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

You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

mastodon.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 318 posts

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#131

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

nightpool wrote: post #98
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> auto-playing MP4s were essential I never want auto playing videos. Ever. It is my personal preference and i should be able to express that in my browser, overriding your preference, as the author of the web page.

Do you have the same preference for auto-playing GIFs? If so then yes, we agree—users should be able to customize their user agent to serve their needs. If you don't, then I'd be interested to hear why. I don't believe any browser should treat GIFs and muted videos differently, and that was the crux of the GP's claim.

Animated GIFs are videos. They may not require a video tag, but they are videos by definition of using multi-frame images that change to simulate motion.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#132

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

sroussey wrote: post #99
dragontamer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about an extension that disables video elements until you click on them ... Like how Internet Explorer treated Java applets towards the end on their days. No. Short MP4 files should replace GIFs. MP4 files are more efficient than the terrible compression GIF files have. I've made a few video game pages where auto-playing MP4s were essential at giving the right message... discussion of tactics and "movement" of…

Not sure why you are downvoted. Animated gifs are huge in comparison. One thing to note, however, is that it must be without sound. Auto playing sound of any sort is complete garbage.

> Not sure why you are downvoted.

Because auto-playing motion is something I should be able to disable. It distracts me and I don’t want it. Ever.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#133

Post by npsimons »

northwest65 wrote: post #16

How about an opt in botnet extension for your browser that focuses it's energy on sites with this sort of dark pattern behaviour. i.e. You install the extension, when you come across a site like this you vote it for getting punishment, once the site gets enough vote the botnet occasionally focusses it's energy on the site in question when the participants browser is otherwise sitting idle. The punishment could potent…

Tempting as this is, it's a colossally bad idea: just as one point, how long do you think it would take for the usual operators of botnets (spammers, those attempting DDoS for other purposes, etc) to target the C&C for this botnet? Why go to the trouble of building a botnet when someone else has already done it for you!

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#134

Post by est31 »

arnaudsm wrote: post #124

Let's face it : the modern web is a nightmare without an adblocker and annoyance blocklists. And most web creators aren't even aware because they use these tools themselves. No wonder why normal people like walled gardens, the UI is more streamlined and (mostly) more respectful.

> No wonder why normal people like walled gardens, the UI is more streamlined and (mostly) more respectful.

Oh wow that's actually a good point, never thought about it that way. You are spot on I think, besides some heavy attempts by services to get people to use their apps (especially pronounced on mobile).

Note though that the web has always been annoying users, or at least many website have. I remember how in the 2000s, Firefox was advertised as being able to block pop ups, to give an example.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#135

Post by xmprt »

scrose wrote: post #91
northwest65 wrote: post #16

How about an opt in botnet extension for your browser that focuses it's energy on sites with this sort of dark pattern behaviour. i.e. You install the extension, when you come across a site like this you vote it for getting punishment, once the site gets enough vote the botnet occasionally focusses it's energy on the site in question when the participants browser is otherwise sitting idle. The punishment could potent…

Legality aside(on both sides), you assume a media site will take an increase in ‘impressions’ on their site as negative on its own. A lot of these places just care about making it look like there’s eyeballs looking at their stuff so they can sell that ad space at a premium, not whether there actually is. Ie. The places that put these auto play videos.

Do advertisers actually believe these impressions metrics are valuable? It's strange that they put value in these metrics that everyone hates while completely shunning other forms of content like porn. I'm not suggesting that advertisers start showing their ads next to porn but rather questioning why they are showing their ads next to news websites based on what are essentially fake metrics.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#136

Post by npsimons »

nmstoker wrote: post #30

I feel browsing the web is long overdue having a robot butler to do it for us and come back with the things we wanted, leaving the "People in Norwich are using this genius trick"-style nonsense on the cutting room floor. It ought to be trivially possible, going on from things like grease monkey and ad blocking scripts to add a bit of user intent guessing / content filtering / simplified view logic.

"Five minute precis" has been the dream since Gibson's "Count Zero." Unfortunately, getting something anywhere near worthwhile isn't easy.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#137

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

I blame Javascript. Letting it become normal to implicitly execute code just because it came bundled with a document that you requested was a mistake.

We can have a web of apps, we just should've kept it separate from our web of documents so that I could only go there when what I wanted was an app.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#138

Post by coretx »

northwest65 wrote: post #16

How about an opt in botnet extension for your browser that focuses it's energy on sites with this sort of dark pattern behaviour. i.e. You install the extension, when you come across a site like this you vote it for getting punishment, once the site gets enough vote the botnet occasionally focusses it's energy on the site in question when the participants browser is otherwise sitting idle. The punishment could potent…

Ad nauseam browser plugin

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#139

Post by boring_twenties »

gruez wrote: post #60
rstat1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the worst part is that Firefox has a feature for blocking auto playing video. But it never works.

I suspect that's because you can programmatically start video playback from within event handlers. That's necessary because otherwise any site that use custom playback controls will break. However, that also means malicious sites can implement "autoplay" by adding a onmousedown/onscroll/touchstart event handler and starting playback from there. Video playback will start the moment you try to interact with the page in…

> any site that use custom playback controls will break

Is that actually a bad thing?

I have no idea about video playback controls, but in every other instance I've noticed where sites implement their own custom versions of browser controls, it's been absolutely terrible.

Custom scrollbars, or lack thereof. Custom drop-down lists, which never support keyboard input properly. And so on.

And even if I'm wrong, and custom video playback controls are somehow desirable, why should they be supported for any event except onclick?

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#140

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

northwest65 wrote: post #16

How about an opt in botnet extension for your browser that focuses it's energy on sites with this sort of dark pattern behaviour. i.e. You install the extension, when you come across a site like this you vote it for getting punishment, once the site gets enough vote the botnet occasionally focusses it's energy on the site in question when the participants browser is otherwise sitting idle. The punishment could potent…

Instead, how about we make a combination browser extension/hosted service which renders the page server-side, extracts the content, and serves it clean.

Users can leave bounties on sites and once the bounties pile up high enough somebody will come along, sanitize it for everybody, and collect the bounty. Sorry about your ad revenue, next time don't piss off the masses.

The bounties will be public, so site maintainers can see if they're on the list and address the issues. If the community decides that the redesign addresses the problem, the bounty goes back to its issuers.

Post reply on HN