PDA

View Full Version : Inquisitor-like feature?


akatsuki
2006-08-01, 06:53 AM
Since Dave Watanabe has specifically said he will not port Inquisitor to OmniWeb, any chance of a similar feature being programmed into OmniWeb? Seems like a natural evolution of search...

jphaag
2006-08-03, 12:34 PM
Ding to that.

This is a sort of killer feature for me (like the visual tabs of OW) that makes me want to switch browsers.

Len Case
2006-08-03, 08:47 PM
We used to have a really great search feature in OmniWeb 3, but we found it hard to maintain in the face of changing websites.

I am not exactly sure how Inquisitor works--perhaps someone could describe it more fully.

akatsuki
2006-08-04, 07:05 AM
Perhaps the easiest way is to just see it in action: it is a livesearch functionality that queries a search engine and then displays the results much like spotlight:

http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/

Jon Hicks
2006-08-04, 12:44 PM
The key feature is instant search results, showing the top 3 or 5 results without even going to a interim search page.

But what I really love about Inquisitor is that it presents the list of possible search engines as soon as you start typing. Using the down key to select a different search engine to the default is so much quicker than having to click the magnifying glass icon and select one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hicksdesign/113682209/

It can also auto-complete your search query, which doesn't always work well:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hicksdesign/93703138/

That part is more like Safari's autocomplete than Omniwebs.

But yes, this feature, combined with Omniweb's own easy-add search engine functionality would be great!

troyb
2006-08-08, 08:42 PM
I'm curious, do people really like the automatic search results popping up or just the easy access to the list of available search engines? ... or is it the combination of both.

Jon Hicks
2006-08-08, 11:25 PM
Its both for me. Also it has to be said that its a beautiful OS X style UI, and a bit of eye candy always helps!

superjoppe
2006-08-09, 01:18 PM
The result I want is often in top5, so Inquisitor is very good for me.
For example I write "Skype forum" and it directly tells me the url.
This is much better than go to google and search and then take mouse and click the link, or just guess the url which doesnt seem to work for me often.

vamp07
2006-08-12, 12:51 PM
Since Dave Watanabe has specifically said he will not port Inquisitor to OmniWeb, any chance of a similar feature being programmed into OmniWeb? Seems like a natural evolution of search...


Why won't he port it to OmniWeb? I just bout Inquisitor this week.

Jon Hicks
2006-08-12, 02:17 PM
Why won't he port it to OmniWeb? I just bout Inquisitor this week.

He doesn't feel it's worth the work, with Omniweb's small user base. I know I talk up Omniweb quite a bit on my blog, but it barely ever shows up in site stats. Safari (28%), Camino (3%), and if Omniweb does ever show up, its in the less than 1% category. I guess the market for those of us that are prepared to pay for a browser is small.

From his own comments, its sounds as if David even regrets spending the time on getting it work in Camino. It is shame though. I assume that it wouldn't take much to port it, seeing as it is another Cocoa app. I've even offered money, but the answer was a definite no. :(

akatsuki
2006-08-12, 02:52 PM
For the most part Omniweb to me has three features that make it interesting. Site prefs, tabs and the shortcut bookmarks. All are available through plugins for Safari (albeit the tabs are not as good.)

It is missing FAYT, external RSS reader subscribing, option-downloading, searching in a new tab, and some other features present or available in Safari.

Given the trade-off of features, it seems hard to justify paying for the browser necessarily. I have been using Omniweb during the beta phase to see whether it is really worth paying for, and I am still on the fence. So I suggested this feature as something that is out there, that people are willing to pay for, and that will not be made available to OmniWeb any other way...

Jon Hicks
2006-08-12, 11:25 PM
For the most part Omniweb to me has three features that make it interesting. Site prefs, tabs and the shortcut bookmarks. All are available through plugins for Safari (albeit the tabs are not as good.)

It is missing FAYT, external RSS reader subscribing, option-downloading, searching in a new tab, and some other features present or available in Safari.

Given the trade-off of features, it seems hard to justify paying for the browser necessarily. I have been using Omniweb during the beta phase to see whether it is really worth paying for, and I am still on the fence. So I suggested this feature as something that is out there, that people are willing to pay for, and that will not be made available to OmniWeb any other way...

I do know what you mean, it particularly irks me that Omniweb doesn't have FAYT (but I believe its coming). However it does have option downloading. I would say to make sure that you used Workspaces, the Zoomed text editor (click the + icon in textfields like the ones on the forum). These are great features that aren't implemented in other browsers, even in plugins like Saft.

Also, the focus on OW 5.5 has been to get the conversion from Web Core to WebKit completed, which was no trivial move, but will set OW up well for the future. While some new features have been implemented (such as custom CSS site preferences) I think OW 6 will focus more on new features and UI improvements.

JKT
2006-08-13, 04:43 AM
FWIW, other browsers can have Workspace-like features (e.g. Safari via Safaristand and Firefox via TabMixPlus) but what they don't have is well-implemented Workspace-like features which makes you actually use them. I believe that it is only the zoomed text editor that is absolutely unique to OmniWeb these days.

akatsuki
2006-08-13, 05:54 AM
I do know what you mean, it particularly irks me that Omniweb doesn't have FAYT (but I believe its coming). However it does have option downloading. I would say to make sure that you used Workspaces, the Zoomed text editor (click the + icon in textfields like the ones on the forum). These are great features that aren't implemented in other browsers, even in plugins like Saft.

Option downloading is inconsistently implemented actually. You can't take a URL and hit option-return to download for example. Much like you can't hold down command in the search field to get a new tab.

I agree that backend changes are important, but in reality they are not things consumers should or need care about. The end functionality should be the consumer's only concern. While I am not even close to saying that 5.5 does not offer sufficient incentives to upgrade, I would suggest that, generally, the work in the backend, while I am sure very involved, is not something that the consumer of the product should pay for unless it provides tangible benefits. Setting up for the future is fine, but reworking a back end from WebCore to WebKit is essentially fixing a choice made earlier by the developers.

To be sure, I find OmniWeb faster, site prefs are great, and there are a lot of things to like about it which is why I am debating about purchasing it. I wish it was compatible with Saft and SafariStand, and other Safari plugins, or better yet, it had Firefox plugin compatibility (I know that will probably never happen).

The Inquisitor feature is something that would add value, as it is a feature you have to pay for on Safari or Camino. I never could bring myself to do so, it is cool, but just not that cool in itself. That is why I suggested it as a feature. I have suggested in other threads features like Trailblazer's history also because I think this would differentiate Omniweb from Safari (visual tabs and workspaces really aren't going to be enough).

So in the end?
1. FAYT
2. Inquisitor-search
3. Trailblazer-like history (OmniWeb is already making the thumbnails)
4. Maybe some Flock like features: del.icio.us integration (actually I would love a browser that replaced its bookmarks entirely with onlin bookmarking)
5. Support for external RSS readers

These are the state of the art is in browser features right now as far as I can tell. Not even futuristic types of requests, and a pay product in a field which is traditionally free should probably be a bit more aggressive in implementing these festures.

Forrest
2006-08-13, 01:14 PM
I agree that backend changes are important, but in reality they are not things consumers should or need care about. The end functionality should be the consumer's only concern. While I am not even close to saying that 5.5 does not offer sufficient incentives to upgrade, I would suggest that, generally, the work in the backend, while I am sure very involved, is not something that the consumer of the product should pay for unless it provides tangible benefits. Setting up for the future is fine, but reworking a back end from WebCore to WebKit is essentially fixing a choice made earlier by the developers.

5.5 is more of an update than upgrade. 5.1 users will not have to pay to get 5.5.

akatsuki
2006-08-13, 05:32 PM
5.5 is more of an update than upgrade. 5.1 users will not have to pay to get 5.5.

Fair enough, I was talking more from the perspective of a prospective new purchaser. I am trying out the betas right now and am on the fence about it. It is really hard to want to spend money on something that, for the most part, can be obtained free. Especially given all the innovation that seems ot be occurring on the Firefox side of things (extensions and Flock) and with Shiira providing FAYT and similar thumbnails (albeit the position at the bottom is quite awful)

Forrest
2006-08-13, 07:09 PM
Fair enough, I was talking more from the perspective of a prospective new purchaser. I am trying out the betas right now and am on the fence about it. It is really hard to want to spend money on something that, for the most part, can be obtained free. Especially given all the innovation that seems ot be occurring on the Firefox side of things (extensions and Flock) and with Shiira providing FAYT and similar thumbnails (albeit the position at the bottom is quite awful)

Keep in mind OW 5 was originally announced in 2003 (barely.) It was publicly available a few months later. Over two years has since passed. In that time, other browsers have come a long quite a bit. The goal of 5.5 has always been to incorporate the new webkit and match the features of 5.1.3 as much as reasonable.

Firefox is still not even close to being as polished as OW. Sure it has some handy features and a few of which aren't available for OW, so I use it alongside OW.

Sure some users will not have a need for the additional features OW has to offer. Great for them. If I were to stumble upon OW today, I'd still buy it. Sure OW could add a bunch more features and make it a better buy for more people. Given time and money, man can live on the sun too ;)

JKT
2006-08-14, 11:54 AM
<snip>Setting up for the future is fine, but reworking a back end from WebCore to WebKit is essentially fixing a choice made earlier by the developers.<snip>
This wasn't much of a choice at the time 5.0 was first released/developed. It was either continue to use their own rendering engine, or use the same rendering engine as Safari and lose all their added extras or modify WebCore and include all the added extras. At the time they made the decision, WebKit was not Open Source or publicly documented which would have prevented OmniGroup from adding the OmniWeb extras as they are doing now. That didn't occur until mid way through last year, IIRC.

That isn't to say that OmniWeb doesn't need to move ahead of the game again, but Saft and Safaristand do not add anything that couldn't be built into the browser itself (and 90% of it is already there anyway).

Handycam
2006-08-16, 09:33 AM
but Saft and Safaristand do not add anything that couldn't be built into the browser itself

Agreed. The only things I miss from Safari (using available add-ons):

-- tidy downloads by date
-- delayed closing of downloads window
-- open "_blank" in new tab instead of new window
-- ability to open new windows empty while still having a "home" page
-- Creammonkey (primarily to use Greased Lightbox)

David Latapie
2006-08-23, 03:09 AM
I'm curious, do people really like the automatic search results popping up or just the easy access to the list of available search engines? ... or is it the combination of both.Additionaly, the recent searches top over top results. Back in the day Inquisitor was free and nag-free (it is no more nag-free, up to the point that I deinstalled it), the reason why I used it was this one. Oftentime, I search for the same thing. Really, the scrolling top result is not my cup of tea.

The could be just a "g <searched terms>" evolution: include recent searches.

PeeM
2008-01-19, 05:04 PM
Yeah i would love to see something similar too...