Firefox versus other browsers (Chrome, IE, Safari)

Gurdas_Sandhu

Zotero for Firefox (ZF) has been the prime platform, with Zotero Standalone available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. However, ZF has typically had more features and add-ons. Right?
https://www.zotero.org/download/

Depending on who you ask, Chrome or Internet Explorer (IE) take first and second position in market share. It seems Firefox's share in the browser universe is dwindling and Chrome will possibly continue to gain market share.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-monthly-201501-201601
https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0

If so, the question is: Should Zotero continue to have Firefox as its primary platform? Is there a need to create a native "Zotero for Chrome" version? And we do not have a Zotero anything that works with IE, so that needs fixing?

noksagt

There are a few threads on this issue. It isn't going to happen anytime soon. The browser market shares you listed vary and don't support your argument as well as you think (the first two put Firefox's numbers near that of IE and show Firefox is not declining as rapidly as IE), but marketshare is also not the primary concern.

The framework for Chrome is less powerful than the framework Mozilla offers and it'd be nearly impossible to make a chrome-native Zotero that supported other platforms in the way that mozilla's xul-runner lets Zotero have a standalone version that works with the other browsers.

What functionality does the firefox extension have that you miss in the stand-alone version?

Microsoft Edge extensions aren't yet possible:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/extensions-in-microsoft-edge

But the bookmarklet will work:
https://www.zotero.org/downloadbookmarklet

Gurdas_Sandhu

Thanks, that's helpful. I am not claiming any specific market share numbers, rather probing the issue and looking in to the future regarding Zotero's acceptance/growth because of platform issues.

I have mostly used Zotero with Firefox and very rarely used Standalone, so again, not well equipped to give detailed comments. I think Zotero with Firefox and Zotero Standalone with Firefox extensions are comparable. But that's not the point of this post. The moot question is regarding Chrome and Safari, and the missing IE.

Is it not true that folks on Chrome and Safari do not have access to the add-ons that are not criticial, but at least very important, to maximizing Zotero benefits? I mean add-ons such as Zotfile - do they exist in Chrome and Safari? How about the native browser extension - is that comparable across browsers? And so on...

dstillman

ZotFile and other Zotero plugins work in Zotero Standalone.

As noksagt says, Chrome and Safari don't provide extension frameworks that would let us create comparable versions for those browsers, so it's not an option. And Mozilla's actually moving in the same direction, so we may end up with a more or less comparable experience across browsers in the future — just one where everyone needs to use a separate app.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Thanks, Dan. I am glad to hear these things. Since I have invested significant time and effort in Zotero and it meets all my needs, I am trying to avoid a situation where I am forced to pick between Zotero and a browser.

My understand of Standalone is same as what you describe. My question is whether the lightweight extensions are comparable across browsers, and whether some of the most popular add-ons of Zotero are/can be available in non-FF browsers.

dstillman

I think Zotero with Firefox and Zotero Standalone with Firefox extensions are comparable. But that's not the point of this post. The moot question is regarding Chrome and Safari, and the missing IE.

When you use Standalone with Firefox, Zotero for Firefox operates in connector mode, so it's more or less equivalent to using Standalone with Chrome or Safari. In all cases, the third-party extensions need to be installed into Standalone.

adamsmith

The only Zotero add-on I'm aware of that does NOT work with Standalone is the prevent duplicates add-on and that's actually one of the reasons they never published it more formally. It takes an approach to duplicate prevention that can't work with Standalone or any of the connectors. It also, afaik, only has a handful of users. All the popular ones (ZotFile, Zutilo, better bibtex, zotxt, gscholar citations, papermachines, etc.) work on Standalone.

There is actually some functionality in the Firefox add-on that I'd consider pretty important that's currently not in the connectors:

- the ability to easily save a snapshot (requires a hard-to-find right-click option),
- including of a PDF (requires a super-awkward drag&drop),
- and the ability to select a translator if multiple detect on a page (impossible))
But these are possible on a technical level and just need to be implemented (and, Dan assures me, will be).

The only think the Firefox add-on does that I believe the connectors cannot is automatic proxy redirection.

dstillman

Adding to that list:

- One-click style installation
- RIS interception

(Not sure on feasibility.)

Gurdas_Sandhu

This was very helpful. My understanding of Standalone was incomplete. I did not know that most FF add-ons could be installed in to Standalone. With that correction, my concerns are mostly answered. If at a future date I am forced to move to Chrome, I can still keep my Zotero universe intact by switching to Standalone.

Just curious, why then even have Zotero FF? Why not just develop Standalone with browser extensions? Is that what Dan meant when he said:
"Mozilla's actually moving in the same direction, so we may end up with a more or less comparable experience across browsers in the future — just one where everyone needs to use a separate app. "

adamsmith

That is was Dan means. Reason to keep FF version around is a) for those features we mention b)because it's really nice to develop on Firefox and e.g. put out test&beta versions and c) because the additional costs are almost zero (Standalone is just built automatically from the FF version)

All of this might change with mozilla's announced changes, but afaik not enough is known about that yet, but I might be behind on that.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Ok, got it. Thanks!

bwiernik

(With regard to proxy redirection, I actually prefer to use a separate add-on from Zotero, such as EZProxy, to make it easier to turn the proxy on and off. Proxy functionality seems like it could be a feature that could be built into the browser connectors, if that is something Zotero wanted to pursue.)

Gurdas_Sandhu

bwiernik, how is that add-on better/easier than the controls in Zotero's Preferences > Proxies menu?

bwiernik

I find that sometimes I want to disable the proxy--usually because a page doesn't display properly--and it is easier to do with EZProxy than to open the Zotero preferences pane, disable proxies, and manually reload the page.

emilianoeheyns

@noksagt: the xul-runner equivalent of Chrome is already here through (take your pick) electron (aka atom-shell), NW.js, and if you want something richer, brackets, atom, visual studio code.... and I seem to recall Zotero doesn't actually use xulrunner anymore but a stripped firefox as xulrunner is not getting the love and attention it used to.

<rant>
Agreed that developing for FF is nice, but I for one won't mourn for a second ditching FF after the ungraceful way the signing/validation thing was handled before they finally came to their senses. And looking forward to doing that same dance when they're going to sell that "everything that matters can be done using our as-of-yet-to-be-fully-specced version of web extensions" as they're ditching XUL. And yes, I understand there are good reasons to move to e10s, and that XUL is a barrier to that, but their ideas that webextension solve that problem is, to put it charitably, naive.
</rant>