On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 05:31:42PM EDT, Reid Rivenburgh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 05:10:42PM -0400, cga2000 wrote:
> > I've also heard that the SpiderMonkey - the new mozilla has marked
> > improvements in the area. But slow rendering was only one of the
> > issues. I have switched to a keyboard-only text-mode 'desktop' -
> > interface, I should say and I am a much happier man.
>
> Nice. I don't think I could get by with text-only in my main browser....
> FYI, I think there's a Firefox extension that is aimed at keyboard-only
> use. Never used it, though.
I'll look it up.. Although I'm sceptical.. Microsoft did a very good job
of making gui's navigable via the keyboard but you cannot change the
fact that the gui designer was thinking *mouse* when he designed the
layout.. etc. Just and example.. in many guis I have seen you may have
to drill down three.. four.. five..? levels of dialog/popup boxes the
size of a postage stamp (some of them you'll even have to reach for that
scrollbar so you can get to what you're looking for..) before you
eventually get to the particular flag or whatever that you want to
change.. While this is perfectly suitable with the inherent slowness of
the mouse, it becomes rather annnoying when you use a considerably
faster interface like the keyboard.
>
> > Drop the mouse man..! Charles Darwin is categorical.. You'll never
> > grow a third arm in your lifetime.
>
> Oh it's no problem, I use my tail to control the mouse! :)
>
:-)
Not that I'm particularly happy with the keyboard either. The
traditional typewriter keyboard was bad enough but what IBM did to it is
beyond words..
Only solace I find in a keyboard-only environment is its relative
simplicity (as compared with keyboard+mouse) .. Even a fairly large
number of inconsistant keyboard shortcuts across applications is in my
case a tad more efficient than switching action mode every other second.
> > Oh.. and as to developers being 'whimsical' relative to enhancements, I
> > think not.. That's exactly why I barged into your thread.. The list is
> > really the place where you can voice an opinion.. and since this caching
> > behavior was something that struck me as being fundamentally different
> > from the other browser.. Not sure it's a bad thing, though.. I briefly
> > mentioned it but Miciah has a good point.. when the server is
> > unresponsive it's OK I guess if you explicitly ask for a reload.. Maybe
> > less so when the reload is done on a transparent basis every time you
> > hit the back button (eg.).
>
> I guess "whims" was a bad word to use.
so far they haven't objected...
> I just wanted to explain that I
> understand it's open source and that the developers can do what they like.
I don't think they may.. or can.
Whatever they may state in their disclaimers they just cannot pull the
plug on a piece of software that has some degree of following...
And in fact they very rarely do so.. one of the nice things about OSS
is that when it happens someone else will step in.. if the software is
worth the effort.. that is.. (?)
As to *being able* to do what they like.. it's pretty much the same
thing.. too much change that turns out to be unsatisfactory and the
user community will just not take it.. someone forks the project.. etc.
.. like .. I'm a vim user/fan.. now Bram Moolenaar et al. all of a
sudden see the light and the next version of Vim turns out to be an MS
Word clone... how 'bout that?
I do hope someone will implement/improve CSS rendering some time soon,
though.. Not that I spend much time on commercial web sites.. but a
growing number are getting hard to read.
Yeah.. that's how you eventually get them to pay attention..
.. moan consistently on the list with a bunch of other troublemakers
until they really get sick of it..
OK.. fixed in CVS - GIT, I mean..
now p*ss off..
:-)
> Sure, having a discussion on this list is one way to convince them that
> your way is the right way! (So here goes:)
>
> As for the cache issue, I think the current method is not good from a
> usability standpoint. It sounds like he and I use ELinks in different
> ways so he doesn't run into this problem often, plus he places a lot of
> value on speed. I think if Mozilla or Firefox worked the same way, the
> majority of users would be up in arms!
.. interesting point.. but then they have been conditioned by years of
IE (& Netscape) abuse in so many ways..
So that may or may not be an argument..
I found this behavior a bit disconcerting at first but after a couple of
weeks I've grown used to it.
As mentioned in an earlier post, and provided I fully understand the
issue, this would appear to be something that can be customized in
mozilla.. don't know about FF, though.
> So if I was in charge of ELinks
> development, I'd make the Mozilla "compare automatically" (or whatever it
> is) be the default but put in Mozilla's other settings as options. Then
> everyone could be happy.
.. and call the option something else rather than 'compare'.. So you
compare.. OK.. and then what?
Thanks
cga
_______________________________________________
elinks-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-users
