According to Ajaxian, the beloved tradition of learning by peeking at someone else’s source code is on the brink of extinction. Because Google is rewarding websites that load faster, people will stop at nothing to look good in the big G’s eyes, including code compression and more notably, obfuscation. This renders View Source useless.
While I feel it’s too early to call doomsday on View Source because of such speculation, like many I feel protective over it. It’s no surprise then that the Save View Source movement has been formed this early. The discussion is sparse, but Alex Russell elegantly explains why View Source matters, also reminding me why I love developing on the Web:
View-source provides a powerful catalyst to creating a culture of shared learning and learning-by-doing, which in turn helps formulate a mental model of the relationship between input and output faster. Web developers get started by taking some code, pasting it into a file, saving, loading it in a browser and hitting ctrl-r. Web developers switch between editor and browser between even the most minor changes. This is a stark contrast with technologies that impose a compilation step where the process of seeing what was done requires an intermediate step. In other words, immediacy of output helps build an understanding of how the system will behave, and ctrl-r becomes a seductive and productive way for developers to accelerate their learning in the copy-paste-tweak loop.
Even in compiling languages people learn better by looking at example code, but the culture of open learning can be felt strongest on the Web. Ajaxian posts a follow-up, in which I couldn’t agree more with this:
I personally feel like the ability to view source fit in perfectly with the culture of the Web, and was especially important early on. I am willing to bet that we have all learned from the notion of view source.
The freedom of access to tons of information on the Web is what it all boils down to. View Source is a sturdy consequence of that. It seems wrong to compare performance versus learning, but between those two, learning should prevail.
Then again, who can stand in the way of site owners desperate to turn up traffic and profit? Sounds like standards versus SEO all over again. What do you think—is the Save View Source movement an overreaction or a preemptive strike?
I’ll get straight to my answer: very.
More specifically, I’m quite excited about what this league is doing for a branch of typography which seems almost mythical. We know about paid fonts and free fonts, but what’s buzzing big right now is the use of fonts on the web with the emergence of @font-face embedding, webfonts, and services like TypeKit. But what about usage and modification of fonts in general?
The open source debate is always tricky when creative works are in question, but the case shouldn’t be different for typefaces. The League is going beyond that debate, but still has some tough questions to be answered:
Is open source typography important enough to fight for? Are we all brave enough to do something to change the status quo? Is the status quo okay, do we really need to change anything at all?
What is the status quo? If this 3-year old post is any indication, it looks like a sleepy town that needs some jazzing up. The Open Font Library is more closely linked to the open source software community than with the open source design community, but they mentioned Lettercase being a Github-like tool, so it looks like they’re taking steps towards that already.
Should we fight for open source typography and change the status quo? It could potentially compete alongside the hosted font embedding services and create a fine alternative for web designers using custom web fonts. Options are good.
Sound off with your thoughts there!
It’s not just about net neutrality or privacy anymore. Our future internet could be the very opposite of what it is today—free—specifically due to companies dominating their markets and the constant push to simplify the user experience.
Tim O’Reilly predicts a war is coming, one where we are at the mercy of the internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple: they stop making the services we are so highly dependent on interoperable.
It could be that everyone will figure out how to play nicely with each other, and we’ll see a continuation of the interoperable web model we’ve enjoyed for the past two decades. But I’m betting that things are going to get ugly. We’re heading into a war for control of the web. And in the end, it’s more than that, it’s a war against the web as an interoperable platform. Instead, we’re facing the prospect of Facebook as the platform, Apple as the platform, Google as the platform, Amazon as the platform, where big companies slug it out until one is king of the hill.
Chris Messina fears something similar as well: the death of the URL, as new formats for delivering web content are abstracting the website-going experience and letting ourselves relinquish control.
By removing our ability to navigate, choose, and share freely — these app stores are exchanging our freedom for a promise that they’ll keep us safe, give us everything we need, and do all the choosing of what’s “good enough” for us — all starting at ninety-nine cents a hit.
I know that if we always look at things with a worst case scenario in mind, we’ll never get any work done from here on out. But better to worry now than when it becomes impossible to undo things. I like how the Web is now, no matter how chaotic and crap-filled it can be.
That said, if the URL disappears, I know few people would be troubled by it, and an overhaul of the system may be needed anyway.
And as for the giants bullying us into a corner, it makes me wish the Long Tail would stand a chance.
Philipp Lensen of Google Blogoscope shares a comic about Google’s open source web browser called Chrome. TechCrunch has posted leaked screenshots too. I suggest you read all those links as they explain very nicely the many, many features Google Chrome has, then try it out for yourself.
With all the revolutionary new features planned for this web browser, do the rest of the factions of the more-than-a-decade-long Browser Wars stand a chance? Let me run through several points that may or may not convince you that the ‘Wars are over:
Reworking web browser concepts
“Chrome”. Google Chrome is so named because the developers wanted to weed out all the unnecessary interface elements that get in the way of an optimal user experience. Google is pretty good at this—see Gmail.
Omnibox. I’ve complained about this before. We have too many blank bars in our browsers, why not stick to just one? Combining the ambitiousness of Firefox 3’s “AwesomeBar”, search keyword shortcuts, and Google’s mighty search engine, users might not need any other button in the toolbar.
Independent tabs and sandboxing. Chrome runs tabs as separate processes to isolate any unruly behavior, whether it’s a memory leak or malicious code.
Using Google’s assets
Webpage testing. Google will use its large—an understatement—collection of crawled websites to test if their browser is working properly on them. It will prioritize by popularity to be efficient in testing the millions, billions, and trillions of pages, of course.
Search and anti-phishing. I’ve mentioned the Omnibox. Google will incorporate its search into the singular browser bar to make finding websites a breeze. (I think AwesomeBar sounds better though.) And since Google is a pretty good keeper of blacklisted sites, Chrome also detects when a website is potentially harmful.
Google Gears. Another obvious move. Google Gears was created to make web browsing more responsive and efficient by linking together the online and offline, so it’s mandatory for Chrome to incorporate this feature.
Inspired by the best of other worlds
WebKit. WebKit is possibly the fastest and smartest browser rendering engine out there. It powers Safari and several Mac OS X applications, as well as Google Android and now Google Chrome.
Privacy Mode. Microsoft is set to introduce a history-free, cookie-free browsing feature in Internet Explorer 8 called InPrivate (though everyone else calls it “porn mode”). Now Google follows suit with “incognito browsing”.
Better JavaScript performance. Mozilla recently announced it was able to dramatically improve JavaScript loading by up to 37.5 times, a feature coming to Firefox 3.1. (Another comparable feature to Firefox is the previously-mentioned Omnibox.)
Speed Dial. Opera has sported this feature since version 9.2.
On to the questions…
Why? My answer? Because they can. Google’s answer? Watch it here. Google is the epitome of a Web 2.0 company, having revolutionized search, then e-mail, then every other activity that can be done online. It rehashed old elements of the Internet, and doing so on a browser feels like a natural extension of their work.
Does Google Chrome comply with Web Standards? Since Chrome is going to run on WebKit, can we trust that we won’t have to debug for yet another browser? Unfortunately, it failed the ACID3 test (which, on the other hand, Safari passed in version 3.2.1).
Will Google end its “search bar relationship” with Firefox and other browsers? Now that Google has its own browser, does it still need to push for the search bar feature in browsers like Firefox, IE, and Safari? Probably not. But most users will still use Google—the search engine—one way or the other. And if you’ve watched the video linked above, Sergey Brin says the general goal is to get people to use “alternative” browsers such as Firefox. (Of course, assuming that Firefox and Chrome remain minor players in the game.)
Is this a milestone in web browser history? Put another way, is this the best thing since tabbed browsing? I can’t really answer a resounding yes. Web browsers must pay attention to detail and reduce bloat—it’s a difficult balance. Google Chrome is a lean browser that contains only a few notable features. We’ll have to wait for a few more releases to see where they’re going with this.
Do you trust Google to browse in its browser? Between a proof-of-concept security flaw discovered hours after the browser’s release and a questionable (but recently modified) license agreement, are you confident in using yet another Google product? This is perhaps the biggest question of all.
It is bound to happen, the Google Web Browser that is. For a company so focused on delivering online applications that compete with the old desktop variant, a reliable browser and the direct connection with the users it offers just sounds like the obvious choice.
So where is the Google Web Browser?
Some might say that Firefox is the closest to the Google Web Browser we’re getting, and that may be true, although a bit simplified. Sure, there’s a Google search toolbar installed per default, but the same goes for Safari, you know. Problem with the latter is that it sucks in Gmail, for instance, which isn’t acceptable since that’s probably the most used Google web application out there, right?
So why should Google do their own web browser? more
