Safari

179111213

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 247
    mlnjrmlnjr Posts: 230member
    I apologize if this Safari thread isn't the right one to post my question in?it' was the topmost thread about Safari in the Software forums, so I figured...



    Well, anyway, I downloaded Safari shortly after the keynote ended and had no problems with it on Wednesday or Thursday. Today, every time I try to launch Safari, the application crashes. I'm back to using IE for now. I had some problems with my internet connection on Thursday and actually spent most of the day power-cycling my cable modem and restarting my computer. This morning, I was happy to see the modem working properly so I started up the computer and encountered the problem with Safari.



    If this'll help: FP iMac 800/Super Drive, 256 MB RAM. Running 10.2.3. I ran Disk Utility on Thursday to repair some disk permissions (figured I'd do some house cleaning while the internet connection was down) but that's the only monkeying around I've done recently, and certainly the only bit I've done since downloading Safari. This morning I downloaded Safari again and trashed my old copy, but that didn't help?the new copy crashes, too.



    Any suggestions? I'd love to send a bug report to Apple, but since I can't get Safari up...
  • Reply 162 of 247
    mlnjr:



    Delete Safari's preferences file and try again. For some people it has been getting corrupted, pruvunting the launch. The file is located at:



    ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.Safari.plist
  • Reply 163 of 247
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Whyatt Thrash:

    <strong>That.looks.like.a.good.idea.Hobbes!



    But.what.happens.with.webpages.that.have.long.titl es?

    Maybe.add.linebreaks.like.for.finder.icons...]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, I gave myself a very simple scenario to start with.



    I'll work on a mock-up with a more real-world scenario, including more realistic ridiculously long web site itles. I imagine they would have to break to 2 or even 3 (ugh!) lines.
  • Reply 164 of 247
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    line break
  • Reply 165 of 247
    amoryaamorya Posts: 1,103member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:

    <strong>







    Feedback?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Don't shoot me, but I'd like that in a drawer. Or as an option, maybe...



    I think it should scroll if there's too many, and resize when you change the size of the drawer itself. The titles could be clipped and mouseover the rest if they're too long...



    Amorya
  • Reply 166 of 247
    The mozilla user interface guy posted again about Safari:



    <a href="http://mpt.phrasewise.com/2003/01/10#a439"; target="_blank">http://mpt.phrasewise.com/2003/01/10#a439</a>;



    The most interesting part is when he points out a feature of other browsers that Safari lacks that I hadn't even noticed was missing. And when I found out that it was gone, I was glad because it has given me nothing but grief.



    I'll not say what it was because I'm intrigued to know if anyone hadn't noticed its absence.



    edit: new stuff below



    I just finished reading a couple of blogs that were linked to in the post above



    <a href="http://dbaron.org/log/2003-01#l20030109"; target="_blank">http://dbaron.org/log/2003-01#l20030109</a>;

    and

    <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=132696"; target="_blank">http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=132696</a>;



    Very damning stuff about the gecko renderer, coming from two people who did a lot of work on it.



    This comes as a shock to me after reading all the web design blogs were people were bitching about Apple not using gecko. Not that those people understood the trade-offs or the decision making process mind, simply because they considered gecko to be the only browser engine to even be capable of being standards compliant.

    -----

    One of the Chimera developer's estimated that Safari was at 60 odd percent compliance, whereas Chimera was about 94 percent compliant. He went on to say, however, that he thought Safari would only be 2 or 3 percent behind when it goes gold and basically no one would be able to tell the difference.



    I was astounded when I first saw Safari and the more I learn the better it gets.



    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
  • Reply 167 of 247
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    There is a combo box in the address field.



    Just type in http:// in the address, and wait a split second. It pops up without fail.



    In the rest of the interface, however, it is absent. Not that I care much. It can be kind of annoying at times.



    The guy also complains of Safari's use of the text field as page-load status. Is it me, or is he the only one? I really like this, it looks cool, it's bigger than most smaller ones designed to go at the botom of a window, and it doesn't needlessly take up any extra space when not in use.



    Him saying that combining the back and snapback buttons coexisiting is problematic because you don't know which to use is idiotic. It's simple, back button to go one back, snapback to go to where you started on the site. (Or where you have the snapback page defined.)



    And the most idiotic comment, that the back and forward buttons are so small that it will make us slower. Not when your operating system is smart enough to let you use dynamic mouse tracking, idiot. We've got precision and speed. Besides, remove the text from IE and what do you have? about the same sized buttons.



    The guy even admits he doesn't have a Mac, and therefore hasn't been able to actually use Safari.
  • Reply 168 of 247
    [quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:

    <strong><a href="http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=132696"; target="_blank">http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=jwz&itemid=132696</a>;



    Very damning stuff about the gecko renderer, coming from two people who did a lot of work on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>Heh. I liked this part:

    [quote]Translated through a de-weaselizer, this says:



    "Even though some of us used to work on Mozilla, we have to admit that the Mozilla code is a gigantic, bloated mess, not to mention slow, and with an internal API so flamboyantly baroque that frankly we can't even comprehend where to begin. Also did we mention big and slow and incomprehensible?"<hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 169 of 247
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorya:

    <strong>Don't shoot me, but I'd like that in a drawer. Or as an option, maybe...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was thinking the same thing, just too chicken to say it out-right. As an aside, I always wished that drawers could be pulled off to create inspectors/utility windows/palettes as per the user's whim.
  • Reply 170 of 247
    The thing about small buttons is an accepted fact of UI design. It's called Fitt's law and Bruce Tognazzini is a big fan of it. It has been used for years in the Mac OS.



    Who is Bruce 'Tog' Tognazzini - <a href="http://www.asktog.com/tog.html"; target="_blank">http://www.asktog.com/tog.html</a>;



    Tog even lists it in his first principles

    <a href="http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html"; target="_blank">http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html</a>;



    and here's a quiz about it

    <a href="http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html"; target="_blank">http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html</a>;



    You can even test it on yourself if you've got Java.

    <a href="http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/"; target="_blank">http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/</a>;



    mpt has been a Mac user, and is generally a fan of Mac UI (though he seems to prefer the pre X interface). At the moment he seems to want to help implement an open source version of Mac OS X based on the old OpenStep/GnuStep code.



    edit: added who is Tog



    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
  • Reply 171 of 247
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]<strong>Combo boxes look rather lopsided, and have some details which are inherently unpredictable; so while they?re used frequently in MS Windows, and excessively in Gnome and KDE, I have yet to see any Apple software use them at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well perhaps it would help if he actually tried to run some Apple software and the OS.



    Apple use combo boxes several places in Mac OS X.
  • Reply 172 of 247
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    If you have problems with hitting buttons of that size then there is something wrong. :-P



    Besides, the bigger the button, the more clutter as well. The current bar is perfect, smaller than any other mac browswer that displays the same info (even OW with no text and small icons.
  • Reply 173 of 247
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorya:

    <strong>Don't shoot me, but I'd like that in a drawer. Or as an option, maybe...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:<strong>

    I was thinking the same thing, just too chicken to say it out-right. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was fairly wary when considering a pane, esp. since we all know about Microsoft's overuse of sidebars in everything they do.



    In the end, however, it seems like a really good solution for a friendly implementation of multipage browsing, for these reasons:



    - The Page Pane would be dynamic, as the pages resize depending on how many pages are there. Drawers, otoh, tend to contain static elements.



    - The importance of *not* be able to hide multiple pages. Drawers can always be tucked away, and have to allow this; I'm beginning to think that the pane would not. Why not? I think it's critical for multipage browsing to work well that pages always be reachable with a single click, and for open pages to always be shown on screen. It otherwise introduces various dangers for the user, including (a) to close one window and mistakenly close many pages without realizing it, and just as bad (b) be confused where a page went.



    Any reasons why you think a drawer would be superior? I'm all ears.



    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 174 of 247
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Mainly because drawers won't shrink or cut off content in the main window. This is also something that should be considered when you bring up the Bookmarks Library. I imagine with a drawer, you could drag bookmarks into the drawer to load in the background. It's also just consistent with other apps like Mail (which I know some people hate its behavior, and they have valid reasons, though it doesn't bother me), Preview and even BackUp.
  • Reply 175 of 247
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>

    Apple use combo boxes several places in Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Do you mean drop down lists or combo boxes (which combine drop down lists with text entry fields)?



    <a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Cocoa/TasksAndConcepts/ProgrammingTopics/ComboBox/index.html"; target="_blank">http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Cocoa/TasksAndConcepts/ProgrammingTopics/ComboBox/index.html</a>;



    I can't think of a use, that doesn't mean there isn't any, but they certainly aren't common.



    edit: here's an image





    [ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
  • Reply 176 of 247
    I love Safari.

    One thing:

    In keeping with the iLife apps, it would be helpful for me to have direct access to iTunes like iPhoto 2 and iMovie 3 does, since I listen to music while I surf. As of now I keep having to pull up iTunes if I want to change songs, etc. Having iTunes integrated would be more convenient.



    CT
  • Reply 177 of 247
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:

    <strong>



    Do you mean drop down lists or combo boxes (which combine drop down lists with text entry fields)?



    I can't think of a use, that doesn't mean there isn't any, but they certainly aren't common.</strong><hr></blockquote>











  • Reply 178 of 247
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by Cosmic Trigger:

    <strong>I love Safari.

    One thing:

    In keeping with the iLife apps, it would be helpful for me to have direct access to iTunes like iPhoto 2 and iMovie 3 does, since I listen to music while I surf. As of now I keep having to pull up iTunes if I want to change songs, etc. Having iTunes integrated would be more convenient.



    CT</strong><hr></blockquote>



    bad idea



    a better way is to have access to iTunes through a menuitem like iChat



    there is an app called M-Beat that does this, and it works, but an Apple® solution would be better.



    furthermore, you can also use the dock icon to switch songs...
  • Reply 179 of 247
    mokimoki Posts: 551member
    New version of Safari is out (v1.0 beta v51) -- Grab it here... <a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/download/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/safari/download/</a>;



    I'm guessing it just fixes the "delete entire home directory" bug (which only can happen under fairly specific circumstances).
  • Reply 180 of 247
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Thanks for the heads-up moki.
Sign In or Register to comment.