Chrome is Google’s recently unveiled entry to the browser market, purported to make the web “faster, safer and easier”.

The beta is available for you to play with (on Vista and XP only at the moment, Mac and Linux users will have to wait) from this site. So is it a winner? Can the web heavyweight’s new offering really take out Firefox as king of the browser ring?

Download and Installation

First things first; an excellent virtual unboxing is what you’d expect from Google software, and Chrome doesn’t disappoint. Download and installation is rapid and efficient, with the only blip coming when Firefox had to be closed to allow bookmark and history download. This is achieved painlessly and everything seems to have been imported correctly. After a default search provider was picked, it was straight to the meat and potatoes.

Look and feel

Initial impressions of how the browser looks, even at this early stage are good. Minimalism is the order of the day. The tab bar is promoted to the top of the window, with each having its own URL bar and navigation links. This seems to have been a key UI focus of the team judging by Google’s promotional comic (Which can be found here). The tab system doesn’t actually seem all that different from the Firefox system (aside from switched places) upon initial inspection, but a few things come to mind.

Getting the tabs to the top means that the window header is removed. Whilst this is great for those looking for more webpage real-estate, it means that should a large number of tabs be open in the same window, the full page title will be obscured for good (though the tooltip on the tab can be used).

One thing I’m not a fan of from an aesthetic perspective is the black triangle in the top left. Perhaps this should be filled in?

I do see the logic in shifting the tabs upwards though; it gives the tabs themselves greater weight and I can see it catching on. What would be interesting in the future is adding web page specific tools to the url bar underneath to further enrich the web apps Google are gunning for.

The tab bar does seem a touch buggy; Windows occasionally flicks a header of its own on the window, making all tabs other than the active one invisible. I expect these will be addressed in future updates though.

Another thing that’s missing is the permanent status bar at the base of the page. When the mouse is placed over a link, a bar does appear showing the target, and the same bar shows data transfer information during loading. I do think this is a clever move on the whole; eliminating the bar works for most users. However, I would like to have it as a permanent option if necessary, particularly for the progress bar.

“Tearing away” tabs into their own windows works satisfyingly well. When browser windows aren’t maximised however, the blue border at the top is rather ugly and too large. Remove it, please. The blue colour is also very XP, very Fisher-Price. Make it customisable, with a less garish default.

Animations are attractive and unobtrusive. Good work here. Simple it may seem, but the logo is also pretty classy.

User Interface

The user interface, is, as promised, clean and efficient, taking a trick or two from IE7 to hide menu bars by default (I also use the hide menubar extension in Firefox). Buttons are sleek, with a slight gradient added to the url bar itself.

The bookmarks toolbar is large for a user coming from the smart bookmarks extension for firefox, so this I instantly hid (though it reappears promptly when a new tab is opened). Hopefully Google (or an addon) will stick on a similar functionality in the future.

Bookmarks are added in a way virtually identical to Firefox, with the star icon arbitrarily on the left rather than the right. There is indeed a ‘Go’ button unlike Firefox (which desperately needs it back).

A few things are notable in their absence. You won’t see a home button for instance, which really does hit its usability in my opinion at the moment. The toolbars aren’t remotely customisable, either, which was a bit of a downer.

New tabs are opened with a shifting new tab button a la Opera/IE (or with the standard middle clicks). One thing I miss from my firefox extensions is scrollwheel support to switch tabs. This I find mindbogglingly useful, and would like to see it included in browsers as a standard feature.

The url bar with its so called “Omnibox” works well, and since I’m pretty much forced to use it, it had better do. It seems to have recognised where to go in most situations, working similarly to Firefox’s “Awesome bar”. One thing I like is the search suggestions, which the Firefox version doesn’t give unless the dedicated search box is used. There are some situations where it’s too clever for its own good though, such as when I’d like to get to a .com page rather than the .co.uk page associated with it.

Google’s default homepage is nice, drawing heavily on Opera’s Speed Dial for inspiration. It’s far more automated, though, with virtually no user control. It also doesn’t seem to always be correctly recognising which sites I visit most. Plenty of Amazon visits later, it still hadn’t popped up. There should certainly be some manual way of controlling what does or does not show up.

Google also needs to allow control over the sensitivity of the scroll wheel with respect to webpages; The default setting hits about 5 lines at a time, which is more than I’d like.

Web Apps and Performance

Wow. Here is one aspect that had me seriously impressed. Pages load lightning fast, and are pretty damn responsive as well. Javascript runs super quick. Two thumbs up. It looks like Google’s ground up approach has paid off here. Pages seem quicker and more responsive than Firefox 3 or Opera.

Flash also works well for games sites, although for some unexplained reason, Youtube videos are impossible to view (appearing with a ‘sorry, this video is available’ notice for all videos, working fine in Safari/Firefox/Ie7/Opera). Big error here on Google’s part, hopefully this will be sorted out sooner rather than later. Metacafe and similar were functional.

Gmail is also very quick, reflecting the pace of the new Javascript engine. Google maps works well.

(It’s worth noting here that some have had issues with WYSIWYG editors).

Features

Not a lot to say here really; There’s nothing new that you can actually do with Chrome that you can’t do with any other browser (give or take a few extensions). Incognito mode is nice, and very necessary for the amount of browsing info that appears to be collected over time.

The browser preferences at the moment are sadly very limited, with a pretty rigid system enforced for the time being. More options required.

The inspect element feature is a very handy tool for web developers, and seems to have been pretty well implemented. The yellow highlights for divs don’t always seem to work, however.

Downloads work a lot like the downloadstatusbar extension for firefox, and are even snazzier visually. A way to make it reappear easily after closing it is necessary.

Stability

Whilst some seem to have had multiple crashes, that hasn’t been the case for me. If a tab crashes, only it and its associated process need go down (as you can test by killing one of the number of chrome.exe processes active with multiple tabs open). It seems to be using fewer combined resources than a comparable firefox window.

Generally, stability doesn’t seem terrible for the very first beta. All sorts of issues with the tab bar though, with tabs and/or the close button disappearing upon random usage.

Verdict

Google Chrome Beta has had a fairly decent start. Visually quite impressive on the whole, but more importantly, very, very quick. Beta bugs galore and a few puzzling design choices mean that in its current state it’s no match for Firefox yet though. Solutions for these issues and a solid bank of extensions are needed. With these in place, it’s quite easy to see Chrome becoming the browser of choice. The basics are in place, and combined with the apparent affinity of Chrome for web apps, it should be able to lay a formidable challenge to the rest of the browser crowd once the rough edges have been smoothed over.

The way we interact with our computers is changing. With gestural devices and multitouch interfaces becoming more and more popular (industrially and commercially speaking) what of the humble mouse? At least one recent article proclaims that our not-so-furry friends will soon be a thing of the past.

The idea is certainly controversial, and there is no doubt in my mind that the analyst in question has jumped the gun. Gone in three to five years? Not a chance. But looking further into the future, does he have a point?

Multitouch systems are just beginning now to truly come of age. Take Microsoft’s Surface Computer for instance (which has had a preliminary April launch). The demo had me hooked; it truly does seem a more natural and intelligent way of interacting with a PC. Need to transfer some photos? No problem, just drop on your camera and out they pop. Paying for a meal? Drop on your credit cards and drag out your cash. Strangely enough for an MS device, I can actually see the real world possibilities, and the future looks bright. Although it carries a £5000 price tag and is not available to consumers (and is initially expected to be taken up by hospitality businesses), it’s an encouraging start. And MS are looking to focus even further on multitouch with their Windows 7 platform, due late 2009 to early 2010 (apparently attempting to disown the entire Vista fiasco?).

Of course multitouch has entered the public eye primarily through Apple’s iPhone and iPod touch. To a large extent they deliver their promises of offering a fluid and natural user interface; using one for the first time feels glorious; flicking, stretching, pinching and twisting have a very satisfying feel.

But it’s arguably not quite time to get rid of the mice and jump dutifully onto the multitouch bandwagon just yet. For all its successes, there are a number of flaws that could end up being deal breakers.

The first is precision. Let’s face it, the mouse is capable of a high degree of accuracy on screen. If I want to click on something, I can damn well be sure about what I’m clicking on. I don’t need to worry about clumsy fingers accidentally tapping something else. Case in point, the iPod touch. In many ways, the interface has been beautifully designed to prevent me from making mistakes. But there are so many places where this falls down. The keyboard is tricky to type on. I can’t accurately select text in, say, the safari address bar. I can’t always quite get the volume slider to go where I want it.

These are, arguably, problems with the graphical interface itself rather than the input method. Perhaps the keyboard should be larger. Perhaps the magnifier in the address bar and the volume sliders should be more finger friendly. But this doesn’t detract from the fact that the finger is simply not precise enough. I can’t imagine ever being able to truly use, say photoshop using screen multitouch alone (without maybe accompanying stylus).

Which brings me to another point; touching the screen inherently obscures it. I just can’t see what’s going on under my finger if I’m using it to touch the screen. This is a problem when it comes to graphic design or particularly RTS/FPS gaming. Another victory to the mouse.

If we add into the mix the fact that touchscreens generally smudge and attract dirt/scratches/fingerprints, we start to appreciate more the advantages of an input device physically separate from the output device. If a mouse breaks, get another one. If a touch screen system breaks… you’re not in luck.

Then we move on to other options; what about a gesture and direction sensitive remote style device, akin to the Wii controller? Although the WiiMote itself isn’t particularly precise, surely future variants might be more so? There are a couple of problems here as well; Namely getting tired. I know people claim only small movements are required, and they are; but holding a pointer still in one place for a long period (as you’d need for many applications) *is* taxing. Keeping pointers precise without any real directionally tactile feedback is also a challenge.

Despite these misgivings, multitouch and gesture sensitive devices are still important. Multitouch very much so for mobile devices; lugging around mice just isn’t always practical. And there’s no doubt both of these are getting closer to a more intuitive ‘natural interface. A computer interface that obeys real world rules should be welcomed. Further developments will no doubt get closer to solving some of the problems I’ve mentioned.

But that doesn’t mean we should be looking to *replace* the mouse. Although it’s easy to see how new input devices are ‘easier to use’, let’s not forget that the mouse in itself is actually a stunningly simple concept; one that very few people have to grapple hard with to figure out. Something that already feels ‘natural’, but affords us the precision required for (it seems) practically any GUI task. Proponents argue that multitouch allows us to do things faster and more intuitively; but a mouse with a scrollwheel does pretty well when faced with the same problems, and leaves a hand free for keyboard shortcuts.

That said, I’m wide open to the idea that a better solution might be available. The problem with the mouse is that it is a two dimensional device, designed for two dimensional control. It needs flat spaces that sometimes just aren’t available. The fact that the mouse is, of course, separate from the device it controls also means it isn’t suitable for true portable use.

There are already interesting models of thought sensitive input, and 'Minority Report' style three dimensional control schemes that certainly appear intriguing, if a little removed from reality in their current states. My point is clear though; the mouse isn’t going anywhere soon. Here’s an example of a 40 year old concept that I reckon we actually did get largely right the first time round.

With just 5 days remaining until the opening of the 2008 Summer Olympics, speculation over the games appears to be reaching its peak. Amidst outcries from human rights and Pro-Tibet organizations, pollution fears and potential terrorism in the capital, plenty are left wondering where the event is headed. Could it ever be a total success?

There’s no doubt the media has assigned it a conspiratorial air, particularly due to China’s apparent failure to deliver on their promise of free and open internet access.

Yes, the so-called Great Firewall of China is still in apparent effect for journalists during the games, and sites dubbed sufficiently ‘sensitive’ will remain blocked. Like many others, I did wonder exactly what was construed as objectionable, and a little digging offered some surprising results.

Understandably for a government surveillance and censorship programme (yet at the same time alarmingly), websites related to Tiananmen Square, Pro-Tibet organisations and what the government see as inflammatory websites are not permitted. Chinese versions of many news sites are blocked (although BBC Chinese has recently been made accessible).

Many blogging sites, including xanga and livejournal, as well as sites for NGOs including Amnesty International, Oxfam and Human Rights Watch are also off limits. Users searching for banned terms on sites such as Google China (as well as local search engines such as baidu) will receive a truncated list of results accompanied by an explanatory message.

The Golden Shield Project, as it is has been named, does appear scarily draconian in the extent to which it limits access.

However, the most surprising thing is that getting past the blocks is a piece of cake; any proxy or VPN connection seems to do the trick (and there appear to be a number of other security holes as well); which begs the question; what’s the point? If the system is this weak, why bother restricting access at all? The answer seems to be as simple as increasing the effort required. By making it more difficult for the common layperson to access such sites, it turns out the majority of people just plain can’t be bothered; The cornerstone behind why it works as a large scale piece of social engineering.

Idealists hoped that bringing the Olympics to China would help to open up China’s media access, and changes have certainly been made in its light. For instance sites such as Flickr, Facebook, Youtube and Blogspot have been unblocked fairly recently. It was undoubtedly naïve to believe the situation could be changed overnight, but even such baby steps away from internet repression should be welcomed. Meanwhile, though there is no reason for the games themselves to become unduly politicized, I don’t see any reason why the period of focus on China should not be exploited to draw attention to its human rights controversy.

Aside from these concerns, China seems to have done a very respectable job, IOC Vice-President Gunilla Lindberg commenting:

“this is probably the best Olympic village there’s been so far, there’s been a lot of time devoted to it so the landscaping is very mature, everything is just very well-finished.”

Perhaps something the London committee should take note of; early days yet, but I’m hoping it’s not as much of a fiasco so far as I’m inspired to believe.

What about the medals themselves? I expect China’s going to top the table this time around. It’s fairly interesting to look at the size of the Olympic contingent from each country; 639 from China, 596 from the US, 439 from Germany, 433 from Australia and 313 from Great Britain, hmm. I doubt team GB will improve on their 30 medal haul in Athens last time round, but here’s to hoping...

Incidentally , the BBC ad for the Olympics this year is brilliant; I thought it reminded me of the Gorillaz; it turns out it was in fact animated by the same guy (Jamie Hewlett), with music from Damon Albarn himself.

Anyway; good luck team GB!