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

Chrome ships WebGPU

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–405 of 405 posts

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#401

Post by account42 »

bagacrap wrote: post #393
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if we knew how to do it perfectly, we wouldn't need them. But we can identify some known-good and known-bad cases with high confidence. My proposal mainly addresses the "fatigue" aspect: it allows apps to use some of the more powerful features without letting every web site use them, and it prevents random web sites from declaring themselves an app and spamming users with the permission request just so they can…

SafeBrowsing filters out the known bad ones. Curating known good would equate to some sort of app store. There are probably initiatives to make one for web apps, but it kind of makes me sad to think of applying that to the web, which is supposed to be a free and open commons (although I suppose Google already de facto controls enough of it to be considered a bit of a gatekeeper). Making the user the arbiter of "known…

SafeBrowsing filters whatever Google wants filtered. It has only a marginal overlap with "bad sites".

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#402

Post by account42 »

kevingadd wrote: post #190
deelly wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, no-one who answers a web permissions dialog truly knows if they have made the correct answer. Counterpoint: if webpage with latest news (for example) immediately asks me to allow notification, access to webcamera and location I definitely know what is correct answer to these dialogs.

"Do you want to allow example.com to send you notifications" is way more understandable to a layperson than "do you want to allow access to WebGPU" or "do you want to allow access to your graphics card". Especially because they would still have access to canvas and WebGL. Permission prompts are a HUGE user education issue and also a fatigue issue. Rendering is widely used on websites so if users get the prompt consta…

You can always word things in a way that the user understands.

> Especially because they would still have access to canvas and WebGL.

Those should also be behind a (or the same) permission prompt.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#403

Post by account42 »

kevingadd wrote: post #188
codedokode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just put WebGL/WebGPU behind permission and the problem is solved. I don't understand why highly paid Google and Firefox developers cannot understand such a simple idea.

Saturating the user with permissions requests for every single website they visit is a dead-end idea. We have decades of browser development and UI design history to show that if you saturate the user with nag prompts that don't mean anything to them, they will just mechanically click yes or no (whichever option makes the website work).

We already have extensions for websites that spam the user with unwanted popups and other displays. Those just need to be extended to cover permission abuse and be included by default in all webbrowsers.

Re: Chrome ships WebGPU

#404

Post by account42 »

elpocko wrote: post #181
codedokode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just put WebGL/WebGPU behind permission and the problem is solved. I don't understand why highly paid Google and Firefox developers cannot understand such a simple idea.

I do this since forever, but I have to give explicit permission to load and run JS, which solves a lot of other problems as well. Letting any site just willy-nilly load code from whereever and run it on your machine is insane, and it's well worth the effort to manually whitelist every site.

uMatrix was and unfortunately still is the best interface for fine-grained opt-in permissions.
Post reply on HN