Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Feature Requests (Read 92966 times)

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #50 –
Is it possible to integrate the Chrome developer tools? 

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #51 –
Also, it would be great if we could use the chrome version of Gleebox:

http://thegleebox.com/

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #53 –
I would just ask you to make it as efficient and resources wise as was Opera 12. It's ridiculous that a browser nowadays uses 2gb ram when having 10 open tabs. And I'm not saying this because I lack ram or something, it's just ridiculous to consume such resources.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #54 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: mgraham on

I'll second the request for better keyboard shortcuts.

This particular feature has been upgraded to almost workable https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=357.0


I did play around with the keyboard preferences, and it is indeed very promising. 

However it doesn't include the actions on the list I quoted.  No back/forward, and no link or form navigation. 

So I guess technically, I'm not asking for keyboard shortcuts, but for missing actions to be implemented.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #55 –
Quote from: ersi on

@jcd89
Wouldn't this just cause hiccups in older computers? The point is to deliver a recognisable, functional, and developer-wise manageable product to a wider variety of platforms.


you mean, the 3d view? Maybe, but it is not necessary for these feature, it just need to display corresponding  snapshots  to the visited pages.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #56 –
@jcd89, 3D view is doable, but we would have to store thumbnail of each page, that can take a lot of space...

@mgraham, yep, it will require JavaScript helpers, except for Back and Forward - these already exits.
Chrome developer tools? There is something other than Inspector?
gleeBox looks interesting, we could try to create something similar, built-in, not relying on upstream (it is not as hard to do that).

@zundapp, this is something that we cannot improve, it's up to rendering engine and we are using existing ones...
Nadszedł już czas, najwyższy czas, nienawiść zniszczyć w sobie.
The time has come, the high time, to destroy hatred in oneself.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #57 –
Quote from: Emdek on

@jcd89, 3D view is doable, but we would have to store thumbnail of each page, that can take a lot of space...

@mgraham, yep, it will require JavaScript helpers, except for Back and Forward - these already exits.
Chrome developer tools? There is something other than Inspector?
gleeBox looks interesting, we could try to create something similar, built-in, not relying on upstream (it is not as hard to do that).

@zundapp, this is something that we cannot improve, it's up to rendering engine and we are using existing ones...


I understand that. But until now, The very same tabs open on my FF and on Otter, Otter blows FF away on RAM usage. It's than 50% less! So well done :)

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Emdek on

@jcd89, 3D view is doable, but we would have to store thumbnail of each page, that can take a lot of space...


Not each. 1 snapshot per site actually, the point is just to provide visual hint. So, it would be like 20-30 snapshots (low quality, highly compressed) per day, and it is only if user visits different sites each day. Btw, it can be completely optional and\or have used space limiter defined by user (just like cache size can be adjusted in most browsers).

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #59 –
Quote from: jcd89 on
Not each. 1 snapshot per site actually, the point is just to provide visual hint. So, it would be like 20-30 snapshots (low quality, highly compressed) per day, and it is only if user visits different sites each day.

You made me curious. Some light browsing today seems to have resulted in about 150 distinct domains in my history. That being said, e.g. five thousand images of 50 kB would still be no more than about 250 MB. In practice 20 kB might suffice for the snapshot and the default limit could be smaller.

NB I'm not convinced of the usefulness of such snapshots. I just don't think disk space is much of a concern in this regard unless you want to run the browser on a computer with a <40GB HDD. I'd be more concerned with CPU cycles and I/O bottlenecks (at least on my netbook).

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #60 –
@jcd89, yes, but I guess that it should be disabled by default, as it could indeed consume lots of space and memory.
Or we could use some algorithm with limit, like for cache, deleting old (or least visited) entries after reaching it.
Nadszedł już czas, najwyższy czas, nienawiść zniszczyć w sobie.
The time has come, the high time, to destroy hatred in oneself.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #61 –
Quote from: Emdek on

@jcd89, 3D view is doable, but we would have to store thumbnail of each page, that can take a lot of space...


isn't it better to deliver Light browser without all that fancy crap ?

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #62 –
Quote from: Emdek on

@mgraham, yep, it will require JavaScript helpers, except for Back and Forward - these already exits.

Hmm...  I'm using weekly #35, and I don't see shortcuts for back and forward.

I'm happy to hack some javascript.  Any pointers on how to get started?

Quote from: Emdek on

Chrome developer tools? There is something other than Inspector?


In Chrome, it's listed under Tools->Developer Tools.  It has a network inspector, console, debugger, element inspector, etc.  I don't know if that's part of the open source part of chrome or not.  The advantage of using the chrome version (if it is available) is that people build add ons for it.  For instance, there's an Ember inspector available.  However, if it were hackable, I would attempt to improve its keyboard navigation.

Quote from: Emdek on

gleeBox looks interesting, we could try to create something similar, built-in, not relying on upstream (it is not as hard to do that).



That would be very cool!

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #63 –
Quote from: mgraham on

Quote from: Emdek on

@mgraham, yep, it will require JavaScript helpers, except for Back and Forward - these already exits.

Hmm...  I'm using weekly #35, and I don't see shortcuts for back and forward.

Perhaps Emdek is speaking of "rocker navigation" (right-click>hold>left-click & left-click>hold>right-click respectively).

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #64 –
Emdek said "Javascript helpers" already exist, not the ability to customize back & forward. I'm not entirely sure what that means; history.back() and history.forward() perhaps?

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Emdek said "Javascript helpers" already exist, not the ability to customize back & forward. I'm not entirely sure what that means; history.back() and history.forward() perhaps?
Maybe he means Action macros? I have no clue what to put into those macro files, and what would change when I put anything into them.

Configuration of keyboard shortcuts is not working like it did in Opera. To remove some terribly interfering keyboard shortcuts I had to delete the default files under Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Keyboard, but this also removed some basic necessities like New Tab and Close Tab. I have a custom file in that location and I would like to apply my own shortcuts to these actions, but the actions are not in the file and therefore cannot be configured.

Why are the actions (such as New Tab and Close Tab) not in the keyboard file and not configurable when they are actually available somehow out of the box?

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Emdek on

@jcd89, yes, but I guess that it should be disabled by default, as it could indeed consume lots of space and memory.
Or we could use some algorithm with limit, like for cache, deleting old (or least visited) entries after reaching it.


Thanks. That how it should be, Opera main advantage is that you can customize everything (I guess that is why many of us didn't like Chromelike Opera without that ability), so users can decide for themselves, do they need that feature or not.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #67 –
Will you make an IRC-client in this browser? :)

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #68 –
Tooth_lover Please do not post in all caps. As per the forum rules.
Quote from: rules
7. Do not use capitals only in thread titles (excepting acronyms) or in the post; it is widely taken as shouting, and rude.




The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #69 –
I'm new here, I like the browser but there are some things that I'd like to be changed. First tabs get squeezed just like in chrome/opera, I think that firefox has a better solution, tabs get a minimal width and then you can scroll the entire tab strip, so you always see at least part of the title. Second when tabs are placed to the side of the screen the labels are placed vertically which I think is wrong and you can't fit more tabs than horizontally, which loses its purpose. This is Opera with (heavily modified by me) Veritabs extension and I think this is how it should be, there are more than 100 tabs open, and I can scroll through the entire strip on the left and tabs are easy to find. Only thing I hate about veritabs is that it covers webpage, if it only could squeeze website I would newer seek for a different browser...

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #70 –
@Tooth_lover

IRC is in the TODO list, "low priority maybe". I also hope the developers get around to applying an IRC module and an emailer. Thorough customization of keyboard shortcuts, menus and toolbars the way it was in Opera is my strongest expectation though. But we may end up waiting long.

@kroppy

You mean the tabs panel? It looks very good, just like in old Opera :)

_____________
Here's an updated TODO list (the same URL as in the OP):

Release schedule of planned main features (it's not a full list), note that specific features may be delayed or added earlier than planned.
0.9.03 (beta 3):
- start page
- mouse gestures
- greater UI customization abilities (configurable toolbars, overwriting list of context menu actions etc.)
- exposing MDI features
- page specific preferences
- user scripts and stylesheets

1.0.01 (first stable release):
- passwords manager
- delayed loading of Flash objects
- feeds reader (as module)
- shared contacts database
- fine-tune UI (sizes, margins and other details)
- support for tab thumbnails embedded in tab bar
- tabs grouping (stacking and panorama mode)
- improved integration with different platforms (Windows taskbar integration etc.)

Later:
- Blink backend (with upcoming QtWebEngine, when API will be useful)
- spell checking
- additional panels for sidebar (page information, notes etc.)
- mail client (as module)
- form auto completion
- extensions (Firefox and Chrome APIs support)
- Opera Link like solution

Maybe:
- support for Opera skins (through custom QStyle)
- IM client module (libpurple based, including support for IRC)
- BitTorrent module

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #71 –
Quote from: kroppy on
First tabs get squeezed just like in chrome/opera

Actually Opera/Presto can choose what happens (no wrap, extender menu, wrap to multiple lines), although the Firefox way is not one of the options.

Quote from: kroppy on
This is Opera with (heavily modified by me) Veritabs extension and I think this is how it should be, there are more than 100 tabs open, and I can scroll through the entire strip on the left and tabs are easy to find. Only thing I hate about veritabs is that it covers webpage, if it only could squeeze website I would newer seek for a different browser...

Yup, the windows panel is fantastic. You've illustrated the deficiencies of not having a sidebar/panels quite well. ;)

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #72 –
Yup I mean sidepanel. I have tried Midori browser with their built-in Tab panel extension, which is good, but you can't rearrange tabs (no drag&drop). And browser itself crashes on almost everything.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #73 –
As far as I am concerned any browser that uses the blink engine is just another stupid chrome clone and not worth installing

If I wanted a browser that used the blonk engine I would eirher install Chromium or Google Chrome and not the otter browser.

Re: Feature Requests

Reply #74 –
@ghall4834

What other engine do you suggest? To me it seems it's quite possible to package the same rendering engine in radically different ways. Chromium is very different from Qupzilla for example. And K-Meleon from FF.

Besides, if I understood rightly, the main developer of Otter has the idea to provide several rendering engines in the future. Hopefully it gets done modularly so that the user can choose the favourite engine, the choice sticks, and the interface continues to control the rendering engine without glitches.