431–440 of 733 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's bullshit, it's not an attempt to help anybody but Google. What better way to keep people on AMP pages, than to make them so ignorant as to not even know how to tell the difference?
What the heck? A regular user doesn’t understand or care what the technical difference between a “regular” page and AMP is. I wouldn’t call this ignorance per se.
Isn't this a good example of "feature creep"? I dont see any reason why it makes a browser more useful when the URL is partially hidden. It reminds me of a company which developed a product which was more or less done. So the SWE manager and the product manager made up new (pretty useless) features just to tell their bosses the devs are busy and the team must stay intact.
To try and think of an upside for the user, it might help people detect phishing by making the domain name more prominent. I've seen phishing sites like support.google.com.8n.cn where the right side (the most important) just disappears into the /path. Though this attack is even more brilliant on mobile devices that truncate the right hand side and leave with you with "support.google.com...". Aside, I encourage fellow…
If their goal is really to help detect fraudulent sites (the sorts of google.com.notahacker.tk), they can just show the domain in a more prominent way -- they're already deemphasizing the part of the URL after the domain name anyway. This is clearly not their motive. What Google is trying to do here is to drift the web from its most iconic components: the URL. This is the biggest threat to the web that we loved for s…
The URL bar takes up a huge amount of screen real estate and is a piece of information that the user almost never needs once they have confirmed they navigated successfully to the desired page. Developers are a special case user and capable of handling advanced UIs that hide information until it is needed. It's iconic but it's a UI space resource hog. To improve browser experience, sometimes one has to be willing to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The URL bar takes up a huge amount of screen real estate and is a piece of information that the user almost never needs once they have confirmed they navigated successfully to the desired page. Developers are a special case user and capable of handling advanced UIs that hide information until it is needed. It's iconic but it's a UI space resource hog. To improve browser experience, sometimes one has to be willing to…
Hmm, don't all mobile browsers already autohide the URL bar when the page starts scrolling up? Seems like that worked fine so far. Besides the OP is about hiding part of the URL (path), not the URL bar of the browsers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As the smaller vendor, it's incumbent upon Mozilla to break it. That's kind of impossible to do for a smaller vendor without wider developer cooperation. I remember Mozilla only started to breach IE's dominance once devs were so sick of IE that they installed Firefox on their mom's computer despite tons of sites being made for IE. It's possible for something like it to happen again with Chrome, but less likely sinc…
But that's the thing, if Google is responsive enough to implementing new technologies and improving their browser, there's no reason for most web devs to advocate for an alternative browser. A (high-quality) monoculture is actually much much easier on most web devs, because it minimizes the number of browsers they have to support for quirks.
Short-term, sure. Long-term it opens devs to Google's whims and makes the "open" web barely more open than Apple's AppStore.
But that's short-term vs long-term thinking and I can't deny most would prioritize the short-term. Here's hoping there's still enough idealists, even among web devs to avoid that fate and bring about for the web what GNU did for UNIX in the 80/90s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's still an option.
The quality of Firefox on Windows as software is much to be desired. Due to slow loading, I'm considering whatever they call the Microsoft browser today.
Reading URLs is actually really hard - even for experts. This video covers the problems well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wB1VY3Nrc This is bad for web security, since the registerable domain is the part you have to trust, but it's surprisingly difficult to figure out that part. However I feel a bit uneasy about this since URLs are important and tell you where you are on a website. I prefer Firefox's approach w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, why haven't you quit already? The only things it offers others don't, are anti consumer vendor lock in nonsense like hangouts and google earth. (Not sure about hangouts and meet these days, mozilla likely made it work, but not for lack of scumbag google trying otherwise).
Because it has bugs that make it unusable for some people (e.g developers) - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1628162
1 - Selecting multiple tabs and saving to bookmarks: you can't add to an existing folder without creating a subfolder.
2 - Add keywords to bookmarks: no way to filter bookmarks that have keywords. Also, when typing on the address bar, the keyword doesn't get highlighted or anything
3 - can't add a custom search engine. You have to add its extension, if available. Or add as a bookmark with a keyword, but then you won't be able to see a list of all search engines...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As the smaller vendor, it's incumbent upon Mozilla to break it. That's kind of impossible to do for a smaller vendor without wider developer cooperation. I remember Mozilla only started to breach IE's dominance once devs were so sick of IE that they installed Firefox on their mom's computer despite tons of sites being made for IE. It's possible for something like it to happen again with Chrome, but less likely sinc…
But that's the thing, if Google is responsive enough to implementing new technologies and improving their browser, there's no reason for most web devs to advocate for an alternative browser. A (high-quality) monoculture is actually much much easier on most web devs, because it minimizes the number of browsers they have to support for quirks.
The history of biological evolution shows that monocultures invariably fail catastrophically. Diversity is the main way to guard against unpredictable events of the future. Software is not exempt from these general rules I'd presume.