Skip navigation.

Posts tagged with "features"

5 things I would like to see in Opera

,

I've been tagged, twice even. The tagging game was started by Daniel, because we apparently don't have a clue about where to go now, and are not already well on our way with Kestrel and Peregrine development. Or something like that.

Anyway, here's my list:

  1. Veto rights for me on all UI features
  2. Buy foobar2000 and Total Commander, and give them a Quick based user interface. That way I can use my leet Quick tweaking skills to change shortcuts and toolbars, instead of painfully having to master their systems.
  3. Moving the desktop team to a new base in Wijk bij Duurstede, The Netherlands. There is still some space to let over here.
  4. Some userscript enhancement that lets me send Jack Bauer to all site owners that don't test their work in Opera.
  5. A pony.


And the tag stops here, I don't like tagging games. Otherwise I would have tagged Eric Meyer :smile:.

9.10 fraud protection compared with other browsers

, , , ...

Asa's blog postings didn't get much comments recently (not that many people interested in space exploration, and it will be some months before FF3 gets interesting), so he posted about Opera 9.10. Even though he wasn't offensive, he's still accused of baiting Opera fans :smile:

On the substance: it will indeed be interesting to see if independent studies will detect differences in protection level between the new browsers, because the three browsers have very different implementations!

IE 7: asks you to enable anti-phishing on first start, uses (IIANM) both heuristics and a whitelist in the browser, and callbacks to servers in Redmont. The latter could be problematic, not everyone trusts Microsoft with their browsing history...

FF 2: doesn't ask, but enables blacklisting with regularly (every hour) downloaded blacklists. Might give OK results if the quality of their blacklists is good, but the timing is important. You can enable real-time fraudchecks using a Google service, but that requires clicking 'OK' on a dialog that tells you Google will store your browsing history... The testing they did themselves show a slight increase in effectiveness after enabling this.

Opera 9.1: doesn't ask, but gives an easy way to check the status of individual sites (if you are curious enough to click the '?' in the address field, you'll find this option). You can enable real-time checking from this dialog (and from the Preferences), where Opera doesn't asks you click 'OK' on a big warning dialog, because there is nothing to want about. Opera doesn't store your browsing information or cookies or IP addresses etc. The only thing the Opera sitecheck server remembers will be what sites the collective Opera users have asked for in the past few days. There is the full documentation available.

Recent research has shown that many phishing scams operate only for a few dozen hours, presumably making most of their victims in the first hours. So it makes sense to use real-time checking against regularly updated servers. None of the tested services get a perfect score, though there are certainly differences. Opera hopes that combining the GeoTrust and PhishTank databases will give at least as good results for our users.

I encourage everyone to register an account on PhishTank, and spend a few minutes every week in verifying suspected phish sites. And I also encourage everyone to install Opera 9.10 for their less websavvy friends and relatives, and enable fraud protection for them!

Battling Feature Anaemia

, , , ...

One of the core goals of Opera has always been to provide you, to our best approximation, with the browser that makes the web available to everyone, and to give anyone the most comfortable way to surf the web. The way we handle features and configuration follows the following approximate formula:

  • Normal browsing features: included, on by default
  • Comfort features: included, can be disabled from the UI
  • Features to make the web more accessible: feature included, UI to make use of feature might be second tier if it gets in the way for the majority that doesn't need it
  • Finetuning features: configurable via Advanced prefs (if a significant minority might find it useful) or by editing text-based ini files
  • Features to keep old users happy: feature included, disabled by default, configurable via UI or by editing text-based ini files


Note that "features to make the web more accessible" are not "bloat" or a "distraction for developers". Such features are very much needed for our mobile browsers, and it makes little sense to not make them available or try them out in the desktop version of Opera. Hence things like "Fit to window width" and "Voice". And from old times: disable image loading, plugins, javascript etc. In Opera 9 you will get site-specific preferences, to make it easier to use the accessiblity options when necessary, and use the web as the authors intended by default. Or the other way around! To keep a sane and understandable interface, not all preferences can be made site-specific in 9.0. Experience and feedback will tell how the UI will need to improve or make more or less prefs available in this context.

"Editing text-based ini files" can be somewhat hard to explain to potential power users. Opera 9 will include a built-in editor for opera6.ini to make this easier. Of course we can have long discussions about what the default settings should be, and which settings should be delegated to opera.ini. The built-in editor is not meant as a alternative interface for the Preferences, so the latter should contain all the things a 'normal' user might want to change once in a while.

This posting is inspired by Firefox developer Ben's latest post Battling Firefox Bloat. The problem I have with the Firefox philosophy: almost everyone is a member of a minority, and usually member of a few minorities. So with Firefox, everyone has to manage a set of extensions for necessary (for them) features or nice-to-have comfort features like "Mouse gestures" and "Paste and Go".

And it has become clear that you can not trust the extension developers to stay passionately involved over many years, so it can be days or months after installing a new Firefox version before it is working again as it used to do. Opera's text-based ini files can be a bit more clunky to work with, and less powerful, but the advantage is that anyone with a text editor can find out how to do it. To write an Firefox extension, you need to know a fair bit of JavaScript at least, if not XUL.

Update: also read David Baron's concerns about Firefox maybe relying too much on extensions.

Asa spins for Firefox

, , ,

So, what do you do if the major point of your marketing campaign is 'we are more secure', and you have to release monthly security updates just like MSIE anyway? And you have some minor open issues anyway? You spin it. I'm glad Opera 8's PR is not focusing solely on the security!

In your next post, you bash your competetitor by saying "it's almost as good as our product now", ignoring that many people obviously think the bigger feature set makes that other product already much more usable, despite a few trivial quibbles you have with it (Offering some information during the installation? A text selection cursor? Is that the best you can come up with?).

To make it complete, you then describe a new experimental feature not available in your normal builds, which might one day come to normal releases, as the best thing since sliced bread, and completely fail to mention that the competitor previously dismissed on trivial grounds has pioneered the very same thing a few years ago, introducing the name and concept, and honed it to perfection by now.

Ah well, spinning is part of his job I suppose. But this sequence of postings is something special...
December 2009
S M T W T F S
November 2009January 2010
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31