Talk:Timeline of web browsers

Archives

Archive 1 mabdul 0=* 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Minimum inclusion criteria

I removed Wyzo whose article is a stub and which is in Alpha development stage. To this point no formal inclusion criteria have been set. I would like to suggest the following:

• Browser is in production release stage
• Wikipedia article is substantive and has several authors
• The browser has a history of at least one year (or it is a platform-specific version of a browser with a history of at least one year).

Those are just some initial thoughts --Mikebrand 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the second of those "Wikipedia article is substantive and has several authors" is sufficient. Indeed, usually on these sorts of articles (such as "List of" articles), simply requiring that it has its own Wikipedia article is sufficient. If the Wikipedia article seems dubious, it should be proposed for AfD. (Note that the Wyzo article now refers to the company, not the browser, so it would no longer be sufficient. It seems unlikely to me that an article only about the browser would survive an AfD.) Mdwh (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Browser

Mosaic & Lynx

This article should include NCSA Mosaic, as it was the most popular graphical web browser in early days, and Lynx, the text browser that was most popular. 132.205.93.63 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to ad them. --Mikebrand 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

is it still open to add lynx? i think its the last browser important enough to be included in the table? Zamadatix (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah why not. mabdul 0=* 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosaics left but we are out of space unless we can remove the mosaic part from the title of netscape in 1994 ro find another way to shrink it. Zamadatix (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just shorten the title to "Mosaic"? Tedickey (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

im not good with browser history but mosaic was around really early and lasted until 1998 and netscape was just built off it (correct me because i know im wrong lol) so wouldnt it make since to shorten it to netscape? Zamadatix (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

or we could jsut make moscaic netscape into two lines *hits hand on head* Zamadatix (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

considering we now have space for one last browser what should it be? Zamadatix (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to add one. the most important browsers are there now! maybe wait until a new is created. mabdul 0=* 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Order?

I think this page is a good idea. Just curious if there was any reasoning behind the order of the columns? It's not chronological, it's not alphabetical, it's also not in order of (current) popularity. I think only chronological makes the most sense. Thoughts? I always thought Netscape came before Opera - can anybody track down the exact dates of v1.0 for each? Can someone also add the other browsers out there (iCab, OmniWeb, etc)?

I also think the SVG timeline is a cool way to see this information (especially all the forking), I just wish the SVG was oriented vertically (with the dates increasing chronologically down the page/image). Jeff schiller 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the order of the columns was haphazard with the browser last added to the table going on the right side. You're chronological ordering is an improvement. --Mikebrand 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the SVG timeline, I have made an attempt at making a timeline illustration as well: User:Fred Bradstadt/Browser timeline. When finished, it might or might not be included in this page. Your comments are welcome --Fred Bradstadt 06:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Move the Position of mac ie so we dont have a blank row?

i was thinking we should move the position of mac ie so we don't have a blank row down the middle of it or maybe replace its column with something which was release after mac ie stopped development.

and maybe even put chrome below Netscape's column to save another row

Last comment was 02:00, 5. Dez. 2008 Zamadatix

so, yeah, I thought the same a few time ago. chrome and netscape would fit very well. but at that moment we had enough space, so i think we should change this only if a new browser is on the party ;) mabdul 0=* 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am editing in my sandbox and expanding the earl years (information of the articles). feel free to use the sandbox at User:Mabdul/sandbox2 mabdul 0=* 01:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be against moving the MacIE column. The columns are sorted by start dates. Also, I would not want to put two browsers in the same column unless one is a descendant of the other. The color scheme changes look good. Regarding splitting the table: I don't see a problem with a very long table as anyone can easily scroll down. At some point it may get too wide and need to be split based on some relevant criteria at that time (current vs unsupported or major vs minor), but at this point the table does not seem too wide for most people's monitors. --Mikebrand (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

anyone mind if i change the color scheme a bit so there are more than 4 colors? Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah thats a good idea. i will change this too! mabdul 0=* 14:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i changed some colors and will work on getting them all different, it should be much easier to edit things this way also. (find and replace in notepad) Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

there are some color false! I expanded the timeline with the 1994-1997, adding ff links and add ns4.8; we should think about splitting this timeline in two or more section, beause it is getting very long!

mabdul 0=* 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

well it is a history of web browsers, i dont think we could split this into 2 without running out of space though; i dont mind how it is now really. what i cant figure otu is where the entry for safari 3.0 is! i tried finding it but i jsut cant and its cell isnt colored properly. Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

i finished changing the color scheme all should be different, if you want to change a color plese do i know some dont look os good but its much easier now since you can use replace all in a text editor.

OK I did it! Chrome went in the NS row and Camino went in the macIE row ... looks better now. mabdul 0=* 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i see the width was a different edit for whatever reason i dont like it now :/. i think i preferred the chronological ordering more actually Zamadatix (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the width was different. of course... but i think it is better now, because for the user that have a smaller screen (800X600) --> you edit your post! i saw the last and was confused now ^^ mabdul 0=* 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

9% of people have less than or equal to 800 x 600 while 57% have less than or equal to 1024 x 768, so with the current article it is to wide for about 60% of people so i think we need ot find a way to make it smaller. i really think we need to remove the new fixed width fo the cells. Zamadatix (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which fixed width you are talking about? it is individual! in opera there is a option called "fit to width" --> then the table is shrinked y the ith of the browser-width! mabdul 0=* 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i mean, for instance, how nothing in the lynx column is wide as its cells and how no matter what the contents all cells are equal length it makes it really wide. Zamadatix (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now i understand! Try to change you're resolution... and check the page again. the content should adapt... mabdul 0=* 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

60% of average internet users monitors arn't made for a resolution above 1024 x 768 and im one of the 6/10 :/ Zamadatix (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the 4 rendering engines?

i don't know if this would be in this article or as a separate one but what about a timeline of the major rendering engines: trident, webkit, gecko, and presto? cosnidering its only 4 if i could dig up the history it wouldn't be hard for me to make. Zamadatix (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh there are already more! there is icab and khtml/webkit! there is two big differences to creating a article: mostly there are no releasedates (exept gecko), version numbers, there isn't a clear difference between layout engine and browser (early years; presto -7; netscape/gecko). I had the same idee, but it isn't easy to make such a timeline... feel free ;) mabdul 0=* 05:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

if i run an old version of windows in a vm i could probably put the old operas on it and get the presto versions for each release btu i couldnt do the same for webkit (i dont have a mac or a good computer capable of emulating a good one. ill try to figure otu some more Zamadatix (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Use the SVG As the Main table?

instead of making a table wouldn't it make more sense and be more logical to use a vertically aligned svg (or just rotate the current one 90 degrees? not only would it be more eye appealing its much more compact and easy to follow, plus the current svg has a lot more information than the table. plus it not only shows time but it also shows where each evolved from and to. Zamadatix (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

you mean like the test-creatin in the section order (the link is given)? try to expand it and make it more user-freindlier than e can change it! mabdul 0=* 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do prefer the SVG over the table for the reasons Zamadatix describes. It think the graphic is fine as is without a need for 90 degree rotation (seems that the text in the graphic would read better in the current horizontal orientation). I haven't found examples of other articles that use a graphic as their primary content. Is there any technical reason not to (such as lack of words to index)? --Mikebrand (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mabdul, what do you mean test creation in section order?

Mikebrand, I imagine the main reason few articles use an image as main content is because not many could really pull off using one, an Wikipedia would complain about a low amount of words (but we have an opening article so I don't think it will be to much of a problem). edit: and I forgot about actually reading the SVG so I wouldn't want to rotate it 90 degrees either now.Zamadatix (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"User:Fred Bradstadt/Browser timeline" I mean this link! in Talk:Timeline of web browsers#Order?.mabdul 0=* 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather just move the current SVG to where the current table is (simpler and easier).

should I change the table for the SVG then? Zamadatix (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of trying it. The only downside I see to the SVG instead of the table is that minor release dates would not be updated, but I don't really see that as a problem. The browser-specific articles are a more appropriate place to document those minor updates as they occur. This Timeline article, I think, would be improved by showing the relationship between browsers as the SVG does. --Mikebrand (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

i did it, it looks much better and too many browsers shouldn't be a problem since they dont add height. i came up with another idea, identifying in way the major changes in the rendeirng engines on the svg to the version somehow. Zamadatix (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

how does one edit the svg??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

eh? richtclickg (edit) source --> every wordpad is able to do this o.O mabdul 0=* 00:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the SVG at full size. It is much more useful than the table. It would be nice to have a scroll bar at the top as the image is so tall than the user must scroll the webpage down to the lower scroll bar, scroll right, then scroll the webpage back up to the see the later years of the browsers depicted at the top of the image. Is it possible to force a scroll bar to appear at the top of the image? --Mikebrand (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

never heard/seen! but that is not our problem. in some implementations you can scrol with you mouse or with the -> - key. there are any options (also buying a bigger screen :p) [pressing f11] or other different things. that isn't really our problem! mabdul 0=* 03:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

the scg is 2000 some odd pixels, less thatn 1% of all people have a monitor that big! i have to agree with mikebrand; it is too hard to navigate on standard computer equipment which is most important. if we rotated the text would be sideways (there isnt much anyway) but it would be much easier to follow the path of a browser than the current setup.

all in all it is important we make it easy to use for the majority of people which is why i think we need to do something about it. Zamadatix (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

i know i can edit in in notepad but what do i do when i have completed changing the code? Zamadatix (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

no! not so editing. there is a svg - code/tag that makes you able to rotate the whole picture as it is! mabdul 0=* 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

im not talking about rotating the image i mean if i edit new info for browsers (such as chrome 1.0 inot the svg) what do i do with the new code i have? Zamadatix (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

eh? what are you talking about? you downloaf the whole svg, read the editor-notes(is in the source-code, also tipps for add/editing new ones) of the svg, and then edit it correctly and the re-upload the corrected version. mabdul 0=* 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you thats all i needed :D

I think that the table and the graphic can co-exist. Recently I have seen the table re-instated by one person (with the graphic unchanged) then edited by another then removed by a third. Different people (contributors and users) are going to have different preferences. As long as both are kept reasonably up to date (meaning at least annual updates to all represented browsers) then I think that having both adds to the article. The graphic gives a better overview while the table gives finer detail for fewer browsers. --Mikebrand (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mikebrand: the graphic is useful for seeing hte evolution but the table is useful for exact dates or an easy references.Zamadatix (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And apparently no one else cares...72.241.130.206 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)