Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome breaks the Web

tonsky.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 473 posts

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#351

Post by rawnlq »

ajross wrote: post #198

OK, this sounds bad. But... Devil's advocacy here: are there any real-world examples of actual sites whose event behavior was actually broken by this change in Chrome 56? It happened a few months back, and I don't remember anyone complaining. I mean... it broke the author's app. Probably a few others somewhere. But it seems not to have broken anything significant. I guess I fail to see the concern here. It's an edge…

There's a demo I wrote using jQuery UI Draggable that used to work with touch on mobile (using jquery ui touch punch) that no longer works.

I actually had no idea what could've broke it until I saw this submission. It's still not going to be fixed though since I don't remember the code. I assume a lot of people are in a similar position.

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#352

Post by cvsh »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #118
nialv7 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know who is a big user of JS? Who is using more, and more complex JS on their websites? Google. Google is also the pusher of some of the WebAPIs that will give browsers more access to your system (e.g. WebUSB [1]) Do you think Google is breaking JS to make themselves using less JS? [1]: https://wicg.github.io/webusb/

Of course I don't think that. But I recognize this move by Google as beneficial to my own goals, namely getting JavaScript off of the web.

Congratulations on your opinion! You are free to disable JavaScript on your own browser and be rid of it forever. Meanwhile, in the real world, JavaScript is never "getting off the web".

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#353

Post by drewmol »

KeitIG wrote: post #9

> 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…

As I've seen others mention, there seems to be a divide between the most user friendly behavior for: (1) public webpage w wide ranging user base that will be consistently updated and developed+ monitored for the widest compatibility, latest security, and (2) the CRM, intranet app, hardware config portal, etc. that will not. Any web devs have recommendations on how they handle the two circumstances?

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#354

Post by ksk »

UncleMeat wrote: post #304
ksk wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is breaking websites good for the user?

Adblock is "breaking websites". If a website is doing something crappy, I'd prefer to not have that crappy thing happen than experience the developer's true intent.

I would wager that if asked, a user would prefer that a website continue to work.

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#355

Post by techdragon »

robryk wrote: post #349
will_hughes wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly one view of the world. Come work tech support for a company/product with a web-based form that has a password field in it (like a CRM or other administrative system). Now explain to users why we can't stop their browser filling in their password in the field that's asking for the other user's password. I've had situations where I'm configuring a VPN connection on the web interface for a router... the…

> asking for the other user's password What? Why would the other user ever provide their password to this user?

How about an Administration interface that allows you to set a password to a known value for the user to use so they can log back into their account.

So the helpful support person can now go "Your password is now 'foobar' and you will be asked to pick a new one when you login."

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#356

Post by [deleted] »

pluma wrote: post #50
Spivak wrote: post #35

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…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#357

Post by datashovel »

A great example of why I think the entire core ecosystem of the web is backwards.

I've had a number of comments here on HN related to this. Imagine this same scenario, except instead of the User being in charge of deciding which engine is used to render a website / webapp, the Developer is making that choice. What would a developer need to do if they were in control of which "engine" rendered their website on the user's computer?

Instead of being at the mercy of Google / Chrome, the developer of said site could simply change their HTTP Header "X-BrowserEngine" or something like this, and the client's computer would know how to (a) download the new engine if it's not on the computer already (b) sandbox the new engine (c) run the site / app in said engine.

I've called this idea the "Meta Browser" in the past. It's a concept for an app that sandboxes and runs sites on different browser engines seamlessly. The user experience is more or less as though they're continuing to use a single app to browse the web, but behind the scenes could be any number of custom engines rendering the content.

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#358

Post by Tyr42 »

pas wrote: post #290
halr9000 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not protecting your interests, it's protecting Google's interests. But you can always install (or develop) another browser that might do this job better for you . > If it was protecting your interests, it would be a toggleable setting that defaults to normalized behavior. The problem with this view is that the vast majority of end users do not want, and in fact will never know about or use a new setting, and s…

Users don't use thousands of sites. If a site misbehaves and users want autofill on it, they should be able to override autocomplete=off for that site. Google could even make an extension for this to allow users to gather and share a list of sites that behave in a user unfriendly way. But of course, it was much easier to fuck up half of the Web. Public choice and mandates are great for things that require cooperation…

> If a site misbehaves and users want autofill on it, they should be able to override autocomplete=off for that site.

How?

What do you imagine?

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#359

Post by 013a »

nashashmi wrote: post #326
UncleMeat wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adblock is "breaking websites". If a website is doing something crappy, I'd prefer to not have that crappy thing happen than experience the developer's true intent.

Adblock is opt-in. If the browser misbehaves because of an extension, the browser nor website is to be blamed. Chrome cannot decide on a whim that old websites should be broken. It is not how the web moves forward. Take for example Firefox that kept breaking extensions with every update, now they have few compatible extensions.

Choosing to use Chrome is also opt-in. Its the same concept. Its not ideal, but it is what it is.

Re: Chrome breaks the Web

#360

Post by jcranmer »

eropple wrote: post #294
josteink wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not really comparable to IE. MS had a pretty explicit goal of destroying Netscape While Chrome has the goal to destroy everything else. Example 1: Google Chrome spam on youtube, gmail, every website on the internet. I can't count the amount of times my parents called and asked why Google asked them to "upgrade their browser" (hint: It wasn't a new Firefox-build). Example 2: Sending email SPAM to all Google-use…

> Example 2: Sending email SPAM to all Google-users where they are advised to install Chrome if they ever sign in to their Google-account on a new machine using anything except Chrome. Cite? I've never seen this, and I use Firefox regularly. > Example 3: Installing Chrome unasked as drive-by installers when you install anything lots of freeware, because Google paid third-party developers to host Chrome as a spyware-l…

Avast makes it hard not to install Chrome, and I think it's part of the Java installer as well.
Post reply on HN