Slashdot Log In
Mozilla Labs' "Ubiquity" Helps Automate Web Interactions
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Aug 27, 2008 02:40 PM
from the a-few-seconds-times-several-million-users dept.
from the a-few-seconds-times-several-million-users dept.
Martin writes "Mozilla Labs have released a prototype version of the Firefox add-on Ubiquity. It is basically Launchy (the application launcher) for Firefox with the difference that Ubiquity makes use of web APIs and the Firefox browser. The official website contains examples, a command list, information about creating your own commands and of course the Ubiquity extension that is compatible with Firefox 3.x. Ubiquity can pull and send data to various services like Twitter, display, find and embed Google Maps, perform searches, write emails, add entries to the calendar, digg stories and more."
Related Stories
Submission: Mozilla Labs Ubiquity by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Familiar name (Score:5, Informative)
I thought I'd heard this name before. [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep. That name's almost...ubiquitous.
Re:Familiar name (Score:4, Funny)
they should change the name to Phoenix
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They have already responded to this point [getsatisfaction.com].
Danger ? (Score:3, Interesting)
So correct me if I am wrong, but could the Black hats write something that could hijack this? Suddenly I am seeing bogus emails going out to my credit card companies, etc..
Re:Danger ? (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox has a security framework in place which is designed to prevent web pages from being able to manipulate the browser chrome (aka javascript code, UI, etc). So on the firefox level, pages can't access any add-on code to begin with. Up until recently pages could reference scripts or other chrome documents as urls but I believe this has been fixed in Firefox 3. The only possible exploits now would be if ubiquity explicitly registered javascript commands for any web pages to use to interact with ubiquity, and I don't believe there are any (actually ubiquity works exactly the opposite way, the user calls up ubiquity to interact with web page contents, not the other way around).
My understanding of the behind the scenes stuff in Firefox is rudimentary at best, so don't take my word for it. Mozilla has tons of documentation [mozilla.org] on their site.
Parent
Quicksilver for the browser (Score:5, Informative)
This is very handy - especially since it's much easier to code up a Ubiquity command than a ful fledged Firefox plugin. And the fact that it's interactive differentiates it from Greasemonkey.
Ubiquity XForms (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting choice of name, given that IBM recently announced Ubiquity XForms [google.com], a 100% AJAX implementation of XForms which lets web application authors to use markup to control DOJO and YUI and other libraries, and which runs in Firefox, IE, Safari, and Opera.
oh the fun (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It will just be a few Adams, Allen and Anderson that will get upset, the rest would be outside the 140 character per tweet limit.
the other twitter? (Score:2)
It will just be a few Adams, Allen and Anderson that will get upset, the rest would be outside the 140 character per tweet limit.
If only twitter, Erris, and the rest of the gang [slashdot.org] could stay in the 140-char limit once in a while.
Re:the other twitter? (Score:4, Funny)
Really, I'm getting a bit tired of the comments on the 140-character limit that Twitter imposes. The idea behind the limit is something tha
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The list was cut off at 140 characters, and only people whose last names begin with A were listed.
Linux support very third rate at present (Score:3, Interesting)
(2)Those of Linux/Firefox + ubiguity with less/no money who don't pay the browser/OS/soc network but still have their online life lived for them, so they can live in the real world
First we need decent support for Linux in Ubiquity, which doesn't seem to be immediately forthcoming. They can't seem to decide on a toolkit to use for their transparent popup window a la Mac and Windows, so those of us using a free system are, for the time being, without many of Ubiquity's features. Since I'm not going to chang
Not sure what to think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the examples seem nice, but I'm not quite convinced. How is this substantially different from the various site-specific Firefox extensions, like the kind Flock uses to help you integrate Flikr photos with your blog?
I'm the sort that is always conflicted about whether I really want my browser to be a web-application platform or I'd rather keep it as a plain document viewer. The latter seems safer and more efficient for a lot of things, but here I am posting on Slashdot, and webforms already make it more than a passive viewing application. But anyway this sort of thing exacerbates the tension for me because I can't quite figure out what new direction the devs are pushing the browser towards.
Don't we hit a point where we take a step back and ask, "What are we really trying to do here?" and then build a system for that purpose? If we want to standardize web application interaction, then it makes me want to ask: Should we really be trying to rebuild the browser to use the backwards hacks that people are currently using to make web applications, or do we want to build a new web application framework and a new sort of web-application platform built for that purpose? Must we squeeze everything into the web browser?
But I might just have a mental block on what they're trying to do. And besides, they're only claiming to have made an experimental prototype/tech-demo, so I guess there's no point in getting into a huff.
Now, someone tell me that I don't understand what the Internet is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the sort that is always conflicted about whether I really want my browser to be a web-application platform or I'd rather keep it as a plain document viewer
Why not have both? Provide a simple interface by default and add optional features which people can turn on if they want them.
I think choice is a good thing and there is no single interface which appeals to everyone.
I would use this new interface, because it appeals to me. You wouldn't. Where's the conflict?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so much talking about the interface, but the functionality. It's just that we started with what was essentially a static HTML viewer, and now we have an application framework, and this new development by Mozilla suggests that they're aiming toward having the browser be a whole platform where web applications can integrate and interact.
And that's cool and all, but something about it is unsettling to me. I don't expect that convince anyone of anything; I'm just voicing an opinion. I think I'd feel
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suppose that's part of what prompted my posts here. There seems to be an attempt here to bypass the websites' interfaces in favor of getting to the bare functionality, but for me this just raises a lot of other questions and ideas.
The basic weirdness it raises is, if you're setting up your web browser to bypass HTML and CSS and access/manipulate the data more directly, using HTML as only semantic markup and not a display markup, then it seems like the web browser has transitioned into a different
Re: (Score:2)
have your cake and eat it too
firefox -P viewer | minimal interface streamlined for viewing pages (fussion, compact menu, menu editor, etc)
firefox -P webapp | (shit loads of mashup and site extentions, runs slower but gets what you need to do one faster)
firefox -P porn | probably a mix of the above
Re:Not sure what to think... (Score:5, Interesting)
My own view on this would be that a browser should help me in trying to reach/dispense 'information' with the least steps possible.
I just wonder sometimes why everything needs to be done in the browser.
It reminds me of one of their other experiments, Snowl [mozilla.com]. We used to have the newsgroups using its own protocol and application, and then that got replaced with forum web applications. Then that forum and weblog software started adding support for RSS so you could grab the feed and dispense with the defined UI. So then with Snowl it seems like they're essentially allowing you to treat the feeds like threads and reply directly-- and it suddenly made me wonder whether we're essentially returning full-circle to newsgroups, but using different protocols.
I don't have any real objections to the development, but there's been this general push to put everything into web applications, including e-mail, chat, discussion, and office applications. But then it seems like some of these browser experiments and extensions are being created specifically because we don't want to deal with websites. And that makes a certain amount of sense to me, because I'm the sort of user that much prefers to use a local IMAP client than webmail, and prefers to use a RSS reader separate from my browser, but the whole progression just seems a little weird and unplanned.
I'm half expecting people to declare IMAP to be obsolete in a new age of webmail, and then turn around in 5 years and build a complete e-mail client extension into the browser using XML to pass e-mail around, but no HTML for the interface. To me, the whole web application took a funny turn when I realized that Google Reader also published RSS, thereby allowing you to view their web-app RSS reader in a client-end RSS reader application.
It all make me wondering whether we might want to aim for a future without websites. Maybe not the complete end, but here's what I'm really starting to wonder: when I want to check the Wikipedia 10 years from now, will I be opening a web browser and typing "http://wikipedia.org"? Will the Wikipedia even bother to offer an HTML version? Or will they just have some database of articles with a pre-set API, and I'll be able to query the database for information from any number of applications, depending on the platform I'm using and the purpose of my query.
And then if that's the case, someone will have to develop a generalized viewer for these queries which would follow certain display specifications, and you'll end up with the reinvention of the web browser.
Blah. Sorry, I know this is kind of an aimless rant. But these Mozilla experiments do funny things to my head.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of the tools. With RSS, you only need a web server. Web server hosting is and was cheap. A news server on the other hand? I don't even know how to set one up. Can I host a news server on Dreamhost or some other $10/mo hosting company? So even if the functionality is the same, HTTP-based technologies usually win because of the available tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and I understand that. There's also an issue of accessibility-- not in terms of accessibility for disabled people, but if I'm using some random computer, I can point the browser to something more easily and readily than I can set up a news reader. Maybe that's not "accessibility" but rather "portability". Whatever you want to call it, it does seem to be an advantage of web applications. They're also inherently cross-platform.
But it keeps striking me that I really don't like web applications. Reg
Re: (Score:2)
I'm half expecting people to declare IMAP to be obsolete in a new age of webmail, and then turn around in 5 years and build a complete e-mail client extension into the browser using XML to pass e-mail around, but no HTML for the interface. To me, the whole web application took a funny turn when I realized that Google Reader also published RSS, thereby allowing you to view their web-app RSS reader in a client-end RSS reader application.
I think you are dead-on. It would not surprise me at all if this, perverse as it seems now, comes to pass in some form or another.
I wonder if all software and systems await similar fates or if there have been any theoretical results on this topic? There does seem to be a tension between the power of a tool and the ability for a tool to interact with other tools that do different jobs. Much of the early success of the web was, in my opinion, due to the fact that you didn't need a separate program for viewing
Re: (Score:2)
I'm half expecting people to declare IMAP to be obsolete in a new age of webmail, and then turn around in 5 years and build a complete e-mail client extension into the browser using XML to pass e-mail around, but no HTML for the interface.
This exists (sort of.) Using Outlook with RPC over HTTPS you're connecting via Outlook Web Access (the Exchange webmail server) It's a pretty nice feature since it allows traveling mail users to get their mail without requiring a separate VPN connection. HTTPS traffic is allowed through most outbound connections (e.g. crazy locked-down customer sites, free WiFi, home ISPs that block outbound TCP/25) which is why I think you're seeing a move to re-implementing existing protocols in HTTP (a kludge no doubt, t
Re: (Score:2)
ZOMG FF3 KILLER CLI (Score:3, Insightful)
This entire article reads as if the new FF extension at least solves world hunger and maybe even provides world peace. It's a command line interface that pops up in some black dialog box, where you can type commands instead of pointing and clicking with a mouse. It's great, but users will have to learn those commands, won't they?
Re:ZOMG FF3 KILLER CLI (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just typing in 'email' may not seem like its of much value, if gmail is just a ctrl click away, but think about this command
email this to george
That command would take 'this' (the currently selected text), open up gmail and insert it into the body with the to field set to the best match it can find for george in your address book.
The next step of course is to add support for other email clients as well, both those on the web and those that live on the desktop. It's not there yet, but there's definitely a lo
Re: (Score:2)
It's great, but users will have to learn those commands, won't they?
They should be able to define their own name for a command which makes learning it much easier.
Bloat (Score:2)
Wasn't Firefox supposed to be the anti-bloat fork of SeaMonkey? Are we going to have another fork in another year that's the anti-bloat version of Firefox?
Re: (Score:2)
Are we going to have another fork in another year that's the anti-bloat version of Firefox?
I dub thee WaterWeasel.
Not user-centric (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a classic case of "because we can build it"-based design instead of "what problems can we solve for users"-based design.
Re:Not user-centric (Score:5, Informative)
This is a classic case of "because we can build it"-based design instead of "what problems can we solve for users"-based design.
Definitely disagree with you. I only installed it today and its immediately become part of my workflow. Its best to think of it as a way of pulling information into a page that wasn't there to start with as opposed to a 'web interaction automator' or the 'net command line' some sites have labeled it as. For example it provides translation directly onto a page without having to run it through a new translator - so it all feels like functionality that should have been there to start with - rather than some nifty toy. They've actually thought it through based on existing products. For example quicksilver/gnome-do style things have really taken off with a + combo - so a + combo feels very natural. And because it allows you to use language like 'this' it makes sense.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to open source where the number of contributors and not the number of users is a measure of success.
Re: (Score:2)
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/08/httpbryceharrin.html [linuxtoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Looks more like a classic case of "let's slam the thing in question without even bothering to read the fine article" to me...
Re: (Score:2)
I not only read the article, I also even tried out the software for a day or so. (Several days ago.)
Looks more like a classic case of "let's assume someone is ignorant, simply because we don't agree with them" to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you're wrong. I am quite familiar with who they are, as well as who their parents might be.
I also happen to think that most of their work which adds text-based interfaces to existing tools is not exemplary.
Not Launchy (Score:3, Informative)
Ubiquity's pedigree is MUCH older, going all the way back to the Canon Cat [wikipedia.org] and the late Jef Raskin's [wikipedia.org] idea of The Humane Interface [raskincenter.org], this being a subset closer related to The Humane Editor and Aza Raskin's Enso [humanized.com].
The Humane Interface is, in fact, an entire rethinking of human computer interaction, restructured around what Cognitive Science has to say about human mental capabilities instead of a strange, cobbled together desktop metaphor and separate applications.
Interesting (Score:2)
Installed, and quickly created my own plug-in. (Score:2)
I installed it today, and decided to quickly create my own useful plug-in for it: ROT-13 Encoder/Decoder [me.com].
One of the nice things about Ubiquity for anyone here who hasn't tried it is that it can modify the content of a website. As such, you can use my ROT-13 plug-in to decode the following text in-place (just as I'm using it to encode it in-place):
It's the ability to actually modify pages which makes this a bit more interesting.
Yaz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I was saying above, it's working fine for me on Fedora 9 x86_64.
I don't see the "enter key" problem the OP was referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Works for me, Hardy + ff3.0.1
It is a 0.1 release though so bound to be buggy.
Re:No Linux.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's working fine for me on Fedora 9 x86_64.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It is. There's also a browser called epiphany, as well as a kid's educational game called epiphany- so you have to issue "apt-get install epiphany-browser" to get the browser on Ubuntu.
These browsers need to stop repeating names.