM.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You know, I just wish GAIM was working on audio/video faster, then Adium could use it as it became available. And all our IM problems would end.
And by video, I mean MSN and Yahoo! as well, not just AIM.
Adium currently vaguely anticipates voice and video capabilities by next spring/summer, all based on Gaim 2.x work, whose "spokespersons" are even more vague and contradictory.