211–220 of 733 posts
Firefox became quite fast again after Quantum. For those of us who never "bought into" the whole Chrome ecosystem, there's always been adequate alternatives. Will check out: https://www.palemoon.org/
I'd stay clear of that project and use mainstream Firefox instead. And afaik they still don't support WebExtensions.
Why not just use a syntax highlighting approach on the address bar? Protocol one color, domain another, slashes one color, query params another, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to Firefox the moment they hid the `www` prefix.
What’s so bad about hiding www? I kind of prefer it hidden
A screenshot of the browser will not show the www, making it more difficult to find the website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already kind of happens in Firefox. If you have a non public certificate authority, when you visit a site signed by that CA it says that it's not verified by an authority known to Firefox. I don't know if there is a way to "bless" such an authority once it's added to the trust store.
What browser doesn’t warn you about sites signed by a CA not in their list of CAs?
When I wrote the message I wasn't in front of Firefox, now I am. So to summarize:
* The CA's certificate is added to the Firefox store and trusted.
* Visiting a site gets the lock in the address bar.
* Clicking on the lock in bar shows "Connection secure. Connection is verified by a certificate issuer that is not recognized by Mozilla"
Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/T4rznXK
While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…
If you're relying on bug reports to find why a page is broken you're in for a bad time because 99% of the time the user isn't going to report anything. They're just going to think your page is broken and stop using it. Use a telemetry and error reporting service like Sentry or Rollbar. These services can strip sensitive data on the client before it gets logged.
Grand-parents/friends/org users not being sure to be on the right site after a redesign, not seeing amazon in the right language, etc. There’s countless of questions that can be solved faster by looking at the URL.
Another phrase I live by: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There will be some VP of Product or Engineering buried deep in the bureaucracy who is pushing this, deciding with no evidence (or, worse, lots of evidence to the contrary; believe me this happens) that it is the "users who are wrong" [1]. It now takes something like 4 taps to get to the point where I can correct or otherwise edit the URL in m…
> I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense to the point that yeah, I'm ready to ditch Chrome. It's funny what the final piece of straw is that breaks peoples' metaphorical camels' backs. Still, better it breaks and people make the move to greener pastures — hopefully Firefox rather than Chrome-with-even-more-questionable-ethics … I don't remember the name, something like Courageous or Fearless o…
For me, it was their removal a few years ago of the option to use the Backspace key to go back to the previous page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes their serving of AMP less transparent, which is a good thing for them. I guess.
This is the only economically rational explanation I can think of. Unless it ties into other user-abusive projects they have planned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think having it intelligently bold/highlight or perhaps reduce significant parts of the URL would go a long way and likely makes more sense as a next step.
That's exactly what Firefox does. I am typing this on Firefox and in the address bar "ycombinator.com" is in black and the rest of the address is in grey.
For example if I were to go to something like //" rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/// or
the most relevant parts of the url as far as security/trust is concerned is the domain githubusercontent and not the raw subdomain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insightful, but I am confused by the final paragraph: > I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense “SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.
How about this idiocy? https://9to5google.com/2020/06/12/google-android-chrome-blac...
Without mentioning other connotations, IMHO the rise of computers have in places supported discriminating (ie. 0 vs 1) culture, because that is simply what computers can do best. If just renaming terms changes changes this can in fact be doubted.
I am actually not so happy about the consequences of hiding URLs to people. This will also change how we will perceive the Internet but IMHO not for the good. And here the motivations are not as clearly communicated here. It might actually hide some of the beautiful heterogenity and complexity of the Internet to the average user also with unforeseeable consequences.