Ideas for a browser

I was reading this page by Paul Graham, and it inspired me to think of an idea for the second of his "types of ideas". About how people interact with web browsers in particular, and the Web itself, in general.

When I open up my browser, it usually opens up a bunch of tabs, left-overs from my previous browsing session. At any given point in time, I find myself having to choose between a dozen tabs. But that's just me - I constantly consume news from the world of technology and science, not to mention sports. And of course, that foremost of all Internet applications, email. Your mileage will most probably vary.

The way people use browsers varies according to the individual. While I go about opening tabs using keyboard shortcuts (and customising them to my fingers' content), some may steadfastly stick to using their mice; still others will use mouse gestures. And then there are folks who may have just woken up since the time of Jack the Ripper - uh, I actually meant after competing with Rip van Winkle - who may be wondering what this thingummy called a browser is, or what it has got to do with a tab; in their time, people used the word 'tab' in phrases like 'pick up the tab'. What they may not know also is that most browsers are free these days, so there's no need to pick up any tab on account of browser software. Unless you are using a touch screen, in which case you may pick up a tab and move it somewhere. Anyway, the long and short of it all is that people are different, and that is reflected in the way they use software too. But then, you knew that already, right?

So, as I was saying (or going to say, if you've noticed my cheeky digression), one could think of a browser that behaves and appears differently depending on who's using it; dons different hats, so to speak (or incarnates in a different avatar, if you're into Indian mysticism and that sort of thing). If a power user uses it, the browser skins itself in a certain way, does exactly what the user asks of it, and then gets out of the way. When the grandparents of the said user use it, it turns itself into a hyper-user-friendly form, and guides them at every (mis)step, gently eases them into surfing the Net with lesser and lesser effort. When their children - parents of the original power user - use it, it adopts an neutral viewpoint and vacillates - like a woman who can't make up, among other things, her mind - between being a know-it-all and an ignoramus. In other words, it morphs itself yet again.

Would that not be a wonderful thing? Software that adapts its behaviour to a user's capability and / or knowledge levels. It would make the software appear to be intelligent, just like people appear to be intelligent these days - until you hear them talk, when such illusions are hastily shattered; some say it's only because sound travels slower than light that such illusions are caused in the first place. Well, it's not my place to comment on other people, being humble as you know me to be. What I will say, in conclusion, and in an assertive manner (not to be confused with pride) is that this is an idea worth pursuing, and if you're interested, I'd be happy to collaborate with you in this.

The End has begun

One of the greatest streaks in sport has been broken. The man who has stridden the tennis world like a Goliath - with the 'lesser' Goliath occasionally bringing him down - has fallen by the wayside in a Grand Slam. The last time this happened was nearly six years ago. That is an incredible, mind-boggling 260-odd weeks! His records speak for themselves.

The slide which led to the eventual fall today - if you can call a failure to reach the semi-finals stage of a Grand Slam for the 24th successive time that - began late last year, when the Federer Express was jolted to a halt at the US Open in the finals. It was the very first Grand Slam final that Federer had lost to a man not named Nadal. Quite uncharacteristically, he was smiling broadly after that loss, downplaying it, and pointing out that he had had a fantastic year, having won the French Open for the first (and perhaps, only) time in his career, and capping his year by regaining his beloved Wimbledon crown. Gone was the sour mood that one would be able to detect during the mandatory press conference (after yet another Grand Slam loss to Nadal) and, arguably, the burning desire to win. Though his next Grand Slam success, at this year's Australian Open, was definitely not a fluke, I couldn't shake off the feeling that the man had lost his intensity, the hunger that fuels the greatest of champions to keep going long after the good and very good players have stopped trying.

What a fanciful mistress fate can be. Nobody who had seen Federer weep after losing the 2009 Australian Open to Nadal would have dared imagine that the year would be what it turned out to be for him. When Nadal was beaten by Soderling at the French Open, the tennis fraternity collectively held its breath wondering if this would be the year that Federer would finally break through at the only Grand Slam to be noticeably absent in his masterful collection. Not only did he win it, he went on to win Wimbledon - to some players, the only Grand Slam that matters - probably aided by a serious knee problem that afflicted Nadal. (It will probably go down as the only time in history that two different players have won the French-Wimbledon double in successive years: Nadal did it the previous year, ironically at Federer's expense.)

With the Wimbledon title back in his hands, he also overtook Pete Sampras as the all-time leader of Grand Slam singles title winners, 15 in all. And then, surprisingly for many - including myself - he lost the US Open final to del Potro who, it turned out, was playing an inspired game. However, with no disrespect to the Argentinian, Federer simply wouldn't have lost a final on the hard courts of Flushing Meadows - perhaps not even to Nadal - had it been any other year. But then again, 2009 was not any other year. It was the year he won the career Slam; the year he regained his throne at The Championships; and perhaps most importantly for him as a person, the year he became a father.

There's nothing left for Federer to prove as far as tennis records go. He has already won more Grand Slam singles titles than any man, dead or alive; he holds the record of appearing in 10 consecutive Grand Slam singles finals, and 23 Grand Slam semi-finals; he has been ranked the ATP world No.1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks (the next best is Jimmy Connors, at a 'mere' 160); and he has the best year-end win-loss record next only to John McEnroe's. One could argue that unless he improves his win-loss record with Nadal, or win a calendar Grand Slam, he cannot be called the greatest ever, but if you ask me, those will be mere footnotes in tennis history.

To be sure, I'm not suggesting that Federer's days as a Grand Slam winner are behind him; he may still win a handful, especially when challenged by players who lack self-belief (Andy Murray comes to mind). But against players like del Potro and Soderling - he's more likely to lose than he has in the past, not only because they're exceptionally strong players, but also because the stakes are not as high for him as they were until last year. The King is not exactly dead, but his days as the best currently active player are definitely coming to an end.