the 200ok weblog

It's not every day a whole new browser comes out. It's even less common for that new browser to make lead story status in mainstream media outlets*. But today both happened as Google released their browser, Chrome.

Initial impressions are that its 'innovative features' are essentially an amalgam of other browsers; plus it uses bits of Safari, Firefox and IE (settings panel) so it's kind of Frankenstein's browser. But no matter what you think of its pedigree it does feel fast.

[*] Chrome's release was top story news at The Australian and news.com.au, for those of you playing at home. It might have been top story on other sites too, I didn't have time to look around. Standard disclaimer: I work for News Digital Media.

how fast is it?

Precisely how fast it is depends on who you ask. Naturally if you ask Google they'll tell you it's the fastest browser that has ever existed; although they tend to just talk about the Javascript engine rather than overall performance. Google's own Javascript benchmark yields the unsurprising result that Chrome is far quicker than the others.

Let's face facts, companies choose whichever benchmark makes their product look best. Other tests show different results:

• Slickspeed JS Test Results › drewrobinson.id.au. Short version: Opera and Safari win comfortably, Chrome and Firefox are runners up, IE7 loses a lot. I also get cited as an Opera fanboy (it's a long bow to draw).
• PannonRex » Shining Chrome: Browser Speed Tests. Short version: IE's really slow, Chrome narrowly beats the others.

So the only consistent result is that everything is faster than IE. I'm rather partial to Lifehacker: Speed Testing the Latest Web Browsers, where nobody won across the board :)

So, is Chrome fast? Forget the numbers, everyone says it feels fast and that's pretty much what counts at the end of the day. It's more of an emotional measurement. It's quick. Paint it red.

security and rendering flaws

Along with Webkit's benefits, Chrome also inherited its first security flaw: Serious Security Flaw in Google Chrome - ReadWriteWeb. It's not even listed as a product on Secunia yet..!

Interestingly there are also some rendering inconsistencies: Google Chrome vs Safari 3.1 on Flickr (some CSS properties not working, border-radius not anti-aliased...).

privacy controversy

It really was a big first day for Chrome, with the first privacy concerns blogged within hours: Does Google Have Rights to Everything You Send Through Chrome? - ReadWriteWeb. Matt Cutts responds that all is above board: Preventing paranoia: when does Google Chrome talk to Google.com?

Let's cut to the chase. Google can do whatever it wants with any information you enter or reveal while using their products. There is nothing to stop them. So the real question is not can they do it - yes, they can - but do you trust them not to?

Do you trust Google?

odd name

I have to say the name does seem like an odd choice to me. For anyone who didn't know, the interface elements of a browser are called the 'chrome'. So we could end up having to talk about Chrome's chrome at some point.

More to the point though, chrome is generally shiny but non-functional bling; and 'chroming' is another name for petrol or glue sniffing. Neither association seems like something you'd want with your new product. Interestingly, Wikipedia has already been updated to include a reference to 'chroming' meaning 'to browse with Google Chrome'. I didn't realise things like that became canonised in a day, but hey ;)

I guess it's not like Opera, Firefox or Mozilla are the most immediately obvious names anyway (compare that with Navigator, Explorer, Safari - all related to finding things and travelling around). So who's to judge? :)

Anyway, so far I haven't seen an explanation from Google for the name. No doubt it's out there somewhere. Maybe it was buried somewhere in that cartoon (I haven't been able to get through the whole thing, I have to admit).

a bit of fun

Google threw a lot of geeky fun into Chrome. Options are labelled with things like 'stats for nerds'; entering about:internets into the address bar reveals a fun easter egg; and some of the error messages are a bit... unconventional:

OK, so actually I could have lived without my browser saying 'Aw, snap' to me before I had my coffee ;) I do wonder if this sort of geekyness will put off mainstream users - time will tell I guess.

so why is google doing this?

There's heaps of speculation going around regarding Google's motivation for releasing a browser. After all they don't need to do it, since people are having no trouble finding Google as far as I can tell...

I think the explanation probably goes back to a message that was loud and clear at Google Developer Day (literally, they openly said this): Google wants to be synonymous with everything you do on the web.

They want all their services' names to become verbs, I guess ;) Google it. YouTube it.

Basically Google are in a position that's probably unique: the more people use the web, the more money they make (from their ads). Literally, that's as specific as it needs to get for Google. So long as we're online, they make money. I don't think there are any other companies that can say something quite so broad and still be serious.

the google gloss

We'd had the first 'do we support Chrome?' question before we'd had lunch; and it wasn't just the tech staff that were talking about Chrome. People certainly do notice Google products.

Personally, I don't think Chrome is about to sweep the world and take over the entire browser market (that said, anything's possible). There's a big novelty factor right now, but it's not so fundamentally different from any other browser that you simply can't live without it.

It's fast, it's multi-threaded, it has tabs. Umm, just like most other browsers. Even the Wikipedia entry for Chrome is littered with 'like Opera' and 'like Firefox' references. There's even a 'like IE8' in there.

So it's probably not going to cruel the other 'alternative' browsers from the market. I do think it's a legitimate danger to IE though. It's the only other browser from a company the average punter has actually heard of.

Think about that - a lot of alternative and open source products get smashed by FUD tactics. "They're too small", "how do you know it's made properly" and that sort of crap. But it's harder to get that sort of FUD going over a product from a company as widely recognised as Google.

last thoughts

Google might attract conspiracy theorists as fast as geeks, but nobody thinks they're a flash in the pan. People who wouldn't try an open source product like Firefox might just give Chrome a go (they probably won't even notice Chrome's open source). People who've never heard of Opera won't know where they can already get speed dial and top placement of tabs. Lots of things that geeks think about simply won't matter.

I can see a lot of people trying Chrome even though they've always used IE. Quite a few of them will probably like what they see, too. It's a pretty good browser and it'd certainly be new and shiny after years of IE. That, or people will just stick with whatever they're already using, since habits don't change easily.

One thing is for sure - it's going to be interesting to see what happens next.

...

Update 2008.09.07 - It has come to light that Chrome does not support even basic accessibility features in its first release: Google Chrome Accessibility - The Paciello Group Blog. Google has a terrible track record for accessibility, so it's discouraging to see Chrome start badly in this regard.

Obviously it remains to be seen whether accessibility features are incorporated as the browser progresses. A comment at the Paciello Group Blog post suggests that Google do plan to incorporate accessibility features, they just didn't put them into the initial release. Here's hoping that's true.

Labels: browsers, chrome, firefox, google, ie, opera, safari

How would you find information if Google was down for a day? What if it was just gone?

"Google? Gone?" you say, "that's crazy talk, it's impossible!"

But it's not impossible. Google will only retain its market dominance until something better comes along. After that, it will be remembered but never used any more. Just ask Altavista, Lycos, or any other pre-Google search engine.

Now I don't for a moment wish bad things on Google, I just think people should be a little more aware of the fact they use Google without thinking. How else could "Google" become a verb?

Google has achieved ubiquity. Good for them! But is it good for us?

there can be...well lots, actually

Google is a brilliant general search engine, but it's not the only one out there. In fact, brute force searching isn't even the only way to look for information. In some cases, it's probably counter-productive.

Why counter productive? Well for a start people don't search widely. They just hit the first few results on Google and go with the first answer they find. Too bad if it's wrong, or there's relevant information that wasn't obvious from the first page of search results. So many people are getting bad information because they've developed bad search habits. Google's "I feel lucky" button probably didn't help!

You also have to consider that with systems like PageRank you're not necessarily getting accurate information. Millions of people linking to something doesn't mean that it's the best information, it just means it's popular.

You have to ask yourself, do I actually want the masses to filter information for me? What if I'd just prefer to know what my peers think? After all, I know and trust my peers (and their opinion).

trust and information retrieval

You do need to trust the people delivering search results and the people who influence those results. I don't actually know the people at Google so I have no real basis to trust them. I definitely don't know the masses of people whose links are indexed by the Googlebot. So, search in general does not score well on trust - I can only assume I can trust Google, which is a pretty thin level of trust for such a critical tool.

However, I do trust friends and colleagues... and the cool thing is that many of them use social bookmarking systems like del.ico.us and ma.gnolia. So I can actually search the links which they designate "Good Links". I can tap into the tribal hive mind.

besides that...

Besides questions of trust, accuracy or information gatekeeping... I just think people should ask the question: "why do I always use Google?".

I think that people should be reminded to question things, pure and simple. It's probably a hangover from my philosophy degree. Everyone should prove that they don't exist at least once ;)

I'm not saying you can't continue using Google - frankly I know we all will! But we should do so with the awareness that we are trusting a single pathway to information. We are putting all our eggs into the one proverbial basket.

a day without google

So why not try going a whole day without using Google. Where would you start?

• Maybe you know a search engine or two off the top of your head (no Googling for search engines, you at the back). Try Teoma, Ask, etc.
• Maybe you'd hit Technorati and search tagged info.
• Maybe you'd hit a major single resource like Wikipedia.
• Maybe you'd search Technorati and Wikipedia for search engines.
• Maybe you'd hit del.ico.us or ma.gnolia and go the social bookmarks method.
• Maybe you'd hit email, IM or Twitter and ask your friends for recommendations.
• Maybe some people would be really freaky and go to the library. Before the web, there were Libraries; before Google there were librarians...

We don't actually need Google. We're just really used to it. It's good at what it does, but it's not the only one nor is it the only way to access data. Every once in a while, we should try some of the other ways. It's not good to be totally reliant on a single source or pathway to information.

There's every chance that one day, Google will fall. One day, it might not even be there. Stranger things have happened.

Until then, we can gleefully google to our hearts' content... but we shouldn't do it out of ignorance.

Labels: google, information retrieval, pagerank, search, trust

There's an SEO conference coming up shortly which will feature several Google employees. Russ is calling for your input on questions you'd like asked; and Scott has further thoughts:

• Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Our chance to ask Google
• Signals of Quality | Standardzilla

I've already commented fairly heavily at both sites, so I guess this is a meta post :) For reference, my questions (in no particular order):

• Since 301 redirections get you bombed (and longevity is a big factor in pagerank, so new URLs are effectively bombed), is there a way to move a site without losing your pagerank?
• Will Google ever produce valid pages for their own sites? Many standardistas have produced proof of concept versions of Google search for example - standards compliant AND lightweight. Why not use them?
• Do they think Flash will ever be seriously searchable, in a useful manner? Do they think it will be possible? Would they rank Flash content higher or lower than text content?
• Does Google give equal weight to ABBR contents versus spelled-out terms?
• Does Google give additional weight to tags/tagged pages? (...which leads to the next point...)
• Will Google be indexing/weighting microformatted content? What is Google’s view of microformats and their potential benefits to search? If they did support microformats would that also suggest they’d need to pay more attention to semantics?
• I’d also question their views on whether validation is a "signal of quality". In short, if a page validates surely that is an indication that the author/developer has paid close attention to the construction of the site… which would be a signal of quality in my book!

Then from my comments on Standardzilla:

Google: so few websites validate that it isn’t a signal of quality

...incredibly bad logic there. If a site validates at this point in time, it indicates that someone has paid serious attention to the quality of the page. Surely a signal of quality! Maybe they don’t want to open that door since they’d then be admitting that their own pages suck.

Their interest in accessibility is minimal at best. Accessible search is treated as a bit of a curiosity, as far as I can tell. A neat toy produced by someone’s 20%, but that’s about it.

The thing I’ve come to realise about Google is that they do not consider inaction be "doing evil". Despite the tremendous influence they have, they don’t use it to "do good". Personally I think their inaction is a form of doing evil, but that’s just me.

Do you have questions of your own? Head over to Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Our chance to ask Google and make yourself heard!

Labels: don't be evil, google, seo

The latest product of Google labs shows Google managing to do the right thing and the wrong thing at the same time: Google Accessible Search. It's kind of spectacular that Google can produce a search specifically for accessible resources and still not make a best-practice search form or results page.

It's a pity to see Google miss such a great opportunity to prove they understand accessibility. The pages are a mass of tables and font tags just like any other Google product (ok, so the FAQ does at least use semantic tags, even if it skips the DOCTYPE). Then to cap it off, they promote "accessibility" but only talk about vision impairment. A trap for young players, perhaps; but Google is not a young player.

The service does at least show that it is possible to rank accessible sites higher than tag soup; perhaps we should by lobbying Google to add this to their general search. Creating a separate search reinforces the perception that disabled users should be segregated; or that accessibility is somehow incompatible with "normal" sites.

doesn't it work anyway?

Now, I know that Google's search page is so simple that effectively it's probably "accessible enough". Similarly, the results pages are probably usable despite being sloppy markup. The problem is that it's only by accident that these pages are still accessible. If you're doing something wrong, getting away with it doesn't turn it into doing something right.

To really compound the problem, people use Google's non-compliance as "evidence" that accessibility doesn't matter. They say If Google doesn't do it, why should I bother? That's about the time when accessibility advocates think briefly of belting them one, then instead smile and do their best to explain their point of view ;)

do no evil

I have no doubt that individuals at Google understand accessibility and web standards. However Google the corporation can only be judged by its actions.

Google's refusal to use web standards or meet accessibility guidelines helps perpetuate bad practice across the web. Regardless of cute slogans that may have been scribbled on a whiteboard at Google once... through inaction on standards and accessibility, Google does a little evil every day.

Labels: accessibility, don't be evil, google

I've encountered some people who basically don't believe that Google will blacklist a site for dodgy search engine optimisation activities. Boing Boing has posted an article about BMW Germany's site (bmw.de) site being removed from the index for serving entirely different content out to search engines: Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO | Ramping up on international webspam.

Cutts has also posted on how to get back into the index: Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO | Filing a reinclusion request.

I'm still not convinced that Google's new stance won't end up blacklisting or lowering the pagerank of sites with legitimate alternative content. Time will tell, I guess. Not to mention the fact that pagerank is basically a mystery anyway, so who would know?

Labels: google

A timely interview with the Opera CEO can at least stop a few rumours: Slashdot | Opera CEO Jon von Tetzchner Answers Your Questions. Although the questions could have been chosen a little more carefully, it's still an interesting read.

Meanwhile Opera Watch had some fun thinking up the next companies which might buy Opera; and the names they'd have for the browser. Opera Watch: Next company to acquire Opera? | Opera Browser Blog. Yahoopera? Appera? Actually I think Apple would call it iPera.

Labels: google, ie, opera

WSJ.com - The Men Who Came To Dinner, and What They Said About Email. The email (ie. webmail) project leaders for Google, Microsoft and Yahoo got together for a friendly dinner. What did they agree on? Well, Gmail is the clear leader of the beta-version pack; but also they just wish that everyone would use IE and stop hassling them: The men reported similar pressures: cranky users of Web browsers with tiny market shares demanding that their browsers be supported, while not appreciating how much work is involved.

Here's the thing - some of us do understand how much work is involved... and we still think they should get it right. Remember that we're talking about products and companies with massive budgets and massive userbases. All three companies consider email to be a key factor in obtaining and retaining customers - yet they're unwilling to let those users make a simple choice like which browser to use.

It's an odd aspect to the IT industry... major companies willing to cut out whole segments of their market, just because it's "Too Hard" to cater to them. Applied to another industry it'd look ridiculous - imagine a petrol station turning away anyone who isn't driving a Toyota Camry!

So anyway, it's clear even from a brief paraphrase that these three companies (or at least their email teams) are not keen on standards and resent expectations of cross-browser support. In fact, they look like classic Angry, Acceptance-Averse Application Administrators to me. Old school "it works in my browser so what's the problem" guys. No surprise, of course.

I think it's also about time we started calling companies about this "permanent beta" thing. It's too convenient an excuse - "hey, it's just a beta product, what do you expect?". Sure, but beta for years?

But hey, maybe I'm being too harsh and the final release of Gmail will actually work properly across the board. After all, it's just beta...

Labels: browsers, google, microsoft, permanent beta, web standards, yahoo