Talk:Browser extension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

The Extensions section states that extensions were first introduced in Internet Explorer 5. Browser Helper Objects were, however, introduced in Internet Explorer 4.0[1]. Are they not extensions? (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For our class at the University of Michigan, we are editing this page for our SI 110 course. So far, we have added a line about what programs can be used to create browser extensions and we added an image of the most popular used extension AdBlock Plus. Nhhuq (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I plan to add a table of the top ten most popular extensions for three major browsers: Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Apple Safari. This should give people an idea of the different types of things people commonly use extensions for. GiladGranot (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a section title "Controversy" and briefly described two browser extension removals. Jayneliu (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a little trouble finding how to go back to the previous edits. Anyway, I found that your edited article introduced the reader to what a browser extension was much better than the previously edited article. For example, you described in your first paragraph how browser plugins improve the user interface and by what means they do it in. The unedited version had multiple issues that needed to be fixed - good job on fixing those issues! I also liked that you merged the three sections "plugins," "toolbars," and "privacy" into one section under "functions." That edit made the article easier to read and improved it marginally aesthetically. Furthermore, I found that the addition of "most popular extensions" was a good thing to add since the unedited article was vague when it touched on extensions - it just listed extensions by various browsers and how long each browser supported extensions! Finally, I found that the addition of the "controversies" section did not do much to improve the article. In that section, you only wrote that Google removed two extensions. However, you did not say how removing those extensions was "controversial." Overall, you did a good job on the article! Hrushi11 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has it's good points, but could still use some adjustment. The summary in the introduction was good, and not too lengthy. I don't think the second section should just be "Extensions". That doesn't really help determine what would be in that section, since that's basically the name of the article. It's pretty clearly divided into a past and future of extensions, and a list of popular extensions. Maybe just call it a history? Also, that section could use more references; where did those dates come from? The "Function" section was better, very well balanced and informative, with good references. I did not believe the "Development" or "Controversy" sections added any content. In "Development" the only new idea introduced was about frameworks, but not extensively enough to add anything. I would mention the link in the intro. The "Controversy" section was not informative, or fleshed out enough to justify its own topic; it makes the page less balanced. I think this article was definitely improved from past iterations, but has a little more content than necessary. Ledadaehler (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The introduction should provide a good general understanding of the topic at hand. In this introduction, it vaguely states "extends the functionality ... in some way" and "improve the UI of the web browser." Are there any examples of how extensions improve user experience that could go here that could provide a better concrete understanding while still being brief? Just a suggestion. The idea of the table is a really unique idea. I like how it gives readers a way to relate to extensions they might have on their computer. It gives them an example they are already familiar with to relate with. In the function introductory paragraph, it talks specifically about ad and script blockers, but it isn't very introductory. It's followed by three subheadings that are completely unrelated. Although, the subheadings are nicely developed and I like the links to the main articles too. The development section is also well written and easy to understand. Lastly, I think the controversy is very vague. It should either be expanded on or deleted, I think. Nice see also section and references! Overall, I think this is an extremely helpful article. Nhiggins2013 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Browser Helper Objects: The Browser the Way You Want It".