turning off konq extensions by default

Aaron J. Seigo aseigo at kde.org
Sun Jan 9 03:15:04 GMT 2005

On Saturday 08 January 2005 07:07, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> Well, but then they're not really extensions, now are they?  ;-)

implementation detail. =)

> Implementation aside, I think if we're going to turn on certain
> "extensions" by default that they probably shouldn't show up in the
> "extensions" configuration.

why? there's no reason to limit being able to turn them off just because they 
are on by default. that doesn't make much sense. it also, given the 
implementation, would make the code more complex. not likely by much but by 

the three i suggested come straight from supporting people using konqueror in 
real life and on irc
> > 	o the User Agent switcher (quite important for getting the most out of
> > konqi when browsing)
> Possibly, but I think it's currently way too technical.  I think:

the functionally should be there, however it's presented in the end =)

> And even then I'm not completely sold.  I'm not sure that anyone but power
> users thinks, "Hey, this isn't rendering properly -- maybe I should change
> my browser identification..."  The only time I ever think to do it is the
> very rare (for me) case when I get something like, "Your browser is not
> supported."

the recommended action on IRC and in real life is OFTEN to switch the user 
agent and that OFTEN results in things work perfectly. you may not use it, 
but it's something that i get people to do on a regular basis. and once 
learned they often start trying it out on their own when a web site 

i don't need it much myself, but then i don't go to many non-geek, 
non-mainstream-and-therefore-supports-every-browser sites. but it's used a 
lot by users and makes the difference between konqueror not being useful and 
it being useful to them.

if instead i have to suggest they turn the extension on or go into the full 
Configure dialog ... erg ... not so good.

> > 	o HTML settings (prevents users having to deal with the per-domain
> > configuration panel in the Settings dialog)
> Possibly, but I'd say just merge it into Konq proper and put the menu in a
> location that makes more sense anyway...
> But then I'm not really sure that I agree either.  Do most users really
> need to turn these features on and off so often that they should be in the
> menus by default?  Again, committing the terrible sin of using myself as an
> example -- I've never once used these switches.

the use case usually runs something like: the user turns off cookies by 
rejecting the (by default on) cookie question dialog. they then need it. it's 
easiest to get them to select something from the menu that go through the 
full configuration.

a lot of the tools there are very useful and very cool. someone mentioned web 
archiving, for instance, which falls into this category. but they all extend 
Konqueror's functionality, and so are good candidates for being off by 
default, if easily turned on. by contrast the items i listed for inclusion 
make konqueror more usable in one of its primary, basic purposes: browsing 
the web.

Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050108/8ce600d9/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list