51–60 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this affect Firefox LTS? It doesn’t.
Devs frequently assume "Chrome", because that's what they use. So, passing an unexpected argument to addEventListener will break LTS releases.
If you care about backward compatibility there exists a polyfill for this functionality.
> Turned out, Google wasn’t concerned about your websites at all. It was more concerned about its own product performance, Google Chrome Mobile. As a web developer, I see this attitude a lot and it annoys me immensely. Another way of phrasing it: Google is putting users first, ahead of developers. This is as it should be. "your" website exists to serve users, if you're doing a bad job at it then maybe it's an opportu…
Code rot is very real for websites, and I worry that in the quest to do things 'right' Chrome is undervaluing the incremental harm done by every change. I don't think this action broke the web, but I'm wary of the idea that breaking changes can be casually blamed on the people who didn't update fast enough.
Change is bad, inasmuch as it makes new work for maintainers and harms user experience where maintenance isn't prompt. It's often necessary, but there ought to be an open discussion about timeframes and impact before a change happens. In this case, the discussion largely happened after the fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being sarcastic, but this is a great idea. Let's do it.
You have an interesting point of view. Why do you feel this way?
I side with Google on this one. IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites.
> IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites. Though not by pushing it down people's throats in a backwards-incompatible way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this a reaction to moronic use of autocomplete=off in a user-hostile way by various websites? In a similar vein to how abuses of disabling the back button, popups etc have led to defensive measures by browser vendors.
You are right, but my personal problem here is autocomplete is automatically applied where it should not be. [1] [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466...
Personally, I installed a Safari plugin to ignore autocomplete=off because it was so annoying. So Chrome is doing what I want my browser to do.
I side with Google on this one. IMO we should be breaking JavaScript more often, especially in the name of performance, to make people use less JS and simpler JS on their websites.
Except that Firefox LTS and other minority browsers suffer. I already use a couple sites that disregard all old Firefox compatibilities and use JS that break things up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, some people do it right Who? Any examples?
I normally hate scroll jacking, but the Australian news article on the NK ballistic missile range was pretty cool, even on mobile. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that some sites decided to use autocomplete=off to impose their feeling about password managers on users and make them more difficult to use. It's the same reason I have to turn off clipboard events because some sites think it's okay to block copy/paste.
How is this different from websites that think it's okay to force you to abide by ridiculous password restrictions (e.g. 6-8 characters, must include digits, upper- and lowercase letters, and special characters but no quotation marks or any known SQL keywords)? The right thing to do is to bring the issue up with whoever is running the website. If they decide not to act on it because they think they know security/UX b…
The difference is that disabling of "autocomplete" is a user interface issue, and can be addressed by the browser I use. The problem of ridiculous password restrictions is not usually something that can be controlled by the client.
I like the idea of convincing IT to change crazy password policies, but I don't have the mental energy to navigate these huge bureaucracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, some people do it right Who? Any examples?
I normally hate scroll jacking, but the Australian news article on the NK ballistic missile range was pretty cool, even on mobile. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile...
Scrolling on this article is buttery smooth on my Apollo Lake (1.1GHz Celeron) netbook, on both Firefox and Chrome, even if the background animations aren’t. No jank whatsoever.
> they made all top-level event listeners passive by default. They call it “an intervention”. This is my very problem with Chrome/Chromium right now. The Chrome team does assumption on how things "should" be (in a highly subjective way) and breaks the web. Another example: they decided to ignore the value of `autocomplete` attributes on ` ` tags [1], because: > The tricky part here is that somewhere along the journey…