41–50 of 56 posts
Usually when a major web browser decides to do something that has the potential to break existing websites they do extensive testing and put the call out for dev feedback before they release. Why didn't that happen here? Also it's odd that Chrome decided to explicitly whitelist some sites. Surely that's an admission that their automated workflow doesn't actually work well?
Until I read this entry's title, I'd never thought about whether Google is singular or plural—is "Google show..." an acceptable variant of "Google shows...?"
Until I read this entry's title, I'd never thought about whether Google is singular or plural—is "Google show..." an acceptable variant of "Google shows...?"
What I don't understand is why they went this convoluted route of trying to assess what's legitimate or not, what's a user interaction or not. Does anyone know why they didn't go the route of other permissions like notifications or location, with a discrete popup that says the page is attempting to play some audio (or video), do you want to allow? If it is legitimate, the user clicks allow once and the site works for…
How often do you see the "want to allow X to display notifications?" or "want to allow X to access your location?" It's a shitty UX for everyone involved. It's shitty for the user because they get asked it on SO MANY sites. I see friends/family browsing the web and they will go to a news site, click "no" to notifications, need to click away the fullscreen "want to subscribe to our newsletter" modal, then scroll down…
Offer me notifications after you notice that I came back a couple of times to your website, ask me to autoplay the video the moment I play the video by hand. Remind me to grant permission to use the microphone the moment I try to start a video call.
Websites (and web developers) should learn to be _polite_.
Until I read this entry's title, I'd never thought about whether Google is singular or plural—is "Google show..." an acceptable variant of "Google shows...?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest I'm not bothered by that UX at all. The browser remembers my choice for each site, how many new, different sites do most users visit per day (that would need audio)? If a user doesn't want to be bothered by the prompt, they can always configure the browser to always accept or always reject. Or use a whitelist/blacklist. This is very different from the EU "this website has cookies" prompt, which does anno…
>The browser remembers my choice for each site, how many new, different sites do most users visit per day (that would need audio)? How many sites need notifications? And why do I need to decline that permission at least once a day if not more often? And the issue is that putting this behind a notification removes the downsides of asking for it. Currently if you play audio un-prompted you piss off (a percentage of) yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chrome flag doesn't do what it sounds like it does (and what it should). Essentially everyone logically interprets it as blocking all auto playing videos, audio or not, but that isn’t one of its options. Given the number of people who hate unauthorized autoplaying video (including silent video), it’s sort of amazing that Chrome’s product management team hasn’t added a way to prevent it - at least as a buried conf…
> Given the number of people who hate unauthorized autoplaying video (including silent video), it’s sort of amazing that Chrome’s product management team hasn’t added a way to prevent it I wouldn't hold much hope for them doing this - the official autoplay policy announcement blog post says [1]: > One cool way to engage users is about using muted autoplay and let them chose to unmute (see code snippet below). Some we…
This line really illustrates how poorly Google understands the role of the browser. The browser's job isn't to help developers "engage" users, which just means getting them to spend more of their time on the site. Why would any user install a browser which is optimized to consume as much of their time as possible? The browser's job is to protect me from abusive publishers, not enable more abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, clearly they read the dialogue if by adding more dialogue you change their action. The problem may have been that simply asking for permission to use the camera in general and not stating when and how you would use that permission, people thought about the fact that they didn't really want to give the app blanket permission to use their camera. The solution to that problem is to point out what you are using it…
>Yeah, clearly they read the dialogue if by adding more dialogue you change their action. No, because with our first-stage dialog we can just keep showing it until they click yes, but with the native dialog we only get one chance, and if they click "no" we might not even get a callback that they clicked anything at all on some browsers (which I honestly kind of like from a privacy standpoint). But to be clear, i'm no…
I don't think it's innately condescending to ask someone for permission and outline exactly what you need the permission for, but I don't know the copy you are using.
I know that in context it makes sense, but people read things and don't think about them in larger context all the time. They think about them individually - do I want to give this thing permission to use my camera? No. Do I want to give it permission to use my camera so that it can do this thing I want it to do? Yes.
That's why outlining the purpose as in the second case makes it more likely for people to say yes.
Have you tried putting the reasoning on the second dialogue or is this a native one that is uneditable? You might be right if they are spending less than a second, but I've found with websites that a surprising number of people read everything. It'd be an interesting test if it's possible.