Add-On Collections: A Trail Framework for Firefox Goodies

Moz has begun Add-On Collections (via Ajaxian):

Today, we’re excited to introduce a new feature to our website that will expose the niche add-ons that can be hard to find, and gives users a more active role in helping outstanding add-ons bubble to the top. One thing we’ve learned as add-ons have grown in popularity over the years is that once a user finds an add-on they love, they become a fan for life. We see this all the time as people recommend add-ons to their friends and write great reviews. And we’re very happy to see so many bloggers writing about lists of their favorite add-ons.

Now this is interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s an example of the URL Trail pattern; Firefox Collections is a framework allowing people to publish and share a collection of links; very similar to Amazon’s “So you want to …” ListMania. It adds the ability to do something that neither I, nor Vannevar B. mentioned about trails: the ability to subscribe to a trail, in order to see changes made, e.g. Here is the RSS feed for the Social Circuit collection.

The second hotness about Collections is the fact that Firefox add-on management is getting easier. You can click on a bunch of add-ons, like adding them to a shop cart, and install them all in one go:

It takes Firefox closer to where it should be IMO, in which add-ons are easily installed with one click, and distros are available for specialised needs, e.g. a developer build containing Firebug and other dev tools. Moz themselves might be wary of blessing certain extensions in this way; so the ideal situation might be if they were to provide a framework like Collections, where anyone can propose a bundle and the best bundles rise to the top, with a way to yoink a Firefox build containing all the add-ons in a collection.

IE Market Share Slips

A Net Applications study (via ReadWriteWeb) says IE’s market share has dropped to 67%:

This is an interesting trend. The actual quantity of market share will vary with methodology, but a 7% drop in a year is something to take note of. Moreover, as Readwrite points out, there are two things that will probably make the trend continue:

  • The upcoming launch of mobile Firefox. I would also extend ReadWrite’s point to cover the whole role of mobiles in general. The iphone’s browsing share is now around 0.6%, a massive figure for a single phone. A popular phone to say the least, but one that still has a tiny share of the overall phone market. Just as basic mobiles are standard now across most of the planet, including developing countries, we’ll be seeing a saturation of smartphones over the next few years. You can only say “but I just want to make phone calls” for as long as you don’t see all the benefits others are deriving from all the other features. And we can be fairly certain that Firefox, Opera, and a whole range of niche browsers, many not yet born, will have the lion’s share of browser action. Having struggled reluctantly with MS phones, I know personally the operating system is light years behind and mobile IE doesn’t even have multiple tabs; it’s not even in the race right now for anyone who has a choice.
  • The trend towards cheap notebooks. Implicit here is RW’s assumption that many will run Firefox on a custom Linux distro.

I was recently in a discussion with a developer who was considering an MS stack involving Silverlight on the client. His argument was about efficiency of development. I could debate that, but the greater point here is that we’ve gone beyond a time when it’s reasonable to go to market with an IE-only app. (I realise Silverlight is technically not just IE, but I am coming from a point of pragmatism here, and anecdotally you don’t want customers running Silverlight on other browsers and non-MS operating systems.). Even if it were more efficient to develop with MS tools, the constraint is too great.

In many organisations, people are exercising choice and using various browsers. Say you have 20 people in a company who are all potential users of your web app. What is the chance that all 20 will be using IE? Improbably low, assuming 67% chance that each is using IE. (Okay, somewhat of an exaggeration, because their usage will be correlated as they work in the same place, so it’s not 0.67^20; but still, gut feel is that at least a few people here will be running the Fox.) Even if the corporate standard is IE, I’ve never worked in a company that truly enforces their standard (thankfully for developers in particular), so I’d be willing to bet there will still be a number of folks running Firefox. By releasing a product that only runs on IE, you’re basically guaranteeing that it won’t run on all potential users’ browser of choice. Not a showstopper perhaps as they can still fire up IE – if you’re fortunate enough that they’re running MS – but still a great way to make your product unpopularly received. It might still be mandated if the decision is a central one involving a faceless someone or committee who could care less what browser it runs on; but it’s also possible that the decision-maker will be a Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Chrome user, and will be suitably unimpressed with a late ’90s style IE-only offering.

Firefox 3: The Changes…Firefox 4: The Wishlist

Firefox 3.0 ticker tape parade

Today is Firefox 3.0 landing day. Maybe tomorrow as the servers have been down for many hours now. Funny how Twitter is up, but Mozilla is down…it feels like today is the Juneth of 18. Anyway, this is great news as you could wile away a few lazy hours tweeting and plurking about the irony and how you’re chomping at the bit for FF 3.0, and watching other people say the same thing but with different yet equally charming emoticons. But anyway, FF 3.0 is pretty much here. Yay!

Firefox 3.0 is faster, more stable, and standards-based, and that’s no mean technical feat, but the upgrade is not so obvious from a consumer’s perspective. And my own ADD mindset craves more visible changes that will impact on usability and utility.

The modern browser is the application billions of users spend the most time in, many hours a day, and the trend is set to continue as desktop migrates to web. And Firefox is used by 18% of users (Net Applications via wikipedia, Q2 2008) – that’s 18% of some billions of users. A very big number indeed, and even more remarkable in certain markets, where Firefox dominates share, and even in the entire population of certain countries, where it appears to be neck-and-neck with IE. Furthermore, as a major player, the features of Firefox are clearly going to influence those in competing browsers. What’s in Firefox matters a lot. So, by deludedly illogical inference, the present article must also mean a lot to the future of our green planet. Here I will outline UI changes in FF3, then present my wishlist for FF4.

But first, what’s in 3.0 then?

This is a wishlist for the next version of Firefox, FF 4.0. But first, let’s review Firefox 3.0, ignoring those important but not too tasty “-ility” updates, and instead focusing on what users will actually see. I had to think about this. After several months of using both versions alongside each other (on different boxes), I really don’t notice much difference at all. as noted by wikipedia, are pretty trivial. (I noticed a better list here, though there are no other major features mentioned.)

  • More native look and feel. Nice, but a small change.
  • Redesigned download manager, can search for downloads Same.
  • Redesigned add-on managerIt’s integrated with the main distro site This is by far the most important new feature. I’ll elaborate later, but FF is all about plugins and the plugin process has been pretty silly up to now. In the book, Art and Science of Javascript, my chapter on Firebug included a section on installing the Firebug extension. And I can tell you, looking at it step by step, you can see how complicated the whole thing is.
  • Microformats are supported. Cool, we like microformats and it leads the way to the so-called “Web 3.0”!
  • Introduced Places for bookmarks. Yes, this is the most obvious new feature, but the thing is, years of rudimentary bookmarking support, combined with Google’s almightiness and Delicious et al, has weaned me, and I suspect many others, off bookmarking in general. I don’t know, how many people are really going to tag their bookmarks? What I do like is the new smarter address bar with history auto-completion and better display. It has leap-frogged IE here, which has searched by title for some time. Handy little feature.
  • OSX version supports Growl, spell check, and Aqua. Well, Growl is nice and it’s available to Add-on developers…but it should also be available to all websites, perhaps using a whitelist setup. (Similar to the Add-On trust system now – a notification panel that says “this application wishes to notify you of critical events via Growl. Do you agree?”.)
  • Default icons change Cool but fairly basic again.

These are all changes you might expect in a point release – it would be hard to justify going 3.0 in the absence of all the other improvements to stability, etc. That’s why I’m not trying to take anything away from the overall FF3 effort … there’s a lot of changes outside the UI. But when you look at these UI changes, they’re very basic. I’m hoping FF4 is more focused on seriously evolving the browser, and that means taking some chances and making some bold improvements to the shiny Fox machine.

And now … The Firefox 4.0 Wishlist!

Shipping with Add-Ons

As I’ve said before, Firefox needs to ship with a proper suite of pre-installed extensions. The “thin kernel model with optional extensions” is architecturally sound, and of course many applications now incorporate a plugin style architecture. The highly successful Linux and Apache web server projects are based on this model too. However, Mozilla misses a trick by shipping without key extensions. The attitude seems to be “if users want it, they can ^@!#$ install it themselves! The Mozilla people are in general extremely concerned with usability and the human factor, but in this case, the attitude reeks of Comic Book Guy geekery. Leaving out basic tab functionality, for example, yields unecessary advantages to Opera and Safari. Yes, it’s available in TabMix if you care to download it, but if it’s that important, then ship FF with TabMix!!!

There should be a standard distro with 5 or 6 popular plugins, all chosen for utility, simplicity, security, and compatibility with each other. This should be the one you get when you click the big, fat, super-easy-to-use, Download button (which I have always admired and has since been copied by many other websites). A bit deeper in the recesses of the Firefox distro site, you could also download the minimal edition as well as specialised editions. Alternatively, you might select your distro the first time you run a new Firefox profile. I could imagine a wizard that (a) asks you which distro (mapped to a set of add-ons), and then (b) lets you customise the list. This is much better than the current situation for creating a new profile, where you have to go and (re-)add all your typical add-ons manually, then restart.

It would be cool to see specialised editions for developers, students of different ages, gamers.

Apart from usability, this would be a boon for security, which is arguably Mozilla’s primary concern and greatest source of pride when comparing Firefox to IE. Relieving most users from the need to install add-ons reduces the chance of a screw-up involving installation of a malicious plugin, or some unanticipated interaction between plugins that creates a hole. The default stack would be designed and tested for security, and any alerts involving an add-on in that stack will be highly visible.

Make it easier, much easier, to write Add-Ons

This was supposed to be an enhancement for FF3 iirc, but may have been dropped (?). Anyway, writing extensions in Firefox is a complicated business. You have to know XUL and deal with the whole packaging structure. It should be just as simple as writing Greasemonkey scripts IMO. I’d like to be able to say something like $("addressBar").style.backgroundColor = "red" for example. These things could be made possible with enhancements to Greasemonkey, but of course Greasemonkey isn’t built in. What I’m looking for here must work with the raw version of Firefox. This will lead to a proliferation of cool new add-ons. It will also increase the risk of security violations as there will be more plugins around and it will be harder for Mozilla to vet them all, but relying on a difficult API to slow down add-on … that’s not the way to ensure security.

Installation of Add-Ons, Themes, Search

Installing search modules should work the same way as the new way to install add-ons and themes, ie all inside the client instead of bumping you to a website. Installing themes is half integrated but still requires you to go to a website. Even Add-Ons requires you to go to a website to explore fully. I think this should be unnecessary.

There is also confusion of terminology, with references to both “Add-Ons” and “Extensions”. On the official add-on website, “Search” and “Themes” are combined with 10 other category of Add-On (Appearance, Bookmarks, etc.), whereas they are in fact special types of add-on. So in some cases, they are kept distinct, and in other cases, they are lumped together.

Improve Profile Management

I like the idea of profiles – as a developer, it would be nice to switch between a developer profile and a user profile. And also between multiple dummy user profiles while testing. But switching profiles requires a restart. Not only a restart, but you have to run Firefox with the “-p” flag, and the installer doesn’t come with a launcher for profile-switch mode. For that reason, I bet most users probably don’t even know this feature exists.

The simplest improvement would be for the installer to add a launcher for profile-switch mode to the Start menu (in windows at least), just like there is one for Safe Mode. Moreover, just integrate profile switching into the actual interface…just include a dropdown in the Advanced Preferences or add a new menu item somewhere which expands to show each profile ID. Easy! True, you’d still need a FF reboot. I don’t see that constraint changing anytime soon …

Tab-Mania! Sugoi yo ^o^

I wrote this up in Taking Browser Tabs Seriously. There’s a ton that could and should be done to ease the multiple tab experience – notifying, searching, grouping, sorting, etc etc etc. This is HUGE! ‘Nuff said, see the link for details.

Retain all viewed content (or at least index it for searching)

Come on, you know you want it! Instead of bookmarks, it’s time to finally bite the bullet and let users search through every page they’ve visited (if not forever, then at least for the last X days). How many times do you have to search for something on Google that you’ve already seen before. The browser could take care of it. Just as Google search slams Yahoo taxonomies, so too does full-page history search obliterates bookmarking. I don’t know how much capacity you’d need to do it, but I bet if you asked in 1994, “will we be able to do that in 2010, with 16 years = 1000x (ie 2^(16/1.5)) improvement in hardware stuff”, you would answer a resounding yes. With the right optimisations, I’m fairly certain this is possible. BTW I realise you can effectively achieve all this now with Google, but there are a lot of reasons why it should be built into the browser (intranet and hidden content; privacy and corporate security concerns; possibility of offline browsing old content).

Improve history

With or without the previous enhancement, Firefox history has always been a bit wanting. For starters, search needs improvement – you should be able to search history the same way you search through a page. ie instead of filtering, it should just highlight matches and scroll to them. This way, you could see which other pages you were looking at around the same time. Sometimes, I’m searching for one term, but only because I know I was looking at another page at the same time, and I can’t locate the other page via search. (Although I could do so if the previous enhancement was available!)

Search should also work without having to hit Enter – it should be updated on each keystroke just like page search.

Furthermore, it’s excruciating trying to work out what time and date you viewed something. You get the “View by Date” which sorts by date, but doesn’t let you search in this mode. And in any event, it still doesn’t show you time of day. And if you view in other ways (by site or last/most visited), you don’t get any time or date at all.

That Sidebar

I never get why there’s only one sidebar when there are several possible contents (bookmarks, history, add-on-specific features). And it’s also odd that you can only control that sidebar from the menu rather than the sidebar itself. You should be able to have multiple sidebars, or at least one accordian style sidebar containing all possible contents. Similar to the All-In-One Sidebar add-on.

I could imagine Firefox achieving flexible UI with an elastic docked window style UI like Eclipse (or indeed Firebug in some respects), but I think that would be too complicated for mainstream users.

Render Non-HTML Content

I realise a browser’s fundamental job is to show web pages and it’s rarely good when applications over-step their boundary, but in this case, I feel there is a case for putting in at least some effort on non-core activities. I’m talking about how Firefox (and every other mainstream browser) deals with non-HTML content. For example, this came up on Twitter today, where my colleague mentioned the problems we have viewing JSON in the browser. It requires a download basically and then manually opening and viewing in your editor, and that’s not very satisfactory. Even with XML, which is rendered by FF, how about some intelligent interpretation. If it’s RSS or Atom, for example, provide a suitable default stylesheet explaining what it’s good for and how to subscribe.

Better File System Navigation

When you visit a local directory using file://path-to-directory, what you are greeted with is an interface that hasn’t changed since the mid ’90s. Arguably, it’s doing enough already, so why complicate it? But I think that exploring the filesystem is a rather useful feature for the browser, given its sovereign posture which means it could be used as the primary control centre for managing your local file system.

It’s also impossible to visit the root of your filesystem using file:/// on certain OS’s, at least on my Mac. This is obviously fundamental behaviour that’s missing, and the bug was logged in 1999! On my Mac, I also can’t open up /Volumes/Macintosh HD due to the space. When I click on it from /Volumes, it changes to file:///Volumes/Macintosh%20HD and that URL breaks. Doh!

Just like Explorer or Finder, files should be shown in various possible formats – tabular (with sorting), thumbnail, etc. And it should use thumbnails to show file types.

Better Keyboard Binding Support

I like those programs like IntelliJ Idea which let you control keyboard bindings for pretty much anything, and also let you save and load configurations. Firefox should do the same. A lot of the shortcuts are hidden anyway and should be available somewhere in the interface, e.g. a keyboard preferences area.

Mouse Gestures

This was one of the awesome things about Opera when I first started using it and it made browsing fun and more subconscious, one step closer to the haptically brilliant Minority Report hand control scenario. I used it all the time, but on Firefox, the main add-on didn’t work so well and I never got into it. Gestures should be built in so they are available to all users and available to all add-on developers. It would be even better if they were available to web apps as well, using some kind of whitelist if necessary (as I explained earlier wrt Growl).

Comment on the Coop

Incidentally, there is also The Coop. This was intended to ship with FF3, but dropped at some point. It’s an attempt to embed social networking and stumbleupon-type functionality. To me, this is exactly the sort of thing that really is too far removed and should remain an optional add-on. It’s actually tied to a single server run by Mozilla, which doesn’t seem right for an open-source product. It might make more sense if it was generic platform/API, with the communication protocol published and the server software also open sourced.


Firefox is by far the best browser today, already has some great UI improvements from 2.0 days, and I am pleased that v3.0 is now more stable and performant than ever. Now I’m looking forward to usability improvements and looking forward to seeing other people’s wishlists!

What browsers do developers use?

Jeff Attwood points out that on w3schools, a huge majority of developers are still using IE.

About 60% IE and 25% Firefox. Amazingly 2.3% are still using Mozilla (why?). Unfortunate that 60% of developers aren’t using IE … but the reality is many don’t have much choice…they’ll be working in corporate-standard windows environments, where IE already exists and Firefox must be installed, if they have permissions to do so. Furthermore, Firefox won’t necessarily work due to firewalls and proxies. And then there are the developers who won’t install Firefox because they haven’t heard of it, are MS fanboys (yes they exist), or will get into trouble for doing so.

All of which means they’ll miss out on some of the best development tools around … including the insanely useful and popular Firebug.

FWIW AjaxPatterns must have a savvier audience ;-).

  • IE 46.8%
  • FF 36.2%
  • Moz 4.1%
  • Opera 2%
  • Safari 1.8%
  • ITunes … 0.4%
  • Konq 0.3%
  • NS 0.1%

Incidentally, were you paying attention? Let me repeat that

  • ITunes … 0.4%


That’s because one of the most popular hits is, the bootleg feed I set up to serve the Future Of Web Apps conference (which onlty released individual MP3s). It’s popular not because people keep downloading it, but because so many people subscribed to it to get all the MP3s in one hit, then never unsubscribed. When Russell Beattie wanted people to unsubscribe to his blog, he started posting annoying animated GIFs. I guess the audio equivalent would be to start posting chalk-screeching noises, or better still, blast out a dozen “Ice, Ice, Baby” enclosures.

Who Needs These Browser Warnings?

Setting up a new Windows PC today and not loving the browser warnings.

The messages, as I recall them: “You are about to submit the form. It’s dangerous.”, “You’re going to leave the page. It’s dangerous.”, “This page is encrypted. It’s dangerous.”, “This page is not encrypted. It’s dangerous.”, “This is H20. It’s dangerous.”

So my question is, who’s benefitting? At this stage, the majority of internet users have been submitting forms and using encrypted pages for 5+ years. And if they’re a newbie, is it any more useful to them? (Hint: No.)

The only thing it does is add overhead to setting up a new system. You have to stop and think, “Hmmm is this a negative, double-negative, or triple-negative question? Ah, okay, I think I’ll leave the checkbox unchecked so as to imply I don’t want to not submit the form. And also, I’ll leave the ‘Don’t show me again box’ so it doesn’t not show me again.”


  • Only provide dialog boxes that are useful, otherwise users will ignore them all.
  • Avoid not excluding negative phrasing in your options. Even if the most likely value is negative, you should still phrase it as a positive. (“Remember this” as opposed to “Forget this” or “Don’t remember this.”)

Flock: A Tribute to Unusability of Firefox Extensions?

You’ve probably noticed the buzz around Flock, a browser built on Firefox. Information’s limited, but it seems to pick up on the “social” buzzword – tagging, annotations, RSS etc. Thing is, all of these things are possible in Firefox too via extensions. But extensions haven’t really taken off, and the reason is, quite frankly, poor usability. Firefox is a great browser with a plugin architecture that’s pretty good too. The problem is at the last mile: helping users install and manage their extensions.

Sure, developers will install programming extensions and uber-geeks will set up mouse gestures, but it won’t get beyond that in its current state.

So here’s how a plugin architecture should work:

  • Installing plugins should be dead simple. Pull up a list of plugins and click to install … that’s it! Come on, you own the whole browser and the server too! Make them work together. The current task is something like “visit extensionroom, search for extension, jump into extension page, click Install, Notice security dialog box about this subdomain if you’re lucky, Allow the subdomain, Click Install again if you’re savvy enough to realise what just happened, Watch it download, Click Install, Restart the browser if you’re still interested”. If the version’s incompatible, you’ll only find out at the end of all that (except the restart). True, the version number’s shown when you install it, but that’s really making the user do something the computer should do immediately. Also, most users don’t remember what version they’re running, and I’ve even seen extensions with the version labeled as “Deer Park”.
  • The standard distribution should have a set of extensions pre-installed. Just because you’re using a plugin architecture doesn’t mean you have to ship with a bare-bones distribution. I know there are potentially licensing issues, but shipping with plugins seems to work OK for Eclipse and similarly for the Linux distributions. Satisfy the slashdot crowd with a minimal distribution too, by all means, but mainstream users would rather not spend three hours working out how to install extensions, finding out which are popular/useful, discovering incompatibilities between different extensions, etc. There are plenty of extensions that enhance basic functionality – e.g. All-In-One Sidebar, Adblock, the improved search bars, the improved RSS aggregators – why not take advantage of them? In addition, there’s great scope for specialised distributions, e.g. Developer, Socialite. I know anyone could probably make them and distribute them, my main point here is that Firefox itself should at least distribute a more powerful default distro.
  • Don’t rely on third-party extensions for fundamental functionality. Tabbed browsing works OK in the basic distribution, but the Tabbrowser extension gives it much more power – certainly it brings it up to Opera standard. Yet, it’s been unsupported for over a year, confusing, and buggy at times. Something like this is too important to leave to a third-party. Develop it as an extension if it’s architecturally convenient to do so, but make it mandatory, so that other extensions play nice with it.
  • Provide update notifications. Indicate when updates are present and offer to do the update automatically.

Greasemonkey took off so quickly because it’s so easy to develop, modify, and install GM scripts. Hopefully, the lessons of Greasemonkey and the imminent release of Flock will offer some lessons, and help make Firefox an even greater browser.

Greasing Greasemonkey Scripts

Tweaking a Greasemonkey script is easy. It’s just a single file, so you download the file locally, edit it, and install it the same way you’d install any other script.

I did this because I needed a quick fix for the super-helpful XMLHttpRequest Debugging script. Sometimes the console has a little trouble with positioning – using it with Google Maps caused it to sit behind the upper portion of the page due to layering. So I made two quick fixes – increased the z-index in the embedded stylesheet so it would appear in front and also changed the default coordinates (I’d adjusted them with “about:config”, but somehow that wasn’t picked up.)

All in all, I was able to tweak the script, not knowing anything about the GM API, and have it running in my browser in about 10 minutes. Had it been a standard Firefox extension, I would have been out of luck. I’d presumably have to download the original source, set up a dev/testing environment, and be able to package it all up including meta-info. Furthermore, I’d have to restart Firefox to test it, unlike Greasemonkey which works straight away. I’ve never tried all that with extensions, but that’s my perception from a little looking around.

I’m nowhere near as bullish as some about Greasemonkey, at least in the medium-term, as some people, because I think the whole Firefox extension mechanism is way too complex for most end-users, let alone the idea that you have to install Greasemonkey scripts on top of one of those extensions. But in any event, once you have the Greasemonkey extenstion installed, it’s a cinch to remould a script you come across.