- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 03:18:53AM +0000, corvid wrote: > >I just put up an rc at >http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > >$ sha1sum dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 >1d1258ee7d18c8ca0eabaf100f2f611c6be03f87 dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 > >Please test :) > >If all goes well, the idea is to release on Monday... Compiles and executes fine here on P3 x86. No problems yet veiwing pages. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Dec. 1, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.2

by corvid＠lavabit.com

I just put up an rc at http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 $ sha1sum dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 1d1258ee7d18c8ca0eabaf100f2f611c6be03f87 dillo-3.0.2-rc1.tar.bz2 Please test :) If all goes well, the idea is to release on Monday...

Dec. 1, 2011

keysrc and prefix keys

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

I was thinking of implementing more of Firefox's key shortcuts in Dillo, namely Alt-<n> -> "Go to nth tab" for <n> = 1, 2, 3, ... 8 and Alt-9 -> "Go to last tab". (That last one would be really useful when I have more tabs open than will fit in the tab bar.) But then I thought "how do we configure this in keysrc?". The obvious solution is to add separate entries for each of the 9 commands. But this is clearly silly because no-one wants to use, say, Alt as the prefix for going to the 4th tab but Ctrl-Shift as the prefix for going to the 5th tab. Why should users have to add 9 entries to keysrc just because they prefer Ctrl-Shift to Alt? So I think we really want a single keyssrc entry that defines the modifier keys that bind the 1, 2, 3, ... 9 keys to the "Go to tab" commands. But this would significantly complicate the current code. Is it worth it? Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 1, 2011

Search from location bar

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Hi Stephen, On 11/29/11, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma at singpolyma.net> wrote: > Why are you proposing that the rc file be so complicated? It takes less > than 15 minutes to read through every single available option in the current > dillorc. I'm saying that the rc file is complicated because it is. Most people don't have the time to read through every single available option in an rc file, if they even know where to find it. Remember we're the minority on dillo-dev. We're more technically inclined than the average user; we're used to rc files, and we have enough interest (and time!) to do things the long way. But Joe Sixpack doesn't have time to read through a long text file to find a configuration option; he just needs a button he can click so he can change the setting and get back to his real work. > New users (in my experience) cannot find such buttons. Mostly because they > assume anything their program doesn't already do is "hard". So they call me > and then I have to find the button. > > Not that I'm saying there should not be a button, but I think the idea that > GUI configuration panes are "newb friendly" is a bit of wishful thinking. They aren't perfect, and I'm not claiming they are. But they're certainly an improvement. And if worst comes to worst, it's still easier to tell someone where to find a button to click than it is to explain the intricacies of a configuration file. GUIs are also more convenient, even for experienced users: rather than hunting through an rc file, you can just click a couple buttons, and you don't even have to restart the browser. For instance, I just used mine to change my user agent, since my university now apparently uses UA sniffing to throttle bandwidth. By the way, I have a GUI coded, but as with all my past contributions, it has consistently been silently ignored. But my own users seem quite happy with it -- at least the ones who realize it was my addition and have written to me about it -- so their loss, I suppose. >>"Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied >>norm. The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example >>-- "disallow." A user should never have to stop and think, "What does >>'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word >>it. > > I agree with this. Maybe even change it to a setting for *how much* to > darken. Maybe. "How much" is already determined by the bg_color option, so I see no need for a separate option. Personally, I *don't* think they should change the option name, because it would break backwards compatibility with previous versions. It's important to make things easy for new users, but it's just as important not to alienate existing users. That's why I won't upgrade Microsoft Office or The GIMP; both have redesigned so much I can't figure out how to work the latest versions. But you can still have a "Darken white backgrounds" GUI option while coding it internally as allow_white_bg=NO, as I have done. (My interface also sets bg_color appropriately either to white or tan.) That, I think, is an appropriate compromise, since you're breaking neither the existing code nor the poor user's brain. Cheers, ~Benjamin

Nov. 29, 2011

Search from location bar

by singpolyma＠singpolyma.net

Somebody claiming to be Benjamin Johnson wrote: >Roger wrote: >But imagine you're a new user and not really all that tech-savvy. Say >staring at white webpage backgrounds all day makes your eyes hurt. Would >you rather > > a) spend hours looking through a long configuration file looking for >an option to somehow darken them; or Why are you proposing that the rc file be so complicated? It takes less than 15 minutes to read through every single available option in the current dillorc. > b) click a button that says "Darken white backgrounds"? New users (in my experience) cannot find such buttons. Mostly because they assume anything their program doesn't already do is "hard". So they call me and then I have to find the button. Not that I'm saying there should not be a button, but I think the idea that GUI configuration panes are "newb friendly" is a bit of wishful thinking. >"Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied >norm. The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example >-- "disallow." A user should never have to stop and think, "What does >'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word >it. I agree with this. Maybe even change it to a setting for *how much* to darken. Maybe. -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph

Nov. 29, 2011

Wikipedia pages

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 09:33:05PM +0100, Georg Potthast wrote: > Johannes, I did not see your post when I did mine since I just get > the posts once a day by email. Therefore I did not refer to your > post but made a general one. > > I now uploaded a snapshot of Firefox displaying the "Dillo" web site > on Wikipedia and three snapshots how Dillo does display it. As you > can see there a great differences. > > Regards > > Georg > > Firefox: > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg716/298/93dillofirefox.png > > Dillo: > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg502/3267/50dillo1.png > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg710/2610/91dillo2.png > http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg525/8632/90dillo3.png Ok, that's all expected. No additional weirdness in your special setup. Regards, Johannes

Nov. 28, 2011

Wikipedia pages

by mailbox＠georgpotthast.de

Johannes, I did not see your post when I did mine since I just get the posts once a day by email. Therefore I did not refer to your post but made a general one. I now uploaded a snapshot of Firefox displaying the "Dillo" web site on Wikipedia and three snapshots how Dillo does display it. As you can see there a great differences. Regards Georg Firefox: http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg716/298/93dillofirefox.png Dillo: http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg502/3267/50dillo1.png http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg710/2610/91dillo2.png http://www.imgplace.com/viewimg525/8632/90dillo3.png

Nov. 27, 2011

Search from location bar

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Roger wrote: > As long as there is still a rc/config file in place for users whom want > to editthe config file by hand using VIM. > Personally, I'd rather use VIM rather then a GUI interface. Using VIM, > editingconfig options much faster. GUI can be much easier or the > lackadaisicalmethod. Of course there is still an rc file; the GUI could even be modified to nicely comment it (though it doesn't right now, to keep the code size down). But imagine you're a new user and not really all that tech-savvy. Say staring at white webpage backgrounds all day makes your eyes hurt. Would you rather a) spend hours looking through a long configuration file looking for an option to somehow darken them; or b) click a button that says "Darken white backgrounds"? If you choose option a) and you're persistent -- remember you're still pretending to be a non-savvy, first-time Dillo user -- you might discover there are two separate settings for this: - allow_white_bg sets whether white backgrounds are allowed, and - bg_color takes the hexadecimal(!) code for your desired background color. (Remember as a non-savvy, first-time user, you don't know hexadecimal.) On the other hand, if you choose option b), you probably saw it here: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Win95-09.p… That's much simpler, wouldn't you say? As a side note, "Allow white backgrounds" is a bad option name from a user's perspective: since most users automatically assume white backgrounds are the norm, an "Allow white backgrounds" option forces them to think in negatives. "Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied norm. The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example -- "disallow." A user should never have to stop and think, "What does 'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word it. (And yes, I know mainline darkens backgrounds by default, but it makes a convenient illustration. And yes, if you're wondering, little things like this DO make a surprisingly huge difference in usability.) Cheers, ~Benjamin

Nov. 27, 2011

Search from location bar

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:43:44AM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >Jorge wrote: > >> ... and average users are afraid of an rc file (*sigh*), so >> maybe it's not that bad having a GUI by default, which power users >> can customize into a CLI with dillorc. >> The other approach is to have everything GUI, which adds size, >> but proves quite handy sometimes (e.g. Tools menu). > >I don't see why anybody should have to edit an rc file *for a graphical >program* in 2011. The Apple Macintosh had a GUI for all its preferences >nearly 30 years ago; do you really want to lag three decades behind the >times? > >(An rc file is fine for a text-mode program, and it's nice to have the >option in others, but in a *graphical program* it should not be the only >way to set preferences. For crying out loud, even Lynx has a user >interface for its preferences!) As long as there is still a rc/config file in place for users whom want to edit the config file by hand using VIM. Personally, I'd rather use VIM rather then a GUI interface. Using VIM, editing config options much faster. GUI can be much easier or the lackadaisical method. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Nov. 26, 2011

Search from location bar

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Jorge wrote: > ... and average users are afraid of an rc file (*sigh*), so > maybe it's not that bad having a GUI by default, which power users > can customize into a CLI with dillorc. > The other approach is to have everything GUI, which adds size, > but proves quite handy sometimes (e.g. Tools menu). I don't see why anybody should have to edit an rc file *for a graphical program* in 2011. The Apple Macintosh had a GUI for all its preferences nearly 30 years ago; do you really want to lag three decades behind the times? (An rc file is fine for a text-mode program, and it's nice to have the option in others, but in a *graphical program* it should not be the only way to set preferences. For crying out loud, even Lynx has a user interface for its preferences!) Anyway, getting back on topic: My one suggestion would be to combine the search_shortcut and search_url dillorc options, so you could do i.e. search_url=Wikipedia [w] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s to set the search shortcut to "w", or search_url=Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s to set no shortcut. It might be slightly trickier to parse, but it will make dillorc less cluttered. (Not to mention, it will be easier to integrate with my preferences GUI ;-) Cheers, ~Benjamin

Nov. 26, 2011