211–220 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DuckDuckGo uses Apple Maps, which has quietly become a solid alternative the past few years. ( https://xkcd.com/2617/ )
Thanks for recommending it. It does look quite usable, other than lacking transit directions, and I plan to give it a try.
I still use this strategy, though these days, I primarily use Mosaic and Netscape for testing. I tend to browse without JavaScript enabled, except for places I already trust to not abuse it. And if there is anything blocking me from accessing the page, such as a modal dialog, a cookie notice, a survey, a prompt to sign up for the newsletter, I close the tab. Over time, I have found that type of rude lack of considera…
Before closing the tab, I check if View -> Page Style -> No Style gives the text I was interested in reading. If i arrived on the page, chances are that there might be some information I'm looking for.
Crazy wild assumptions given that the web was brand-spanking-new and changing rapidly and unpredictably by the day. I'll never understand these needlessly-minimalist perspectives on interacting with the internet (yeah, I'm talking to you no-JavaScript folks). That approach only result in you missing out on things, and that was even more true in the 90's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is infuriating to me as well. And the stupid Firefox restart dinosaur always comes up at the worst possible time. I would have switched to a new browser years ago, but Firefox seems to be the only one that supports vertical tabs.
I am using opera with “tree tabs” extension, but afair there is a similar (or the same?) extension for chrome. Although they do not hide the horizontal tab bar.
I find it ironic that his website looks like hot garbage on a modern ultrawide display.
I realize that it's over 20 years old and it still looks bad at 1280x1024 which was the resolution I was using back then as a poor college student with a second hand 19" Sony Trinitron that had a dodgy VGA cable you had to hold up just right with a coat hanger.
> Featurism is usually inverse proportional to content, and those who have content generally value being readable. (as related to features such as HTML frames and tables) Thanks for this quote attributed to Bernd Paysan I can now cite rather than formulating this over and over (for CSS grids, subgrids, columns, flexbox, functions, variables/custom properties and whatnot).
I can understand frames, but tables are useful even for plain text content and even lynx and emacs (eww, not w3, not sure if they are related though) have support for them.
"If these browsers don't display anything, or the display looks shitty, there usually is not much content" Crazy wild assumptions given that the web was brand-spanking-new and changing rapidly and unpredictably by the day. I'll never understand these needlessly-minimalist perspectives on interacting with the internet (yeah, I'm talking to you no-JavaScript folks). That approach only result in you missing out on thing…
Today, almost 25 years later, not even turning your phone or computer on will cost you just as much in ISP monthlies as it costs to load the heaviest, client-side-JS-generated, 4x resolution image websites nonstop all day every day.
We used to have a slightly better reason to prefer lean, content-first web pages than we do today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And companies writing the software that average people use are motivated solely by "what the average Joe wants," where "what the average Joe wants" is defined by business metrics like "how much is Joe clicking" and "how much is Joe spending."
I assume you don't believe this is a good thing? How would you measure "what the average Joe wants"?
Went to McDonald for the first time in a year and used the touchscreen to order. I had to dismiss over 7 popups, including a few that look like they were internally trying to get drunk people to accidentally order more (eg. cancel bottom from the previous popup is aligned with an extra order on the next one). It made the process a lot more panful than the minimalist interface they had before, but I'm sure a group of people got praised for it internally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in Firefox on Ubuntu, there is no option under settings to disable it, that's the problem.
Firefox on Ubuntu (on most distros, in fact) doesn't update itself automatically at all, which is why there's no option to disable it. It's apt (or snap?) that updates it.
Considering all the discussions about JavaScript and sites with primarily text requiring it, this looks like the more things change, the more they remain the same :-P. Also see Wirth's Plea for Lean Software[0] from 1995 for another "timeless" issue. I did find this bit interesting too... > Apart from this practical reason, there's a principal one: The first time I invoked Netscape, it said that it is obsolete and re…
I blame black hats. If it weren't for viruses and exploits there would be a lot less pressure to keep things updated. Remember how much flak Microsoft got for vulnerabilities pretty much ever since Windows got a networking stack? Meanwhile academic networks got along fine for decades running on unencrypted NFS/NIS.