<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Safari 4 Beta</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta</link>
	<description>The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:40:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Safari Beta Soon Please? &#124; NSLog();</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53996</link>
		<dc:creator>New Safari Beta Soon Please? &#124; NSLog();</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 18:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53996</guid>
		<description>[...] gotten used to Safari 4&#039;s &quot;tabs on top.&quot; It doesn&#039;t mean I like them, and all of my previous complaints are still valid (to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] gotten used to Safari 4's "tabs on top." It doesn't mean I like them, and all of my previous complaints are still valid (to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53219</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53219</guid>
		<description>Hard to say, I guess.  I haven&#039;t had the time to give it enough thought.  I used another Mac running Safari 3 last night, and it looked pretty dated.  Is that because of the tab placement, or the other pieces looking different, too?

I don&#039;t think the tabs make more sense up there, because that&#039;s where the title bar goes.  If they reverted, though, I think I&#039;d be a bit disappointed.

I don&#039;t have many bookmarks (they&#039;re all on Delicious), but I agree that they belong above history items.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hard to say, I guess.  I haven't had the time to give it enough thought.  I used another Mac running Safari 3 last night, and it looked pretty dated.  Is that because of the tab placement, or the other pieces looking different, too?</p>
<p>I don't think the tabs make more sense up there, because that's where the title bar goes.  If they reverted, though, I think I'd be a bit disappointed.</p>
<p>I don't have many bookmarks (they're all on Delicious), but I agree that they belong above history items.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik J. Barzeski</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53218</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik J. Barzeski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53218</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;53216&quot;]Not sure why, but after forcing myself to stick with the new tabs, I kinda like them.[/quote]

I don&#039;t. I still hate them. I wonder if you aren&#039;t confusing &quot;getting used to them&quot; with &quot;kinda like them.&quot;

[quote comment=&quot;53216&quot;]The new autocomplete is much, much better.[/quote]

I still think bookmarks need to be placed above history items.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="quote_header"><a  href="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53216">Mike said</a> on March 8, 2009:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53216"><p>
Not sure why, but after forcing myself to stick with the new tabs, I kinda like them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't. I still hate them. I wonder if you aren't confusing "getting used to them" with "kinda like them."</p>
<p class="quote_header"><a  href="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53216">Mike said</a> on March 8, 2009:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53216"><p>
The new autocomplete is much, much better.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I still think bookmarks need to be placed above history items.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53216</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53216</guid>
		<description>Not sure why, but after forcing myself to stick with the new tabs, I kinda like them.

The resizer being used to move and separate tabs still confuses me - I wish they&#039;d come up with another icon for that.

Top Sites is distracting and pretty useless.  It&#039;s difficult to put a site in there unless it suggests it for you.  At least about:blank still works.

I used Cover Flow for history yesterday - that was incredibly useful.  Much more than I thought it would be.

The new autocomplete is much, much better.  It needs to keep a URL&#039;s focus when moving the mouse away from the current selection, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure why, but after forcing myself to stick with the new tabs, I kinda like them.</p>
<p>The resizer being used to move and separate tabs still confuses me - I wish they'd come up with another icon for that.</p>
<p>Top Sites is distracting and pretty useless.  It's difficult to put a site in there unless it suggests it for you.  At least about:blank still works.</p>
<p>I used Cover Flow for history yesterday - that was incredibly useful.  Much more than I thought it would be.</p>
<p>The new autocomplete is much, much better.  It needs to keep a URL's focus when moving the mouse away from the current selection, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik J. Barzeski</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53126</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik J. Barzeski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53126</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;53122&quot;]Erik - how do you use a progress bar to load an indefinite amount of data?[/quote]

The sizes of things are rarely indefinite. Your AJAX example occurs after pages load - the page can be responsible for its own &quot;wait&quot; timers then. If nothing else, there&#039;s almost always a counter.

[quote comment=&quot;53122&quot;]I&#039;m not sure if I like the spinner either but I think a &quot;hey, I&#039;m doing something&quot; or &quot;hey, I was told to fetch something&quot; is a heck of a lot better than &quot;I&#039;m loading something, now I&#039;m done, oh wait.. not really... oh yes, now I am... uh, sorry, but not really&quot;.[/quote]

I&#039;ve never seen that behavior at all. I&#039;ve written sites that use AJAX and haven&#039;t had that problem, either. The progress bar in 3 wasn&#039;t perfect, but it was better than a completely indeterminate spinner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="quote_header"><a  href="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53122">Ken said</a> on March 4, 2009:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53122"><p>
Erik - how do you use a progress bar to load an indefinite amount of data?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The sizes of things are rarely indefinite. Your AJAX example occurs after pages load - the page can be responsible for its own "wait" timers then. If nothing else, there's almost always a counter.</p>
<p class="quote_header"><a  href="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53122">Ken said</a> on March 4, 2009:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53122"><p>
I'm not sure if I like the spinner either but I think a "hey, I'm doing something" or "hey, I was told to fetch something" is a heck of a lot better than "I'm loading something, now I'm done, oh wait.. not really... oh yes, now I am... uh, sorry, but not really".</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've never seen that behavior at all. I've written sites that use AJAX and haven't had that problem, either. The progress bar in 3 wasn't perfect, but it was better than a completely indeterminate spinner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53122</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53122</guid>
		<description>Erik - how do you use a progress bar to load an indefinite amount of data? 

Back in Web 1.0 your browser would request a page and the web server would respond with a header with the content size. This was easy to use and determine how much of something was downloaded.

Now with the wonderful Web 2.0 and sites using AJAX to download all sorts of information from a javascript... How can the browser now know how much of the page is loaded? Or even when all requests are sent and received?

I&#039;m not sure if I like the spinner either but I think a &quot;hey, I&#039;m doing something&quot; or &quot;hey, I was told to fetch something&quot; is a heck of a lot better than &quot;I&#039;m loading something, now I&#039;m done, oh wait.. not really... oh yes, now I am... uh, sorry, but not really&quot;.

0.02</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erik - how do you use a progress bar to load an indefinite amount of data? </p>
<p>Back in Web 1.0 your browser would request a page and the web server would respond with a header with the content size. This was easy to use and determine how much of something was downloaded.</p>
<p>Now with the wonderful Web 2.0 and sites using AJAX to download all sorts of information from a javascript... How can the browser now know how much of the page is loaded? Or even when all requests are sent and received?</p>
<p>I'm not sure if I like the spinner either but I think a "hey, I'm doing something" or "hey, I was told to fetch something" is a heck of a lot better than "I'm loading something, now I'm done, oh wait.. not really... oh yes, now I am... uh, sorry, but not really".</p>
<p>0.02</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave M.</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53085</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53085</guid>
		<description>The screen real estate argument is really bad. The tab bar takes a whopping 20px. That&#039;s less than 1.5% of the render area of Safari.

If we were talking about Safari on the iPhone, then yes, it would be a significant improvement. On a desktop system, not at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The screen real estate argument is really bad. The tab bar takes a whopping 20px. That's less than 1.5% of the render area of Safari.</p>
<p>If we were talking about Safari on the iPhone, then yes, it would be a significant improvement. On a desktop system, not at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jess</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53084</link>
		<dc:creator>Jess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53084</guid>
		<description>Coverflow for history is really useful as I always remember what a site looks like, but never remember the name...

Having the tabs up top were a bit weird for the first day, but now like it, I think its a good saving of screen real estate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coverflow for history is really useful as I always remember what a site looks like, but never remember the name...</p>
<p>Having the tabs up top were a bit weird for the first day, but now like it, I think its a good saving of screen real estate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan LaCour</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53049</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan LaCour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53049</guid>
		<description>Okay, point of infuriation for me: the reload button. This should be a real button. On the left side of the window. And it should allow me to hold down &quot;shift&quot; and press reload to *force* a cache bypass. AHHH!!

Time to try those hidden settings...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, point of infuriation for me: the reload button. This should be a real button. On the left side of the window. And it should allow me to hold down "shift" and press reload to *force* a cache bypass. AHHH!!</p>
<p>Time to try those hidden settings...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Lee</title>
		<link>http://nslog.com/2009/02/24/safari_4_beta#comment-53047</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nslog.com/?p=5540#comment-53047</guid>
		<description>:)

Regarding using the status bar to drag -- yeah, you&#039;re right, that&#039;s more backwards than anybody should have to bend.  It blows away the consistency of experience that we always tout on the Mac.  Why not let everybody create their own crazy window controls?  Agreed on the other point too -- progress should be indicated in the natural place, and besides the status bar is optional.  If they wanted so badly to save the 20 vertical pixels, they could have gotten rid of the status bar and put *its* stuff in the title bar.  (Not advocating that, just saying.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <img src='http://nslog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Regarding using the status bar to drag -- yeah, you're right, that's more backwards than anybody should have to bend.  It blows away the consistency of experience that we always tout on the Mac.  Why not let everybody create their own crazy window controls?  Agreed on the other point too -- progress should be indicated in the natural place, and besides the status bar is optional.  If they wanted so badly to save the 20 vertical pixels, they could have gotten rid of the status bar and put *its* stuff in the title bar.  (Not advocating that, just saying.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

