4 ms·
All of this makes me wonder how some of these interfaces should be more closely guarded by the user agent. Perhaps instead of a site probing for capabilities,
by cptskippy 10y ago
All of this makes me wonder how some of these interfaces should be more closely guarded by the user agent.
Perhaps instead of a site probing for capabilities, they should instead publish a list of what the site/page can leverage and what it absolutely needs to work. Maybe meta tags in the head or something like the robots.txt. Browsers can then pull the list and present it to the end user for white-listing.
You could have a series of tags similar to noscript to decorate broken portions of sites if you wanted to advertise missing features to users and, based on what features they chose to enable/disable for the site, the browser would selectively render them.
- maxerickson 10y agoUsers don't want to do this though. I mean, how many people are dealing with the hassle of noscript? That's probably most of the users that are going to do anything other than tell the browser to stop asking questions.
- cptskippy 10y agoUsers are familiar with managing permissions, they do it all of the time. Users have to manage location services and the camera in browser. iOS and Android also prompt for access to resources. Why is it unrealistic to expect the same for other interfaces like audio, video, WebRTC, and other potentially exploitable functionality?
- maxerickson 10y agoI'm not arguing against enabling users to manage the permissions. I'm arguing it won't help a huge number of users because they will default to granting them.
- recursive 10y agoMost permission management most users do is click the "accept" button when installing an app without reading anything on the list. I don't see how that helps.