uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

Barrucadu · 2009-04-25 10:41:05

dusanx wrote:

Can we try to assemble list of all key functions? Here is mine:
-back
-forward
-home
...

* refresh
* stop

Not really key, but nice to have and not exactly difficult to have:
* zoom in
* zoom out

Heller_Barde · 2009-04-25 10:47:56

droog wrote:

dmenu is not a web browser tabbing throwoff.

@droog e.g. pekwm can handle the tabbing very well afaik, i don't know what your problem is. and dieter@be said that tabs will probably be implemented and made optional (or somebody else will fork this project and implement the tabs anyway) so please read the thread completely before making nonproductive remarks in this thread.

@the developers around:
is there a possibility to click with the mouse into the dmenu edit place to place the cursor somewhere? (haven't really been able to use dmenu yet, but i'll figure it out ^^) if not, no big deal, but i was just curious.

cheers
Barde

Dieter@be · 2009-04-25 11:22:37

Heller_Barde wrote:

@the developers around:
is there a possibility to click with the mouse into the dmenu edit place to place the cursor somewhere? (haven't really been able to use dmenu yet, but i'll figure it out ^^) if not, no big deal, but i was just curious.
cheers
Barde

no, dmenu is keyboard only

Square · 2009-04-25 16:44:48

I love this

I'm currently using it to render html e-mails from mutt.

haxit · 2009-04-25 17:05:02

This is getting too complex. I like the original version + nav bar.

dusanx · 2009-04-25 17:10:21

haxit wrote:

This is getting too complex. I like the original version + nav bar.

I am not sure what do you mean? There will be empty browser.

Wra!th · 2009-04-25 17:39:26

dusanx wrote:

haxit wrote:
This is getting too complex. I like the original version + nav bar.
I am not sure what do you mean? There will be empty browser.

He's refering to the options that are planned (keys etc), not to the UI
This can go 2 ways:
1 - will become a (way) crappier vimperator clone
2 - will remain as simple as possible, to be used only for general browsing

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-04-25 17:40:03)

dusanx · 2009-04-25 17:44:21

Wra!th wrote:

dusanx wrote:
haxit wrote:
This is getting too complex. I like the original version + nav bar.
I am not sure what do you mean? There will be empty browser.
He's refering to the options that are planned (keys etc), not to the UI
This can go 2 ways:
1 - will become a (way) crappier vimperator clone
2 - will remain as simple as possible, to be used only for general browsing

I would prefer to wait and hear from haxit, thanks. I am aware of your opinion. It's not nice to want to see project doomed plus you can always start another fork (change project name too).

Wra!th · 2009-04-25 17:48:08

dusanx wrote:

It's not nice to want to see project doomed

I do not want that. On the other hand, I see what development has been made the past days and I am almost certain that all of you combined will not reach vimperator's complexity.
I am sorry, but I have a habit of beeing sincere.
I do wish you the best of luck though.

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-04-25 17:48:40)

NeoXP · 2009-04-25 18:17:52

Wra!th wrote:

dusanx wrote:
It's not nice to want to see project doomed
I do not want that. On the other hand, I see what development has been made the past days and I am almost certain that all of you combined will not reach vimperator's complexity.
I am sorry, but I have a habit of beeing sincere.
I do wish you the best of luck though.

Off topic

I've read this thread this afternoon, it's quit an interesting idea. What I've noticed is that you don't seem to agree to the ideas the 3 devs have regarding their project. That's just fine, everyone has a right to his/her opinion, but personally I find your reactions in this thread kind of negative (not to mention your attempt to hijack this thread with your bare-project). So I can understand the irritations of dusanx.

On topic

As said an interesting project, it looks very promissing. I hope you find the solutions for your ideas, but try to keep it as flexible as possible. I mean stick to the original idea as written down by Dieter@be in the openingpost and let all the other features be optional. That way the user can decide what he/she will use.

Just my 2 cents.

Edit: typos

Last edited by NeoXP (2009-04-25 18:18:52)

Wra!th · 2009-04-25 18:54:21

How is showing what I coded based on the original code considered hijacking?!
I was entirely FOR this project until I found that the "original" code was actually the example provided by WebKit.
I let that slide, then the original "author" has the nerve to brag about beeing the one that wrote it in the first place and that my ideas were bad. A few posts after he says they will implement some of the things I had in mine.
Don't call me a hijacker, only thing I did was write a BETTER project, like it or not, and from scratch I might add. It ill not get posted here because quite frankly I don't think I want to do that that. Learn to accept criticism.

Last edited by Wra!th (2009-04-25 18:55:49)

kandrews · 2009-04-25 20:12:14

Great idea Dieter@be! I would love to have such a minimalistic graphical web browser utility that I could script up to be a generic web encyclopedia frontend that doesn't tempt me with any other distractions.

moljac024 · 2009-04-25 21:13:59

Wra!th wrote:

Don't call me a hijacker, only thing I did was write a BETTER project, like it or not, and from scratch I might add. It ill not get posted here because quite frankly I don't think I want to do that that. Learn to accept criticism.

I would just like to urge you to reconsider posting your code somewhere, you know,in the spirit of open-source...If Linus, Stallman and all the other guys can give away the kernel, the compilers, the text editors and whatnot I'm sure you can find it in your heart to share your little project with us
I'd be interested in seeing it.

stefanwilkens · 2009-04-25 21:35:31

I do hope the bickering doesn't demotivate dieter and others, I'm very much looking forward to a final

good work guys! *subscribes to topic*

Last edited by stefanwilkens (2009-04-25 21:35:46)

dusanx · 2009-04-25 21:40:28

stefanwilkens wrote:

I do hope the bickering doesn't demotivate dieter and others, I'm very much looking forward to a final
good work guys! *subscribes to topic*

If I may speak for the team... we are working hard and we will pretty much stick with original specification New version will be ready soon.

stefanwilkens · 2009-04-25 22:00:23

dusanx wrote:

stefanwilkens wrote:
I do hope the bickering doesn't demotivate dieter and others, I'm very much looking forward to a final
good work guys! *subscribes to topic*
If I may speak for the team... we are working hard and we will pretty much stick with original specification New version will be ready soon.

*jumps for joy

Dieter@be · 2009-04-26 07:36:33

dusanx wrote:

stefanwilkens wrote:
I do hope the bickering doesn't demotivate dieter and others, I'm very much looking forward to a final
good work guys! *subscribes to topic*
If I may speak for the team... we are working hard and we will pretty much stick with original specification New version will be ready soon.

stefanwilkens: not at all
dusanx: I second that

NeoXP · 2009-04-26 09:30:08

moljac024 wrote:

Wra!th wrote:
Don't call me a hijacker, only thing I did was write a BETTER project, like it or not, and from scratch I might add. It ill not get posted here because quite frankly I don't think I want to do that that. Learn to accept criticism.
I would just like to urge you to reconsider posting your code somewhere, you know,in the spirit of open-source...If Linus, Stallman and all the other guys can give away the kernel, the compilers, the text editors and whatnot I'm sure you can find it in your heart to share your little project with us smile
I'd be interested in seeing it.

stefanwilkens wrote:

I do hope the bickering doesn't demotivate dieter and others, I'm very much looking forward to a final
good work guys! *subscribes to topic*

Never intended to start bickering on anyone , just trying to express that, to me, in the progress off this thread Wra!th's reactions were becoming more and more sarcastic and negative. If my post was seen by anyone as bickering or anoying, I apoligize for that.

I do hope that all of the devs (including Wra!th) will keep up the good work. Both projects seem very interesting and with these two new projects the choice for us linux-users keeps growing. So indeed Wra!th, please post your code somewhere so that we all can benefit from it.

Xilon · 2009-04-26 14:25:46

dusanx wrote:

Dieter@be wrote:
dusanx wrote:
This is good but I want to make it more universal, something like
a)
follow_link_here = f
or
b)
follow_link_here = [Alt][Ctrl]f
so we can use any key combination.
Not sure about repeating but we can use something like this:
-when you type numbers _and_ then you type command, command is executed n times.
-when you type 'b' for back, app goes one step back.
-when you type '2' 0' 'b' app goes 20 steps back.
No need to define anything else than initial 'b' this way. Is this OK?
The question is, do we need this?
I never go 20 steps back. Usually 1/2 or maximum 3. I don't mind pressing 'b' up to 3 times after each other.
I don't think we need quantity modifiers for anything.
Also I prefer vim-like keys. I hate pressing shortcuts of a modkey+some other key.
After all, we have 26 letters in the alphabet, so that means 26 possible commands (52 if you count uppercase versions). that should cover our bases I think.
Barrucadu wants quantity modifiers, you both want insert mode, I want key modifiers and no insert mode... I think it's easy to cover all cases. We all want different and I think that's good for further app usability.

Perhaps look at using a modular keymapping like yi does. The config is compiled in Yi (like in Xmonad), so it's not quite the same, but an idea to look at nonetheless.

haxit · 2009-04-26 17:02:38

dusanx wrote:

Wra!th wrote:
dusanx wrote:
I am not sure what do you mean? There will be empty browser.
He's refering to the options that are planned (keys etc), not to the UI
This can go 2 ways:
1 - will become a (way) crappier vimperator clone
2 - will remain as simple as possible, to be used only for general browsing
I would prefer to wait and hear from haxit, thanks. I am aware of your opinion. It's not nice to want to see project doomed plus you can always start another fork (change project name too).

That is exactly what I am referring to. The forward and backward buttons. Sorry for not being clear. But this is awesome.

Dieter@be · 2009-04-26 17:20:49

haxit wrote:

That is exactly what I am referring to. The forward and backward buttons. Sorry for not being clear. But this is awesome.

there will be no forward/backward buttons.
There will be keybinds for going back and forth. (either a keyboard combo with a modkey, or a single key if you pick the modal (vim-like) way of interaction)

bruenig · 2009-04-26 18:01:13

Praises to you.

Also, handle hyper links by lettering them. Please do not number them, that is a drag to type. So, label them with a s d f j k l aa as ad af aj ak al sa ss sd sf sj sk sl fa fs fd ff and so on. This way you don't have to get off of the home row. You can continue into other letters too, but just not numbers.

Last edited by bruenig (2009-04-26 18:07:30)

Dieter@be · 2009-04-26 18:18:27

bruenig wrote:

Praises to you.
Also, handle hyper links by lettering them. Please do not number them, that is a drag to type. So, label them with a s d f j k l aa as ad af aj ak al sa ss sd sf sj sk sl fa fs fd ff and so on. This way you don't have to get off of the home row. You can continue into other letters too, but just not numbers.

ha that's a good idea. we could even make the "characters of preference" configurable. so no matter which layout you use you can benefit the feature.

dusanx · 2009-04-26 18:23:50

bruenig wrote:

Praises to you.
Also, handle hyper links by lettering them. Please do not number them, that is a drag to type. So, label them with a s d f j k l aa as ad af aj ak al sa ss sd sf sj sk sl fa fs fd ff and so on. This way you don't have to get off of the home row. You can continue into other letters too, but just not numbers.

It's a good idea but we lose fast search that way. Not sure, if there is a lot of links I used to use conkeror search.

finferflu · 2009-04-26 19:23:39

I've got a suggestion for the hyperlinks, which perhaps is more like an UI embellishment.
Vimperator, in the current version, lets you pick links by either typing in their number or matching the letters in the link's words.
Both of those options are a bit frustrating for me, first of all because typing numbers is annoying, at least for me, I have to actually look at the keyboard to pick the right ones.
Typing words instead takes too long, especially for links that have very similar wording. So you have to actually start thinking which word is not contained in the other links you don't want to select, before you can type in the right letters (yes it's as tedious as this sentence is).

So here's the alternative: highlight two or three of the letters of each link, and make them a bit bigger perhaps,

This would provide a more content-friendly, but at the same time practical way to access links. Because it's much easier to type the letters of a sentece you are reading, even more so when your choice is limited to just a few of them.

Arch Linux

#151 2009-04-25 10:41:05

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#152 2009-04-25 10:47:56

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#153 2009-04-25 11:22:37

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#154 2009-04-25 16:44:48

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#155 2009-04-25 17:05:02

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#156 2009-04-25 17:10:21

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#157 2009-04-25 17:39:26

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#158 2009-04-25 17:44:21

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#159 2009-04-25 17:48:08

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#160 2009-04-25 18:17:52

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#161 2009-04-25 18:54:21

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#162 2009-04-25 20:12:14

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#163 2009-04-25 21:13:59

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#164 2009-04-25 21:35:31

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#165 2009-04-25 21:40:28

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#166 2009-04-25 22:00:23

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#167 2009-04-26 07:36:33

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#168 2009-04-26 09:30:08

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#169 2009-04-26 14:25:46

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#170 2009-04-26 17:02:38

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#171 2009-04-26 17:20:49

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#172 2009-04-26 18:01:13

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#173 2009-04-26 18:18:27

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#174 2009-04-26 18:23:50

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

#175 2009-04-26 19:23:39

Re: uzbl. A browser that adheres to the unix philosophy.

Board footer