431–440 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your local church added a scroll listener for their small website, they deserve it.
To be fair, most likely someone's teenage son added a scroll listener when he built the small church's website before going off to college. In the category of "poor decisions made by teenagers" this is pretty tame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, most likely someone's teenage son added a scroll listener when he built the small church's website before going off to college. In the category of "poor decisions made by teenagers" this is pretty tame.
what for?
I'm not saying the decision makes sense. It obviously doesn't. But small organizations like a local church just don't have the expertise or resources to make good decisions about this sort of thing.
Saying they deserve what they get is pretty unhelpful - it is completely unrealistic for them to hire someone who knows what he's doing. They can't fix that problem. So what you're basically saying is "parochial institutions without expertise or money deserve to be screwed over." Personally I'd like to live in a better world than that.
Of course, I also agree with the decision that Chrome made, so... there's that. But the fact that groups like the church got screwed over is unfortunate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You ship an experience like that, you end up not only breaking old websites but shift the emphasis on regularly updated websites that work on mobile. That was the intent! But it is not the web we know and love.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly, but if they are that useful to users, those sites either need to be maintained or forked. Your argument could have just as easily been used to argue for Adobe Flash support(OK it's still sort of around, but it's nearly irrelevant at this point).
> sites either need to be maintained or forked Maintained by who, forked by who? You can't just fork someone's work, there is copyright. Also any saved copy of website(think web archive) will stop working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is such an obvious use case, they basically threw a ton of web-apps/crms under the bus.
While I dislike this behavior of chrome, you should never be able to set a users password.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was there at the time, the whole IE Vs Netscape thing started long before Java became a threat (though you are right about how Microsoft also fought that war as well). Plus Bill Gates has said in interviews since that he was trying to lock the web into Microsofts ecosystem because he saw the threat very early on about how it could be platform agnostic. While you can argue that Chrome and AMP serve the same goal, th…
you have good points. but what I belive gates was refering to at the time was what he was seeing as a threat to windows. if you ever have the chance, buy a used SGI workstation from ebay and play with the system. SGI had an affordable business workstations (pizza boxes) that shipped with irix5. the mais thing for irix 5 was that most of the in house applications (e.g. settings pannel, doc library, etc) were mozilla X…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome is at around 60% of desktop user agents, which is obviously significant but nothing on the scale of what IE was in the 90s. What's more, Chrome's market share plummets massively when you take other devices into account. So comparing Chrome to IE is a little premature when talking about browser monopolies. Next lets look at the actual technology we're complaining about. ActiveX wasn't just an Internet Explorer-…
> Chrome is at around 60% of desktop user agents, which is obviously significant but nothing on the scale of what IE was in the 90s. What's more, Chrome's market share plummets massively when you take other devices into account. Yeah. Where other devices are mostly Android phones running Google's fork of Webkit. I.e., Chrome
However that all said, when it comes to product support, I've found product owners generally only care about Blink (Chrome / whatever) on Android and Safari on iOS. So there's usually little interest in all the other random browser + platform combinations seen in "other devices".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Why would you use input type=password for that?
If it's something like a password, it should be treated like a password. Why shouldn't you use type=password for that?
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.
I'm one of the folks who pushed for autocomplete=off to be disabled for password fields because of abuse. Basically, browsers obeyed autocomplete=off to shut off password managers; and sites used this to shut off password managers for "idk lol security" reasons. This isn't what the autocomplete attribute was for in the first place; password managers have a different workflow and saving a password is prompted to the u…
This is a continual frustration of mine, when valuable diagnostic data is disabled for security reasons and then when stuff breaks I'm asked to go fix it blind. Sure you can have gigabytes of audit logs that are impossible to find anything in, but an error message that tells you that some system certificate expired is too much of a security vulnerability.