121–130 of 320 posts
Wait until you see what’s possible with executables! I like this project, but I also worry that eventually we’re going to lose access to extensions entirely because people will take away the wrong message. Safeguards are good, but at a certain point I want my devices to trust that I know what I’m doing.
Wait until you see what’s possible with executables! I like this project, but I also worry that eventually we’re going to lose access to extensions entirely because people will take away the wrong message. Safeguards are good, but at a certain point I want my devices to trust that I know what I’m doing.
> Chrome scrolls the permission warning message container, so more than half of the warning messages don’t even show up. I’d bet most users wouldn’t think twice about installing an extension that appears to ask for just 5 permissions. An egregious and nearly unbelievable oversight on Google's part. :-\ As a developer, it's unimaginable to me to not test the extreme high and low numbers of inputs cases to ensure thing…
> An egregious and nearly unbelievable oversight on Google's part. :-\ I agree it's egregious, but it's quite easy to believe. It's surely just using a standard modal and passing a string. The thing is, this is on a Mac that has scroll bars that are invisible until you scroll. It's easy to imagine testing was done other OS's where the scroll bars are obvious and the bottom line might be only partially hidden which ma…
Settings > Appearance > Scroll bar behavior > Show scroll bars > Always
If I were in charge of fixing this bug for Chromium, I might start by prioritizing which permissions are the most nefarious, list them first, perhaps in red. Then ensure the entire dialog expands vertically to fit as much content as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we certain that they are motivated to do so? Google doesn't strike me as a company committed to user privacy.
There is no company on earth with a larger privacy organization than Google. Edit: @dogecoinbase: What you propose is a shallow and dismissive analysis of the oversimplicative variety. Please put in a little more effort before derailing an otherwise thoughtful conversation.
I'm genuinely curious how much Google spends on their privacy org, and esp. how that compares with the other big tech companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What modern UI even has visible scroll bars by default? Pretty much all of them except Mac. Can speak personally for KDE, Sway, GNOME, and Windows 10. And when they are invisible, they usually show up on mouse motion/window interaction, so it's still not as egregious.
Xfce4.18 (GTK) has them. Has for 15+ years. Shout out to Xfce for being so boring/consistent for more than a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wait until you see what’s possible with executables! The most important thing is whay you tell the user - Windows says "We don't know where Trojan.exe came from, it could be a virus, are you sure you want to run it?" Chrome says: "You downloaded Trojan.exe from our store, we manage it and check it for viruses. It only asks for harmless permission, install it!" One is warning you, the other is entrapment.
Windows has an app store now too. > It only asks for harmless permission, install it! Not true. It lists all the permissions being requested. Sure the scrollbar issue is real and should be an easy fix. I don't understand why people are so confused about permissions. If the user grants your extension permission to read your browsing history so it can provide value to them, why is that a problem? It's not. The problem…
It is not unusual to see stories of malicious applications or extensions with hundreds of thousands of happy users and good reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? The same can happen with any piece of software in the world. Why single out extensions?
We sandbox apps to prevent them from reading each others data. It's impossible to sandbox web extensions and have them retain basically any of the functionality needed. As well as almost all regular software is backed by some large company with legal presence to hold responsible. The same can not be said for most extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the idea of the app isolation is just that — apps should not be able to touch each other. There are of course escape hatches, because sometimes you want apps to interact.
Extensions cannot touch each other. They also can't touch other websites without an escape hatch, because sometimes you want your password manager to modify the DOM and fill in your password for you.
> Chrome scrolls the permission warning message container, so more than half of the warning messages don’t even show up. I’d bet most users wouldn’t think twice about installing an extension that appears to ask for just 5 permissions. An egregious and nearly unbelievable oversight on Google's part. :-\ As a developer, it's unimaginable to me to not test the extreme high and low numbers of inputs cases to ensure thing…
> An egregious and nearly unbelievable oversight on Google's part. :-\ I agree it's egregious, but it's quite easy to believe. It's surely just using a standard modal and passing a string. The thing is, this is on a Mac that has scroll bars that are invisible until you scroll. It's easy to imagine testing was done other OS's where the scroll bars are obvious and the bottom line might be only partially hidden which ma…
this has got to be one of the worst UX decisions of the past 10 years, come at me. You can just hear the meeting discussion:
A: make the scrollbars invisible until you scroll, that nets us 4% more width!
B: but it reduces discoverability by 50%, and its also an attack vector...
C: ship it!