Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit cynical isn't it, when the author is clearly being as transparent as possible about what they need and why, which is due to factors outside their control. Of course you're right in a technical sense. They could do whatever they want later. But still let's celebrate and attitude like this rather than criticizing it.
It's not cynical - see what happened to ublock. That kind of mess has happened, and will continue to happen, and should be a factor in what you choose to trust.
Don't fuck with paste
161–170 of 397 posts
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re absolutely correct though, the parent comment seems to think there are absolute right and wrong answers for UI. I think that’s just not true, a good UI is one that works for your customers.
Of course there are absolute right and wrong answers for UI. Accessibility, minimum text contrast and font size, minimum size for clickable items. Keyboard shortcuts may not be (or may be) one of them, but in fact consistency across applications _is_ considered a hallmark of good UI and every Human Interface Guideline I've ever read, including open source ones such as that from KDE, specify such.
(Your user will never need characters to render as single pixels? Try again - sooner or later someone will decide to abuse your spreadsheet as a raytracer and be annoyed they can't make cells single pixel)
And a feeling of consistentency often requires exceptions for specific cases such as the example of "find" where few users want to specifically find what happens to be in the browsers idea of what the document currently contains, but what it logically contains in their model of what it should contain. Consistency means that in an app that dynamically updates a scrollable region, for example, it should still find things in the currently not part of the browser document bits, and so shouldn't use the browsers find in those cases.
Some users might want a shortcut that always does the browsers own find, and there generally ought to be ways to override the app, but consistently acting how the user will want is rarely compatible with absolute rules.
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#163Copy whatever you want to "paste" in the URL bar. Then select that and drag it into the input that has paste prevention.
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also not at all clear to me why it "needs to know when you change active tabs".
I just read through the 65LOC source, and it's because it swaps out an active or inactive extension icon based on your active tab. https://github.com/aaronraimist/DontFuckWithPaste/blob/8cb68...
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#165Breaking back button is infuriating.
Yesterday I stumbled upon something even worse : breaking CTRL+F to replace it by a custom search. I know Google Docs / Drive does this but I tolerate it because classical ctrl+f doesn’t even make sense on their apps but here it was on a forum. I knew what a searched was on the displayed page but no, they forced me to search on the entire hundreds pages of the topic.
[/rant] Sorry.
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not cynical - see what happened to ublock. That kind of mess has happened, and will continue to happen, and should be a factor in what you choose to trust.
What happened to ublock? Are you talking about uBlock origin?
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit cynical isn't it, when the author is clearly being as transparent as possible about what they need and why, which is due to factors outside their control. Of course you're right in a technical sense. They could do whatever they want later. But still let's celebrate and attitude like this rather than criticizing it.
It's not cynical - see what happened to ublock. That kind of mess has happened, and will continue to happen, and should be a factor in what you choose to trust.
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit cynical isn't it, when the author is clearly being as transparent as possible about what they need and why, which is due to factors outside their control. Of course you're right in a technical sense. They could do whatever they want later. But still let's celebrate and attitude like this rather than criticizing it.
This has been used as an attack vector in the past: spot reasonably popular plugin; make author an offer; inject whatever tracking/other malwate stuff new owners want (typically after a delay). So now we'd have to trust the author to do thorough vetting of a potential buyer and also not sell if vetting is inconclusive. And this against an adversary aiming to cheat their way past vetting. Might be a cynical take, but…
perhaps the most reasonable or even only possible path if they wanted their plugin to be able to do what they wanted it to do, which was to keep sites and from messing with your copy and paste functionality - in other words to prevent minor maliciousness.
on edit: sure, to provide the smoothest behavior, but really if it wasn't smooth people would be irritated and not want to use it. I know if I was implementing for myself I would want it to be smooth.
I understand the whole "bad things can be done" perspective, but here for some reason I fall under a "trust but verify" perspective instead.
Re: Don't fuck with paste
#169Re: Don't fuck with paste
#170Has anyone else noticed that copy / paste on Mac OS / Firefox has become unreliable some time in the last 5 years? I don’t know if it’s Firefox or Mac OS but I’ve started finding it copied the wrong thing or ignored a copy command.