Isn't this what browsers already do? My Firefox has favorites, a search box, etc.

So.... Yagglo is an add-on to browsers? Or is Yagglo a browser itself?

It is a browser, but it works within your current browser. This way people won't have to download anything. It's also the fastest way to get it out to people.

Its either a stand-alone browser, or an add-on. It can't technically be both at the same time. How are you going to build it?

If it's javascript, it's not a browser. If it's javascript, it's an add-on. Do you think the addition of MORE buttons for people will help make the Internet easier?

Most people think the Google search engine is a browser, so it doesn't really matter what we call it. We are making a place for people to simply browse the web without using their current browsers' interface. We are not adding more buttons, we are giving people an easier option without the hassle of downloading anything new. This is the best way for us to get into the market.

I see more buttons, on top of many pre-existing browser buttons. You can't put JavaScript in front of people without serving it (aka downloading it) to their system.

I think you see more buttons because you use the browser the way it was intended to be used. Most people don't do that. They use the address bar to go to google to search what they are looking for, use tabs and favorites, and maybe use the back button. My mom doesn't even know what a web browser is, or how to really use one.

When I say downloading I mean downloading to your OS and having to choose whether to "Run" "Save" or "Open" the application. You won't have to do that with Yagglo. It's a website. You just type in yagglo.com and you are using it.

I'm glad its a website! (and not a browser or browser add-on). So it might be something like the DiggBar? http://digg.com/d31HE98

More like this http://www.bigwebmaster.com/1049.html

Eww, that's trouble. "be aware that they have a number of shortcomings.  For instance,
capturing pages that themselves contain frame-buster scripts (like our own -- see the
 index) is not possible, and standard links that subsequently use target="_top" will
co-opt the frameset used in the javascript browser."

Did you consider all the drawbacks of framing every website?

Frame-buster scripts (which google uses like crazy) are a problem, but virtual browsers seem to get around them pretty easily. I'm not sure if it's because they hide the your IP address though. There are many drawbacks to doing it this way, but the benefits for the user out-weigh them. Users don't have to download anything to their computer, the software is always up to date, and they can use it from any computer and mobile phone (with a browser). It is doable, I just have to find the right people to want to do it too.

Framing sites is HIGHLY frowned-upon in some circles, like seo, w3c, and usability folks.

What your source when referring to virtual browsers and their "getting around the frame busting sites? If framing was consider acceptable, WHY would major sites like google and fb and Twitter have bust-out scripts.

The Internet isn't made for framing sites, it's very hackish.

http://www.eatmybrowser.com/ is one and a friend of mine uses another at work to go on FB (I can't remember the name). For what we are building we don't have many options. From what I have seen, this seems to be the best, even if it is frowned upon (which I totally understand why) So we may have to hack away, even if it pisses people off. We have to get started somewhere.

Proxy servers are shady neighborhoods, bro. Your URL will be banned everywhere you go.

Hell yea they are. I'm not talking about doing anything illegal, I'm saying that the concept is there and that it can be done. You know much more about programming than I do, what would be the best way to get about this?