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

Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 574 posts

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#231

Post by snaky »

JohnFen wrote: post #194
snaky wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We cant ban just the bad Javascript Well, technically it's possible, and even some parts of the script could be allowed to run or not. > a browser cannot distinguish it from the good But the user can. And the machine could help, thanks to machine learning.

> But the user can. How? I don't think that users even agree what consists of "good" and "bad" JavaScript.

For the simplest possible example, ask any Noscript extension user.

For the more advanced things, like identifying the part of Javascript code that brings e.g. 'the fancy eating 40% of the CPU scrollbar' user want to disable, some automation is needed.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#232

Post by pluc »

Gotta love the constant battle between marketing and common sense. We implement something, marketing learns of it, abuses it, we tweak or kill the thing into a pale shadow of its former self.

This is also why we can't have nice things by the way.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#233

Post by dymk »

StavrosK wrote: post #211
superkuh wrote: post #156

Firefox also automatically blocks users from installing or editing their own add-ons.

I have never seen this, so citation needed.

I think the GP is referring to not being able to install non-signed add-ons in non-developer versions of Firefox.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#234

Post by anoncake »

tehlike wrote: post #210
thatfunkymunki wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not talking about cancerous in-browser webapps. He's talking about actual clients.

You mean clients i can hardly update, and most often clunky as well? I dont see the improvement. I can use web apps on any platform without waiting for the company to do it. I refuse to install apps on my devices.

> You mean clients i can hardly update

Yes! You dont have to update if you dont want to. Thats a feature. Of course, the rise of proprietary APIs over interoperable protocols has lessened that advantage.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#238

Post by saagarjha »

tehlike wrote: post #210
thatfunkymunki wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not talking about cancerous in-browser webapps. He's talking about actual clients.

You mean clients i can hardly update, and most often clunky as well? I dont see the improvement. I can use web apps on any platform without waiting for the company to do it. I refuse to install apps on my devices.

> You mean clients i can hardly update, and most often clunky as well? I dont see the improvement.

Is better performance and more features not an improvement to you?

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#239

Post by darkstar999 »

I've switched over to Firefox on all devices. It's especially useful on Android because I can use uBlock and other useful extensions, where Chrome doesn't have any.

The only feature I hope for is "hit tab to search" after typing a domain name in the search bar. For example in Chrome I can type "youtube.com" and then hit tab, and then type in a search query.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#240

Post by BonesJustice »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #188
an4rchy wrote: post #159

Does this include Netflix? It's been getting really annoying to have random videos your mouse is on, as you scroll, start playing automatically.

Indeed, the autoplay feature of Netflix is insanely intrusive. How are you supposed to let menus sit while you do something else, or even just read details.

If I’m ever willing to make the time, I think I’ll complain to Netflix about this while framing it as an accessibility problem.

They must know by now how many people hate this, but they refuse to let users disable it. If you CC their general counsel and point out that it raises access barriers for users with attention or anxiety disorders, they might actually do something.

Post reply on HN