Preferably on the browser so you could tell websites who you are if you wanted.
Instead of logging in on facebook, gmail, youtube, tumblr etc. you would just log into your browser and if you wanted, let the websites know who you are.
Chrome and firefox are working on something like that, but what I’d want are not different solutions, but a universal one, where I could log in on Chrome, Firefox, IE or a mobile or any other device with my credentials and it would know who I am and log me into websites I let it.
The problem is: who would be the authority for this? I can think of 2 solutions:
A monolithic solution that is the authority that says who you are.
Shared solution that can be installable on servers or trusted to a 3rd party if you don’t want/don’t own server space.
The first solution would be sometghing like the domains and DNS are governed, if I understand how things work. You would login with your username and password to the browser and it would negotiate with this monolithic authority that would confirm to the websites that you are in fact you and not posing as someone else.
The second one would be something you could install on your server or elsewhere, so when you login with your browser, you also give the name of the authentication provider, something like openID but that only gives your user id to the website if you are authenticated and allow it to know who you are, and without all the name, email and other info.
Google Chrome does render fonts with subpixel anti-aliasing but the text looks more jaggy than in other browsers, because it only supports horizontal anti-aliasing.
The jaggies are specially visible on the top and bottom of the curved letters, like S, O and C, while looking fine on the sides of these letters.
Look at the screenshots of some letters with the Georgia font at 48px:
Google Chrome 18.0.1025.100 beta-m - Georgia at 48px
Can you notice the jaggies on the top of the letters in Chrome?
But after a certain font size, Chrome does some other method to render fonts. In Georgia font, that size is 49px:
Google Chrome 18.0.1025.100 beta-m - Georgia at 49px
The letters are no longer jagged!
If we take a closer look, we can see that while it does look better, it’s not using sub-pixel rendering, but monochromatic anti-aliasing for both the vertical and horizontal directions.
Here’s a closer look at the fonts rendered above, amplified at 500%:
Chrome - Georgia 48px @ 500% zoom
Chrome - Georgia 49px @ 500% zoom
Conclusion: for now if you’re using a big font-size for headers or page titles, consider font-size: 49px to get the smooth edges on Chrome, at least until they use subpixel for horizontal + monochrome for vertical anti-aliasing like the other browsers.
Trevor Gilbert clearly does not understand the real issue of this privacy breach, but what made me write this post was this thing he says:
That’s what the Internet is based upon. Trust. Trust in larger technology companies, in the developers, and in each other. Sure, that trust can be breached now and again with less-than-honest developers and profit-obsessed companies. In the view of the larger picture, though, think of all of the services that you use that actually don’t do anything wrong with your data. Yes, they do things without asking your permission. In the end though, they do it to simplify your life.
Since the dawn of tabbed browsing, middle click opens links on a new tab, usually a background tab so you can click a few of them quickly without going back and forth.
If you middle-click a link preview, the little image near the link someone posted, it opens in a background tab like it should, but it also starts the pan mode that usually happens if you middle-click the page background.
This is annoying because its against the standard way that links work and the way we’re used to clicking on links.
Bottom line: if you’re linking to some webpage, showing a preview and making the mouse turn into a hand over the preview, please make it behave like a normal link.
But the link above it, the title of the page is a normal link so it works perfectly.)
Portugal came out in 33rd, up 7 positions since 2010. When you have freedom of speech and press but all the media that can reach to the public is controlled by corporations with political ties, you can feel something smells bad. It’s selective choice. You can switch channels or newspapers but the emphasis stays the same.
Example from TV: The corrupt politicians are allowing the monopolized energy market to rip us even more and we’re telling you that in a 15 second segment, but first here’s a story about a famous football player whose son needs a bone marrow transplant. Don’t worry, we’ll be repeating the story for two weeks and giving it a third of the entire news airtime so you can feel bad about not donating.
Press Freedom Index 2011/2012 – selected countries:
1 – Finland / Norway
28 – United Kingdom
33 – Portugal
39 – Spain
47 – United States of America
61 – Italy
68 – Croatia
70 – Greece
99 – Brazil
142 – Russia
178 – North Korea
179 – Eritrea (last position)
Facebook owns all the content you put there. On Google+ you own the content and they just host it. All that is fine, because you agree to the terms and for the average user it is an easy way to show your photos to friends, family, and even to the whole world if you want.
What I don’t like is that for every social media site you have to upload the pictures and if they’re public they get scattered and repeated throughout the web. If you invested a lot of time into arranging your photos into albums and care about the comments left by your friends, it will be harder to abandon that particular social media site, and while the end of facebook seems imposible in the near future, the history has a tendency of repeating itself, as many impossible-to-fall sites have dissapeared from relevancy.
Another thing that comes into mind is the quality of the uploaded pictures. On facebook, in the beginning the uploaded images were resized to a width of 604 px, then later that changed to 720 px, and up to some six months ago facebook started to support images of up to 2048 px. Now I have many photos I care about that are 604 and 720 px wide and I’d like to upload the full sized ones but I can’t. I mean I can reupload the larger images but then I’d lose all the social life they have – the comments. And that’s what matters the most there, isn’t it? The social interactions between people those photos engaged.
That’s why I’ve stopped relying on facebook for anything other than what it does best: engaging with friends and family, and everything there is small talk.
Another thought, P.S. if you wish:
It’s great that non-technical people can upload pictures of their lives, but what if you want to own your content? I’d love if I could have all my pictures on one place and all the social media sites and services could pull that info to populate albums on their sites with some universal API, and the comments and social reactions would be registered in this one place.
The problem with that approach is: who would be the authority to hold those photos? You could chose a service or do it on your server by installing some script.