Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Opera Seeks Developer Input For Opera 10 387

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the sympathetic-ear dept.
taskforce writes "Opera Watch is reporting that the folks Opera Software are asking web developers for input on what they think the most important features are which could be added into the next version of the Opera desktop browser. Considering what has been added in Opera 9, what do you think would be most important for the browser from both a developer and a user standpoint?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera Seeks Developer Input For Opera 10

Comments Filter:
  • Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slack_prad (942084) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:06AM (#15686384) Journal
    API for extensions !
    • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by m50d (797211)
      God no. Say byebye to being the leanest and fastest browser around if that happens. If there are features people want, just add them to the main browser. The only useful thing I've seen done with extensions is as a trick to reduce your apparent bug count - have hardly anything in the main browser, if anyone asks for a feature say grab the extension, then disavow responsibility for any bugs.
      • Opera is relatively fast but not the fastest, and lean? well, not in featureset or looks for sure. It has a relatively small memory footprint for what it does of course.

        An API for extentions would mean it can be made even leaner since you can effectively strip off functionality that is not used often and put it into an extension for those who need it. Result, even smaller browser.

        So, did you hae any real reason for your response?
        • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Informative)

          by Marsell (16980)

          Opera is relatively fast but not the fastest

          Compared to what? http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html [howtocreate.co.uk]

          An API for extentions would mean it can be made even leaner since you can effectively strip off functionality that is not used often and put it into an extension for those who need it.

          I'm curious what the point of that is though? The English install is 4.6MB, and you'll find this of interest: http://my.opera.com/FataL/blog/show.dml/298429 [opera.com]. If you ignore the multi-language installer, Opera's in

        • "It has a relatively small memory footprint for what it does of course."

          But does it even have that? I hate to sound like a troll (and God knows that's how I'll get modded) ... but I've been browsing with FF for about an hour and it's currently at about 68MB. I opened up Opera just now ... opened up a few tabs, browsed to a few of my "usuals" and after a bit of clicking around it's right up there at 53MB. A couple big Digg threads and it's in the 60's. To its cretit, however, it does seem to release much
      • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Chris Graham (942108)
        The Opera devs couldn't possibly add everything everyone wants, for time concerns and other reasons. An example is as a webdev I like to be able to right-click on an open page and say "View in FireFox" or "View in IE", but placing information about other browsers into Opera for all users would be an uglification for most of them. Making it optional for that kind of thing would result in option explosion. Therefore it makes most sense if someone like me goes out and finds an extension for what I need, so tha
        • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The WebDev toolbar does everything I need it to do...

          http://operawiki.info/WebDevToolbar [operawiki.info]

          Very useful.
        • Re:Extensions (Score:5, Informative)

          by Wildclaw (15718) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @01:03PM (#15687279)
          This should be possible with the current opera. I'll describe how to add a shortcut key that launches the current webpage in internet explorer. If you want to add it to a gui element (like the right click menu) you will probably have to edit an ini file. Anyway, here is how to add it as a keyboard shortcut, step by step.

          * Goto Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Shortcuts.
          * (Optional) Duplicate the current keyboard setup using the duplicate button.
          * Edit the keyboard setup you want to change.
          * Select the "application" entry in the list that appears and click the "New" Button
          * Enter the keyboard shortcut to the left. For example: i ctrl shift alt
          * To the right enter the following: Execute program, "iexplore.exe", "%u"

          Now, whenever you click ctrl+shift+alt+i, internet explorer should launch using the current url as an argument.
    • Re:Extensions (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jgrana (931567)
      What can be done in Opera with extensions that can't be done with widgets, its own internal ad-blocking system, and UserJS, which supports most Greasemonkey scripts? I'm just thinking of the extensions I was using before switching to Opera full-time from FF. ForecastFox is covered by a widget in 9, AdBlock's replaced by the ad-blocker, and I've gotten the GM scripts I'd been using running with very little trouble.
  • 64bit support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jack Malmostoso (899729) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:08AM (#15686387)
    Probably it's not the answer to the question, but I'd love to see a native 64 bit version of Opera. As for the argument "there's no 64bit flash", screw adobe/macromedia/$proprietary_technology_owner. The web is a nice place also without Flash. Maybe even better!
    • Seconded. Lack of a native 64 bit version means that the main feature missing is the ability to run it on any of my machines in the first place.

      Phillip.
      • Why? Can't your 64-bit kernel run applications in 32bit mode? Why not? (Can't all decent operating systems?)

        And why would you even *notice* if an application uses 32bit- or 64bit-instructions? Exactly.

        My Mac has a 32bit CPU, but my friend has a 64bit one. I don't see any difference. Does Safari use 64-bit instructions if the CPU has 64 bit? Does the kernel? Maybe, but none of us care, and there's no reason at all why we should.

        It's a web browser, nothing more.
        • You have to call the the pluggin at some level. If you are in 64 bit mode you are passing pointers and other stuff as 64-bit registers [or stack entries]. If the plugin is 32-bits it won't be able to make use of them.

          Yes, you can run 32-bit code in 64-bit mode (in x86_64 64-bit instructions need a REX prefix byte so they're actually not default!) but your 64-bit code has to be aware of what it is calling.

          Tom
        • On a real computer, a 64-bit app will be a bit slower, but can access more memory (and other things that take up address space). On x86, a 64-bit app benefits from being slightly less register-starved, and so is often faster. Because of this, it makes sense for all apps on an x86-64 machine to be 64-bit.
    • I'm not sure how you can say the web is better without flash, to me that is an obviously false statement. Some of the most enterprising art projects I've seen on the web have been flash based. People have got over their first love affair with flash so it isn't being used in the vulgar way it used to be embedded into sites, and now has become an integral canvas for projects like youtube and google video.
    • Porting the flash engine isn't as simple as a re-compile.

      Flash uses a x86 bit JIT runtime compiler, some of the underpinnings such as their garbage collections accomodate only 32 bit pointers.

      Its no small task, but with the release of Windows 64 bit into main stream will help move things along.

      My guess is you'll see a native 64 version realistically within 6 months, I know the Adobe engineers are working on it.

  • Niggling (Score:5, Informative)

    by rinkjustice (24156) <rinkjustice@NO_S ... m ['roc' in gap]> on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:13AM (#15686396) Homepage Journal
    Give users more monitor real estate (less toolbar, more web page) and reinvent favorites/bookmarks. Say automatic online backups to Simpy.com [simpy.com] and an easier way of keeping bookmark catagories organized. I've recently gotten into genealogy and the links pile-up in a hurry. I almost want to use a browser exclusively for that research alone.

    The Linux support is awesome however. It's the best browser for that platform.
    • Re:Niggling (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rameriez (644702) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:46AM (#15686446) Homepage
      MORE real estate? One of the reasons why I love Opera is its interface is one of the most easily configurable. Not only do you have a lot of control over what toolbars are displayed and where, but exactly which buttons appear on them. The side-panel is much nicer than Firefox's in my opinion, and is another great space saver. What more could you want?
      • I'm glad you asked... I always wanted to have a full-screen (F11) version of opera WITH the top/bottom customised toolbars showing... but without the Windows taskbar and without the Opera menu/titlebar. It might be already possible, but I never tried hard enough to find out how... so if it's possible already, tell me how, if not, Opera10 suggestion, here she comes :P

        P.S. Right now I'm running Opera 9 in 1600x1200 and SMALL fonts (21" monitor and I sit close enough for roughly FOV90) and the top/bottom "wast
        • Here's a sample of how it looks (1600x1200 res image, reduced to 16 grays, saved as GIF, filesize ~100k):
          http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=myfreakin gscreen3ko.gif [imageshack.us]
          • Re:Niggling (Score:3, Informative)

            by RobbieGee (827696)
            I have a few tips for you.

            1. Put the status bar next to the address bar.
            2. Use search shortcuts instead of the search bar. Typing 'g something' in the address bar will search for 'something' on google, while 'z something' will do the same for Amazon.
            3. The progress bar can be toggled to show only when something is loaded, and you can even make it appear inside the address bar.
            4. Instead of showing the tabs, you could use the window panel. You need to enable it by customizing the panels.
            5. Ctrl-F8 will toggl
            • CTRL-F8 worked great, thanks. ALT-F11 didn'tm for some reason. And CTRL-F5 did the scrollbars while in fullscreen, but it's ok.

              However, the big issue here for me is that the settings don't "stick"... I have to re-press all those combos each and every time I go from normal to full-screen... that would be a nice extra for O10 (sticky fulscreen options, or fullscreen options customisation just like with normal-screen ones) :P
  • by yogikoudou (806237) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:14AM (#15686397)
    - More CSS 3 - A Javascript Debugger (including XMLHttpRequest debugging, as with the Firebug extension) - XForms - XUL ? And from a user point of vue: - Extensions
    • by Jicksta (760596) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:42AM (#15686439) Homepage
      I'd have to second the request for XUL support. With Microsoft producing its XUL clone XAML for use with Vista software, it's only a question of when, not if these technologies take off. Is this an area out of which Opera truly wishes to stay?

      The parent's request for better AJAX debugging is another possibility certain to turn a number of web-dev heads. Few doubt AJAX's destiny. I for one would love to see this.

      Additionally, I'd also like to request an option to specify how the middle-button responds to clicks for scrolling. Presently, and for prior versions, pressing the middle button to begin the hands-free scrolling feature snaps the cursor to the middle of the page. This becomes an issue when trying to open a page in a background tab with a middle click and, if the click is off by a little, the cursor shoots away, causing the user to move their cursor back to the link. A minor nuisance but one I've heard complained about for years.
      • I'd also love to see more wide-spread support for XUL, the only trouble is that it's a Mozilla proprietary technology and a bit of a moving target, making it very tough to support fully in other browsers. IMHO Mozilla should do with XUL what OpenOffice.org did with their file format: open it up for standardization so that everyone can give input on it and let it become the standard user-interface language among (open-source) browsers.
    • I'd have to second a JavaScript debugger. I do almost all of my webdesign targeting Firefox first because it has the best debugging tools. Once I get it working in Firefox, I move to making sure it works in IE and later Opera.

      However, I'd also like to see something like the DOM Inspector. Among other things the DOM Inspector allows is the ability to see the CSS rules and the order they're being applied for every node in the DOM tree. It really helps when CSS's crappy specificity causes rules to apply

    • And from a user point of vue: - Extensions

      If you want extensions go use firefox. The Opera developers do listen to input and if a feature is requested by enough people then they will add it. They also will take out features that people dislike/don't use. That is what I like the most about Opera, they make it the best browser available right out of the box. You don't have to go messing around downloading and installing extensions because it already includes the best features available that most people ne
  • Under Windows (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1. Under Windows: Get rid of the stupid default whereby the main scrollbar on the righthandside turns nearly-white (thus "disappearing") whenever a person goes to use it. That's a really dumb default. Also, make it easier to change because I never found a way (without choosing a different theme entirely). Note: no problem on OS X.

    2. Under any OS: When opening a link into a new tab, it automagically pops the new tab up. I like the new tab under because I'm often going to A Page whereupon I click several
    • Since ... well, I'm not sure how long, but as long as I can rembmer, and I've used it since 3.x - if you right click on a link, you'll see "Open in background tab" along with the keyboard combination used to do that. Not sure how much easier it can be to find.
    • some suggestions (though 1. was never a real problem, at least for me...)

      2. Use the RMB and select "Open in background page" or hold CTRL and SHIFT when clicking a link.
      3. Use opera:config (Opera 9)

    • Tools > Preferences > Advanced > Shortcuts > Middle click options

      Select "Open in background tab".

      Yes, they could make this a bit easier to find.
    • For the Windows version: a "manually edit theme" (colors, fonts, etc).
      I used to stick to Opera 7.xx exactly for that reason even when 8.xx came out.

      Second thing, an "export/save environment" (key settings, WAND database, toolbar settings, bookmarks, color scheme, etc) and the companion "import/load environment".
      If you can make it also automatically import all that from PREVIOUS versions of Opera, I have a nearly 4-year old Opera 7.52 that's itching for "upgrade" to Opera 9.
      Yes, I still use both... 7.52 for
  • While it's certainly kickarse to see a browser implement BitTorrent downloads, it would be even more impressive if they could combine this facet of the program with HTTP downloads. While I can see a number of difficulties with this (technical challenge, lack of standards, etc) these can be minimised in a number of ways. It would certainly mean much faster speeds for end-users, lower bandwidth costs for hosts and resulting increased user numbers of a standards-compliant browser. 2. ??? 3. Profit!
    • Although I'd positively love to see most "popular" downloads automatically BitTorrented when I download with Opera (by the way, I don't use a download manager, I just use Opera for most of my HTTP downloads), I am having a hard time imagining HOW you could do it in ways that don't breach any laws AND is beneficial to the user WHILE keeping the user anonymous (among others, not having to "phone back home" each time you do a hybrid HTTP/BT dowload).

      Well, the "challenge" would be to have a tracker that you can
  • by Hank Powers (467121) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:16AM (#15686405) Homepage
    It's time for you to stop dissing Opera. There are applications that get news coverage really seldom and even they have their own topics in Slashdot. Opera gets mentioned every once in a while and always gets placed under the general software topic. Do I smell an anti-Opera Software bias among the editors?
    • Opera gets mentioned every once in a while and always gets placed under the general software topic.

      First of all, I would have to say Opera gets placed under the general software topic because it only gets mentioned every once in a while, so that's really just one reason. And not to flame, but I think Mozilla does deserve a category of their own for its current market precence, and because they produce a lot more than Firefox.

      I like Opera a lot, and I think it has contributed greatly to browser history, bu

  • Adblock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Umbral Blot (737704) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:30AM (#15686424) Homepage
    Adblock, adblock, adblock. I know you can do something like adblock with Opera, but it doesn't even compare with firefox's version. That's the reason that I still use firefox even though it isn't as small or as fast as Opera; I want my adblock.
    • Re:Adblock (Score:4, Informative)

      by LubosD (909058) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:39AM (#15686433) Homepage
      Opera 9 has integrated content blocking - it is quite good. You don't have to edit filter.ini any more...
      • Opera 9 has integrated content blocking - it is quite good. You don't have to edit filter.ini any more...

        So it has now what adblock started out with roughly.

        There are very nice blocklists for adblock and ways to automatically import them, which means you won't get to see the ads without having to block them yourself.

        Adblock also has some other nice features and all in all a content filter only covers part of what adblock does.
    • Re:Adblock (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:52AM (#15686453)

      I know you can do something like adblock with Opera, but it doesn't even compare with firefox's version.

      What's missing? Right-click on the page, select "Block content", and the page gets greyed out, with the blockable items highlighted. Click on everything you want to block, and it automatically sets up wildcard rules to block those ads. That's easier than Firefox's Adblock.

      • I haven't used Opera 9 (used 8.5 a bit, but back to Firefox for a couple things, like mplayerplug-in working properly there), but I have a question... Is there a way to import a filterlist? This is one of the very nice things about Firefox adblock, to me. I just grab a good filterset, and it'll block almost everything without me touching it, ever.
      • Re:Adblock (Score:3, Interesting)

        by xtracto (837672)
        No, with firefox adblock I just need to download the adblock filter lst [gauret.free.fr] and never worry about ads.
        • Re:Adblock (Score:4, Insightful)

          by trifish (826353) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @10:21AM (#15686792)
          As I expected, the list blocks Google ads. If everyone downloaded this list and used AdBlock, Google would die. In case you did not know it, 99.99% of Google's income is from Google ads, based on their public reports for share holders, etc.

          Blocking obtrusive ads is justified. Blocking any other ads is not. Did you ever stop to think who's going to pay the bandwidth costs of sites that depend on income from ads? The more popular a site is, the more incredible bandwidth fees they pay (popular sites can't use free hosting, mainly due to their bandwidth needs, etc). Without ads, sites like SourceForge.net or Slashdot.com would have to charge everyone for reading or die too. Think twice before blocking unobtrusive ads. Mass selfishness could bring many popular free sites to an end.
          • Re:Adblock (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bit01 (644603)

            Mass selfishness could bring many popular free sites to an end.

            That's some chutzpah you've got there, claiming that somebody not looking at an ad is somehow selfish.

            It's actually almost the reverse; doing pretty much anything that makes life hard for the marketing industry at the moment is performing a social service.

            Oh, and your sky-is-falling scenario of free sites disappearing is so silly it's hardly worth talking about. They're not free, you're paying for them twice over; once in time/attention

          • Re:Adblock (Score:3, Funny)

            by Geminii (954348)
            I have an idea. Every time I block an ad, it can pop up on trifish's PC. That way it's not deleted, and the people who think ads are a great idea can be the ones seeing them. Everyone wins!
    • Re:Adblock (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @08:41AM (#15686549) Journal
      Bah, how about not forcing Opera to keep up to date with specific extensions found in Firefox...

      Firefox actually has a worse adblock implementation then Opera, did you know that?

      The root of the problem as I see it is not a poor integrated adblock functionality -- I'm sure Opera 9's new interactive and visual adblocking mechanisms are sufficient for most people -- the problem is more likely deep extension support for power users to extend functionality as they want and need.

      While Opera ASA is doing an admirable job of keeping up to date with the competition as a company, my number one wish for Opera 10 is good extension support.

      And no, Opera's aging Netscape plugin support is lacking in so many areas, like chrome and renderer extensibility, that I won't even discuss it.
    • Privoxy. Privoxy will filter HTTP requests using regexps and works as well and often better than Adblock. Plus (the best) it's browser neutral and you can do more than just ad blocking (i.e. filtering certain cookies, your user agent, referrer, etc.)
    • I'd rather use privoxy [privoxy.org] to block ads and other web-based nasties, and not have to worry about whether the browser I happen to be using supports ad block.

      Additionally, I can have one instance of privoxy running on a server, and cover my entire home network. One single point of configuration, with the config files easily transferred to my notebook when I travel.

  • Integration. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09, 2006 @07:56AM (#15686460)
    Human Interface Guidelines, native widgets, integration with the host OS. Opera is completely unusable because it refuses to behave like all other applications, be it in Gnome or Windows. It doesn't matter if that way might be better, because the problem is switching between paradigms.
    • Opera is completely unusable

      Then tell me how I have been using Opera for the past five or six years.

      • Re:Integration. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by laffer1 (701823) <luke@@@foolishgames...com> on Sunday July 09, 2006 @10:56AM (#15686890) Homepage Journal
        Your one person. He meant everyone. Without following HCI guidelines, it makes it difficult for someone new to start using the program. Let me give you an example. I used to work on a coworkers computer in my spare time for a little extra money. She only liked Mozilla (and later firefox). Her husband only liked Opera 6. (literally one version) He would not switch off opera or let me upgrade it. He complained that anything other than the browser he knew was too hard. His wife just thought it was a piece of crap like IE. She was able to use IE, Netscape 4, Mozilla 1.x and Firefox without me telling her much. She just needed to know how to organize bookmarks and change her homepage. She could not use opera, but every other browser was ok. Why is that? Could it be the odd layout in opera? Yes. Now I realize that is the charm of opera for some, but the masses hate it. Its similar to Mac OS X that way. Its different enough that some fear or hate it. This could be applied to anything thats different like gnome, kde, etc. People are used to certain widgets in certain places with a certain look and feel. Unlike the web, conventional user interfaces must follow strict guidelines. (games are the exception to some degree) Even on the web there are certain conventions like RSS icons for instance.
  • Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gall0ws (902335)
    Open source.

    I would use Opera instead of Firefox if it was free (as in speech)
    • You are out of line here dude :)

      Obviously Slashdot can swallow a camel but chokes on a mosquito. Meaning, we think Java is evil despite its source being available, but Opera is cool despite its source NOT being available.
  • What is the biggest problem with software? Second-System Effect! 2SE makes life so much harder.

    So, opera, continue to work on bug fixes, keep an eye out on useful, underlying technologies (bittorent, css updates (which is getting 2se'd as well!), and leave the bells, whistles and gongs to others!!

  • by expro (597113) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @08:10AM (#15686492)

    Browsers bend over backwards to be compatible with lots of pages, and by so doing promote worse behaviors.

    The mess that passes for HTML is a direct result of the permissive approaches of browsers. It is understandable that browser vendors want to make the browser work on as many pages as possible, but it is a horrible tool to use in the hands of web developers because the bottom line is if it works, it is OK.

    Browsers need modes that can be enabled for developers that raise exceptions when exercising behaviors that were inserted for compatability but which violate standards and/or are likely to break other browsers/versions. They need to do this to make it easy for developers to use the browser to test their web pages while not promoting worse-formed content. Whichever browser does this first, will be my choice of main browser to use when testing my web pages.

  • The same CSS behavior of form elements that Firefox and IE support. Whenever I style an input textfield, defining fixed widths and then add padding to that, it works great in Firefox and IE, but Opera ignores the padding so the fields are shorter. This makes it difficult to create a clean, aligned form so we usually just ignore it and leave Opera unsupported in this aspect.

  • by Konster (252488)
    A real bookmark manager. Why do browsers do so poorly in this area, and why is Opera the worst at it?

  • What they need to improve is marketing. No browser will be relevant for me as a developer if nobody uses it. Most developers still do not care if their pages work in Firefox even with its considerable user base.
  • XForms (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anc (953115)
    I'd like to see XForms [w3.org] support. It's a great technology for Ajax-ish websites which has tremendous capabilities and allows to drastically reduce the amount JS required for many types of web applications.

    Mozilla is already at an advanced stage in working on an implementation [mozilla.org]. The current progress is available via an extension [mozilla.org].
  • Release the source under the GPL.

    I, and a load of other people, won't use it until then.
  • native NetBSD port (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChristTrekker (91442)

    I think there are a sizable chunk of people that would like to see a NetBSD/i386 version. (Personally I'd like to see a NetBSD/mac68k version just for kicks, but I'm probably in the minority there.)

  • The single worst thing about Opera from a developer's point of view - the bug tracker isn't open. You can't search to see if something is a known bug, you get no feedback when you submit a bug. It's just a big black hole where you throw bug reports.

    Making good bug reports can take a bit of time, I don't bother for Opera, because I don't know if I'm just wasting energy on a bug that's already known.

    And no, a forum is not the answer, too much noise to signal.
  • by eebra82 (907996) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @09:32AM (#15686661) Homepage
    I think Opera is a great browser (although I personally prefer Firefox because of all the plugins), but it is also the most feature-packed browser. That's a good thing, but too much is crammed into into this thing. Most people use only the most fundamental basics of a browser. What I would like to see is an ultra lite version of Opera with all the nifty features removed, or at least scalability in the full version.

    Internet Explorer is great because it allows the user to remove stupid buttons, move around the menus and so forth, making the browser only one length thick on top. That's great if you want more space for viewing web sites and such. I personally prefer compact applications. When I look at Opera, I don't see that. I see a lot of cool stuff but I don't really need most of it and would prefer to add these nifty things once that I need them.
  • I'd like webmaster@yoursite.com to receive this mail:

    "Hi,

    While accessing your site, I came across some questionable markup. I've done my best to present your site - but I'm not positive I did it right. Perhaps you can fix the following errors?

    [list of validation errors]

    Kind regards,
    An Opera browser"

    Wouldn't that be something, folks?
    • Actually I maintain a web site of an institution using HTML 4.01 strict and CSS 2.1. All my new pages pass the W3C validation for the HTML and the CSS.
      I get very good results with IE 6, NS 8.1, FF 1.5 and Lynx (for a pure text version) and that with and without javascript. But I have dropped the gauntlet with Opera. When something work with all the others browsers it doesn't work correctly in Opera and when I correct it in Opera, the display in all the others browser is broken...

      I work for an institution wh
    • Advanced javascript debugger that includes XMLHttpRequest debugging (on par with Venkman + Firebug)
    • Network request trace (LiveHTTPRequest) with optional ability to tamper with requests (Tamper Data)
    • DOM Inspector (DomI / Firebug / MouseOver DOM Inspector / WebKit's DOM Inspector)
    • A Javascript console at least on par with Firefox' Console/Firebug, and that includes Firebug's console interface, invaluable for trace-debugging
    • A Web Developer Toolbar (just hire Chris Pederick or something)
    • A Javascript CLI/sh
  • Something I've always wanted with all browsers is a single place that lists all the "active" (i.e., cpu-using) features, with a button to block/unblock each of them. It would be best if the blocking could be either per-site or per window/tab, or maybe both.

    Yes, active stuff like flash is sometimes useful, and some sites use such things to great advantage. But 99% of flash, for example, is used to create distracting ads. When a site does this to me, arrogantly assuming that I have nothing better for my cp
  • What sunk Opera's chances to make money on its browser, in my opinion, was lack of attention to detail in the design of the user interface.

    There's a good test available at present, and the experiment is being performed all over the world. People can have both Firefox and Opera free, and they choose Firefox. They choose Firefox even though Firefox is the still the most unstable [slashdot.org] program in common use.

    (The 1.5.0.4 version of Firefox is quite stable when the FlashBlock extension is installed, but still, a
    • There's a good test available at present, and the experiment is being performed all over the world. People can have both Firefox and Opera free, and they choose Firefox. They choose Firefox even though Firefox is the still the most unstable program in common use.

      I'm sorry to have to say this, but your post is misinformed and your arguments are illogical or simply wrong.

      Firefox's success has to do with marketing, plain and simple. Firefox had a major marketing push, as a completely free browser. Opera cou

  • After using Java or Flash they stay alive and hog the audio. I whould like Opera to kill them off when not used anymore.

    (This applies to Linux)
  • by Nazo-San (926029) on Sunday July 09, 2006 @10:12AM (#15686768)
    I don't know, I use Opera 99.9% of the time and only fall back to Firefox in extreme emergencies, but, I must say that I'm not entirely certain they really listen all that well to suggestions and such. For example, people have been calling for extentions (let's not get into an argument here, whether you think it's good or bad, the fact is, a huge number of people want extentions so they should at least make it more clear why they haven't made any efforts they've shown to us in this direction) for years and there isn't even an official response as far as I know. Then they do these "widgets" that are just pointless (hey, I tried. I downloaded several things that should be useful and tried to get the hang of using them, but, in the end they just get in the way and have no real use. I searched every widget on their site and didn't find one that I didn't end up finding to be in the way once the neatness factor wore off. Anything a widget can do, you can do better with an actual program in Java or some other easily portable language.) If you look at their forums you can find some long running feature request threads that a lot of people have "+1"ed that just never happen. (Not to mention that more than a few of those are probably requests for extentions. It gets posted a lot.)

    We can hope though I guess. All browsers have a lot of room for improvement (though I personally feel Opera mainly just needs extentions and to remove the extra pointless overhead that widget support has added) and if they actually stop and listen maybe we could get a browser that's truly as close to perfect as any peice of software can be? (Ok, that's going too far I guess, but wouldn't it be nice?)

    Personally, I think it's a publicity stunt though. Get the web designers to look at Opera and get it mentioned enough that more users hear about it. To make suggestions on improvements, web designers would have to actually get it and try it (actually, I like the sound of that since a lot of them would have no choice but to admit that it's a good browser and maybe should get the occasional support instead of an "only IE and Firefox supported" page.) The truth is though, it seems to me that most of the suggestions are basically going to be things that should be ignored, such as a designer asking that they support a proprietary extention that works only in IE (I still don't know why they do that sort of thing since it's actually more work in the long run.) The fact is, unlike the big two (IE and Mozilla/Firefox) Opera is among the very few that correctly implements enough of the actual standards to pass the ACID2 [webstandards.org] test, so it seems to me like there isn't going to be a lot of requests that they support this or that standard.

    So what's left from a designer's perspective besides asking them to fully support whatever little bit of the standards they don't already? Most changes need to come from the customer's perspective I think. Extentions, a better download manager, etc. It's easy to think of suggestions a user can make. Actually, what worries me is that generally what it comes down to is a developer wants as much control over your browser as they can. For example, one might want the ability to change the skin and menu layout of your browser specifically for their site. That's great for the developer, but, the end user would go bonkers in a hurry. Besides asking for proprietary extentions and more control over the user's screen, there's really so little that a developer can do that I can only conclude this is really ultimately just meant to get people's attention (hey, they got it on slashdot even, that's a good start, though the problem is that most slashdot users are intelligent enough to know about browser alternatives and most here who don't use Opera are just using it because for whatever reason they don't like it.)

    Anyway, I'm not saying boycott Opera or something, just I'm wondering if this is just a publicity stunt or if they really do have a point for
  • IMHO, the front end needs to clean, simple and uncluttered. Yet at the same time, it should be possible to customise the front-end to add power-user or more advanced operations to the users who want them. Also it needs to work well with the services of the operating system on which it will be installed.
  • Just give us the code under a fine Free Software licence and we'll port the Firefox extentions framework. Oh, and we'll start using Opera once we have the code. It won't happen before that moment, no matter how much hype your marketing dept can pump.
  • Varsions that dont intermittently core dump on MacOSX, Windows and FreeBSD would be really cool.

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_

Working...