71–80 of 278 posts
I don't doubt the story, but if the expiry year was in the wrong field, why did the payment go through? Did 1Password fill in the year twice? That would be a huge bug. Or will a fraud detection system ignore the missing year if everything else is fine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all the password managers in the world fail at this site, it's still a problem with the password managers. The fact that the field was looking as non-editable from the start has nothing to do with the fact that it filled the wrong field. The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking.
>it filled the wrong field I agree, this is awful (I'd really like to know how on earth it decided that this field is where the expiration year belongs. It sounds like some extremely aggressive assumptions are being made). >The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking. It's impossible to overstate how wrongheaded, unproductive, and, frankly, lazy this sentiment is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all the password managers in the world fail at this site, it's still a problem with the password managers. The fact that the field was looking as non-editable from the start has nothing to do with the fact that it filled the wrong field. The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking.
> The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking. So ... you're saying it's the their own fault and Substack should keep the money?
Whether Substack should keep the money is a matter of goodwill, it's no different from the user fat-fingering an extra zero.
This is exactly why I don't trust autofill. How many times has it passed along information you didn't intend, but without any obvious errors? Nobody knows.
It’s not 1Password fault, but poor design and implementation. :-)
I wish sites would test their forms with popular password management systems. This kind of thing happens all too often (thought perhaps not with such a high cost). Why not make it easy for people who auto-fill with these programs -- don't fight them. (And I won't get into sites that won't let you paste passwords into their forms.)
Or 1Pass does a little bit more smart in checking before randomly entering text? It wouldn't be difficult to catch this
They’re already complex enough that it’s a disaster trying to figure anything out. You say it wouldn’t be difficult to catch this, but either it’ll be a special case finely tuned for this particular site, or it’ll break another site, causing expiry year to no longer be filled out where previously it was and should be.
[deleted]
That's exactly what this field was though, a pay-what-you-can field (hidden because its visibility is conditional, possibly)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that both Bitwarden (personal use) and 1password (work use) do a very good job of filling in login forms.
1Password was one of my test extensions and the one I use every day. It works most of the time because username/password combos are the most common autofill configurations. So common that most password managers don't consider the case where you want to autofill a password without a matching username field on the page. "Password confirmation" being the classic example. They just don't handle anything other than the ma…
This is exactly why I don't trust autofill. How many times has it passed along information you didn't intend, but without any obvious errors? Nobody knows.