Inline Tab History is a great idea!!! Though I feel you are going
about it in a posting/rss/email manner. The vertical space in the
browser should not be hindered since the current movement/goal is to
maximize this vertical space which you are achieving by removing the
status bar, location bar, etc. You then propose to take all that space
back by adding the history to the bottom of the current tab??? The
vertical space IS for the current page, that IS the space we are
trying to maximize. For easy reading you want to lengthen the page and
shorten the distance one has to travel when they reach the end of a
line (more lines, less char columns). This vertical space should be
reserved for the CURRENT page. I propose you use the space on the
sides for your history (ex: left goes forward in time and right goes
backward) . Most web pages are centered horizontally and do not have
any real information on the sides except pretty pictures that will
size with the width of the monitor anyway. Don't shorten my vertical
space with history and force me to scroll every 5 lines. I will lose
my place while reading, get a head ache, and stop using your browser.
> Inline Tab History is a great idea!!! Though I feel you are going about it > in a posting/rss/email manner. The vertical space in the browser should not > be hindered since the current movement/goal is to maximize this vertical > space which you are achieving by removing the status bar, location bar, > etc. You then propose to take all that space back by adding the history to > the bottom of the current tab??? The vertical space IS for the current page, > that IS the space we are trying to maximize. For easy reading you want to > lengthen the page and shorten the distance one has to travel when they reach > the end of a line (more lines, less char columns). This vertical space > should be reserved for the CURRENT page. I propose you use the space on the > sides for your history (ex: left goes forward in time and right goes > backward) . Most web pages are centered horizontally and do not have any > real information on the sides except pretty pictures that will size with the > width of the monitor anyway. Don't shorten my vertical space with history > and force me to scroll every 5 lines. I will lose my place while reading, > get a head ache, and stop using your browser.
I was not proposing to reduce vertical space at all. Each page takes up as much space as it needs. And the Page Info area can easily be scrolled away so that the content area is devoted to the page completely. New pages appear at the bottom after the previous page. They scroll up and down together with the other pages, all arranged in order. They don’t take up any permanent vertical space at all.
It is clear I assume there will be some animations and dynamic movement. Not to be stubborn but I still feel like I have a lot of horizontal space that is not used. Those that do, however, have plenty of horizontal space that the web ignores. I know not everyone has a wide screen monitor but those numbers are going to increase as everyone's CRT dies and they decide to get the latest goo filed color dazzler. Maybe make a setting to stack them horizontal or vertical? Just a friendly reminder. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kyle Suttlemyre Research in Genomics & Metabolites @ College of Bioinformatics and Genomics; UNC-Charlotte Website: http://www.du-lab.org E-mail: ktsuttlem...@gmail.com
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:26 PM, David Regev <david.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:25, Kyle Suttlemyre <ktsuttlem...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Inline Tab History is a great idea!!! Though I feel you are going about it >> in a posting/rss/email manner. The vertical space in the browser should not >> be hindered since the current movement/goal is to maximize this vertical >> space which you are achieving by removing the status bar, location bar, >> etc. You then propose to take all that space back by adding the history to >> the bottom of the current tab??? The vertical space IS for the current page, >> that IS the space we are trying to maximize. For easy reading you want to >> lengthen the page and shorten the distance one has to travel when they reach >> the end of a line (more lines, less char columns). This vertical space >> should be reserved for the CURRENT page. I propose you use the space on the >> sides for your history (ex: left goes forward in time and right goes >> backward) . Most web pages are centered horizontally and do not have any >> real information on the sides except pretty pictures that will size with the >> width of the monitor anyway. Don't shorten my vertical space with history >> and force me to scroll every 5 lines. I will lose my place while reading, >> get a head ache, and stop using your browser.
> I was not proposing to reduce vertical space at all. Each page takes up as > much space as it needs. And the Page Info area can easily be scrolled away > so that the content area is devoted to the page completely. New pages appear > at the bottom after the previous page. They scroll up and down together with > the other pages, all arranged in order. They don’t take up any permanent > vertical space at all.
> Is that clear?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mozilla-labs-concept-series" group. > To post to this group, send email to > mozilla-labs-concept-series@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > mozilla-labs-concept-series+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-concept-series?hl=en.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:12, Kyle Suttlemyre <ktsuttlem...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It is clear I assume there will be some animations and dynamic movement. > Not to be stubborn but I still feel like I have a lot of horizontal space > that is not used. Those that do, however, have plenty of horizontal space > that the web ignores. I know not everyone has a > wide screen monitor but those numbers are going to increase as everyone's > CRT dies and they decide to get the latest goo filed color dazzler. Maybe > make a setting to stack them horizontal or vertical? > Just a friendly reminder. :-)
If we could leaving *all* space, both horizontal and vertical, for content, that would be even better. :) My own inclination is to move the tab bar to the left. This will make more sense with the small modification I’ll be making to it in Part 2.
Animations here will be crucial. I have it when a page jumps. Web pages should never do that. They should always scroll to the new location (but quickly).
I purposefully chose to stack the pages in the history vertically rather than horizontally. Whenever you’re reading a page online, the top of the page and the bottom of the page roughly align to past and future. You start at the top and end at the bottom, scrolling downwards. With each new page below its parent, this downwards motion continues logically: scroll up to go back in time, scroll down to go forwards. If the pages were stacked horizontally, however, you would scroll down to the end of the page, and then right to the next page. It’s a more complicated interaction model. The vertical way, however, should be not only simpler but more obvious, discoverable, and learnable.
As for making better use of space (especially horizontal) for more content, Panorama has a lot of potential here.
> I purposefully chose to stack the pages in the history vertically rather than horizontally. Whenever you’re reading a page online, the top of the page and the bottom of the page roughly align to past and future. You start at the top and end at the bottom, scrolling downwards. With each new page below its parent, this downwards motion continues logically: scroll up to go back in time, scroll down to go forwards. If the pages were stacked horizontally, however, you would scroll down to the end of the page, and then right to the next page. It’s a more complicated interaction model. The vertical way, however, should be not only simpler but more obvious, discoverable, and learnable.
You assume that every user reads every webpage like you'd read a page in a book. Do you really think this is a valid assumption?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:38, Ben Ford <binfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > You assume that every user reads every webpage like you'd read a page in a > book. Do you really think this is a valid assumption?
> -Ben
Most pages still up-to-down, even web applications, so making this vertical would still make more sense. A horizontal arrangement, on the other hand, would be complicated for all types of pages.
As for web applications, I commented elsewhere that they should not spawn new pages in the tab. Instead, the page would be modified in place. So, for example, Gmail would not really be affected much by this proposal.
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:38, Ben Ford <binfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > You assume that every user reads every webpage like you'd read a page in a book. Do you really think this is a valid assumption?
> -Ben
> Most pages still up-to-down, even web applications, so making this vertical would still make more sense. A horizontal arrangement, on the other hand, would be complicated for all types of pages.
> As for web applications, I commented elsewhere that they should not spawn new pages in the tab. Instead, the page would be modified in place. So, for example, Gmail would not really be affected much by this proposal.
I didn't ask if you thought "most pages still up-to-down." I asked if you really think it's valid to assume that all users READ every page up-to-down. Hint, they don't. Your attention jumps all over a modern site. You are forcing an artificial construct on your users.
In any case, your idea breaks for MANY common design patterns. Here's a few that will look like dooky:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 15:45, Ben Ford <binfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't ask if you thought "most pages still up-to-down." I asked if you > really think it's valid to assume that all users READ every page up-to-down. > Hint, they don't. Your attention jumps all over a modern site. You are > forcing an artificial construct on your users.
You mean they scroll up and down the page? They can do that here too! There’s no difference in how you interact with any specific page.
The only difference is that going back and forth doesn’t replace the entire content area. Instead, you can move back and forth very quickly simply by scrolling. It’s a simplified mental model. But how is any construct being imposed on anyone? Isn’t the current model more artificial? Think about it: you click on a link, and everything goes away. Poof! Everything disappears, and there’s no representation of context, how you got there, the relationship between pages ad links. On top of all that, you’re forced to keep the tab history in mind. “Back” here doesn’t really refer to any direction, neither spatial nor temporal. Its meaning is constrained. You’re used to it, but that doesn’t make it an less artificial. We can do better than the design from the early ’90s. We can actually visualize your path through the web. Let the actual content show you where you’ve been, and how you got there. And you don’t need to keep all this in your memory because it’s right there for you to see.
Perhaps you’re asking about pages that are horizontally wide. (If you were, it wasn’t clear to me.) That is a design issue that should be discussed. I can think of a number of possibilities here, but I don’t see any fatal flaw for the whole design.
In any case, your idea breaks for MANY common design patterns. Here's a few
I don’t see the issue with the first one. The second can be dealt with in a manner similar to mobile browsers: as soon as the header is off-screen, the non-scrolling element remains in-place. Once you’re at the bottom of the page, the entire page scrolls away, moving to the next page.
Infinite scrolling is trickier. The ability to skip back and forth between pages would solve some of its problems (and the design in Part 2 deals with that). Moreover, once you click on a link, the entire page should be frozen as the view quickly scrolls to the new page. That prevents the infinite page from expanding any more.
These are really off the top of my head (though I’ve thought about these issues before). Getting working tested solutions requires more work and discussion. If you actually want to have that discussion and suggest ideas for solving these issues, that would be great (though, again, that would probably be better after Part 2).
And what made you think I was proposing the horizontal alternative? I think
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:33:24PM -0400, David Regev wrote: > If we could leaving *all* space, both horizontal and vertical, for content, > that would be even better. :) My own inclination is to move the tab bar to > the left. This will make more sense with the small modification I’ll be > making to it in Part 2.
And why is it worth to do that?
> Animations here will be crucial. I have it when a page jumps. Web pages > should never do that. They should always scroll to the new location (but > quickly).
Websites shall not animate. EVERYTHING shall be static.
> I purposefully chose to stack the pages in the history vertically rather > than horizontally. Whenever you’re reading a page online, the top of the > page and the bottom of the page roughly align to past and future. You start > at the top and end at the bottom, scrolling downwards. With each new page > below its parent, this downwards motion continues logically: scroll up to go > back in time, scroll down to go forwards. If the pages were stacked > horizontally, however, you would scroll down to the end of the page, and > then right to the next page. It’s a more complicated interaction model. The > vertical way, however, should be not only simpler but more obvious, > discoverable, and learnable.
Can you please STOP acting like a fool? Your ideas suck. The world is too used to the old way. I, for one, never use the back/forward buttons and hardly use the history. That's useless for me. If your ideas will be implemented, *nobody* will use Firefox.
> As for making better use of space (especially horizontal) for more content, > Panorama has a lot of potential here.
I propose wasting up to .1% of horizontal space. For a damn scrollbar.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:38, Kwpolska <kwpol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Websites shall not animate. EVERYTHING shall be static.
I was talking about jumping caused by the browser. When you click on an in-page link, the page suddenly jumps to the location. It doesn’t even jump. The screen changes completely to that location. It should scroll to that location instead (and there’s already a bug for that). Similar things should happen when moving from page to page. Currently, when you click on a link to a new page, the entire screen becomes partially unusable and then fully unusable and then partially usable again, until the new page has finally loaded. There’s no effort to make the transition make some sort of sense, nor for the browser to be usable during this transition period. With proper animations, these issues can be removed with Inline Tab History.
On May 29, 2011, at 1:34 AM, David Regev <david.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:38, Kwpolska <kwpol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Websites shall not animate. EVERYTHING shall be static.
> I was talking about jumping caused by the browser. When you click on an in-page link, the page suddenly jumps to the location. It doesn’t even jump. The screen changes completely to that location. It should scroll to that location instead
No. No it shouldn't. You're overloading the scroll action unnecessarily. Scroll means scroll a page down. There is no conceptual link between "scroll page" and "go to new page" except for the special case of an in page anchor.
Animation is fine. Page turn, flip, fade out. Maybe even horizontal slide. But not scroll.
I think a vertical slide would be better than a vertical scroll, as scrolling means going to a different place on the page, not going to a new page, also with a slide rather than scroll, the history can also remember the last position that the user viewed. With vertical rather the horizontal sliding, there is the oppurtinity to reduce the thumbnails to just text at the top and bottom in order to allow more history items on the screen at once. But horizontal sliding is more traditional, as users go back and forward in history, not up and down.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ben Ford <binfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 2011, at 1:34 AM, David Regev <david.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:38, Kwpolska < <kwpol...@gmail.com> > kwpol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Websites shall not animate. EVERYTHING shall be static.
> I was talking about jumping caused by the browser. When you click on an > in-page link, the page suddenly jumps to the location. It doesn’t even jump. > The screen changes completely to that location. It should scroll to that > location instead
> No. No it shouldn't. You're overloading the scroll action unnecessarily. > Scroll means scroll a page down. There is no conceptual link between "scroll > page" and "go to new page" except for the special case of an in page anchor.
> Animation is fine. Page turn, flip, fade out. Maybe even horizontal slide. > But not scroll.
> -Ben > Sent from my iPhone
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mozilla-labs-concept-series" group. > To post to this group, send email to > mozilla-labs-concept-series@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > mozilla-labs-concept-series+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-concept-series?hl=en.
