# FAB: Fur Affinity Dedicated Browser



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

*The purpose behind this post is to survey and gauge possible user interest and possible developer interest.*


If there is enough interest and the application is deemed worthy to dedicate time for developing it. Then of course permission will be sought from all involved parties (most importantly FA Site devâ€™s). However before the application goes live, WIP Feature I: Ad's will be implemented! Simply because it is the only feature that separates FAB from a regular internet browser.

If the application where to go live, then the priority, flow, and direction of FABâ€™s development would be directed by community Polls regarding desired features submitted by users. In other-words, the most desired missing feature would be implemented next. IE (as FAB stands now): Would have a community poll:â€œWhich feature would you like to see implemented next?â€:

Support for Managing Private Messages
Support for Submission Comments
Support for non image submissions (something high on  the list anyways)
Support for browsing FA
Etc..
So first to start off:

*What is it?*Well in short, itâ€™s a dedicated internet browser specifically designed for browsing Fur Affinity. Here's a few screenshots of the application now, i reference these a few times throughout this post, *keep in mind the apps still way under development*. (NOTE: Ive blurred out any image that was not G rated and second, if there are any artists who's submissions are depicted in the screenshots and wish to have them removed please inform me and i will remove them ASAP!)


Submission Gallery
Submission Gallery Labeled
Submission Full View
​*Why has it been made?*Well I made it for my own personal uses, however as it stands it wouldnâ€™t take much to extend it into a full FA browser. Keep this in mind though, as comments such as â€œYour and idiot! This idea is stupid, no one will ever use it!â€ etc, will not mean much to me, because as it stands I made FAB for myself and I see the time spent developing it thus far as well spent.​*Why would I want to us FAB vs ____ internet browser?*


* In regards of FAB vs a standard browser:*
â€¢ *   Performance*I.    There's not much of a performance gain, though there is some. Even though thereâ€™s not much of a performance gain, there is NO Performance loss!
    *Devâ€™s See Footer Note: A
II.    However, maybe waaaaay down the road, if FAâ€™s site mods implemented a rest protocol for the site that allowed apps like this to connect to FA's servers and get pages in a xml format, allowing the app to read the pages much quicker and more effectively, then the performance gain would be a fairly large one.
III.    Also, the fact that the app is specifically designed for FA, does mean that the UI is going to be much friendlier for browsing FA.​â€¢    *Additional Tools*

 I.    One of the biggest reasons I developed this app was to streamline the process of downloading FA Artistâ€™s submissions into sorted libraries for my own personal reasons.
 II.    For those of you who, like me, for whatever reason, download FA images, then this app is for you.
 III.    Currently the app supports What i call FolderSavers (they are those 64x64px buttons to the left of the submission previews). These are fully configurable by the user and several types exists to support dynamic, smart pathing. Submissions can be saved automatically  via clicking these buttons, or dragging submissions onto the buttons.
 IV.    For example, a user can configure a new button for comic submissions, and dictate this as a comic FolderSaver. When a FA comic submission is saved via this FolderSaver, the app will automatically determine if a folder already exists for the comic series, or create one if needed and save it there.
 V.    Each type of FolderSaver, can be customized via user settings, allowing the user to configure the dynamic smart pathing, exactly how they want
 VI.    Images are downloaded directly, and the actual image file is tagged with the keywords listed in the submissions details. So if you use some sort of image browser (Adobe Bridge, Windows Picture Gallery, XnView, etc), the images will already be tagged for you,  allowing you to browse and search via tags.
*â€¢    Fur Affinity Site Extensions*I.    A feature that i am currently working on is adding automated support for comics. IE comics will appear differently inside the submission gallery window. Allowing the user options like viewing all the comic's pages at once, downloading them all at once, or even just scrolling through them.​*â€¢    Current Concernsâ€™/Features in Progress/*I.    ADâ€™s: I have yet to speak to any Site Devâ€™s, but as a fellow WebAdmin, I know how much potential revenue ADâ€™s bring in. As such the app will not be publicly released until ADâ€™s are displayed and views are tracked properly within FAB.​*Developer Notes:*A.    FAB uses a custom designed text parser that allows FAB to parse streams of html as the application loads them. And exactly like a modern day browser, FAB only loops through the pages content once. So inreality, performance should be that of a given internet browser or even slightly faster (if the browser inquestion loops through the page more than once while loading for whatever reason, ex poorly written addons)​Important Note: FAB logs-in the user via internal http requests and responses, as such the *user must enter their account information into the application*. This account information can be saved (via the 'remember login info' checkbox). If it is saved, then the information is stored in an encrypted settings file. 

For now the users password IS NOT SAVED between sessions (a session is the time between opening FAB and fully exiting the application/FAB), so yes you will have to enter it every time you start FAB.

Now I know what you are all thinking and if youâ€™re not thinking it, you _should _be: "Hey, Screw you bunni! Your app's just going to steal our login credentials!â€ Well I could sit here and deny it until my face turns blue but this raises two very valid issues. The former, aforementioned issue of user credentials and the issue that arises from the only solution FAB= Open Source/ Closed Source.

As it stands, Id wouldnâ€™t mind it (and even prefer it) that the app stays Partially Open (ie open to a select few). Iâ€™ve had a few open source programs ripped off me in the past, so I am not too keen on fully open source. Though I suppose ill inevitably will end up going open source anyways (if not by the time this thread reaches a few pages in length).

Either way, this application requires the user's password, and the only way around it is to get community trusted (and programming savvy) members to view the programâ€™s source code and give it their seal of approval. If there are any folk who meet such a description and would be willing to volunteer it will be *greatly appreciated*! I will send them the source code so they may verify that there is no malicious code (ie virus's, trojans, etc) and most importantly, that the users password is not comprised in any shape or form).


*So in short:
 1) Who would be interested/think they would use such a program if it was publicly available? 
 2) Are there any devâ€™s interested in lending a hand on such a project?



*_NOTE: this post has been posted *with *permission from FAF mods




EDIT: Points from discussion to avoid repetitive posting:
_


Bunni said:


> Smelge said:
> 
> 
> > Won't this project get slightly broken when the new interface arrives, or have you worked that into your plans.
> ...





Bunni said:


> nrr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, okay, I suppose that makes this venture completely legitimate. :roll:
> ...





Bunni said:


> Jashwa said:
> 
> 
> > [this]
> ...


----------



## Smelge (Jun 20, 2010)

Won't this project get slightly broken when the new interface arrives, or have you worked that into your plans.

Also, what exactly is the point in having a browser geared specifically for a single site when every other browser handles it just fine? Couldn't you just create plugins for Firefox and others to replicate what you want, without creating a whole new browser.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 20, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Won't this project get slightly broken when the new interface arrives, or have you worked that into your plans.
> 
> Also, what exactly is the point in having a browser geared specifically for a single site when every other browser handles it just fine? Couldn't you just create plugins for Firefox and others to replicate what you want, without creating a whole new browser.


 [this]

Not to mention that the quality will probably worse than the normal browsers. 

There's just really not a use for having a browser geared just for this site.


----------



## Vango (Jun 20, 2010)

the entire idea sounds useless and pointless in my opinion, but that's because the general site is more than enough and i don't see any purpose for an improved 'browser' to look at my furry porn.


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2010)

...I don't see the point of launching a whole new application for a specific website.


----------



## Dyluck (Jun 20, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Won't this project get slightly broken when the new interface arrives, or have you worked that into your plans.


 
Are you talking about Ferrox

hahaha

you're so funny :3


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2010)

Dyluck said:


> Are you talking about Ferrox
> 
> hahaha
> 
> you're so funny :3


 
No, but there is an interface overhaul coming late summer/early autumn. It's been announced.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Won't this project get slightly broken when the new interface arrives, or have you worked that into your plans.


 Its been worked into the code, very little is hardcoded, but true enough site changes _can _break parts of the code but as mentioned before the small fragments that the code does look for, can very, _very _easily be adapted to the new site. Though ultimately the point is still valid, thus my desire for a rest protocol, so the app can communicate directly with the site and not have to worry about parsing for desired items.



Smelge said:


> Also, what exactly is the point in having a browser geared specifically for a single site when every other browser handles it just fine? Couldn't you just create plugins for Firefox and others to replicate what you want, without creating a whole new browser.


 Keep in mind that the site was developed within the limitations of said browsers, not to mention they are designed to be at the middle ground of user friendly to most sites. I'm not looking to develop this app as a solve all that any user who merely visits the site will die to use. Im looking to target the hardcore visitors, the artists, etc; Add features they want. Furthermore there are performence gains, for example many many submission can be loaded can be loaded simultaneously, much faster than on a typical browser and displayed to the user in a much more managable way.  Submissions can be loaded faster because the submissions download url is determined straight from the browsing pages and the submission list pages. So in reality a submissions page is never even loaded unless the user clicks the 'display details' button.


But still true enough, why go through the trouble of downloading the app when one can easily browse FA as it was intended to be viewed? As it stands FAB doesnt offer many additional features, but i am sure there are other users out there who have ideas for additional features like the FolderSaver.

Either way, good points.


----------



## nrr (Jun 20, 2010)

Bunni said:


> _NOTE: this post has been posted *with *permission from FAF mods_


Oh, okay, I suppose that makes this venture completely legitimate. :roll:

Why are we focusing on all of this rampant code duplication when we could be contributing to an existing project with lots of momentum already?  I don't see the point.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> [this]
> 
> Not to mention that the quality will probably worse than the normal browsers.
> 
> There's just really not a use for having a browser geared just for this site.


 
True, and im sure  there will be alot of users that feel the same way. But on the other hand, maybe there are features that you've desired to be implemented into FA that havent or were denied. Maybe they can be easily implemented into FAB... Maybe you fit this category, maybe not, maybe there are users out there who do. That's what i am trying to find out.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

nrr said:


> Oh, okay, I suppose that makes this venture completely legitimate. :roll:


 No that comment was placed to prevent concerns regarding any possible  site mod disagreement with posting about this (mostly my concerns with posting about a app that currently negates FA ad's). Its not placed to brain  wash you into loving this idea.



nrr said:


> Why are we focusing on all of this rampant code duplication when we could be contributing to an existing project with lots of momentum already?  I don't see the point.


True, for several reasons.

1) FA is closed source, i would love to contribute to FA, but i would have to be known well enough to be accepted, or have a background check. To be a site dev you have to have the keys to the palace. (unless FA releases the source behind their site, available to users who wish to make contributions, then my point is moot)

2) Feature that could not be implemented into a browser can be added

3) Features can be added that were not implemented into FA simply because it hindered the average users browsing experience, or not enough users wanted it or what ever. As a seperate app we can easily add such features and easily have them configurable or even allow users to disable them in the configuration. Unlike the site which for every such feature more and more code as to be added in the background of the site, that eventually starts clogging the sites gears. For example code to check if a user has ___ feature enabled, and whether or not to display it and load needed data, etc.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 20, 2010)

Sounds, on the large part, to be too redundant, and actually lowers functionality (such as, having to log in every single time). 

1) I don't really think anyone would be interested - There might be a handful of people at most? It'd be like downloading a youtube client or something. So I guess it'd be those few that like redundant applications? Or whatever.
2) I really hope not - I'd hope they'd have much better things to do :v


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Sounds, on the large part, to be too redundant, and actually lowers functionality (such as, having to log in every single time).


 Hehe to clarify on that login comment i made, i wanted to avoid saving the user's credentials for the moment to a file as clear text. The app has a save login credentials (so you want have to login every time) feature but it is disabled for the moment until i implement a encryption method for the credentials.


Lastdirewolf said:


> 1) I don't really think anyone would be interested - There might be a handful of people at most? It'd be like downloading a youtube client or something. So I guess it'd be those few that like redundant applications? Or whatever.
> 2) I really hope not - I'd hope they'd have much better things to do :v


Im looking to target folk who spend a lot of time on FA and a more effcient and direct means for browsing it. But still, valid point.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 20, 2010)

Most of us just aren't seeing why you're going to the trouble of making this browser when there isn't a demand for it. It's your time, though, so have fun being sad when the project you devoted time to doesn't get used by anyone.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Most of us just aren't seeing why you're going to  the trouble of making this browser when there isn't a demand for it.  It's your time, though, so have fun being sad when the project you  devoted time to doesn't get used by anyone.


 Youch, thats cold. But again. 



Bunni said:


> *The purpose behind this post is to  survey and gauge possible user interest and possible developer  interest.*
> 
> 
> *If there is enough interest and the  application is deemed worthy to dedicate time for developing it.* Then of  course permission will be sought from all involved parties (most  importantly FA Site devâ€™s). However before the application goes live,  WIP Feature I: Ad's will be implemented! Simply because it is the only  feature that separates FAB from a regular internet browser.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 20, 2010)

pretty much this idea isnt needed much, and I doubt the hardcore would even use it


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 20, 2010)

Bunni said:


> Youch, thats cold. But again.


 Just being blunt. 

You seem really defensive of it, though. It's like you plan on doing it even if we all tell you that it's a bad idea, contrary to what you say this thread is for in your OP.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 20, 2010)

Bunni said:


> *Im looking to target folk who spend a lot of time on FA* and a more effcient and direct means for browsing it. But still, valid point.


 
Yeah, I'm one of those, and I can't see this thing being better/more useful than the actual FA website - Even if there are additional functions, you can't get much faster or simpler than FA. Even the new-coming FA appears much more complex and slower to use than the current FA. I saw the images for the gallery, or the concept of it, and that looks worse/less efficient then FA currently :/


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Just being blunt.
> 
> You seem really defensive of it, though. It's like you plan on doing it even if we all tell you that it's a bad idea, contrary to what you say this thread is for in your OP.


Hehe, sorry about that!  
If it seems im being defensive its because im just trying to ensure that users have a full idea of what capabilities the app could have before they turn it down. People only want what they know exists, if cars never existed you'd never want one, etc etc .

Anyways, to clarify, I've gotten it to the stage its at for my own personal reasons. It crossed my mind that the app could be extended to fully wrap FA's site and this post was made to determine if the effort and time put in to do so would be worth it. Its more than apperent that users are more than happy with FA's current state so ill leave it at that, no hard feelings and no time lost behind the time spent making this post.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yeah, I'm one of those, and I can't see this being better/more useful than the actual FA website - Even if there are additional functions, you can't get much faster or simpler than FA. Even the new-coming FA appears much more complex and slower to use than the current FA.


 Well in the spirit of healthy conversation in that regard their are two notes:

1) if a rest protocol was made, than this app would be loads faster than any internet browser.
2) As it stands, FAB is faster than a internet browser in some areas. For example, when a user clicks to view a submission in full, only the submission is (DIRECTLY) downloaded, the app never even touches the submissions detail page. While normal internet browsers load the submission detail pages to view a submission, spending time loading all the content on those pages. FAB negates this by directly downloading the submissions who's download urls are predetermined from the submission gallery page.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 20, 2010)

Bunni said:


> Well in the spirit of healthy conversation in that regard their are two notes:
> 
> 1) if a rest protocol was made, than this app would be loads faster than any internet browser.
> 2) As it stands, FAB is faster than a internet browser in some areas. For example, when a user clicks to view a submission in full, only the submission is (DIRECTLY) downloaded, the app never even touches the submissions detail page. While normal internet browsers load the submission detail pages to view a submission, spending time loading all the content on those pages. FAB negates this by directly downloading the submissions who's download urls are predetermined from the submission gallery page.


 
So we're talking about a matter of nano/milliseconds here? When I'm browsing, the whole thing page downloads in less than 1/2 a second, and the image is the first thing to download. I can see this now might pose a use for dial-up users  there's an additional 2-5 people.


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2010)

Bunni said:


> For example, when a user clicks to view a submission in full, only the submission is (DIRECTLY) downloaded, the app never even touches the submissions detail page.


 
...Why wouldn't you want people to see the artists' descriptions of their work?


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 20, 2010)

Aden said:


> ...Why wouldn't you want people to see the artists' descriptions of their work?


 Porn.


----------



## Bunni (Jun 20, 2010)

Aden said:


> ...Why wouldn't you want people to see the artists' descriptions of their work?


 no you can see the description by clicking the "show details" button, loads the page within a second depending on isp.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jun 20, 2010)

FA works just fine in my browser. I don't see the need for a second one just for one single website.


----------



## Armaetus (Jun 20, 2010)

As other said, this seems a bit redundant as Chrome is quick enough..what is the point of a web browser for furaffinity.net when it's my homepage?


----------



## Willow (Jun 20, 2010)

I'm pretty content with using FireFox as my browser

I don't see why this is something we need


----------



## Firehazard (Jun 23, 2010)

Bunni, I have a very good suggestion for you. *ASK TO JOIN THE DEV TEAM.* You obviously have (1) mad coding skills, (2) lots of spare time, and (3) an interest in using both for the benefit of the FA community. If you can build a browser that parses the entire site and displays it in a radically different format, I bet you can overhaul the site itself. Seriously, send Dragoneer a copy of this thing you made. I can almost guarantee he'll be impressed.


----------

