Hacker News Reader

> Container tabs are a similarly interesting idea with a weird implementation that requires you to micromanage your tabs, which I certainly don't want to

You might want to take a look at the Firefox Multi-Account Containers Add-on, it lets you set domains to always open in a given container, which cuts down on the micromanagement a lot once you get it "trained". [edit: This is not well-advertised, it's accessed through the context menu (right-click) on a page when you have it open in that container]

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-conta...

> i.e. all web sites should be "contained"

It's possible to enable this for most intents and purposes with "1st party isolation", which came from the Tor browser. Some info here:

https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/firefox-fpi

My biggest issue with containers is how to properly containerize Google itself. There are so many Google properties that are major parts of the web (many under the Google.com subdomain) that its the only major site I have left to no container by default.

One thing that might help is the DeCentralEyes add on. Basically a local cdn of commonly centralized downloads.

https://decentraleyes.org/

I still think that "container tabs" shouldn't need to exist. They fail the "grandma test", for one.

Sure. Might be nice to have an adblocker-style filter that says what domains should be considered a single origin, plug that into containers.

Container tabs has that feature built in, you can say that google.com and youtube.com always automatically should open in the same container.

It's still too difficult and cumbersome to use. I might want to have one tab with gmail signed in but another to make anonymous searches on Google, both are on google domains so i have to manually fiddle with the containers again. Then you click a link in an email or search result and you don't really know if this tab should be in the mail-container, in the default container or in the domain-matched container.

I know that feature is there, I was thinking that there could be a maintained list of domain groups you could subscribe to like filterlists. That way you wouldn't have to wait for a Facebook Container addon and a Google Container addon &c.

They're working on native first party isolation, but it breaks authentication via Facebook/Google/other OAuth vendors.

It's a tough problem, and I agree the grandma test is a good standard, sometimes it can't be easily done.

It is funny how people have wildly different experiences. I mainly use firefox on MacOS, use Safari and chrome daily, but a tenth as much. I find firefox to be the best in every way, except maybe battery where safari wins. But I don't even notice that.

Well, people's experience of performance may to some extent be subjective or dependent on hardware. But the two problems I mentioned (very poor search box suggestions, and lack of native form controls) are objectively true. Maybe you just don't care about them. For me, going back to Firefox from Safari (or Chrome for that matter) is a step down in UX.

The facts might be objectively true, but not that they're a problem. I do not want domain names suggested by the browser. If I'm intending to go directly to a domain, I'll type it in.

I think you misunderstood my example. It doesn't autocomplete domain names, it shows search results. For example, type "Hacker" and the top match might be Hacker News. Type Newton and the top hit might be the Wikipedia page for Isaac Newton. And so on. Safari searches in a bunch of sources, not just Google.

Firefox, on the other hand, only shows you searches. It might offer "Isaac Newton" as a search suggestion, but that just triggers a search. It has no knowledge of other sources of information (beyond bookmarks and history).

I have terrible results with mobile safari suggesting items from my bookmarks. I constantly try to go to reddit and get auto completion of a different website that starts with ‘re’, repeatedly. I’ve tried to combat this to no avail.

> Container tabs are a similarly interesting idea with a weird implementation that requires you to micromanage your tabs, which I certainly don't want to, and provides a "techie" solution to something that should just be invisible and default (i.e. all web sites should be "contained").

All websites contained would be an interesting default. With ways to “re-open current tab in container [X]” and “merge current tab with container [Y],” it would involve less micromanaging. That’s still not invisible, the container process and UX warrants plenty of thought.

I think container tabs conflates several things that won't be understandable to non-techies. One is privacy — preventing sites from abusing cross-site concerns such as cookies for tracking.

The other is what could be described as "focus" or "modality". A lot of people use windows as a poor man's workspace. For example, if I'm researching where to travel, I'll have a window open with tons of tabs — Google Flights, Kayak, Tripadvisor, Booking.com, all jammed into one "workspace". If I'm comparison shopping for one specific thing, there'd be Amazon, Jet, Etsy, eBay, etc. This is how people tend to work: Windows separate modes, tabs separate units of focus within that mode. And yet there's no browser that supports such a way of working. We have to accept that people now "live" within the Internet, and need to support different modes. Rather than think of the browser as a shell, why not think of the browser as a world in which you can open up different types of interacting with that world? For example, a Google Doc tab is not something that works very well as a tab. It's a document, representing its own modality. Slack is an app, also its own modality. A "workspace" is something else again. And so on. These are all "applications" in a classical sense, yet work within the context of a user.

I'm not suggesting a ChromeOS, just that what we think of as "the web" could be rethought in terms of different variations — ways to work — with the same thing.

Also, in terms of privacy, why are we still using cookies? Why are we "logging in" and "logging out" of web sites and having password managers that automatically fill out form fields? Why can't the web site negotiate its session with the browser ("I want an identity for gmail.com, please give me one"), which can already know who I am?

You probably have search suggestions in firefox turned off (they may be off by default?).

Works for me when I flip it on https://i.stack.imgur.com/0ZfvX.png . I keep it off because I don't like having my every keystroke in the address bar sent to Google.

No, I don't. You and other commenters are clearly unfamiliar with what Safari can do. I collected a few examples:

https://imgur.com/a/dY2SWKB

Firefox only does search suggestions. In other words, anything you select from the suggestions just go to search results. Safari does that, too, but it also provides actual results. Very often the top hit is the right thing.

I keep finding myself idly wondering... how hard would it _really_ be to write my own modern browser?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you dislike about container tabs.

For me, I find them very useful. It's convenient, for example, to be able to have two side-by-side Gmail tabs open. e.g. one for work email, and one for personal email.

As I commented elsewhere, they don't pass the "grandma test". They're a techie's solution to a problem that shouldn't really exist in the first place, if we'd got "logins" and privacy and so on right.

How many non-expert users actually want to be logged into multiple accounts on the same website at a time? Work + home email is the only use case that comes to mind, and Gmail at least has support for that built in.

I guess I don't see why everything has to pass the grandma test.

But I do see your point that they shouldn't be necessary.

In Firefox preferences, you can change the address bar's suggestions to list history/bookmark matches before search suggestions Or to remove search suggestions altogether.

Yes, but that still does not get you what Safari does.