Lack of Titles

I noticed that blogger by default does not let you give a title to your posts. I'm no sure if this is how it worked before the google buyout, but it's interesting. You'd tihnk that most poeple wouuld want a title for their posts, wouldn't they? Perhaps this is a little hint that google is supposedly so good, that you don't even need titles anymore – it can find out what the post is about merely by the content.

I've been using Safari as my sole browser for quite some time now. I used Camino (then Chimera) ever since it came out up until shortly after Safari was released, and even then I thought it was an excellent browser. However, Safari won me over with some of it's features � mostly small things here and there.

For several months now, Safari has been getting on my nerves. THe main reason has been it's unreliability � this probably is largely due to the fact that I use it more than anything else, but Safari seems to crash more than anything else on m system. Also, it keeps getting slower as you have it open. Today I noticed Camino .8b mentioned on someone's blog, and thought I'd try it out. I downloaded it only to discover that I already had it installed, but rather than closing it right away, I stuck around. Suddenly Camino doesn't seem that bad. Then I downloaded the newest Omniweb beta, and it seems real cool as well.

Unfortunately, none of them have it all right, but I think I may switch back to Camino for a while. It just seems to get it best out of the three. I really like the interface, particularly how much more responsive it is. However, Safari still seem to be the fastest at rendering pages, and also seems to have the fewest display bugs. I know it'll probably never happen, but I think there is a lot for Camino to gain if it abandoned the Mozilla Core and used WebKit. since it's sole purpose is to be a lightweight, OS X-native version of Mozilla that's unlikely, but it would give all the plusses of Camino's UI, with all the plusses of WebKit's speed.

Here's a quick overview of some of the pros form all three that I feel would make the perfect browser when combined.

Pros:

Camino:

• Native toolbar, good-looking widgets. Overall, Camino does a good job at following the Mac UI guidelines, with a little bit of common sense thrown in (although, I don't think quite enough.)


• Fast, responsive interface. This super-browser would for the most part be a straight port of Camino as far as the interface goes.


• Small Interface. I kid of like the grey metal border that Safari gives you over Camino's white, but it's not a big deal. I just wish there was more distinction between the page you're viewing and the status bar.

Safari

• Fast rendering. This is about the only unique feature that Safari has and the other's don't at this point.


• Good-looking tabs. They're not perfect, but I think Safari's tabs are better than Camino's. The aqua tabs just don't work very well for displaying web pages, especially the new Panther ones that aren't even tabs. Also, Safari makes it easier (not to mention prettier) to drag a link to the tab bar and open it in a new tab, or an already-existing tab. However, all of this is nullified by OmniWeb (see below)


• Spell-checking. Another one of the things that would be fixed by simply using WebKit, Spell-checking in all text-boxes.


• Keyboard short-cuts. In general, Safari's keyboard shortcuts don't necessarily make more sense, but are much easier to use than Camino's


• Sparse use of favicons. This may be a personal preference, but I don't really think that favicons have a place in by Bookmarks Menu, or on my Bookmarks Bar. They don't give you enough information to be used as an accurate way to quickly find what you're looking for (especially since many sites don't have on e at all, or even worse, have a poorly-designed one). They just make it harder to get what you're looking for. This is particularly evident in the Bookmarks Bar, where the favicons aren't all neatly lined up in the left column. Giving each bookmark an identical generic icon is not any better � in fact, it just gives you even less information. This might be something to leave up to a user preference. In fact, that's one thing Camino needs � more user preferences. I'm all for simple, but you can't simplify to the point that you hinder the user experience, which is what Camino has started to do in some places.

OmniWeb Introduces lots of new thing that haven't really been seen in a browser before. Some of these things are really great, but there's simply too many new features, and most of them detract form the experience by adding unnecessary bloat to the application.

• Tabs. The way OmniWeb does tabs is genius. Basically, it works like this: web pages by nature are vertical. With few exceptions, there is a limit to how wide you can practically make a window and still enhance your experience. However, you can always use more vertical space. The maximum useful width is conveniently narrow enough that you can make your window small enough to have plenty of space on the edges. Therefore: put the tabs over there. Omniweb just takes the tabs off of the top of the window, where they're horizontally lined up, and lines them up vertically on the side. It makes so much sense. You can fit easily 4x as many tabs on-screen, and it allows space for a scroll bar, so no more using a little sub-menu to see tabs that don't fit on screen. Plus, they went one step further, with the introduction of thumbnail tabs. It was a logical step on OS X, where photorealistic icons are a natural companion, and often-times substitute to text labels. If you wish, OmniWeb will present each tab as a square tile containing a miniature picture of the actual web page, along with the title underneath. It's surprisingly useable. Plus, it makes it natural to drag a link and plop it between two open tabs, as they conveniently slide out of the way. You can even watch the page load by looking at it's thumbnail. This is definitely a keeper.


• Protecting Page State. If you have a bunch of tabs open in a window and try to close it, you should be asked to confirm. It just makes sense. Losing all of the articles you have neatly stacked up, preparing to read, to a careless mouse click is just as bad as losing something you just wrote in a text editor. Especially on the internet, where you probably followed a trail of links to find them , and have no idea where they reside. An opportunity to save these tabs for later makes sense too.

I haven't mentioned FireFox, because I really don't think it has anything to offer. It may be faster than Camino, but Safari is still the fastest if you ask me. Other than that, it only takes a step backwards, with the non-native GUI.

I could write a lot more, but I tihnk these are some basic things that would make a really killer browser. Now I'm tired, and going to sleep.

superbrowser.png

As seen Here, it seems that the Music Industry is getting angry because people are taking their own mp3's (even legally purchased music) and using them as ringtones on their phones. I'm sure that current law allows you to do this, but this got me tihnking about something I thought of a while ago...

It seems that he only logical argument the Music Industry coudl have for this is that the license they sold you when you bought a CD isonly for the CD in that particular form � that exact file, on that exact CD. So they're claiming that if you want the same song on your phone, it's actually not coverd by that license you purchased, because the audio file on your phone is different than the one on the CD, and in a different place.

So if that's they're argument, that the same basic music in a diffeent format or on a different medium is not covered by the original lisence, than by that logic, they can't fine me for uploading an MP3. The music file I uploaded on the p2p networks is not the same one they licensed to me, and therefore it is not covered by the original license, and I can od whatever I want with it.

Of course, this is not anything that would hold up in court, but that's exactly my point � thir argument is illogical, and just plain ridiculous. Most poeple already know that, but this is just one more example of how so.