Firefox/Feature Brainstorming:Other or Uncategorized
« Firefox/Feature Brainstorming
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
| |
| |
| |
P.S. Check out wikipedia's write up on synesthesia for more info...
| |
Many pages don't have anchors so linking to Content that is somewhere on the page can be a pain. Make possible custom anchors like this:
| |
| |
|
Remote Control
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
|
n/a |
|
n/a |
Browser Interaction
Scripting
| Browser Automation | References |
|---|---|
| |
For exemple, change some image, text disposition or even the whole design of the page using regular expression. (Maybe witch a WYGIWYS editor-like to be more user friendly ?) I think about a way that users can themselfs modify a whole page, and submit their 'patchs' to a centralized server.
When an other user navigate on the page, he can use a button on the navigation page to switch beetwin the different patchs submited by other people and vote for them. |
|
| JavaScript engine is too slow. When a script on page is become unresponsive - Firefox hangs, until window, proposing to stop that script appears. Enclosing enhancements are good, but functionality and quality are the main thing, we must to follow. | |
| Make a quick-opening pdf reader, just for text. In other case, run adobe or similar | |
Possibility of rename the borders (abas). When a site in a new border confides, logicaly the border (aba) will be with the heading of the site, to put would be interesting to be able to temporarily change the heading that appears. This would be extremely useful case was with two or more open borders. | (Sorry for my bad english, if you can reformulate my proposition more clearly, don't hesitate) |
To incorporate the Wizz RSS. It becomes it native of the program. | (Sorry for my bad english, if you can reformulate my proposition more clearly, don't hesitate) |
ActiveX
| ActiveX controls | References |
|---|---|
|
Web services integration
| Web Services Utilities | References |
|---|---|
|
Automatically create a web services test form by inspecting a URL to a WSDL file. For comparison, ASP.NET can do this by browsing to a web services URL like foo.asmx?wsdl | |
| Web mail integration | References |
|
Following Firefox 2 support for online web feed readers, it could be extended to web mail services like Yahoo! Mail, Hotmail and Gmail at least. Users should be able to select one or more web mail providers and set a default or just keep the default stand alone email client. The idea is not to develop a complete email client but to provide minimum integration:
| |
| Email pseudo-url | References |
|
Presently the mailto: pseudo url simply opens up a mail client. In the old Netscape/Mozilla days, the mail client was part of the package, so it wasn't necessarily such an issue. Perhaps Firefox could incorporate a lite smpt component which could actually send off data, perhaps as part of a form's action. |
Explorer files integrated
| FILES EXPLORER | References |
|---|---|
|
Firefox 3.0 should integrate a file explorer of your system, while having the same characteristics as a web page: Tabs, mouse gestures, bookmarks. etc. | |
| Explorer integration (Windows) | References |
|
In Windows allow file system browsing (ie C:\windows), perhaps by calling on MSHTML APIs.
In Windows, allow Firefox to change global settings for preferred browser; not only changing preferred browser for files-types, but also to change what browser applications start when they want to access a webpage. |
Opening Links
| Link Activation | References |
|---|---|
| |
| |
| |
|
See bug 55696 |
| Tab Interaction | References |
| |
|
Quick Top of page/Bottom of page
| Quick Top of page/Bottom of page | References |
|---|---|
|
Uploading Files
| Browser Automation | References |
|---|---|
|
n/a |
|
See bug 50660 and bug 347178 |
Dynamic Font Support
| Dynamic font (embedding font into web page) | References |
|---|---|
From a designer's point of view it makes just about the most amount of sense - with IE4 onwards supporting font embedding, gifting this technology to FF would just about cover 99% of browsers - the possibilities from a typography point of view are fantastic. |
Syntax Highlightning
| Features | References |
|---|---|
No language includes these words , <th> and such. The spellchecker should know about symbols used by developers, bloggers and wikiwriters and not to highlight them as a syntax error at least. |
Enhanced Form Controls
| Enhanced Form Controls (create a real application environment) | References |
|---|---|
| |
|
Compatibility
UI compatibility
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
| Linux | |
|
|
| Mac OS X | |
|
|
Global community
Long term target
On a long term basis Mozilla has come to a cross-road. The current XUL technology can't be used on a PAD/Smart phone nor on an OLPC. Yet there's a need for such a browser/mailer and it's just a matter of time somebody starts such a project. But I'm sure if such a browser/mailer gets built, it will be ported to the ordinary desktops slowly starting to replace Mozilla. And since switching technologies isn't a task done in a few weeks this subject has to be taken care of ASAP.
IMO it's important for Mozilla to start a task force now to think about the long term future. The PDA/Smart phones are already on the market almost exclusively using IE/Outlook and the OLPC and other embedded devices is just on the brink. So the pressure of this task, to prevent Mozilla from lagging behind again, is imminent.
Task force about technologies
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
|
n/a |
|
n/a |
More vs. Less
Well it seems like we could devide the users wishes into two overall categories: While the ones can�t get enough features, want more of them and through that keep pushing new technologies and conveniences for the user, the other fraction just want a quick and stable browser, supporting all the W3 standards.
I belong the other category, I want a quick and stable browser with a lot of Extensions and at least 5 distinct good looking skins. Still, I've got to admit, that without the more-and-more fraction, I still would not use the Mouse Gestures. So on the one hand, I am by all means interessted in the ideas of the other users, on the other side, I got to admit that I am _saturated_. The new features in version 2.0, I do not want them. Honestly. Yeah. That's it. So, unlike most of the users who posted here, I simply do not have any _new_ ideas thus I would prefer to vote uppon the most wanted features. [[1]]
Instead, you could focus on Sunbird. And of course some of the more interessting extension could some help to improve faster. I do not want to tell anybody how to spent his or her time, but if I am asked, this is my answer.
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
|
I fully support the idea of a minimal firefox with official extensions from the devs and unofficial extensions from the communitiy. Firefox is getting too big. The first time I used Firefox (around 0.5 ?), I used it, because it was small and fast! Now it just takes too long to load. This also helps the core team to do it's core stuff, and the extensions people to work on thier extensions separatly. If they want to update a feature or remove some bug, only the new extension has to be upgraded and not the full Firefox package. Official extensions would also allow the devs to adopt community extensions, if they are deemed usefull for (nearly) everyone, and add them to the offical Firefox extensions.
How about a extension 'mode' pack or something? This could be a bunch of plugins grouped under a certain name like 'Standard','Ultra Fast','WebDeveloper','Kiosk' etc... and then have a simple drop down where one could select the 'mode' and only plugins for that mode would be loaded. This way we get the fast version, and the features packed versions for those who want it (and we can easily switch). Ofcourse let the user modify the mode pack if they wish, but this can be hidden somewhere so beginners don't stumble upon it by mistake and mess things up.
It really is not a 'fast mode' vs 'feature packed mode' only, as it depends very much on what features a user wants and what they are doing at the time. By creating a couple of common usage mode packs it will make it easy to customize without having to individually download and install each plugin (though one could still do this). Maybe this is what a 'profile' is all about, but then again I still like to share bookmarks no matter how I'm browsing.
I for one sometimes like the browser to be very fast, at other times I prefer all the web developer options, and at other times when browsing for personal use I'd like other plugins loaded.
This way the core can stay small but first time users still get the cool behaviours they like without having to understand this whole plugin install business.(so a standard download and a core download without the mode packs for example)
The use case I see is that first time users will want all the whiz bang toys to atleast match other browsers, and don't want to go through and figure out what extensions are and how to install, they just want to click go and off they go. Experienced users on the other hand may want other features or a slimmed down feature set. I think this approach solves both issues.
I love the idea of official extensions! And I'd definately like the ability to strip down firefox to the core. This method of development and packageing gets my vote!
Perhaps the installer could be a bit more than just Core & More. You could for example have a check box for extra features, and another for web development tools. Each check box could be expanded to get individual extensions like no-script.
And of course the defaults will be well chosen
fast & slim - Quo vadis, FF
The more functionality you add, the more words and submenus have to be created. And both is confusing for beginners and older folks. What is the difference between words, that seem to mean the same thing at first glance ? Do I have to understand "all these new words" like "javascript", "PlugIn" ? Keep in mind, not all of the users are like the Techies who develop !
What the hell is the difference between an "extension" or a "plugin" ? What do I have to search for, to find the function I need ?
And if I click on a menu iten, just hoping it will do what it says, what do I have to select, if a submenu opens up ???
These are two examples for problems for a "once a while" user. So please keep it simple and easy. Let all the folks who like add extensions and other stuff.
Or offer a lean, easy to understand firefox (as it was in the first days, and these were woderful days, thanks for the "just-browse" browsers :-)).
Or offer an easy to use selection whilst installation saying "I don't understand all that technical stuff and don't want so use special functions" and set defaults and that's it !
Firefox already has all the necessary stuff. There must always be an easy way for "lightweight-users" to use firefox without getting confused about words, large submenus or confusing questions.
The more functions, the more words, the more confusion. Please, always offer an easy way for the non-techie user ... !
I agree that a much smaller (memory) footprint is needed (even on desktop systems), and love the extension pack idea. I'd like to also strongly suggest looking at the reason for the memory size with the current feature set - 225 MB with just 3 tabs open just seems like too much.
My suggestions for top priorities - before ANY new feature(s) (just my $ .02, for what it's worth): 1) Ensure that extensions don't break on each release, 2) MUCH slimmer footprint - 225 MB with 3 tabs is too much IMHO.
1) Fix the extension compatibility scheme. I do understand the intent of the existing system, and the responsibly of extension developers in it, however it simply isn't working well. A better solution (or use of the existing solution) is needed. As evidence, I offer the flurry of user problems/activity after every release when many if not the majority of the extensions no longer work.
2) A MUCH slimmer footprint - with today's basic features. 225 MB with just 3 tabs open is simply too much imho.
These are by FAR the top priorities in my mind, above and before any additional features. Without these being resolved, FF's growth will likely stall/regress (imho of course :-).
After that,
3) The ability for each user to create, save, install, and manage "feature (extension) sets".
---
The subject of More vs. Less is quite interesting. A good starting point might be to ask "what recent features are being used?". In that vein, maybe one of the "pre-release" versions could be "instrumented" to count the features used and (with the permission of the user, of course) report back those. Another way might be to do a web crawl, and see what features are used by various "popular" web sites. As with ANY feature set, one should realize that "growing featureism" is a very slippery slope. I suspect that many web users would be content with the features of an older browser (say back to 1999) to do their work. Remember that each added "feature" involves code, and with any new code comes both bugs and vulnerabilities. The user community wants neither.
---
Adding on to the "save memory" issue... The memory profile of the current Firefox grows and grows and grows; it apparently never releases memory, so after leaving it open for a couple of days (can't lose that tab...), it can easily exceed 200 MBytes, which is a problem on many systems.
So why not either make this behavior -- yes, I know it's there to speed up things by cacheing a lot -- either as an option, or by having a "release memory" button somewhere, to shrink it down without exiting.
BTW on a related note, when you do exit the current Firefox (1.5.0.7), it goes absolutely crazy grabbing MORE memory! I often end up closing it with the Task Manager. This behavior should be rethought.
Regarding the Firefox startup speed, it should be very high in any case. Maybe there should be a preloader at OS startup (something like Acrobat Reader 7.0 uses to speed up its loading) to get some (small!) footprint into memory.
To make things even faster, IMHO a cached version of the home page should be saved during surfing and immediately opened on startup (like offline browsing), before the browser even checks for an active internet connection.
Please, not a preloader. And move the discussion out of the feature list, if possible. ;)
Rich Internet Applications
There is an opportunity here to lead the way in supporting the growing number of DHTML- and Ajax-heavy applications and to provide the browser support needed to eliminate some of the drawbacks of these apps. In all cases a security model will be necessary, probably including some automated safeguards and some user confirmations.
| Specific features | References |
|---|---|
|
n/a |
Here here! This would enable productivity applications on the web far beyond what we can do today. Mozilla has an opportunity to create a standard API for local storage. |
n/a |
|
n/a |
|
n/a |
|
n/a |
Other resources
| Misc Thoughts | References |
|---|---|
| |
|
Enabeling new Top-Level-Domains on browser basis
| |
|
A new browser should have more usability. I think it would be really great if there would be enhanced possibilities of graphical marks. It's tough to explain. I think of an complicated scientific text. If I print such a text. I highlight some words, cross other chapters out, add some notes. That's the big advantage of printing a page. If I could mark within a browser wouldn't have to print the page. I could work on screen. I am sorry I have no idea how to realize that, becaus I just use browsers and I have no clue how they work. It's just a thought. | |
|
Decentralized/distributed browsing: in case a website has been slashdotted, Firefox should still be able to reach to its data by using the offline website data which is stored locally at other Firefox users, who were able to connect to it, their disk. Firefox should act as a kind of a torrent client. Of course, there might be some security issues. Https websites should be denied and the user itself should be able to disable this "torrent functionality". |
n/a |
|
Please focus more on stability, robustness, and security than on adding fun features. New features are nice, and fixing bugs isn't so much fun, but I find Firefox to be more of a memory hog and less stable than IE, and that's pretty sad. Stop competing against other browsers because you're afraid of losing market-share. The only way Firefox will ever be truly great if it's designed to be great from the ground up. Focus on changes that are less glitzy and more on changes that are fundamental to making a good browser platform. When something needs to be re-architected, re-architect it. Don't assume that bugs will ultimately get fixed; so far, Firefox has added features faster than bug fixes. Rather, focus on design principles that minimize the chances that problems will happen and minimize the consequences when they DO happen (and they will!). |
n/a |
|
I agree with the above. Firefox also has a reputation for being fast and relatively slim and there already is a plugin system for those who want a feature laden browser, so the focus should be on essential improvements that will have an impact on usability for the majority of users. A lot of the proposals here go way beyond what a dedicated browser should be able to do (more or less why Firefox was created from the Mozilla suite in the first place, no?) and would just add a lot of bloat. |
n/a |
|
I concur with the above two requests. Fix all the memory leaks! Firefox leaks memory like a sieve. I hate having to restart it periodically in order to get it all reclaimed. A web browser shouldn't be using nearly 150 MB of ram. That's 15 MB for each of my open tabs! |
n/a |
|
I don't know where this would go, but how about a really easy off-line browsing agent? Here's an example of what I do. Every morning I pull up about a dozen web pages in tabs, as a sort of 'newspaper' I read specific articles that catch my eye, or have an interest, like say the North Korea problem. I then go to the next article. (just like a newspaper.) I'd like to be able to click a 'offline this link' (or something like that), where it downloads just that article, as deep as it needs to go, with all the stuff that goes with it) then save it. I can then take this on my laptop and read it at work, in the car or such if/when I don't have internet connections. The off-line browsers I've used want to download the entire site(s), and are so hard to configure I give up on them. Also it should handle login sites too (like bank sites) but it'd be ok, if you have to input the login/password manually.) |
n/a |
|
I have no idea if this is possible, but if Thunderbird is installed it would be cool to have the option of opening Thunderbird as a tab. |
n/a |
|
Two buttons for favorites that open as many tabs as there are links in a special folder: One for daily checked pages (e.g. news paper, special forum a.s.o) and one for pages you check only sometimes (e.g. homepages of former friends or employers, news of your hometown a.s.o.) |
n/a |
|
I think the possibility to setup and use a socket connection for client-server communications would be a great improvement for Firefox to use it in Web2.0 / intranet-webapplications. mySocket = new SocketClient("tcp://domain.com/application");
mySocket.onData = processReponse();
mySocket.connect();
) If you look at the flash player for example, it is used a lot in all kinds of applications, not just gaming or chatting, but it's also penetrating the intranet-applications business. | n/a |
|
HTTP Sniffer. Have a HTTP Sniffer, where you see what exactly is transmitted, which POST / GET parameter, cookies, loading times etc. Something like httpwatch, see link. That's why I have to start IE in regular intverals. |
http://www.httpwatch.com/ http://tamperdata.mozdev.org/ Should this functionality really be in the browser itself, when there are things like Paros Web Proxy? |
|
Security I see many attacks upcoming, which manipulate the DOM-tree inside the browser, altering transactions in banking-systems a.s.o. What i wish for Firefox is, to have ONLY signed extensions! I want a default block of all extensions to manipulate SSL-protected sites. This security-feature will be a boost for the usage of Firefox, because all banks will promote FF. | |
|
Flexible table element selection and copy for example, select and copy a column (or columns) from a html table
| |
|
Please, please, process a lightweigth program on Firefox. I started using on early versions something like 0.2 or 0.3, it was reliable, fast, great and open. Soon 2.0 is released, we're talking now of 3.0 : that's a great success ! But Firefox has become a huge monolithic piece of software with a huge memory footprint, just like others. And as a heavy classical surfer, I don't see so many differences between versions, honest ! All I can see is that's it's heavier and heavier, slower and slower. A solution to this might be modularity. A completly separate bookmark manager (even as a separate project, with a clearly API to interect with the browser) And relaying more on the OS. what about some kind of fork to launch a download via some ftp client in the background for example ? Difficult to express that as an early and fervent user of FF, I'm more and more distant from it, using more Konqueror actually (much efficient simple bookmark management (but slow), imho). Keep on going :-) | |
|
User dictionaries I have an existing "user.dic" dictionary, and a couple of specialist dictionaries ("avifauna.dic", "lepidoptera.dic"). They are used by several of my apps, including my e-mail client (Turnpike) and various MS Office apps. I should be able to direct FF to use the former as its dictionary to which new words are added, and to check against all of them when spell-checking. Also, when the word I'm spell checking is at the bottom of the window, then the suggested replacements should be at the bottom of the context menu. Andy Mabbett | |
|
n/a |