SilverPen Goes Mobile With WPTouch

As you may or may not know, I’ve been going ’round about mobile browsing on the web for some time. I was almost convinced once that I had found a mobile solution for my WordPress sites, but it just didn’t work that well. The main problem was caching: WordPress, for those unfamiliar with it, can become bloated pretty easily, which makes loading a site very slow. Using a plugin to cache your pages helps compress them to speed up load time. Unfortunately, sometimes the regular version would be cached and served up to mobile devices, and sometimes the mobile version would be displayed on the desktop. Admittedly, this was more an issue with the caching plugin I use, but if it’s got to be one or the other, caching is necessary and a mobile view is not.

And then I stumbled upon WPTouch. This WordPress plugin came completely out of left field for me. I had been looking, trying out, beta testing, and giving feedback on different mobile solutions for a while before I gave up, but I had never even heard about WPTouch. All of a sudden it was there, I installed it, and it worked. No real configuration needed, no tweaking, no fiddling with cached pages or having the mobile view show up in desktop browsers. Everything Just Worked.

So I’ve been using it for several months now. It’s on both my site and on our work site, and I am confident enough in it to recommend it to you. If you self-host WordPress, there is absolutely no reason your site shouldn’t have a mobile view, and WPTouch provides that free of charge and very simply. Now that I’m finally comfortable with it and settled, I’ll be making a donation to the fine folks at Brave New Code for their great work. Give WPTouch a try, and if it works for you, I encourage you to do the same.

A Bit More About WPTouch

SilverPen Publishing on an iPhone in Mobile Safari

Mobile plugins for WordPress have one primary function: serve up a different theme to cell phones than to regular web browsers. This means that if you visit my site in Firefox on your computer, you see one thing, but if you visit on your iPhone or other smart phone, you’ll see the mobile version. The mobile version is much simpler than the regular one, which makes it much smaller. This means it loads faster, which is important on mobile connections like Edge. Even on 3G, you’ll have significantly faster load times with a mobile version of a site. In addition, text and such is reformatted to fit better on a smaller screen.

The previous plugin I tried, WordPress Mobile Edition, is built on the Carrington framework. Though very shiny, I found it to be too much. It was bigger than necessary, which slowed load times. In addition, it slowed down my site overall. I’m not a programmer and can’t claim to know how, but WordPress Mobile Edition contributed .5-.7 seconds to my site’s load time by itself. Half a second might not seem like much, but it can make a lot of difference in perception of a site’s functionality and reliability.

WPTouch doesn’t negatively impact my site overall, and it’s very quick to load on mobile browsers. It also has a very polished menu system that can be customized through the WordPress Admin Panel. It should be said that the developers are very responsive as well–there was a problem with the menu a month or two ago where it wasn’t loading right, and they had it fixed pretty quickly even though this problem wasn’t happening on all sites. They seem very committed to this product and doing a good job, hence the donation.

Check it out. It’s free and available at BraveNewCode.com.

LibraryThing Reviewed

LibraryThing

As I have mentioned, I’ve been using LibraryThing for a while and it is certainly my favourite, but today I’ll try to take a more objective look at the service by applying the same rubrick I’ve used in the previous two reviews.

Speed

LibraryThing is the only one of the three where I have added an extensive list of books by searching for them one by one. I did a few test books on Shelfari and Goodreads to get a feel for how they would work and they all felt fairly similar. The difference is that LibraryThing, unlike the other two, actually pulls from something other than Amazon.com.

In addition to searching Amazon.com, LibraryThing can also query the Library of Congress and its extensive collection. Furthermore, LibraryThing has been adopted by a number of libraries (the full list is well over 600 library catalogs entered, just not every library is using LibraryThing as their main system), and the more books added to LibraryThing, the greater the potential that your book will have already been put into the system. This means that adding books is faster because there is less manual entry.

Goodreads and Shelfari also query books entered by users, but their user base (and subsequent catalogs) are much smaller. On the downside, Ryan tells me that if your book isn’t found when using LibraryThing, you have to manually select libraries to search from, and that can be a huge pain. I’ve been talking with some people in the LibraryThing community about this, but haven’t come to any good conclusions on how to resolve the issue yet.

The site speed has improved recently with some database server and memory server additions, and I’ve been greatly impressed. Previously, I would have ranked it lower on speed, but the new servers have made a noticeable difference. Adding books now is much faster than before, and the site is very responsive.

In regards to editing books, LibraryThing beats the other two hands down, but I’ll talk more about that in regards to Organization. Editing books is an order of magnitude better and faster with LibraryThing.

Online

LibraryThing is the only online management system of the three that has an actual mobile version of their service. To be honest, I hadn’t used it in a while on account of not buying many books recently, but it’s just as fast as before.

While mobile stylesheets tend to be very barebones and unattractive, they do make things significantly faster on smartphones and the like, so accessing my library and performing searches was significantly faster than Goodreads. Of course, none of this was even possible on Shelfari.

I was able to get in and search for a book in my library in mere seconds. I could even get to my listing of the book and see what tags I had assigned it, its ISBN, publication date, and Dewey Decimal Number (very handy if you’re trying to find a book in an older brick-and-mortar library).

Organization

LibraryThing shines when it comes to organization because it is simply so much more powerful than the other two services. The aspect I’ll mention here, to which I alluded earlier, is in editing books.

Quick Editing

Quick Edit

Though you can’t see my mouse cursor in the above screenshot, I was hovered over the tags panel in a table displaying my books. Double click on any of the fields to make them editable, then change whatever you like and hit a save button. You’re done; all fields displayed are editable, it’s fast, and it’s intuitive. It’s simply the easiest way to quickly modify basic information about a book.

For extensive or more advanced information, you can still click on a book and edit just about all of the information about it, which I prefer. Shelfari only lets you put in a few notes, and Goodreads requires that you be approved as a librarian before editing data. This is likely because all of their books are stored in a single place centrally, while LibraryThing has a powerful system that can handle combinations.

Power Editing

Power Editing

One of my criticisms with Shelfari and Goodreads was the inability to modify multiple books at once. If your library is more than a dozen or so books, I feel like this feature is absolutely crucial, and its oversight in Shelfari and Goodreads somewhat surprised me.

Power Editing in LibraryThing allows you to apply changes to multiple books at once, and while not every field can be modified this way, the most important ones can. If you’ve got a large library to organize, I can’t imagine the frustration and tediousness you would experience without having a feature like this.

Customized Views

You can set five styles in which to view your books, though I usually just set one and don’t change it. More important to me is the ability to organize my books how I like and how I have them on my bookshelves.

The process goes like this:

  1. Search my tags for fantasy -young, which returns results for all books tagged fantasy (fiction) but that are not tagged young (adult).
  2. Click on the date column so the oldest books are displayed first. This column represents publication date, not the date the book was added to the library.
  3. Click on the author column to organize them by last name.

I am now presented with all of my fantasy fiction novels, excluding those that are in our young adult section, organized by author (alphabetically by last name) and secondarily by publication date. This is how we have them on our shelves, which makes it easier for me to find a book.

You simply don’t have the same level of tagging, customization, or ability to view your books in the other systems. In LibraryThing, I tell it how I want to see my library. Shelfari and Goodreads try to dictate to me how it should look.

So many reasons to love, but not for everyone

There are a lot of other features in LibraryThing that I couldn’t imagine doing without now. A librarian friend of mine observed that its API is open and very good, which allows people to do a lot with the site including using it in actual libraries. The community around the site is strong and extensive, and I’m a member of the Early Reviewers group, which allows me to enter into a lottery every month to receive a free book either before its publication or soon after (for which I would write a review).

I’ll admit that LibraryThing is written by certain people and for certain people. I can’t put a label on those groups though, as they’re fairly ambiguous. A diverse group of people use the service, so it’s not just written to coders or librarians (or some mix of the two), but it feels a lot like other developer-centric software I’ve used where it was written with the coders rather than the users in mind.

However, I don’t find it difficult, and neither does my wife. And I know a lot of people who use it with abounding joy. It’s simply the best tool for the job.

Get What You Pay For

LibraryThing is not exactly free, unlike Shelfari and Goodreads. You can add up to 200 books for free, so if your library is small, there’s no reason not to use LibraryThing. For more than 200 books, there is a $10 a year or $25 lifetime fee. I gladly put $25 down after adding our first hundred books because LibraryThing is just that great.

It’s the cost of taking a date to a movie to use a great library for life (at least the life of the site, which looks to be very stable and healthy). And I also believe in investing in good services, so I had no qualms paying for LibraryThing.

Final Grade: A

  1. Needs to be relatively fast. | B
    1. Speed/ease of adding books. | B
    2. General site speed. | B
    3. Speed/ease of editing books. | A
  2. Must be online, but furthermore must be mobile accessible so I can access my library from the bookstore to see if I already own something. | A
  3. Should be displayable by how I organize my books on the shelf (Genre -> Author alphabetically by last name -> Publication date) so that I can better find things in my physical library. | A

I was little torn over what grade to give LibraryThing. I’m hesitant to give it an A because it simply isn’t perfect, but then again, nothing ever will be. But it’s also head and shoulders above anything else, particularly in regards to tagging, quickly editing, and organizing your books.

As I began writing my justification for an A-/B+ grade, I realized how true I felt the previous sentence to be. If Goodreads is a B, then LibraryThing is clearly an A in my book. The fact that it costs money might disqualify LibraryThing from your own list of software to consider, in which case I definitely recommend Goodreads. But if organizing, expanding, and maintaining your library is your top concern, money not being as much of an issue, I would most certainly recommend LibraryThing.

Goodreads Reviewed

Goodreads

As before, I imported my library from LibraryThing to give me some data to work with. Though I’d heard about Goodreads before, I hadn’t messed with it any, and now that I’ve done so, I’d like to see what happens when I use the rubrick I established for these reviews.

Speed

Goodreads is pretty quick, both with adding and finding books. As with Shelfari, the only options you have when searching are those books already entered into Goodreads and Amazon.com, but the interface feels more clean and I had no problem finding my test books.

Unfortunately, import did not go so well. What Shelfari handled in a matter of seconds, Goodreads took over 35 minutes to import. I don’t know what took so long, and after it finished, it had left thirty-one books out. Admittedly, this is less than Shelfari left out, but Shelfari also told me which books it had dropped. Goodreads just failed without telling me which books it hadn’t been able to record.

As for editing books, it’s a bit slower than Shelfari in that I have to click a link rather than hover over the book, but I’m OK with that. What I’m not OK with is the way Goodreads handles tagging.

Rather than tags, Goodreads uses “shelves,” which are pretty much the same thing… except you can’t just type them into a list. You have to use a drop down menu, and then either add new shelves or click a check box to apply shelves/tags.

On LibraryThing, I have probably around 500 unique tags (a total of 2,663 tags used on books, but that’s with a lot of duplicates). Imagine scrolling through that in a drop down menu. I also often like to apply the same tags to books in a series, so not being able to copy and paste a line of tags/text is frustrating.

Like Shelfari, there’s no mass editing of books; I can’t apply similar changes to multiple books.

Online

Again, Goodreads is obviously online or else it would not be part of these reviews, but how does it stack up in the mobile arena?

While it doesn’t have a dedicated mobile version, their website isn’t near as bloated or poorly designed as Shelfari (measuring in at about 1/4 the size per page). It runs decently on Windows Mobile in Internet Explorer, to the extent that it is usable. It’s 300+ kb size is a bit much for non-3G phones, and it’s not optimized for mobile browsers, but it actually works pretty decently.

I could log in, access my library, and search for books, which was pretty exciting to see.

Organize

As I mentioned earlier, tagging/shelving is a failure to me on Goodreads. However, once you have shelved books, you can view just that shelf and then order them by author’s last name, the title, or the publication date, so that’s decent. You just have to resign yourself to having very few tags/shelves or else the system will become unmanageable.

I can’t imagine using Goodreads to organize a sizable library (beyond a few hundred books). But if you’re the type to only have a few tags/shelves, it’ll work just fine.

Aesthetics

It’s worth mentioning that Goodreads is just plain pretty. It’s pleasant to browse around, though I don’t feel like there’s much to browse. It’s well-designed, and I enjoyed using it for testing. Goodreads is certainly easy on the eyes.

Final Grade: B

  1. Needs to be relatively fast. | B
    1. Speed/ease of adding books. | B
    2. General site speed. | B
    3. Speed/ease of editing books. | C
  2. Must be online, but furthermore must be mobile accessible so I can access my library from the bookstore to see if I already own something. | B
  3. Should be displayable by how I organize my books on the shelf (Genre -> Author alphabetically by last name -> Publication date) so that I can better find things in my physical library. | C+

On speed/ease of editing books, not being able to edit multiple books at one time will never earn anything above a C. When handling anything beyond a dozen books, I feel this is crucial.

I gave the organization a C+ because it would allow me to see general shelf location decently, but the way it handles tagging isn’t scalable and therefore doesn’t suit me well.

Goodreads is Good

In general, Goodreads is pretty decent, and if you’re looking for a free service, I imagine it’s the best you can do. That sounds somewhat snide, but I really mean it when I say that Goodreads is good. I was pleasantly surprised by this service, and would recommend it to people who are looking for a free and easy way to organize their home library, provided they didn’t have more than a few hundred books (say, no more than 300 probably).

On Monday, I’ll talk about my personal favourite, LibraryThing, which does have a fee involved (for anything beyond 200 books), but which I feel is well worth it.

Shelfari Reviewed

Shelfari

I only heard about Shelfari recently when a friend of mine began his own search for a cataloging solution for his home library. He was enamored with Shelfari at first due to its speed and attractiveness, but I just couldn’t stomach this site. Nevertheless, the mere fact that it is (now) owned and ran by Amazon.com demands we give it some credence, so let’s begin the review.

Speed

Since I’ve already got all of my books in LibraryThing, it was easy to provide a good test-bed in Shelfari by exporting them in a tab-delimited format and bringing them over. The site is decently fast and importing my books was a snap that took next to no time at all, which is always nice.

Unfortunately, Shelfari couldn’t find all of my books. Because Shelfari only works with Amazon.com, its catalog is fairly limited, so expect to do some manual entry. In my case, there were over 60 books it couldn’t find, and the only option it presented me was to select from a list of other books on Amazon. On the plus side, it did tell me which books failed to be imported so I could go back and add them manually.

If you want to add a book, just search for it (which searches Amazon), hover over it, and click add. The site is stuffed with AJAXy goodness, so hover does a lot here in some very cool ways. As such things go, adding a book is decent. Editing is not.

To edit a book, you have to hover over each one, click a couple of different places, and type, and the only parameters you can set is a tag (by which you cannot organize; only used for browsing) and the date you read the book. Kind of clunky and weak.

Online

Of course, all three pass this test by default, but how’s Shelfari on mobile browsers? I don’t have an iPhone or 3G (though it seems most every site supports those now, mostly because it’s not a standard “mobile browser,” but rather an almost full-feature web browser), so a truly mobile version is a must for me.

Shelfari’s heavy interface comes at a price. It renders completely uselessly on a mobile phone, and no mobile version has been announced (though users have been discussing and asking for it for five months now).

Organization

This simply doesn’t exist in Shelfari, as far as I’m concerned. You can tag things, but you cannot search by tag. Rather, tags are displayed at the bottom of your shelf, and you can click on one to display books that have been tagged with that word. Worthless.

Cover View and Marketing

From what I can tell, these are the only two things that Shelfari really offers. Being owned by Amazon, there are advertisements all over the place, and I really feel like the site only exists for Amazon to try and get their hat in the home library game and make a few bucks.

If you want a pretty view of all your book covers on a digital bookshelf, Shelfari will do that. Unfortunately, that’s about all it does, and I consider Cover View to be completely worthless on any cataloging site. I’ve never seen it implemented in a fashion I can use, which would be actually displaying books as they would be on my shelf, with the spines facing towards me. That would be a useful tool to help me find books on their shelves, but what every site does just doesn’t serve any purpose other than as eye candy.

Final Grade: D

  1. Needs to be relatively fast. | C
    1. Speed/ease of adding books. | B
    2. General site speed. | B
    3. Speed/ease of editing books. | D
  2. Must be online, but furthermore must be mobile accessible so I can access my library from the bookstore to see if I already own something. | D-
  3. Should be displayable by how I organize my books on the shelf (Genre -> Author alphabetically by last name -> Publication date) so that I can better find things in my physical library. | F

Since it’s not mobile at all, number 2 maybe should be an F, but it is online so I’ll give it something. Shelfari scores a D, but there’s no way I would use it or recommend it to anyone.

Check back on Friday to read about Goodreads, which is nominally more positive.

The Evolutionary Process of Mobile Browsing on WordPress

Two Calls

My first rant, though certainly not my first try

A couple of months ago, I wrote about the trials and tribulations I had encountered and failed to overcome in regards to making WordPress a little more mobile-friendly. I’m not a coder or even a web developer/designer (though I sometimes pretend to be at work), so beyond using the tools and guides provided and tweaking some code, I’m at a loss for how to redo everything and make it work myself. Unfortunately, the tools that existed didn’t play well together and therefore didn’t serve my purposes for providing a fast site that also worked on mobile browsers.

When I wrote about my failed attempts, I learned that the coder, patrias familias, and maintainer of WP Super Cache, Donncha O Caoimhm, modified the plugin to allow mobile developers to add a filter to their code that would tell WP Super Cache to cache and serve data differently depending on certain variables, but no one quite picked up on it or modified their plugin to work in conjunction with WP Super Cache. And since WordPress almost isn’t worth running without WP Super Cache, it was sort of a wash.

A New Hope, Another Failure

As you may recall, I thought I had found a solution in the form of the WordPress Mobile plugin earlier this month, but it too failed. The problem is that you don’t just want a different stylesheet for mobile content; if that was all, there’d be no issue because WP Super Cache doesn’t cache styles, just content. But on mobile devices, you don’t have room or time to load everything, so you really only want to serve the content that is pertinent (blogrolls, for instance, might be nice, but you don’t want to have to scroll past that on a tiny mobile screen). Therefore, plugins that serve content to mobile devices also use a different theme for those devices, and when that theme gets cached, it then ends up being displayed to regular web browsers. WordPress Mobile, like all the other mobile plugins, weren’t using the filter in WP Super Cache to cache and serve their content appropriately.

Eureka! At last!

Donncha has just released version 0.9 of WP Super Cache, however, and this one takes into account user agent strings to identify mobile browsers by using the detection code from Alex King’s WordPress Mobile Edition. I began testing this on SilverPen yesterday using developmental versions of both WP Super Cache and WordPress Mobile Edition, and after identifying and working out a single bug (Donncha worked it out, of course, not me!) it appears to be working great! We ran into a snag where Safari on Mac was being identified as a mobile browser, but Donncha had that fixed before I could even get him the log files.

A new version of WordPress Mobile Edition has not yet been released, and I’m not entirely sure it needs to be. The caching and UA checks are being handled by WP Super Cache now to decide what to cache and serve, so not only should your choice of mobile plugin be irrelevant, it should also Just Work™.

Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Download WP Super Cache

Download WordPress Mobile Edition

Image by: lusi

WordPress not quite ready for mobile browsing

Instead of redacting this entire entry, I’ll let you know that mobile browsing for WordPress does work now. See my updated article on The Evolutionary Process of Mobile Browsing on WordPress for more details.


One of my design goals for revision 3 of SilverPen Publishing was to make the site more accessible. I’m not a web developer by trade and didn’t really know how to do this, but I knew that I didn’t want to exclude people from visiting my corner of the web. To me, this didn’t just mean making SilverPen more friendly to screen readers and other assistive technology devices, but also to make the site work well on mobile devices.

To this end, I found yet another great plugin by Alex King that queries the user agent of the browser trying to access the site. If it’s a mobile web browser, the plugin serves up a custom template that’s very lightweight and fast to load on mobile devices. It worked very well, but unfortunately it only worked in a vaccuum, and even then had some serious repercussions.

WP Super Cache

First off, it simply does not work with WP Super Cache, and in fact, no mobile browsing solution does. For those who haven’t heard of Super Cache, I’ll explain what it does and why it’s necessary very briefly. Every blog post and page that WordPress serves up is dynamically generated on the fly when you access the site. Putting all the pieces together to make a web page puts a lot of load on the server, and it makes the page load a lot slower for you. Caching allows the server to create static pages, rather than dynamic ones, of the same content and therefore serve it up faster. This reduces load on the server and makes the page load a whole lot fast for you.

Because of how WordPress works, this caching is pretty much vital to running a site on WordPress. My traffic’s not that high yet, but it has more than doubled in the last few months, and I expect it to continue increasing at a similar rate. The last thing I need is Bluehost freezing my site temporarily due to a sudden spike of traffic, so like all good WordPress bloggers, I use WP Super Cache.

To make a long story short, WP Super Cache creates a copy of a page the first time someone visits it. Each subsequent visitor is shown that copy, and this is what breaks WordPress Mobile Edition. Since you’re viewing a static copy of the page that has already been generated, you don’t see the mobile theme, rendering the mobile plugin useless.

If it’s a choice between having the page load more quickly for most everyone and reducing the load on my server vs. having the site more accessible on mobile devices, I’m going to have to go with the former. Especially as data plans move towards 3g and faster mobile browsing.

Search Engine de-Optimization

The second reason that mobile browsing fails for WordPress is because it kills SEO, which harms your ranking in search engines. By its very nature of essentially serving a different set of pages to mobile devices, plugins such at WordPress Mobile Edition fool search engine robots into thinking there’s a second website with duplicate content on it. Such duplicate content is ranked down by search engines, which means your pages are less likely to turn up in searches and you’ll get less traffic.

The mobile plugins and solutions for WordPress all admit that it’ll kill your SEO and recommend you “do something” about it, but don’t offer many solutions. I thought I had found an elegant work-around yesterday in the form of themed multiple domains in WordPress, which would allow me to have multiple domains pointing at a single instance of WordPress, wich each domain triggering its own theme. In this instance, you can easily redirect robots that hit those other domains to a separate robots.txt file, which would tell them “don’t index this site.” For example, if I had silverpenpub.net and m.silverpenpub.net (for mobile browsers), I could have the main site indexed and tell the robots not to index the mobile site.

But I don’t want to register a separate domain for mobile browsers, and I couldn’t get it to work with a subdomain for some reason. Maybe I was doing something wrong there and will figure it out eventually, but it’s not going to happen today.

Not worth my time

In the end, trying to twist WordPress into working on mobile devices doesn’t give a  lot of return for the investment, and I’m beginning to think it will be a non-issue before too long. Even I am beginning to dream nightly of acquiring an iPhone, and browsing with a 3g connection means that, even over a cellular data plan, you can load a site quickly. And newer phones have a lot larger screens, which means that my theme displays fine all on its own.

I know that WordPress now has a iPhone-friendly administrative interface, and I hope that they include more features in the future to help their platform run better on mobile devices. Accessibility is still important to me, but I can’t justify 5-10+ hours of work to make the site more accessible to 0.5% of readers by introducing “features” that degrade or break the site for the other 99.5%.

Updated – Why Chrome Concerns Me

Google has recently announced their web browser, Google Chrome, and while a variety of bloggers and news sites have begun reporting on and hypothesizing about Google’s motivation and the browser’s functionality, nobody seems to have any negative concerns regarding Chrome other than its competition with Mozilla Firefox. Some have shared their concern that this will kill Firefox as well as Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, which is a fine concern to have, but one I think isn’t major. People who care more about privacy will look at Google’s continuous data mining and give Chrome a miss. Firefox will still be used, and it’s Open Source, so it’ll continue being developed (unless Google buys it…). But again, not my main issue.

My concern is where Google states that Chrome is more than a web browser. Rather, it’s “a modern platform for web pages and applications,” with the word application mentioned 5 times in three paragraphs there. While Mozilla Firefox uses Gecko as its application engine, Chrome will use Webkit (along with Safari and Konquerer), just as Google’s mobile operating system (Android) will use Webkit.

Application compatibility and development could certainly put a dent in Mozilla Firefox’s usage statistics, but more importantly, it sends up a red flag to me. I fear we’ll return to the lack of standardization that was a hallmark of the browser wars in the early to mid 90s. As webapps become more prevalent, I fear web developers will have to begin writing apps to be compatible with Gecko, Webkit, and Microsoft, and that’s simply ludicrous. We are finally achieving standardization when it comes to HTML, and with Javascript, PHP, and ASP we’ve got languages that are understood equally by all browsers.

With Google entering the browser wars and choosing Webkit, it appears that we are establishing a lack of standardization for the future, which bothers me. Moreover, as Google moves more towards web development, with their own web browser in place I fear that they will build something akin to Microsoft’s ActiveX, where their web applications will be even more advanced and powerful, but will require their web browser to achieve that full functionality. I am concerned that Chrome will encourage Google to create proprietary web applications.

Of course, they may stick to their creed of “Do No Evil,” and my concerns may be completely unfounded. But as Google gains more power and popularity, I wonder how far they can push the definition of “Good” before losing the favour of their users. Regardless, I’ll check out Chrome so I can support it, but I doubt I’ll be switching to it full time. I already give Google my email and contacts, but adding my browsing into that… I like to pretend to have at least a little bit of privacy.

Addendum:: Google Chrome is Open Source, as is Webkit, so it’s not like THE END OF THE WORLD if they develop stuff that’s Webkit-only. It would just make me a little sad, and be a step in the wrong direction, I would think. Unless Webkit became a standard (and I’m sure someone will make the argument that Mozilla could always switch from Gecko to Webkit), and no news or rumours have arisen yet that such a move is likely in the web development community… though with both Android and the iPhone using Webkit, it certainly wouldn’t be absurd for Webkit to become so prevalent it became a standard…

Regarding Privacy:: Another update, since I mentioned this earlier. Since I’m in meetings all day, I haven’t downloaded, installed, and tried Chrome yet, but CNet takes a closer look at the Terms of Service attached to Chrome. Of particular concern to me is:

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services.

Since my own content is copylefted under Creative Commons, I don’t particularly like the idea of Google serving up my content in any sort of advertisement and potentially making money from it.