Aurora summary, Monday morning
Mike Pinkerton
Hi folks. Since most of us in the Aurora group have been away over our 4-day
weekend, let me try and summarize what I got out of the 95 new messages when I
came in this morning:
1) At 640x480, Aurora is useless (more or less). At that resoulution, the
selector bar should be hidden by default. For other resolutions, it should be
shown as the default.
2) page designers need a "gestalt" function that allows them to see if the
Aurora pane is available, either in a standalone window or in the chrome.
Probably two levels of checks would be needed to get that information.
3) The 640x480 chrome wasting issue aside, the feeling that I'm getting is
that the embedded tree view for bookmarks/history/sitemaps/etc is not
perceived as useful or engaging. Is this because our current user base
(developers, more or less) is very advanced and, how shall I say this, very
set in their ways, or is it just that the full potential (which is just
starting to come out for marketing reasons) has not been spotlighted? Or is it
because the whole idea just sucks? ;)
Comments are welcome and encouraged. I just want to know I'm hearing you correctly.
Also remember folks, when talking about ideas for, say, moving Aurora into the
win95 task bar, there are 20 other platforms that don't have such a thing.
While that may work great for windows (I'm not saying not to even consider it)
always have a good alternative for other platforms.....
--
Mike Pinkerton
Mac Browser Weenie
pink...@netscape.com http://people.netscape.com/pinkerton
Jason Kersey
Well heres some of my opinions on this.
Some of what Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> 1) At 640x480, Aurora is useless (more or less). At that resoulution, the
> selector bar should be hidden by default. For other resolutions, it should be
> shown as the default.
Yes.
> 2) page designers need a "gestalt" function that allows them to see if the
> Aurora pane is available, either in a standalone window or in the chrome.
> Probably two levels of checks would be needed to get that information.
Yes.
> 3) The 640x480 chrome wasting issue aside, the feeling that I'm getting is
> that the embedded tree view for bookmarks/history/sitemaps/etc is not
> perceived as useful or engaging. Is this because our current user base
> (developers, more or less) is very advanced and, how shall I say this, very
> set in their ways, or is it just that the full potential (which is just
> starting to come out for marketing reasons) has not been spotlighted? Or is it
> because the whole idea just sucks? ;)
Yes. No. Maybe so. This is my main sticking point on Aurora/Navcenter.
The hierarchy thing is cool and all BUT it is just not practical. You
basically have to dig through a page to get what bookmarks you want. I
LIKE the site tools, history viewer and yes even the CNNfn, wired, 'your
ad here' buttons that pop up each day.
But I have a big problem with 2 things. Its hard to actually launch
Aurora. You need lots of places to do it. One on the Components bar.
One next to the padlock on the taskbar. One next to the bookmarks
button thats going to be put back (puhleeeeeeze). Give it a keystroke
sommand like ctrl-alt 1.
(this could be implemented accross the board by assigning a number to
each piece of chrome.
Ex:
ctrl-alt-1 act/deact navbar
ctrl-alt-2 act/deact locbar
ctrl-alt-3 act/deact pertoolbar
ctrl-alt-4 act/deact aurorabar
ctrl-alt-5 act/deact componentbar
you have ctrl-alt-f take you to a Fish cam (!) but you have no keystroke
command for aurora? How odd.)
Having to go up to the menu and select it from under view is Reallllllly
anoying. It needs to be easily accesed.
Second. The bookmarks button NEEDS to come back. It could be easily
used in conjunction w/aurora and could also show you the site
tools/wired/history/whatever if you want it to. As I said before....it
is much better to give more options and not just give an option and take
another away. I will use the same example. With 4.0 they took away the
third mail frame and gave us a button (file). Now with 5.0 they give us
a third frame and take away the button (ack!!!!!). What I would like to
see happen is put back the bookmarks button, make the file RDF instead
of html and add options to the bookmarks. Give the USER the choice of
how to get to their bookmarks.
> Comments are welcome and encouraged. I just want to know I'm hearing you correctly.
Good. I love giving my ideas to people who will listen AND can do
something with them (whether or not you will well......!).
> Also remember folks, when talking about ideas for, say, moving Aurora into the
> win95 task bar, there are 20 other platforms that don't have such a thing.
> While that may work great for windows (I'm not saying not to even consider it)
> always have a good alternative for other platforms.....
Who cares about win95 now? When marcA announces NetscapeOS at CNet
web.builder no one will use it!
> --
> Mike Pinkerton
> Mac Browser Weenie
> pink...@netscape.com http://people.netscape.com/pinkerton
--
Jason Kersey
http://www.en.com/users/kerz/
mailto:ke...@en.com
ICQ# 6136326
AOL IMer:"PhereKerz"
Taylor
Mike Pinkerton wrote in message <35323657...@netscape.com>...
>Hi folks. Since most of us in the Aurora group have been away over our
4-day
>weekend, let me try and summarize what I got out of the 95 new messages
when I
>came in this morning:
>
>selector bar should be hidden by default. For other resolutions, it should
be
>shown as the default.
No. The vertical selector bar should not be a vertical bar. It should be
combined with the personal toolbar. Especially since that in the current
build if you turn off the personal toolbar the navigation center dissapears.
Now I have to have two chrome elements on to access one function. The
personal toolbar should go away because it appears that anything you can do
in the personal toolbar, you can do a million times better with Aurora. The
vertical navcenter bar should then move up and take the place of the
personal toolbar. This fixes the space issues on 640x480 screens, and
prevents every web designer from raising holy hell about how netscape just
destroyed their design by adding a vertical gray stripe to their page.
As for the Aurora pannel, how difficult is to add in the ability to have it
behave more like how IE4 handled it, i.e. floting on top an auto hiding. I
don't think it is necessarily the solution to the space issues, but I think
that if it is not extrodanarily time consumeing it is definatly worth
testing out with the developer community.
>3) The 640x480 chrome wasting issue aside, the feeling that I'm getting is
>that the embedded tree view for bookmarks/history/sitemaps/etc is not
>perceived as useful or engaging. Is this because our current user base
>(developers, more or less) is very advanced and, how shall I say this, very
>set in their ways, or is it just that the full potential (which is just
>starting to come out for marketing reasons) has not been spotlighted? Or is
it
>because the whole idea just sucks? ;)
The idea is great. Give me more control as an author though CSS and the
ability to use javascript to control elements. Also removing the "frame
chrome" that separates it from an author level would be useful. I want to
be able to get rid of the toolbar at http://www.webmonkey.com/ and use
Aurora instead.
Also I think that you have to have people playing around with sitemaps to
really get the hang of it. Now that a bunch of content providers have their
sitemaps on the default bar, you will probably see lots of people
experimenting around with it. Where before all the cool stuff was hidden
with invisible buttons. :-) Give us time to play and give us examples of
the really interesting features so we have something to work off of.
Every engineer I've showed it to has said "COOL!" every designer I have
shown it to has winced. Work needs to be done so that the designer will go
"COOL!" then I think you've got it.
Also someone should lobby the Redmond contingent to make their browser
handle the whole sitemap exactly like you all do. If that doesn't happen
adoption rate will slow to a crawl. Much like DHTML.
Mike Pinkerton
Jason Kersey wrote:
> But I have a big problem with 2 things. Its hard to actually launch
> Aurora. You need lots of places to do it. One on the Components bar.
> One next to the padlock on the taskbar. One next to the bookmarks
> button thats going to be put back (puhleeeeeeze). Give it a keystroke
> sommand like ctrl-alt 1.
There are accelerators already...it's called cmd-b and cmd-h for bookmarks and
history. If you want it standalone (which it sounds like you do because you
seem to be hiding the selector bar), then just open it up in a standalone window.
Mike Pinkerton
Taylor wrote:
> No. The vertical selector bar should not be a vertical bar. It should be
> combined with the personal toolbar.
With all due respect, the personal toolbar is about quick access to frequently
used bookmarks. You can't just go combining objects on the toolbar (that are
links) with objects that are tabs and open the Aurora pane. Users won't know
which is which.
> Especially since that in the current
> build if you turn off the personal toolbar the navigation center dissapears.
> Now I have to have two chrome elements on to access one function.
That's a bug which we should fix. It's a long story, but a simple fix....
> The
> personal toolbar should go away because it appears that anything you can do
> in the personal toolbar, you can do a million times better with Aurora. The
> vertical navcenter bar should then move up and take the place of the
> personal toolbar. This fixes the space issues on 640x480 screens, and
> prevents every web designer from raising holy hell about how netscape just
> destroyed their design by adding a vertical gray stripe to their page.
Removing the personal toolbar would then mean a minimum of 2 (probably more)
clicks to get at frequently used URLs. First I have to open the right pane,
then I have to dig around and find the url, which could be buried 5 levels
deep. The personal toolbar puts these things right in your face so you don't
have to go digging. Since I put it in on the mac, I love it and would never
want anyone to take it away...and that's just from 2-3 months use.
> As for the Aurora pannel, how difficult is to add in the ability to have it
> behave more like how IE4 handled it, i.e. floting on top an auto hiding. I
> don't think it is necessarily the solution to the space issues, but I think
> that if it is not extrodanarily time consumeing it is definatly worth
> testing out with the developer community.
This is something we should definately look into. I've noticed that IE only
does it when you are in "webtop/fullscreen" mode, and the delay is waaay too
long. I wonder why they didn't do it in "window" mode as well.....Does the
"pushpin" metaphor make sense as a UI for when I want to keep it open and when
I want it to autoclose? What should the default be?
Keep the good ideas coming!
Jason Kersey
Mike Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Jason Kersey wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> There are accelerators already...it's called cmd-b and cmd-h for bookmarks and
> history. If you want it standalone (which it sounds like you do because you
> seem to be hiding the selector bar), then just open it up in a standalone window.
>
What? I don't understand what cmd-b/h means? What I want the ability
to open the aurora pane in netscape undocked or docked lots of different
ways. A tab on the left maybe like the one on the other toolbars. A
button on the main toolbar. Whatever. It needs to be easily hidden and
opened. I don't like having to go up to view-blah to open it.
And I want the bookmark button back. But macs have it different and I
havent seen 5.0 on a mac yet. Have they taken the button away from
there too?
> --
> Mike Pinkerton
> Mac Browser Weenie
> pink...@netscape.com http://people.netscape.com/pinkerton
--
Taylor
Mike Pinkerton wrote in message <35326C25...@netscape.com>...
>With all due respect, the personal toolbar is about quick access to
frequently
>used bookmarks. You can't just go combining objects on the toolbar (that
are
>links) with objects that are tabs and open the Aurora pane. Users won't
know
>which is which.
How about an Open Aurora button in the personal toolbar? That stays to the
left of the screen always.
>This is something we should definately look into. I've noticed that IE only
>does it when you are in "webtop/fullscreen" mode, and the delay is waaay
too
>long. I wonder why they didn't do it in "window" mode as well.....Does the
>"pushpin" metaphor make sense as a UI for when I want to keep it open and
when
>I want it to autoclose? What should the default be?
Autoclose by default. That way users have to make the choice to reduce
their screen realestate.
-taylor
Mike Pinkerton
Jason Kersey wrote:
> What? I don't understand what cmd-b/h means?
Sorry, that's control-b and control-h for windows users. They bring up a
standalone Aurora window with either bookmarks or history selected. That way
you can get to all the information w/out having to take up chrome space.
>I don't like having to go up to view-blah to open it.
If you want the functionality, but don't want it in the chrome, open a
standalone window from the Communicator menu.
> And I want the bookmark button back. But macs have it different and I
> havent seen 5.0 on a mac yet. Have they taken the button away from
> there too?
We never had this on mac, as the bookmarks menu was always available in the menubar.
Bryce Harrington
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> 1) At 640x480, Aurora is useless (more or less). At that resoulution, the
> selector bar should be hidden by default. For other resolutions, it should be
> shown as the default.
It may be worthwhile to have a hot key or button or something to pop up
Aurora in a separate window or dialog.
> 3) The 640x480 chrome wasting issue aside, the feeling that I'm getting is
> that the embedded tree view for bookmarks/history/sitemaps/etc is not
> perceived as useful or engaging. Is this because our current user base
> (developers, more or less) is very advanced and, how shall I say this, very
> set in their ways, or is it just that the full potential (which is just
> starting to come out for marketing reasons) has not been spotlighted? Or
> is it because the whole idea just sucks? ;)
The concept is very, very good, but as others have pointed out, the
added burdens of dealing with it at 640x480 marginalize its usefulness.
Also, there's a concern that it could be confusing to less sophisticated
users. But for users with larger resolution screens it looks perfect,
and for people with average computer experience Aurora is
straightforward.
But you're right that us developers (maybe just me?) are an opinionated
lot. :-)
I've been using the Mozilla site map and the bookmarks listing in the
embedded pane and have found it very, very helpful, *especially* for
really long bookmark lists. If more developers can be convinced to make
use of this feature it would be beneficial in several ways. Plus, it
would give Navigator a really useful capability that IE doesn't have (as
far as I know, I haven't bothered with IE since IE-2.)
Bryce Harrington
bryce @ alumni.caltech.edu
Jason Kersey
I guess I am not explaining what I was looking for. I wanted to have a
button somewhere that will open Navcenter as a toolbar. Like the tabs
on the left that colapse the toolbars. I like the idea of mananging
stuff using NavCenter and want to use it but i want to be able to
A. Have it docked
B. Have it open and close with a keystroke and or a button
C. Have a quick access bookmark button so I don't have to dig
A couple more ?'s. Who will decide what content appears on the bar.
Wired, cnn & cnet are on it now but will there be somekind of setup page
or what? And, are there more ways to arrage things? I can't get into
prefs because it will just crash.
David W Hyatt
Taylor wrote:
> No. The vertical selector bar should not be a vertical bar. It should be
> combined with the personal toolbar. Especially since that in the current
> build if you turn off the personal toolbar the navigation center dissapears.
>
(1) The selector bar and personal toolbar do not perform the same function and
should not be combined. I'm not going to revisit this issue again. It simply
does not make sense for a multitude of reasons... reasons that have already been
outlined in previous posts.
(2) Aurora disappears when the personal toolbar disappears because we hacked
that in temporarily to get chromeless windows working. We still need to add the
ability via JavaScript to specify that a window should or shouldn't have a
NavCenter. Once that's in place, we can make it work properly.
> The idea is great. Give me more control as an author though CSS and the
> ability to use javascript to control elements. Also removing the "frame
> chrome" that separates it from an author level would be useful.
I think it would be a bit strange to remove the resizing mechanism when certain
site maps are displayed. Also, if I switch away from your site map and start
viewing my history or bookmarks, I want the resizing border to be present.
Plus the user may want to resize your site map (maybe he/she doesn't have the
window open wide enough to view your tree), and ditching the frame border would
prevent the user from doing this.
Dave Hyatt
WinFE Aurora Guy
(hy...@netscape.com)
Dan Ridley
> > 3) The 640x480 chrome wasting issue aside, the feeling that I'm getting is
> > that the embedded tree view for bookmarks/history/sitemaps/etc is not
> > perceived as useful or engaging. Is this because our current user base
> > (developers, more or less) is very advanced and, how shall I say this, very
> > set in their ways, or is it just that the full potential (which is just
> > starting to come out for marketing reasons) has not been spotlighted? Or is it
> > because the whole idea just sucks? ;)
The embedded tree view is great for bookmark management and history views.
For actual navigation, though, flyout menus are more realistic, especially
for those poor users with 640x480.
Dan Ridley
Does Aurora support showing a site map for the current site, *without*
making it one of the users' permanent workspaces?
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On 15 Apr 98 01:59:12 GMT, thed...@bigfoot.com (Dan Ridley) wrote:
>The embedded tree view is great for bookmark management and history views.
>For actual navigation, though, flyout menus are more realistic, especially
>for those poor users with 640x480.
I dont think a flyout menu for Aurora will work, for a site tree there
must be some net acces to build the tree, this means the user must
keep the mouse pointer on the menu untill the information is
downloaded. I think most users will move on when there is nothing to
show in a second.
Same problem, I don't like how a FTP link to a directory is added in
Aurora/bookmarks, it's added as a folder.
The list of files are in the tree (Aurora) or as a flyout menu when
chosen from the personal toolbar.
Herbert
---
The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
Mike Pinkerton
Dan Ridley wrote:
>
> Does Aurora support showing a site map for the current site, *without*
> making it one of the users' permanent workspaces?
Absolutely, that's what the Site Tools pane will do. It should be working, but
I haven't noticed anything showing up there lately. I'll see if Guha disabled it....
Mike Pinkerton
Dan Ridley wrote:
> The embedded tree view is great for bookmark management and history views.
> For actual navigation, though, flyout menus are more realistic, especially
> for those poor users with 640x480.
Yes, and they are wonderful for those with exceptional hand-eye coordination.
For everyone else, though, they are a pain to use. Let's not get hierarchical
menu happy just because we can.
Angus Davis
Jason Kersey wrote:
> The bookmarks button NEEDS to come back. It could be easily
> used in conjunction w/aurora and could also show you the site
> tools/wired/history/whatever if you want it to.
Have you tried dragging your bookmarks folder from Aurora onto the Personal Toolbar? It's
a pretty cool trick :-)
-angus
David W Hyatt
Herbert Groot Jebbink wrote:
> I dont think a flyout menu for Aurora will work, for a site tree there
> must be some net acces to build the tree, this means the user must
> keep the mouse pointer on the menu untill the information is
> downloaded. I think most users will move on when there is nothing to
> show in a second.
>
It will indeed work. We've worked out what needs to be done (on the back end
and front end). We just have to implement it. Basically when you try to open
a folder whose contents must be fetched remotely, you'll see a popup that says
"Fetching menu items...." Once the items have been fetched, the menu will
dynamically refresh... assuming that the user keeps it open and waits for it.
> Same problem, I don't like how a FTP link to a directory is added in
> Aurora/bookmarks, it's added as a folder.
>
>
It should be added as a folder, because you'll be able to do FTP management
within Aurora. We're still developing this, so if you have concerns, I'd love
to hear them. Why don't you like this feature? Do you prefer the HTML FTP
list to the Aurora tree?
David W Hyatt
I agree. As Mike said, popup menus are more of a power user feature.
That's also why I don't think the WinFE click-and-hold behavior should be the
default behavior. Novice and intermediate users will feel more comfortable with
the tree view than they will with flyout menus.
Of course Windows power users are going to love the flyout menus, since they had
them in 4.0x. So I agree that we need to have them on Windows in 5.0. That's
why I implemented the click-and-hold feature in the first place.
Dave Hyatt
WinFE Aurora Guy
(hy...@netscape.com)
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, David W Hyatt <hy...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> I dont think a flyout menu for Aurora will work, for a site tree there
>> must be some net acces to build the tree
...
>It will indeed work. We've worked out what needs to be done (on the back end
>and front end). We just have to implement it.
ok
>> Same problem, I don't like how a FTP link to a directory is added in
>> Aurora/bookmarks, it's added as a folder.
>It should be added as a folder, because you'll be able to do FTP management
>within Aurora. We're still developing this, so if you have concerns, I'd love
>to hear them. Why don't you like this feature? Do you prefer the HTML FTP
>list to the Aurora tree?
This way I don't see details like size, date/time.
This is the link where I'm talking about, but I think it is general
and not releated to this site.
ftp://vvtp.tn.tudelft.nl/pub/mozilla/ftp.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/
Is a 'Open in browser window' option in the right-mouse popup
possible?
Herbert
<flame on>
Why is Aurora build in the first place?
Because IE has also some things to the left and you can do better?
Mozilla must be a web browser, not a turbo-file-manager.
IE did try to be my file manager / desktop. NO WAY.
And now Mozilla wants to be my file manager? I DON'T THINK SO
<flame off>
Bradley Keith Neuberg
It sounds like Aurora will be ported to many different platforms. If this
happens, then Aurora will then become essentially available on any
platform. We could then build a Java package called org.mozilla.Aurora
that uses the Java Native Interface to call the 'peer' Aurora code below.
Most of the current Java Development Kit actually relies on system
services that are offered by the host
operating system, but the JDK makes these services consistantly available
across platforms. The new Drag & Drop functionality of the JDK 1.2 takes
this idea to its extreme. If Aurora is on every platform, isn't it now a
consistant system service, independent of platform? If we expose the
Aurora C++
code's API in a consistant manner across all platforms, then the Java
Native Interface code for org.mozilla.Aurora won't have to change
much across
the different platforms. This would give Aurora the awesome speed of C++
with the flexibility of Java. When combined with a front end interface,
using the Java Foundation Classes, we would have a full fledged browser.
Further, org.mozilla.Aurora could contain libraries, such as these:
org.mozilla.Aurora.Css.*
org.mozilla.Aurora.Toolbar.*
org.mozilla.Aurora.History.*
org.mozilla.Aurora.SiteHistory.*
org.mozilla.Aurora.XML.*
org.mozilla.Aurora.RDF.*
and so on.
I propose that when Aurora is running on many different platforms, down
the road, that we submit the org.mozilla.Aurora.* package to Sun as a Java
Standard Extension, or maybe even as a core library.
Or even better, let's pester Sun to open-source the JDK and JVM!
Hey, Microsoft claims that the browser (Internet Explorer) is now a
fundamental part of the operating system. Let's prove them right by
porting Aurora to so many different platforms that it then becomes a
system service for org.mozilla.Aurora.
David, could you forward this email to appropriate interested people at
Netscape? Thanks.
Brad Neuberg
BaseSystem Inc.
System Architect
Mike Pinkerton
Herbert Groot Jebbink wrote:
> <flame on>
> Why is Aurora build in the first place?
> Because IE has also some things to the left and you can do better?
> Mozilla must be a web browser, not a turbo-file-manager.
> IE did try to be my file manager / desktop. NO WAY.
> And now Mozilla wants to be my file manager? I DON'T THINK SO
> <flame off>
Don't judge Aurora by the "Files" workspace. It is just an example of the
power of an RDF data source, illustrating that it can be anything even your
local file system. We have no intention of making Navigator replace the native
file management tools in the OS.
WRT it just being "some thing on the left that IE also has", Aurora is much
more powerful and useable that the IE bar is. They made a lot of mistakes and
it can't do half of what Aurora can.
David W Hyatt
Herbert Groot Jebbink wrote:
> >It should be added as a folder, because you'll be able to do FTP management
> >within Aurora. We're still developing this, so if you have concerns, I'd love
> >to hear them. Why don't you like this feature? Do you prefer the HTML FTP
> >list to the Aurora tree?
>
> This way I don't see details like size, date/time.
>
If you make the FTP folder a top-level workspace, then RDF should supply columns
that are appropriate for the FTP contents. If it isn't doing that yet, it will.
Try selecting open as workspace from the popup menu on one of your FTP folders.
> Is a 'Open in browser window' option in the right-mouse popup
> possible?
>
We'll have to think about what the best thing to do here is. We're still working
out how FTP will work in Aurora.
> <flame on>
> Why is Aurora build in the first place?
Because it's immensely cool. ;)
> And now Mozilla wants to be my file manager? I DON'T THINK SO
The Files pane is only there to demonstrate the flexibility of RDF. For example, I
plan to implement a data source that will show you your Network Neighborhood as a
workspace, but that doesn't mean you have to use it.
Our goal is to demonstrate the expressiveness of RDF, and to illustrate the ease
with which new data sources can be defined. The more we demonstrate what can be
done, the more likely others are to adopt it as their medium for presenting their
own data types to users.
We have a vested interest in showing just how flexible and how powerful Aurora is,
and that's what we plan to do.
Herbert Groot Jebbink
David W Hyatt <hy...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>>Why don't you like this feature? Do you prefer the HTML FTP
>>>list to the Aurora tree?
>> This way I don't see details like size, date/time.
>If you make the FTP folder a top-level workspace, then RDF should
>supply columns that are appropriate for the FTP contents.
The FTP content as columns, so I can do things like 'Sort / a other
sequence for the collumns' will indeed be very nice.
>We'll have to think about what the best thing to do here is.
>We're still working out how FTP will work in Aurora.
I also like the current html link 'Up to higher level directory' when
navigating thru a FTP site.
>> <flame on>
>> And now Mozilla wants to be my file manager? I DON'T THINK SO
>The Files pane is only there to demonstrate the flexibility of RDF.
>For example, I plan to implement a data source that will show you
>your Network Neighborhood as a workspace, but that doesn't mean
>you have to use it.
David/Mark, thanks for the info.
I must say when you look to Aurora not as 'some small stuf on the
left' but as a demonstration of RDF it does give you a new view to it.
I have read some RDF documents at Mozilla.org and W3C, looks great.
So: GO FOR IT !!!
Herbert
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, David W Hyatt <hy...@netscape.com> wrote:
>We have a vested interest in showing just how flexible and
> how powerful Aurora is, and that's what we plan to do.
I have played with the Aurora RDF sitemap.
(see my url in the signature)
I have 2 sugestions about this.
If I include a RDF sitemap in the next URL:
site.com/~user/index.html
then I want the sitemap to stay when surfers go to:
site.dom/~user/otherpage.html
site.dom/~user/topic/page.html
off course when surfers go to:
site.dom/~otheruser/ or
othersite.com
then it's to the other site/user whats in the site tools panel.
Other sugestion:
There are not many sites with site tools yet.
If the site tools panel is not open and the surfer is on
a site with site tools then give the site tools icon a other color.
Some questions.
Are there more site tools then the RDL sitemap?
Can I also control the add at the bottom of the site tools panel?
Guha
Herbert Groot Jebbink wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, David W Hyatt <hy...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> >We have a vested interest in showing just how flexible and
> > how powerful Aurora is, and that's what we plan to do.
>
> I have played with the Aurora RDF sitemap.
> (see my url in the signature)
>
> I have 2 sugestions about this.
>
> If I include a RDF sitemap in the next URL:
> site.com/~user/index.html
> then I want the sitemap to stay when surfers go to:
> site.dom/~user/otherpage.html
> site.dom/~user/topic/page.html
> off course when surfers go to:
> site.dom/~otheruser/ or
> othersite.com
> then it's to the other site/user whats in the site tools panel.
Yes. This has been done and checked in.
> Other sugestion:
> There are not many sites with site tools yet.
> If the site tools panel is not open and the surfer is on
> a site with site tools then give the site tools icon a other color.
Yes. This should be done.
> Some questions.
> Are there more site tools then the RDL sitemap?
I am hoping there will be. Do you have any suggestions?
> Can I also control the add at the bottom of the site tools panel?
Yes, you can (I assume you meant ad). There is a bug in that part
of the code that I am currently fixing.
Guha
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 16:30:34 -0700, Guha <gu...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> Are there more site tools then the RDF sitemap?
>I am hoping there will be. Do you have any suggestions?
- 'Search' input box
- Contact information.
Search solution inside Mozilla:
When the surfer enter a search-argument then Mozilla must first
analyse the homepage of the site to see if the site has a own
search-engine and post to it when found.
(or scan the code when loading the homepage and use the search code to
build a search input box and submit button, etc)
If Mozilla can't find a input search box at the site homepage then
do a search at Altavista (or other searchsite) inside the site, ie
"host:site.com search-argument'
Search solution in the spirit of the RDF site map, the site can put a
line in the html source like:
<LINK REL=search SRC="search.html" TYPE="text/html">
Then the search.html contains a litle html form code including the
'form submit' button, so the site can decide if it goes to a own
search engine or to a site like AltaVista.
(I think you can also define a RDF datatype for it, then you have a
uniform way of delivering data for the site tools panel)
Solution for the Contact information:
<LINK REL=contact SRC="contact.rdf" TYPE="text/rdf">
With at least 2 collumns to build a contact tabel.
Description Emailadres
Webmaster webm...@site.com
Sales sa...@site.com
(I think you can already build this using the sitemap way, and use the
mailto: url)
Other sugestion:
When there are some tools insite the Site tool panel, why show the
same stuff also in the browser window?
Give the webmaster a way to control this, something like:
<nositetools>
Here some html that will be hidden when the webclient supports 'site
tools'.
</nositetools>
Herbert
---
The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
(NEW! Now including a cool RDF sitemap)
Chris C.
This is Very Very Very Cool!! Yes !
just wanted to say this is very cool stuff.
Chris C.
Guha
Herbert Groot Jebbink wrote:
>
> <Lots of Stuff>
> ---
> The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
> (NEW! Now including a cool RDF sitemap)
I think you are right on the mark with the search
idea. Lets do it.
Guha
Michael McGlothlin
Not to sounds really stupid but what is a flyout menu exactly? :>
*sighs* Obviously I don't code GUI apps much.
===
Michael McGlothlin
www.ponyexpress.net/~breeze/friends/McGlothlin_Michael/homepage.html
---Mike Pinkerton <pink...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> Dan Ridley wrote:
>
> > The embedded tree view is great for bookmark management and
history views.
> > For actual navigation, though, flyout menus are more realistic,
especially
> > for those poor users with 640x480.
>
> Yes, and they are wonderful for those with exceptional hand-eye
coordination.
> For everyone else, though, they are a pain to use. Let's not get
hierarchical
> menu happy just because we can.
>
> --
> Mike Pinkerton
> Mac Browser Weenie
> pink...@netscape.com http://people.netscape.com/pinkerton
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Herbert Groot Jebbink
Guha <gu...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> <Lots of Stuff>
>> ---
>> The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
>> (NEW! Now including a cool RDF sitemap)
>I think you are right on the mark with the search
>idea. Lets do it.
Soon or later a answer like this was comming :-)
Give me some time before I can really contribute to Mozilla instead of
writing in the mozilla newsgroups.
Programming is my job since 1989, the only problem is that I do it in
RPG/Cobol/Synon/Lansa on the AS/400.
Did never learn c or c++, did even refuse to learn it when my boss
sugested it.
Now the source of mozilla is out, I started to learn c/c++ in my own
time :-)
And I see lines like the next in the c++ book I bought:
z = (a < b ? a + 1 : b - 1);
I think this is stupid (even RPG with it's positional code is better
to understand) but I want to contribute to Mozilla, so I'm learning
it.
Herbert
Mike Pinkerton
Michael McGlothlin wrote:
>
> Not to sounds really stupid but what is a flyout menu exactly? :>
> *sighs* Obviously I don't code GUI apps much.
In this context, a "flyout menu" is a hierarchical menu. Dunno why we're
calling them flyouts in this thread, because that's not what we call them
around here.....
Chuck Adams
>Now the source of mozilla is out, I started to learn c/c++ in my own
>time :-)
>And I see lines like the next in the c++ book I bought:
>z = (a < b ? a + 1 : b - 1);
>I think this is stupid (even RPG with it's positional code is better
>to understand) but I want to contribute to Mozilla, so I'm learning
>it.
Easy. If a is less than b, then use the value a+1, otherwise use b-1, and
assign that value to z.
Trinary operators are nasty buggers, there's really no reason to use one in
that context (they're useful when you need a value inlined and can't use a
statement).
Maybe YOU can understand RPG. Looks horrid to me. Then again, you could
always code in befunge or brainf*** (yes, they're real languages, such as the
term is). There's an idea. Port Mozilla to befunge :)
Michael McGlothlin
Ohhh.. now why didn't someone just say that before?! :> Thanks.
===
Michael McGlothlin
www.ponyexpress.net/~breeze/friends/McGlothlin_Michael/homepage.html
_________________________________________________________
Ken Meltsner
Has anyone considered the Pad++ zooming user interface? Prof. Ken Perlin
at NYU has a Java version that provides navigation similar to a outline
view, without looking like yet another version of the Windows outline view
of trees.
I'm concerned mostly because the average users I deal with don't handle
the outline lists (e.g. Windows Explorer) very well. They tend to deal
better with flatter data structures. I realize that outline views are
familiar to most users, but is there any evidence that people like them?
Check out http://www.mrl.nyu.edu/perlin for the Java demos. There's also
several papers at CHI '98 on the Pad zooming user interface as well.
Ken Meltsner