29 ms·

The Web We Want

298 points by raldu 10y ago

jfoster 10y ago
The design of this site doesn't seem so good. It looks (at least on mobile) like it's informational, but it seems it's actually a poll. As a result, the numbers on the pages you get taken to after a selection seem a bit underwhelming. (Eg. 12% want a web that's...)
kleptako 10y ago
The web i want is one that isnt completely broken by not running javascript
- samfisher83 10y ago
  Its too late for that.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    It's never too late to do the right thing. It may be expensive, and it may require swallowing one's pride, and it may not have the same benefits that doing it earlier would have, but it's never too late.
    - samfisher83 10y ago
      Would you really want google maps to be static? I remember those days with mapquest. I like my javascript.
      - mynewtb 10y ago
        Google maps is a reasonable use of javascript. Using a dynamic interface like that vastly improved the user experience. Can't say the same about showing an textual article or a photo.
      - hueving 10y ago
        This is like saying electric cars won't work because the energy density of batteries is too low to fly a 747 across the country. JS should be reserved for heavy interactive applications. Not pages that amount to viewing a document.
- zeveb 10y ago
  This, so much this. There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. It's a poll and a display of the results. Sure, enhance it with JavaScript: that's great, and it's cool, and it's useful. But don't force people to execute code when all they really need to do is POST a form and then GET a page. People who do this are wrong.
  - mevile 10y ago
    > There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. Your position is ridiculous. HTML5 was designed in part to make it easier to create applications that run in your browser. So yes some people will be writing applications that run in your browser. It's like expecting flash sites to work when you don't have flash turned on. Either be happy with your choice or turn it back on. Don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your fringe browser settings.
    - sp332 10y ago
      But this isn't an app. It's a poll and some poll results. We were doing this on the web for decades without invoking JS.
      - gkya 10y ago
        Everything is an app. There are apps that show a GIF and all they do is that on many app-stores, with lot's of downloads because the GIF happens to be that of a woman's bum.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      Yes, and it's been thoroughly abused by lazy/incompetent developers. That's why we end up with 3 MB pages running React or whatever shiny new web framework Facebook/Google has released to display three paragraphs of text.
    - ldjb 10y ago
      I can understand requiring JavaScript if it's a game or some sort of multimedia experience, but something like this really doesn't need JavaScript. Search engines typically don't run JavaScript, so relying on it can be bad for SEO, and in some cases accessibility. Considering iOS devices don't support Flash, and popularity for Flash is waning, I think it's even worse to suggest a website should cater only to those who can run Flash.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  So, a web of static files with hyperlinks?
  - sp332 10y ago
    I would really like to have a web of static files with hyperlinks. We could keep it separate from the web of AJAX and touch events and scroll-hijacking. They don't even feel like the same thing anyway.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    That's what gopher is for. The WWW has javascript as a requirement, and I think it's time to stop holding onto any misconceptions otherwise. Apparently this is an unpopular notion. There's an entire protocol that's based on links between plain content - use it! The non-javascript users on the WWW are such a tiny minority that nobody who pays developers is going to bother with the time. The average user wants the extra functionality that even basic JS can provide - demanding that the web be supported without it is akin to demanding support for IE4 on Mac Classic. That is the reality, folks. You don't have to like it, but you should accept it.
    - Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
      i hold gopher in high regard. For most personal projects, gopher would make everything so much easier. Add a bit of convenience stuff, like basic text and image flow without having to do any css . navigation solves itself with gopher. wham, the perfect personal web page.
    - extra88 10y ago
      The average web user is ignorant of the possibilities. If they knew how much faster and stable their web-using experience would be without the excessive, unnecessary JS on many sites, they would gladly vote for "no JS" as a default. The content of most sites created today could reasonably been hosted on sites when IE4 for Mac Classic was current, text, pictures, form fields & buttons. You don't have to prove it but you should build such a site today using methods that would likely mean someone using IE4 for Mac Classic would have some access to the content, albeit not an optimal experience.
- denis1 10y ago
  This one is on the web devs more than Mozilla. IMO there is not much that a browser vendor can do, when what a large percentage of developers and users care only about the fancy new features.
- sp332 10y ago
  Maybe we can fix what you don't like about Javascript while keeping the good parts? http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    I don't like it being required in order to browse effectively static pages on the web. The rest is fine.
    - sp332 10y ago
      What's the difference between having a web server look up an article in a DB and serve it to you, and having a web page's JS look up that article in a DB and pull it to your browser? It seems like that would be the least offensive use of JS.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        For one, you have to execute javascript. For the other, you don't. If you want to do it on the server side, feel free.
        sp332 10y ago
        But you said you'd be "fine" executing JS for other kinds of pages. What is it about "effectively static" pages that offends you?
        pessimizer 10y ago
        Nothing about static pages offends me.
      - ldjb 10y ago
        You can absolutely use JavaScript to pull an article into the browser. But if the user doesn't have JavaScript, they should still be able to navigate the site the old-fashioned way. It doesn't have to be one way or the other.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  The Web I want is Hypercard style interactive documents, for all the rest we already have better options. My browser use is not much different than on Web 1.0 days, except when I cannot install a specific native application.
- martin_a 10y ago
  I just registered an account to upvote on this.
- sputr 10y ago
  This website is not intended for people who know what Javascript is or even how to turn it off. Most of the web are not (us) geeks, and not everything revolves around us. Plus, there is such a thing as ROI.
  - bobajeff 10y ago
    What about blind people that use screen readers?
- n3on_net 10y ago
  JavaScript is default technology. So it's like if you could disable C++ on windows and then complain that application don't work anymore. JS is like HTML and CSS, core part of today's web.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Not really. I don't run JS by default and the vast majority of sites work. They look funny, but they work.
- jypepin 10y ago
  serious question: could you explain what you think is wrong with websites using javascript? Why do you refuse running javascript in your browser? My understanding is that javascript is a part of the web today, and everything around it makes it easier to run javascript applications in your browser, making websites more powerful. I personally love this and a lot of website I browse would be worse without javascript (google docs, calendar, etc.), so I have trouble understanding what is wrong with javascript running. Also, since now most apps are complete javascript apps (and not only some DOM manipulation), it seems a lost cause to try to get website optionally "extend" their experience with javascript. That would mostly just imply to re-built most of the page for when javascript is disabled.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Obviously for a real web app like google docs javascript is essential. For a web site (blogs, news sites, shopping) it's not.
  - quickben 10y ago
    I have a completely different experience from you. As I'm reading this on my phone, most of the website related experience is better without JavaScript. I also had in the past legally blind co-workers that could barely use a browser, so they had their own problems with JavaScript overriding defaults. By the look of it: if JavaScript proponents designed car doors, there would only be remote unlocking and no physical key. It's just bad engineering lately beign promoted as 'the default way to build webpages'.
  - cwmoo740 10y ago
    The problem is that once javascript is enabled on a page, there is too large of a business incentive to tack on google analytics, auto-playing video ads, facebook and linked-in and twitter integration, annoying subscribe popups, etc. Javascript is necessary in the web that I want for the future but I want some standards for what gets run in my browser without me going through manually and whitelisting specific scripts to block out the 10s of MB of crap that get thrown at me every time I go to a new site.
    - 10y ago
orf 10y ago
Looks good, but it really seems to be the "Web Europe and America want".
Whackbat 10y ago
An interesting but unsurprising result - we want a private web.
wodencafe 10y ago
I can't tell what's going on with the map? What's with all the little dots fading in and out?
- odabaxok 10y ago
  From the site: "When you select any of the sharing links, we add your location to the map to show the worldwide impact of our community."
  - vincentriemer 10y ago
    From their video, "I am not a data point". Proceeds to turn us into literal data 'points'.
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      > I am not a data point to be bought and sold. Cutting off that clause really changes the intended meaning.
franblas 10y ago
Privacy seems to be on top issue for all regions. Not surprising regarding recent events.
vcarl 10y ago
I love that Africa is the highest continent (at time of posting) for "learning" and "opportunity." I've seen some articles about entrepreneurs in various African countries and it's always amazing how much impact they're able to have with limited materials, and access to the web can get you a lot.
j-pb 10y ago
Stable and documented like SQLite. Oh wait we did a step in that direction with WebSQL until mozilla killed it out of not invented here syndrome.
- sp332 10y ago
  Firefox uses SQLite for tons of things internally, like history and bookmarks. So when they say that SQLite is "quirky" and "bad for the web" I would tend to believe them. http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-features-is-hard_03.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-feature... Edit: A better discussion of what the quirks are, so you don't have to just take their word for it. https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memoriam/ https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memor...
  - j-pb 10y ago
    I don't see how the second link you provided shines any bad light on sqlite. It calls it the easiest to use of the 3. To me the irc conversations he cites make it very clear that mozilla was Simply bashing SQL at the peak of the NoSQL bubble. I also see the lack of alternative implementations as a plus. SQLite is as portable as C essentially. So it's the only Web standard that's not broken and different in subtle ways across browsers. If you look through old mail and irc archives you'll also find that somebody actually offered to specify a websql sqlite independent of sqlite under the condition that mozilla will assure that they will implement it. Which didn't happen.
    - sp332 10y ago
      Yeah, the main thing was differences between versions (even point versions) of the underlying SQLite installation on any given device. The spec probably would have helped with that. Also I don't know why Mozilla got opposite feedback about whether web devs wanted SQL compared to everyone else, but that also seemed to be a big factor.
      - j-pb 10y ago
znpy 10y ago
All o can think after seeing the page is... "so what?"
arca_vorago 10y ago
The web I want: 1) One that isn't completely dominated by advertising. 2) One that isn't dominated by proprietary software, that encourages users to participate in FOSS. 3) One focused on data. Part of the problem of javascript, so uneeded in most cases. 4) More on javascript, how about one where each page doesn't load 30 scripts from alternate domains? Even the major new sites do this, and it makes me hate them. 5) One where ISP's don't hand over browsing information to anyone with a dollar or a badge without a warrant. 6) One where VPN's and other privacy centered providers learn how to build systems that don't keep logs and are built with privacy as a first class citizen. 7) Not last, and certainly not least, I mostly want a web that encourages and grows the freedom of thought, speech, and discussion that is and was such a fundamental part of the origins of the internet in the first place. It seems increasingly marginalized on the modern web. The beauty of communications mediums is the power it gives the formerly powerless, but I think the oligarchy has recognized this threat and this is why the internet is going to be increasingly a target of bad legislation written by corrupt "representatives". Beware cries of hate speech or any other attempts at censoring "for the greater good". Just a few of things I want in web off the top of my head. As for this Mozilla page, I think if we think about the four freedoms and fundamental principles behind them, user control really has to be the starting point. You can't have privacy if the user can't turn off spywidgetX. You can't have freedom if the user can't Y. Once again, I feel like one day, if we don't destroy ourselves as a species, we will look back and wonder why it took people so long to understand why RMS is and was right. The four freedoms are fundamental to the web I want, and while I often get a lot of hate on HN for being so pro RMS/GPL, I think if more people took the time to understand the issues they would tend to agree. edit: One where strong theoretical and practical encryption is for everyone, and isn't vilified by the government.
- tangue 10y ago
  Why is this downvoted ? Shouldn't we share these values as hackers ?
  - chc 10y ago
    As a hacker, I appreciate the platform the Web offers for code. So I don't see why you'd necessarily expect me to agree with a complaint about the ability to write code for the Web. (I didn't downvote, though. I just think it's strange to expect universal agreement with Javascript Luddism among hackers.)
gloves 10y ago
It's not a perfect method of collecting data, but interesting privacy is the top result in every continent on earth.
mevile 10y ago
In this thread: people who don't turn JavaScript on by default and are unhappy when sites don't work because of it. They must get angry a lot. It's like wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code too, like wanting my entire operating system to just handle PDF files and maybe have a functional text editor. It's like whatever state computers were in 1999, that's what is desired. Are we on Hacker News? A technology news site? People here don't want to use technology and see it evolve and progress?
- Zigurd 10y ago
  It is not at all like "wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code." The web browser is a hypertext reader. When you go to a text content site, there is nothing wrong with expecting it to work without JavaScript.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I love using technology. I hate using shitty technology that detracts from the experience, by trying to provide an experience.
  - mevile 10y ago
    So you would have preferred a survey monkey experience to this site?
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I would have preferred this site not use crappy JS. Or at least not require it.
      - nsuser 10y ago
        It works without JS too
        CaptSpify 10y ago
Borating 10y ago
And don' t forget to watch this short video by Mozilla - "The Hidden Business of the Internet" [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc
fridek 10y ago
I find it sad that people value privacy so highly over anything else, including accessibility and opportunity. It's not that I don't treasure my privacy. I just don't get how it can be more important that ability to work on interesting stuff, freedom to access world's information and to learn from it, or even control over my devices configuration. Privacy should be an added value, not something we put in front of everything else. It would be meaningless if web wouldn't enable us to do what we do. So in reality, isn't this poll just a list of things we already have thanks to the internet, plus one thing we don't have - privacy?
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I think privacy really enables all of those others in a way though. If I want to learn about reverse-engineering, it's just as important to me that nobody knows that's what I'm learning, as it is to have access to the learning materials. Knowing that all my research and learning is being sent to 3rd parties has definitely curbed my desire to learn some subjects.
- panglott 10y ago
  Privacy is a foundational value. It is necessary for trust and sharing. Without financial privacy, online commerce would not exist because people wouldn't trust to share their banking information. Without some modicum of social privacy, people wouldn't trust to share information with their friends & family. & I avoid using the services I do not trust.
- Millennium 10y ago
  Without privacy, there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no freedom, no access, and no opportunity. Even learning is hampered severely in a changing world, where the question of what society demands remain private changes from one day to the next. In other words, privacy comes before everything else because it underpins everything else. Remove it, and the other values are all either illusory, or their non-illusory status is transient at best.
FranOntanaya 10y ago
Not sure if I'm supposed to choose the most important one, or go back and select each thing that matters.
StevePerkins 10y ago
I wish that the vocal 1% who want a JavaScript-free web would just rediscover Gopher.
cdnsteve 10y ago
The web I want is free of junk loaders, javascript tracking ad garbage making my page requests crazy slow, unpleasant and hard to use. FB Pages now have a giant login thing that takes over the entire page if you aren't logged in. If you close it, it comes back for every other page you visit. The amount of stuff that uBlock origin blocks now is amazing. I couldn't even use WSJ until I turned on ad blocking. I'm starting to think text based browsing is the future. Using chat like interface along with voice commands, mainly work directly with APIs and just never use a browser again. HTML and JavaScript are being taken over by crap on sites. The web is starting to feel like a garbage dump. API's are the only logical path forward I can see.
- api 10y ago
  It's a tragedy of the commons combined with the lack of any economic model other than tracking and ads.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    That does about sum it up. Just be glad we have the option to browse with ublock origin. Of course not browsing crappy sites is another option.
    - tajen 10y ago
      > that we have the option to browse with uBlock Origin Isn't it ...copyright infringement? Sigh... DRM are incoming...
  - Frondo 10y ago
    You know, I think there's another part of this--income inequality (stop groaning, it's relevant!) that means that everyone has to try and shill and monetize their stuff as much as possible. I dream of a world in which the typical worker's wages hadn't been suppressed and decoupled from productivity for the last four decades, and people had the disposable income to work less and write and make art more, and give it away instead of tryin' to get us all to punch the monkey and win. I dream of a world in which we can ALL punch the monkey and win! Well, ok, maybe not, but still...
programminggeek 10y ago
The web people want has all their favorite things like Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube, ESPN, Yahoo, and on and on. People don't care about much else. It's the killer apps, not the freedom that people are buying. People trade freedom for shiny things because it makes them feel good.
maglavaitss 10y ago
The web I want is one that above all others, respects privacy and my rights. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689
gregn 10y ago
The thing is, I think the thing we want and the thing we get are two different things now. Its not a question of tech, such as Javascript, its a question of: I want to read, write and communicate. What I want basically, is an RSS feed reader and writer that actually works. I dont want adds, for the most part I dont want images, unless I specifically seek them out. What we want is the web experience that something like Instapaper provides, which is to isolate the content of the blog post or news article and eschew all the rest, and present it in a readable form in the font I like. This makes the act of information intake painless and flow easily. It sounds ridiculous in a sort of post-RSS environment, but what we need is RSS, to be implemented by someone in a way that makes it work, so it will be used by everyone.
return0 10y ago
Mozilla is in the right place to implement two things (in a non-profit way): A centralized sign on a-la persona and a browser-mediated payment solution. These two would move the web forward in a fantastic way.
intrasight 10y ago
While "privacy" gets the majority of the votes, I believe that we can't get privacy without most of the others.
Bedon292 10y ago
I am really curious, what would the results be like if this we run on Facebook? Does the poll being ran where it is bias the results. ~34% say privacy, but it that sample bias? Or a real representation of what people as a whole are interested in?
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  AFAIK, this could be shared on FB, and we are probably eeing some of the results from there. It'd be interesting to see how this breaks down by source though.
  - r3bl 10y ago
    > ...and we are probably eeing some of the results from there. Yes, probably, but don't forget that those are the people who probably liked privacy-related Facebook pages and don't necessarily represent the opinion of an average Facebook user.
seagreen 10y ago
What kind of Web do you want? + Promotes freedom + Inspires learning + Safeguards privacy + Is available to all + Creates opportunity + Puts me in control This is a good question. My answers would be "inspires learning" and "puts me in control". Sidenote: let's address the "enable JS" issue once and for all since it keeps popping up in these threads. Imagine an alternate history where a book reading program went critical (we'll call it "Reader") and took over the world. (In the actual world of course it was a static document consumer -- the "Browser" -- that took over everything and eventually became its own operating system). In this alternate history there are regular internet fights (occurring in Reader of course) over whether turning off ReaderScript in Reader is a reasonable thing to do. One side says: it's dumb to turn off the programming language in your Reader and still expect it to function -- programming graceful degradation into every reader app in the world would cost billions of dollars and be a huge waste. The other side says: that's true, but I just want to read the Quran without popups! Happily synthesis is easy since both sides are right. You should never expect a readerapp to work without ReaderScript. You should always be able to expect a book to work without RS -- they should never have had access to it in the first place. The path forward is clear. Readers should have clearly different modes for books (documents/sites in our world) and apps. We should maintain a community list of which URLs are which, and load that by default into Reader. This way apps can continue to run programs by default, but we don't get popups in our books.
gnuvince 10y ago
I want a web with less JavaScript.
- BrendanEich 10y ago
  Me too, wherefore two separate efforts: * Brave has built in no-script support, and NoScript is a top add-on for other browsers. * WebAssembly. You're welcome! :-P
twoodfin 10y ago
A couple of design comments: First, I was confused by the animation of green dots on completing the poll question. I had expected that each dot would light up in a color associated with the selected poll answer for the associated user, and thought something must be wrong that I was only seeing the folks who had chosen "Freedom". Second, once I figured out to hit the color legend to see different results, the contrast between some of the brighter highlight colors on the map and the blue background made it nearly impossible to visually distinguish the gradients.
cowmix 10y ago
Jeebuz, I just want a Firefox browser that isn't a piece of crap that doesn't lock up and suck battery. Let's start there first.
justcommenting 10y ago
Safeguards Privacy - "Firefox is made under the principle that security and privacy are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." Mozilla is certainly treating the cookie management dialog box, which has been broken for years, as optional. Same with accepting Mike Perry's patches and various other examples. If Mozilla could actually do better in terms of privacy and security features than a handful of Tor Browser Bundle devs, they wouldn't need efforts like this and their work would speak for itself. I still use Mozilla code every day and am grateful for their work, but this sort of rhetoric is unimpressive.
- r3bl 10y ago
  Yup, this seems a bit ironic coming from the foundation that recently introduced the Sync feature (which shits on the privacy section) and made no serious security enhancements in their browser for quite some time.
  - jmcomets 10y ago
    Could you elaborate on the Sync feature? I was under the impression that Sync now uses Firefox accounts and can't see how it would affect privacy.
lighttower 10y ago
There are some remarkable patterns you can gleen from the data. --- 1. rich countries don't care about freedom 2. countries that are quickly industrializing value opportunity 3. privacy is valued by everyone - but especially wealthy European nations 4. privacy is least valued by countries in war / unrest -- However, the message between the lines it seems that everyone is basically saying FREEDOM but within the context of their political realities. In North America we're worried about our adult content habits becoming public, or our extramarital affairs, or our secret bank accounts. So hence _privacy_ most reflects this political reality. In Turkey _freedom_ and _privacy_ are both ~25%. This reflects a developed society which is experiencing increased controls on internet (and IRL) freedoms. Par contre, countries like Iraq / Egypt / Bangladesh, _opportunity_ and _accessibility_ are the most important, reflecting that what the population cares most about is economic progress rather than press freedoms. Malaysia is interesting; they top the list at 31% wanting freedom, yet, there has been little news (that I heard) about political reform/unrest. All these responses reflect different freedoms that people are seeking -- contextualized by their political reality. If you lack humans freedoms, like freedom of speech, the type, of freedom you seek is best described _freedom_. While _opportunity_ and _access_ best describe economic and knowledge freedoms. Freedom to do whatever you want without fear of public exposure damaging marriages, job prospects, is best described by _privacy_ [edit - added clarity] -- Disclaimer: The above are based on observation and not statistical analysis. If you can download the raw data please let me know.
- JohnKacz 10y ago
  To (possibly?) validate your point, I chose freedom but only because I understand freedom to be a larger category which also encompasses privacy. (I live in the U.S.)
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Interesting. I chose user control. What does that tell about me or my country?
- TheRealPomax 10y ago
  The reason you've heard little news about unrest in Malaysia is because it's literally illegal to publish. Its media censorship is near the top, if not at the top, of the world's list of worst countries in terms of media censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia
carapace 10y ago
HAHAHahahahahaha! Oh the irony. This page doesn't work with JS disabled. (BTW you folks who downvote me for complaining about sites that fail without JS, what gives? What's your idea here? I can't use the web without JS? I'm the idiot? No. I don't agree. Make your site do something reasonable without JS or you're the idiot. C'mon.)
- morinted 10y ago
  There's definitely a place for JavaScript. This page might not be it. I know that if I want to make a simple web app, it's easier for me to write it in JavaScript, throw it on GitHub Pages, and have free static hosting for it. Much better for me that having to run a server with PHP or Node or Django or whatnot. I don't miss a web that didn't have JavaScript. There's a lot we can do now that we couldn't then... say, like navigating pages without constant page reloads. How would "The Web We Want" map even work if it were server-side only? Certainly it would be a very different experience, requiring Mozilla to code it twice. I suppose it is up to the developer to judge whether the cost is worth the benefit (0.25-2% of users)
- imtringued 10y ago
  Your expecations are way too high. That entire site couldn't even exist without javascript. How else would you visualise that data? Do something crazy like generate an image of the changed map on every request? At that point why even bother with HTML? Why not serve entire pages as a single image? Or worse we could also go back to the old days of flash and java applets... HTML and CSS are crap. People are forced to use javascript even for the simplest things not because they want but because have to. Javascript itself is not much better but at the very least it prevents this frankenstein monster from falling apart. You are the idiot because you're asking for the impossible.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    How about I visualize the data myself? I mean, honestly - this website is a simple poll with results in the form of (imprecise geographical coordinates, voting choice). It would be about 100x better if served in this form: | Country | Availability | Freedom | Opportunity | Control | Learning | Privacy | |-----------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------| | *NORTH AMERICA* | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | | ... | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | | *EUROPE* | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | It would be infinitely better if the whole data was also served as a CSV file. I mean, I get it. This page is just an ad. It needs to look nice. But it bothers me when sites that are supposed to be useful are being designed as art forms.
daveguy 10y ago
One that doesn't know enough about me to be able to put a dot on a map to represent me.
pessimizer 10y ago
What kind of world do you want? A) One with babies B) One with rainbows C) One with good meals D) One with friends and fun E) One with novelty and adventure F) One that makes us smarter, faster, and more beautiful Click through to our map to find out where people were sitting when they picked one of these choices. edit: to be clear, what I'm trying to say is that this is far less a survey than a vapid corporate ejaculation. I don't understand how Mozilla's culture ended up like this. Was it always like this?
- BrendanEich 10y ago
  No, it wasn't always like this.
pasbesoin 10y ago
Well, given I can't get even a jist of what the page is about without Javascript... not this.
etendue 10y ago
The web I want is one that doesn't assume I have an unmetered high-speed internet connection. I'm visiting my parents right now. They have what I would term as "rural internet options": satellite, fixed cellular, or dialup. There is no DSL. There is no cable. There is no wifi. Satellite has awful latency and an effective 20GB monthly cap (their advertising is very deceptive because they pool midnight off-peak data in their advertised caps), fixed cellular has a 30GB cap: there is no provision to buy more data on either service short of ruinous overage fees. Browsing around on the modern web filled with autoplay videos, huge JS libraries, giant pictures, etc. has been sufficient for a 2 person household to blow through that 30GB cap in less than a month. It was hard for me to believe, until I instrumented their network and saw for myself. Of course, accidentally updating any software, accidentally syncing their photo libraries, etc. are all expensive mistakes. Most effective changes I have been able to make so far (without frustrating the parents too much) have been to ad block and get them to use Opera with Turbo, which has been sufficient to cut their data use by about half. I also put a timer on the cellular hub power supply to manually shut it off when they're not at home or when they're sleeping, because despite best efforts some software still automatically updates.
- vmarsy 10y ago
  The "Metered Connection" option in Windows 10 might help here, but as for websites you can't do much except using Ad blocker, "Disconnect.me" or Opera Turbo. (I'm not sure if Disconnect.me exists on opera). Another way to mitigate would be to have the browser identify as a tablet/mobile as some websites assume mobile == metered connection. On top of my head, there is some addon like this in Chrome.
- syncopatience 10y ago
  I had a similar problem working over a metered cellular data connection recently. One thing that helped a lot was the uBlock Origin extension for Chrome & Firefox, which has a feature that prevents automatically loading media elements over a certain size (say, 50kb). If you want to load a large image or video you can click to load it or turn the feature off on a per-site basis. Can use it in Firefox on an Android phone, too, since it has extensions.
ilostmykeys 10y ago
The web I want has real security, not "HTTPS Everywhere" that provides clear text access to nation states while providing a false sense of security.
digi_owl 10y ago
A couple of those are vague to say the least, the freedom one in particular. Are we talking freedom from or freedom to? And how about if my freedom to tramples your freedom from? The whole thing is yet another example of the feelgood "sjw" stuff that Mozilla have been throwing around in recent years, while turning a formerly potent browser in to a Chrome clone web terminal. Not even sure if they have tested that site on their own offering, as jumping to and from the tab in Firefox made the whole thing crawl.
DavideNL 10y ago
The web i want is one where i can properly zoom... zooming in/out on a Macbook (pinch to zoom) is just terrible in Firefox - compared to Safari and Chrome/Chromium where zooming is very smooth. It seems like a small/unimportant thing but it's sooo annoying...
- TheRealPomax 10y ago
  stay on target - that's not the web you want, that's a bugfix in one of the dozens of browsers that try to present you with the data you're telling it to pull down from the web.
  - DavideNL 10y ago
    well okay, let me rephrase: Mozilla's "Manifesto" (and things like 'the web you want') is awesome, however some annoyances prevent me from using Firefox; i wish they would implement new features more rapidly like for example proper zooming (which has been present in other browser for ~ 4 years), and for example a sandbox. It doesn't matter how great your Manifesto is (and what kind of web you want), if things like this prevent people from using your product.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
The web I want would have a built in micro-payment system (someone mentioned this in a presentation at the Decentralized Web Summit last week). This would provide an option to advertisements. I would like to see strong privacy controls protected by the same strong force of law that media companies have with DMCA, etc. Citizen's interests should be protected at a higher level than corporation's interests. I would also like a better mechanism for controlling how much extra media a server sends the browser. Browsing with Lynx (text based) is an option, but not so nice.
tomc1985 10y ago
How typical. Offer "choice", but limit said choices to things which only serve Mozilla's interests....
putzdown 10y ago
Unfortunate choice of green (="Freedom"?) as the color for dots that simply mean "someone just responded."
putzdown 10y ago
Why just six choices? Why these? Why not "Beautiful"? or "Ad-free"? You know, what I'd really like is a web full of intelligent and polite discussion. Where's that option? What does Mozilla mean by "Web" here? What exactly is on offer?
ravenstine 10y ago
The problem what that page is that it doesn't include answers that are antithetical to Mozilla's values. Add "I want a safe space on the internet" as a response, and I imagine you'll get far more people clicking that than anyone who wants freedom, privacy, learning, etc.
bcheung 10y ago
That list is so touchy feely. It makes me feel like one of those "What are our company values?" meetings where people spend hours deliberating about things that are just a random list of positive adjectives taken from a dictionary. How about a list of features instead? Here are some things I'd like to see: - prevent videos from auto playing / making sound - prevent sites from forcing me to turn off AdBlock - sleep mode for tabs (sometimes I leave tabs open that I mean to read later) but they still take up a lot of resources even if I don't open that tab for weeks. - readable mode (I don't want to see animations right next to the article I'm trying to read). It's extremely distracting. Maybe a pause mode (where the entire page is frozen and nothing can change?) - stop changing where the text is on the page as I read it (as pages load, as ads show up / disappear). - Scrolling should be linear. I shouldn't scroll down and see the text move in the opposite direction because some header disappears from the top of the page, this shifting the text up higher). - Raise the simultaneous download limit and/or allow a large number of them to be queued without me having to wait until a slot frees up to make sure that file is going to be downloaded. - Make it easier to kill distracting elements on a page with a single click. - Anything that allows me to be able to develop for a single platform (the web) instead of having to deal with native app development, app store restrictions, and another company taking a huge chunk out of sales.
anonbanker 10y ago
We as a society are being pushed away from the ideals that took root in the 90's, when the web/internet was a libertarian paradise. Most graybeards would put freedom much higher than privacy or anything else. It seems the millenials are more concerned with hiding. How can someone have one without the other?
LordLestat 10y ago
The web i want is a a web where Mozilla sees no reason to compete with Chrome, the web i want is where Mozilla still have faith in built inside customization and choice and options instead of design and simplicity and minimalism. The web i want is a web with a Mozilla which does not care for Google at all and puts them and their shady actions and browser development concept on ignore.

298 points by raldu 10y ago

The design of this site doesn't seem so good. It looks (at least on mobile) like it's informational, but it seems it's actually a poll. As a result, the numbers on the pages you get taken to after a selection seem a bit underwhelming. (Eg. 12% want a web that's...)

kleptako 10y ago

The web i want is one that isnt completely broken by not running javascript

samfisher83 10y ago
Its too late for that.
- zeveb 10y ago
  It's never too late to do the right thing. It may be expensive, and it may require swallowing one's pride, and it may not have the same benefits that doing it earlier would have, but it's never too late.
  - samfisher83 10y ago
    Would you really want google maps to be static? I remember those days with mapquest. I like my javascript.
    - mynewtb 10y ago
      Google maps is a reasonable use of javascript. Using a dynamic interface like that vastly improved the user experience. Can't say the same about showing an textual article or a photo.
    - hueving 10y ago
      This is like saying electric cars won't work because the energy density of batteries is too low to fly a 747 across the country. JS should be reserved for heavy interactive applications. Not pages that amount to viewing a document.
zeveb 10y ago
This, so much this. There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. It's a poll and a display of the results. Sure, enhance it with JavaScript: that's great, and it's cool, and it's useful. But don't force people to execute code when all they really need to do is POST a form and then GET a page. People who do this are wrong.
- mevile 10y ago
  > There's no reason why this page couldn't work without JavaScript. Your position is ridiculous. HTML5 was designed in part to make it easier to create applications that run in your browser. So yes some people will be writing applications that run in your browser. It's like expecting flash sites to work when you don't have flash turned on. Either be happy with your choice or turn it back on. Don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your fringe browser settings.
  - sp332 10y ago
    But this isn't an app. It's a poll and some poll results. We were doing this on the web for decades without invoking JS.
    - gkya 10y ago
      Everything is an app. There are apps that show a GIF and all they do is that on many app-stores, with lot's of downloads because the GIF happens to be that of a woman's bum.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Yes, and it's been thoroughly abused by lazy/incompetent developers. That's why we end up with 3 MB pages running React or whatever shiny new web framework Facebook/Google has released to display three paragraphs of text.
  - ldjb 10y ago
    I can understand requiring JavaScript if it's a game or some sort of multimedia experience, but something like this really doesn't need JavaScript. Search engines typically don't run JavaScript, so relying on it can be bad for SEO, and in some cases accessibility. Considering iOS devices don't support Flash, and popularity for Flash is waning, I think it's even worse to suggest a website should cater only to those who can run Flash.
unethical_ban 10y ago
So, a web of static files with hyperlinks?
- sp332 10y ago
  I would really like to have a web of static files with hyperlinks. We could keep it separate from the web of AJAX and touch events and scroll-hijacking. They don't even feel like the same thing anyway.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  That's what gopher is for. The WWW has javascript as a requirement, and I think it's time to stop holding onto any misconceptions otherwise. Apparently this is an unpopular notion. There's an entire protocol that's based on links between plain content - use it! The non-javascript users on the WWW are such a tiny minority that nobody who pays developers is going to bother with the time. The average user wants the extra functionality that even basic JS can provide - demanding that the web be supported without it is akin to demanding support for IE4 on Mac Classic. That is the reality, folks. You don't have to like it, but you should accept it.
  - Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
    i hold gopher in high regard. For most personal projects, gopher would make everything so much easier. Add a bit of convenience stuff, like basic text and image flow without having to do any css . navigation solves itself with gopher. wham, the perfect personal web page.
  - extra88 10y ago
    The average web user is ignorant of the possibilities. If they knew how much faster and stable their web-using experience would be without the excessive, unnecessary JS on many sites, they would gladly vote for "no JS" as a default. The content of most sites created today could reasonably been hosted on sites when IE4 for Mac Classic was current, text, pictures, form fields & buttons. You don't have to prove it but you should build such a site today using methods that would likely mean someone using IE4 for Mac Classic would have some access to the content, albeit not an optimal experience.
denis1 10y ago
This one is on the web devs more than Mozilla. IMO there is not much that a browser vendor can do, when what a large percentage of developers and users care only about the fancy new features.
sp332 10y ago
Maybe we can fix what you don't like about Javascript while keeping the good parts? http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D http://imgur.com/zY6Iu7D
- pessimizer 10y ago
  I don't like it being required in order to browse effectively static pages on the web. The rest is fine.
  - sp332 10y ago
    What's the difference between having a web server look up an article in a DB and serve it to you, and having a web page's JS look up that article in a DB and pull it to your browser? It seems like that would be the least offensive use of JS.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      For one, you have to execute javascript. For the other, you don't. If you want to do it on the server side, feel free.
      - sp332 10y ago
        But you said you'd be "fine" executing JS for other kinds of pages. What is it about "effectively static" pages that offends you?
        pessimizer 10y ago
        Nothing about static pages offends me.
    - ldjb 10y ago
      You can absolutely use JavaScript to pull an article into the browser. But if the user doesn't have JavaScript, they should still be able to navigate the site the old-fashioned way. It doesn't have to be one way or the other.
pjmlp 10y ago
The Web I want is Hypercard style interactive documents, for all the rest we already have better options. My browser use is not much different than on Web 1.0 days, except when I cannot install a specific native application.
martin_a 10y ago
I just registered an account to upvote on this.
sputr 10y ago
This website is not intended for people who know what Javascript is or even how to turn it off. Most of the web are not (us) geeks, and not everything revolves around us. Plus, there is such a thing as ROI.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  What about blind people that use screen readers?
n3on_net 10y ago
JavaScript is default technology. So it's like if you could disable C++ on windows and then complain that application don't work anymore. JS is like HTML and CSS, core part of today's web.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Not really. I don't run JS by default and the vast majority of sites work. They look funny, but they work.
jypepin 10y ago
serious question: could you explain what you think is wrong with websites using javascript? Why do you refuse running javascript in your browser? My understanding is that javascript is a part of the web today, and everything around it makes it easier to run javascript applications in your browser, making websites more powerful. I personally love this and a lot of website I browse would be worse without javascript (google docs, calendar, etc.), so I have trouble understanding what is wrong with javascript running. Also, since now most apps are complete javascript apps (and not only some DOM manipulation), it seems a lost cause to try to get website optionally "extend" their experience with javascript. That would mostly just imply to re-built most of the page for when javascript is disabled.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Obviously for a real web app like google docs javascript is essential. For a web site (blogs, news sites, shopping) it's not.
- quickben 10y ago
  I have a completely different experience from you. As I'm reading this on my phone, most of the website related experience is better without JavaScript. I also had in the past legally blind co-workers that could barely use a browser, so they had their own problems with JavaScript overriding defaults. By the look of it: if JavaScript proponents designed car doors, there would only be remote unlocking and no physical key. It's just bad engineering lately beign promoted as 'the default way to build webpages'.
- cwmoo740 10y ago
  The problem is that once javascript is enabled on a page, there is too large of a business incentive to tack on google analytics, auto-playing video ads, facebook and linked-in and twitter integration, annoying subscribe popups, etc. Javascript is necessary in the web that I want for the future but I want some standards for what gets run in my browser without me going through manually and whitelisting specific scripts to block out the 10s of MB of crap that get thrown at me every time I go to a new site.
  - 10y ago

orf 10y ago

Looks good, but it really seems to be the "Web Europe and America want".

Whackbat 10y ago

An interesting but unsurprising result - we want a private web.

wodencafe 10y ago

I can't tell what's going on with the map? What's with all the little dots fading in and out?

odabaxok 10y ago
From the site: "When you select any of the sharing links, we add your location to the map to show the worldwide impact of our community."
- vincentriemer 10y ago
  From their video, "I am not a data point". Proceeds to turn us into literal data 'points'.
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    > I am not a data point to be bought and sold. Cutting off that clause really changes the intended meaning.

franblas 10y ago

Privacy seems to be on top issue for all regions. Not surprising regarding recent events.

vcarl 10y ago

I love that Africa is the highest continent (at time of posting) for "learning" and "opportunity." I've seen some articles about entrepreneurs in various African countries and it's always amazing how much impact they're able to have with limited materials, and access to the web can get you a lot.

j-pb 10y ago

Stable and documented like SQLite. Oh wait we did a step in that direction with WebSQL until mozilla killed it out of not invented here syndrome.

sp332 10y ago
Firefox uses SQLite for tons of things internally, like history and bookmarks. So when they say that SQLite is "quirky" and "bad for the web" I would tend to believe them. http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-features-is-hard_03.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/06/not-implementing-feature... Edit: A better discussion of what the quirks are, so you don't have to just take their word for it. https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memoriam/ https://nolanlawson.com/2014/04/26/web-sql-database-in-memor...
- j-pb 10y ago
  I don't see how the second link you provided shines any bad light on sqlite. It calls it the easiest to use of the 3. To me the irc conversations he cites make it very clear that mozilla was Simply bashing SQL at the peak of the NoSQL bubble. I also see the lack of alternative implementations as a plus. SQLite is as portable as C essentially. So it's the only Web standard that's not broken and different in subtle ways across browsers. If you look through old mail and irc archives you'll also find that somebody actually offered to specify a websql sqlite independent of sqlite under the condition that mozilla will assure that they will implement it. Which didn't happen.
  - sp332 10y ago
    Yeah, the main thing was differences between versions (even point versions) of the underlying SQLite installation on any given device. The spec probably would have helped with that. Also I don't know why Mozilla got opposite feedback about whether web devs wanted SQL compared to everyone else, but that also seemed to be a big factor.
    - j-pb 10y ago

znpy 10y ago

All o can think after seeing the page is... "so what?"

arca_vorago 10y ago

The web I want: 1) One that isn't completely dominated by advertising. 2) One that isn't dominated by proprietary software, that encourages users to participate in FOSS. 3) One focused on data. Part of the problem of javascript, so uneeded in most cases. 4) More on javascript, how about one where each page doesn't load 30 scripts from alternate domains? Even the major new sites do this, and it makes me hate them. 5) One where ISP's don't hand over browsing information to anyone with a dollar or a badge without a warrant. 6) One where VPN's and other privacy centered providers learn how to build systems that don't keep logs and are built with privacy as a first class citizen. 7) Not last, and certainly not least, I mostly want a web that encourages and grows the freedom of thought, speech, and discussion that is and was such a fundamental part of the origins of the internet in the first place. It seems increasingly marginalized on the modern web. The beauty of communications mediums is the power it gives the formerly powerless, but I think the oligarchy has recognized this threat and this is why the internet is going to be increasingly a target of bad legislation written by corrupt "representatives". Beware cries of hate speech or any other attempts at censoring "for the greater good". Just a few of things I want in web off the top of my head. As for this Mozilla page, I think if we think about the four freedoms and fundamental principles behind them, user control really has to be the starting point. You can't have privacy if the user can't turn off spywidgetX. You can't have freedom if the user can't Y. Once again, I feel like one day, if we don't destroy ourselves as a species, we will look back and wonder why it took people so long to understand why RMS is and was right. The four freedoms are fundamental to the web I want, and while I often get a lot of hate on HN for being so pro RMS/GPL, I think if more people took the time to understand the issues they would tend to agree. edit: One where strong theoretical and practical encryption is for everyone, and isn't vilified by the government.

tangue 10y ago
Why is this downvoted ? Shouldn't we share these values as hackers ?
- chc 10y ago
  As a hacker, I appreciate the platform the Web offers for code. So I don't see why you'd necessarily expect me to agree with a complaint about the ability to write code for the Web. (I didn't downvote, though. I just think it's strange to expect universal agreement with Javascript Luddism among hackers.)

gloves 10y ago

It's not a perfect method of collecting data, but interesting privacy is the top result in every continent on earth.

mevile 10y ago

In this thread: people who don't turn JavaScript on by default and are unhappy when sites don't work because of it. They must get angry a lot. It's like wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code too, like wanting my entire operating system to just handle PDF files and maybe have a functional text editor. It's like whatever state computers were in 1999, that's what is desired. Are we on Hacker News? A technology news site? People here don't want to use technology and see it evolve and progress?

Zigurd 10y ago
It is not at all like "wanting my Android and Mac applications to work without code." The web browser is a hypertext reader. When you go to a text content site, there is nothing wrong with expecting it to work without JavaScript.
CaptSpify 10y ago
I love using technology. I hate using shitty technology that detracts from the experience, by trying to provide an experience.
- mevile 10y ago
  So you would have preferred a survey monkey experience to this site?
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I would have preferred this site not use crappy JS. Or at least not require it.
    - nsuser 10y ago
      It works without JS too
      - CaptSpify 10y ago

Borating 10y ago

And don' t forget to watch this short video by Mozilla - "The Hidden Business of the Internet" [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LcUOEP7Brc

fridek 10y ago

I find it sad that people value privacy so highly over anything else, including accessibility and opportunity. It's not that I don't treasure my privacy. I just don't get how it can be more important that ability to work on interesting stuff, freedom to access world's information and to learn from it, or even control over my devices configuration. Privacy should be an added value, not something we put in front of everything else. It would be meaningless if web wouldn't enable us to do what we do. So in reality, isn't this poll just a list of things we already have thanks to the internet, plus one thing we don't have - privacy?

CaptSpify 10y ago
I think privacy really enables all of those others in a way though. If I want to learn about reverse-engineering, it's just as important to me that nobody knows that's what I'm learning, as it is to have access to the learning materials. Knowing that all my research and learning is being sent to 3rd parties has definitely curbed my desire to learn some subjects.
panglott 10y ago
Privacy is a foundational value. It is necessary for trust and sharing. Without financial privacy, online commerce would not exist because people wouldn't trust to share their banking information. Without some modicum of social privacy, people wouldn't trust to share information with their friends & family. & I avoid using the services I do not trust.
Millennium 10y ago
Without privacy, there can be no trust. Without trust, there can be no freedom, no access, and no opportunity. Even learning is hampered severely in a changing world, where the question of what society demands remain private changes from one day to the next. In other words, privacy comes before everything else because it underpins everything else. Remove it, and the other values are all either illusory, or their non-illusory status is transient at best.

FranOntanaya 10y ago

Not sure if I'm supposed to choose the most important one, or go back and select each thing that matters.

StevePerkins 10y ago

I wish that the vocal 1% who want a JavaScript-free web would just rediscover Gopher.

cdnsteve 10y ago

The web I want is free of junk loaders, javascript tracking ad garbage making my page requests crazy slow, unpleasant and hard to use. FB Pages now have a giant login thing that takes over the entire page if you aren't logged in. If you close it, it comes back for every other page you visit. The amount of stuff that uBlock origin blocks now is amazing. I couldn't even use WSJ until I turned on ad blocking. I'm starting to think text based browsing is the future. Using chat like interface along with voice commands, mainly work directly with APIs and just never use a browser again. HTML and JavaScript are being taken over by crap on sites. The web is starting to feel like a garbage dump. API's are the only logical path forward I can see.

api 10y ago
It's a tragedy of the commons combined with the lack of any economic model other than tracking and ads.
- intrasight 10y ago
  That does about sum it up. Just be glad we have the option to browse with ublock origin. Of course not browsing crappy sites is another option.
  - tajen 10y ago
    > that we have the option to browse with uBlock Origin Isn't it ...copyright infringement? Sigh... DRM are incoming...
- Frondo 10y ago
  You know, I think there's another part of this--income inequality (stop groaning, it's relevant!) that means that everyone has to try and shill and monetize their stuff as much as possible. I dream of a world in which the typical worker's wages hadn't been suppressed and decoupled from productivity for the last four decades, and people had the disposable income to work less and write and make art more, and give it away instead of tryin' to get us all to punch the monkey and win. I dream of a world in which we can ALL punch the monkey and win! Well, ok, maybe not, but still...

programminggeek 10y ago

The web people want has all their favorite things like Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube, ESPN, Yahoo, and on and on. People don't care about much else. It's the killer apps, not the freedom that people are buying. People trade freedom for shiny things because it makes them feel good.

maglavaitss 10y ago

The web I want is one that above all others, respects privacy and my rights. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845689

gregn 10y ago

The thing is, I think the thing we want and the thing we get are two different things now. Its not a question of tech, such as Javascript, its a question of: I want to read, write and communicate. What I want basically, is an RSS feed reader and writer that actually works. I dont want adds, for the most part I dont want images, unless I specifically seek them out. What we want is the web experience that something like Instapaper provides, which is to isolate the content of the blog post or news article and eschew all the rest, and present it in a readable form in the font I like. This makes the act of information intake painless and flow easily. It sounds ridiculous in a sort of post-RSS environment, but what we need is RSS, to be implemented by someone in a way that makes it work, so it will be used by everyone.

return0 10y ago

Mozilla is in the right place to implement two things (in a non-profit way): A centralized sign on a-la persona and a browser-mediated payment solution. These two would move the web forward in a fantastic way.

intrasight 10y ago

While "privacy" gets the majority of the votes, I believe that we can't get privacy without most of the others.

Bedon292 10y ago

I am really curious, what would the results be like if this we run on Facebook? Does the poll being ran where it is bias the results. ~34% say privacy, but it that sample bias? Or a real representation of what people as a whole are interested in?

CaptSpify 10y ago
AFAIK, this could be shared on FB, and we are probably eeing some of the results from there. It'd be interesting to see how this breaks down by source though.
- r3bl 10y ago
  > ...and we are probably eeing some of the results from there. Yes, probably, but don't forget that those are the people who probably liked privacy-related Facebook pages and don't necessarily represent the opinion of an average Facebook user.

seagreen 10y ago

What kind of Web do you want? + Promotes freedom + Inspires learning + Safeguards privacy + Is available to all + Creates opportunity + Puts me in control This is a good question. My answers would be "inspires learning" and "puts me in control". Sidenote: let's address the "enable JS" issue once and for all since it keeps popping up in these threads. Imagine an alternate history where a book reading program went critical (we'll call it "Reader") and took over the world. (In the actual world of course it was a static document consumer -- the "Browser" -- that took over everything and eventually became its own operating system). In this alternate history there are regular internet fights (occurring in Reader of course) over whether turning off ReaderScript in Reader is a reasonable thing to do. One side says: it's dumb to turn off the programming language in your Reader and still expect it to function -- programming graceful degradation into every reader app in the world would cost billions of dollars and be a huge waste. The other side says: that's true, but I just want to read the Quran without popups! Happily synthesis is easy since both sides are right. You should never expect a readerapp to work without ReaderScript. You should always be able to expect a book to work without RS -- they should never have had access to it in the first place. The path forward is clear. Readers should have clearly different modes for books (documents/sites in our world) and apps. We should maintain a community list of which URLs are which, and load that by default into Reader. This way apps can continue to run programs by default, but we don't get popups in our books.

gnuvince 10y ago

I want a web with less JavaScript.

BrendanEich 10y ago
Me too, wherefore two separate efforts: * Brave has built in no-script support, and NoScript is a top add-on for other browsers. * WebAssembly. You're welcome! :-P

twoodfin 10y ago

A couple of design comments: First, I was confused by the animation of green dots on completing the poll question. I had expected that each dot would light up in a color associated with the selected poll answer for the associated user, and thought something must be wrong that I was only seeing the folks who had chosen "Freedom". Second, once I figured out to hit the color legend to see different results, the contrast between some of the brighter highlight colors on the map and the blue background made it nearly impossible to visually distinguish the gradients.

cowmix 10y ago

Jeebuz, I just want a Firefox browser that isn't a piece of crap that doesn't lock up and suck battery. Let's start there first.

justcommenting 10y ago

Safeguards Privacy - "Firefox is made under the principle that security and privacy are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." Mozilla is certainly treating the cookie management dialog box, which has been broken for years, as optional. Same with accepting Mike Perry's patches and various other examples. If Mozilla could actually do better in terms of privacy and security features than a handful of Tor Browser Bundle devs, they wouldn't need efforts like this and their work would speak for itself. I still use Mozilla code every day and am grateful for their work, but this sort of rhetoric is unimpressive.

r3bl 10y ago
Yup, this seems a bit ironic coming from the foundation that recently introduced the Sync feature (which shits on the privacy section) and made no serious security enhancements in their browser for quite some time.
- jmcomets 10y ago
  Could you elaborate on the Sync feature? I was under the impression that Sync now uses Firefox accounts and can't see how it would affect privacy.

lighttower 10y ago

There are some remarkable patterns you can gleen from the data. --- 1. rich countries don't care about freedom 2. countries that are quickly industrializing value opportunity 3. privacy is valued by everyone - but especially wealthy European nations 4. privacy is least valued by countries in war / unrest -- However, the message between the lines it seems that everyone is basically saying FREEDOM but within the context of their political realities. In North America we're worried about our adult content habits becoming public, or our extramarital affairs, or our secret bank accounts. So hence _privacy_ most reflects this political reality. In Turkey _freedom_ and _privacy_ are both ~25%. This reflects a developed society which is experiencing increased controls on internet (and IRL) freedoms. Par contre, countries like Iraq / Egypt / Bangladesh, _opportunity_ and _accessibility_ are the most important, reflecting that what the population cares most about is economic progress rather than press freedoms. Malaysia is interesting; they top the list at 31% wanting freedom, yet, there has been little news (that I heard) about political reform/unrest. All these responses reflect different freedoms that people are seeking -- contextualized by their political reality. If you lack humans freedoms, like freedom of speech, the type, of freedom you seek is best described _freedom_. While _opportunity_ and _access_ best describe economic and knowledge freedoms. Freedom to do whatever you want without fear of public exposure damaging marriages, job prospects, is best described by _privacy_ [edit - added clarity] -- Disclaimer: The above are based on observation and not statistical analysis. If you can download the raw data please let me know.

JohnKacz 10y ago
To (possibly?) validate your point, I chose freedom but only because I understand freedom to be a larger category which also encompasses privacy. (I live in the U.S.)
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Interesting. I chose user control. What does that tell about me or my country?
TheRealPomax 10y ago
The reason you've heard little news about unrest in Malaysia is because it's literally illegal to publish. Its media censorship is near the top, if not at the top, of the world's list of worst countries in terms of media censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia

carapace 10y ago

HAHAHahahahahaha! Oh the irony. This page doesn't work with JS disabled. (BTW you folks who downvote me for complaining about sites that fail without JS, what gives? What's your idea here? I can't use the web without JS? I'm the idiot? No. I don't agree. Make your site do something reasonable without JS or you're the idiot. C'mon.)

morinted 10y ago
There's definitely a place for JavaScript. This page might not be it. I know that if I want to make a simple web app, it's easier for me to write it in JavaScript, throw it on GitHub Pages, and have free static hosting for it. Much better for me that having to run a server with PHP or Node or Django or whatnot. I don't miss a web that didn't have JavaScript. There's a lot we can do now that we couldn't then... say, like navigating pages without constant page reloads. How would "The Web We Want" map even work if it were server-side only? Certainly it would be a very different experience, requiring Mozilla to code it twice. I suppose it is up to the developer to judge whether the cost is worth the benefit (0.25-2% of users)
imtringued 10y ago
Your expecations are way too high. That entire site couldn't even exist without javascript. How else would you visualise that data? Do something crazy like generate an image of the changed map on every request? At that point why even bother with HTML? Why not serve entire pages as a single image? Or worse we could also go back to the old days of flash and java applets... HTML and CSS are crap. People are forced to use javascript even for the simplest things not because they want but because have to. Javascript itself is not much better but at the very least it prevents this frankenstein monster from falling apart. You are the idiot because you're asking for the impossible.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  How about I visualize the data myself? I mean, honestly - this website is a simple poll with results in the form of (imprecise geographical coordinates, voting choice). It would be about 100x better if served in this form: | Country | Availability | Freedom | Opportunity | Control | Learning | Privacy | |-----------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------| | *NORTH AMERICA* | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | aggregate % | | ... | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | specific % | | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | | *EUROPE* | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | It would be infinitely better if the whole data was also served as a CSV file. I mean, I get it. This page is just an ad. It needs to look nice. But it bothers me when sites that are supposed to be useful are being designed as art forms.

daveguy 10y ago

One that doesn't know enough about me to be able to put a dot on a map to represent me.

pessimizer 10y ago

What kind of world do you want? A) One with babies B) One with rainbows C) One with good meals D) One with friends and fun E) One with novelty and adventure F) One that makes us smarter, faster, and more beautiful Click through to our map to find out where people were sitting when they picked one of these choices. edit: to be clear, what I'm trying to say is that this is far less a survey than a vapid corporate ejaculation. I don't understand how Mozilla's culture ended up like this. Was it always like this?

BrendanEich 10y ago
No, it wasn't always like this.

pasbesoin 10y ago

Well, given I can't get even a jist of what the page is about without Javascript... not this.

etendue 10y ago

The web I want is one that doesn't assume I have an unmetered high-speed internet connection. I'm visiting my parents right now. They have what I would term as "rural internet options": satellite, fixed cellular, or dialup. There is no DSL. There is no cable. There is no wifi. Satellite has awful latency and an effective 20GB monthly cap (their advertising is very deceptive because they pool midnight off-peak data in their advertised caps), fixed cellular has a 30GB cap: there is no provision to buy more data on either service short of ruinous overage fees. Browsing around on the modern web filled with autoplay videos, huge JS libraries, giant pictures, etc. has been sufficient for a 2 person household to blow through that 30GB cap in less than a month. It was hard for me to believe, until I instrumented their network and saw for myself. Of course, accidentally updating any software, accidentally syncing their photo libraries, etc. are all expensive mistakes. Most effective changes I have been able to make so far (without frustrating the parents too much) have been to ad block and get them to use Opera with Turbo, which has been sufficient to cut their data use by about half. I also put a timer on the cellular hub power supply to manually shut it off when they're not at home or when they're sleeping, because despite best efforts some software still automatically updates.

vmarsy 10y ago
The "Metered Connection" option in Windows 10 might help here, but as for websites you can't do much except using Ad blocker, "Disconnect.me" or Opera Turbo. (I'm not sure if Disconnect.me exists on opera). Another way to mitigate would be to have the browser identify as a tablet/mobile as some websites assume mobile == metered connection. On top of my head, there is some addon like this in Chrome.
syncopatience 10y ago
I had a similar problem working over a metered cellular data connection recently. One thing that helped a lot was the uBlock Origin extension for Chrome & Firefox, which has a feature that prevents automatically loading media elements over a certain size (say, 50kb). If you want to load a large image or video you can click to load it or turn the feature off on a per-site basis. Can use it in Firefox on an Android phone, too, since it has extensions.

ilostmykeys 10y ago

The web I want has real security, not "HTTPS Everywhere" that provides clear text access to nation states while providing a false sense of security.

digi_owl 10y ago

A couple of those are vague to say the least, the freedom one in particular. Are we talking freedom from or freedom to? And how about if my freedom to tramples your freedom from? The whole thing is yet another example of the feelgood "sjw" stuff that Mozilla have been throwing around in recent years, while turning a formerly potent browser in to a Chrome clone web terminal. Not even sure if they have tested that site on their own offering, as jumping to and from the tab in Firefox made the whole thing crawl.

DavideNL 10y ago

The web i want is one where i can properly zoom... zooming in/out on a Macbook (pinch to zoom) is just terrible in Firefox - compared to Safari and Chrome/Chromium where zooming is very smooth. It seems like a small/unimportant thing but it's sooo annoying...

TheRealPomax 10y ago
stay on target - that's not the web you want, that's a bugfix in one of the dozens of browsers that try to present you with the data you're telling it to pull down from the web.
- DavideNL 10y ago
  well okay, let me rephrase: Mozilla's "Manifesto" (and things like 'the web you want') is awesome, however some annoyances prevent me from using Firefox; i wish they would implement new features more rapidly like for example proper zooming (which has been present in other browser for ~ 4 years), and for example a sandbox. It doesn't matter how great your Manifesto is (and what kind of web you want), if things like this prevent people from using your product.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

The web I want would have a built in micro-payment system (someone mentioned this in a presentation at the Decentralized Web Summit last week). This would provide an option to advertisements. I would like to see strong privacy controls protected by the same strong force of law that media companies have with DMCA, etc. Citizen's interests should be protected at a higher level than corporation's interests. I would also like a better mechanism for controlling how much extra media a server sends the browser. Browsing with Lynx (text based) is an option, but not so nice.

tomc1985 10y ago

How typical. Offer "choice", but limit said choices to things which only serve Mozilla's interests....

putzdown 10y ago

Unfortunate choice of green (="Freedom"?) as the color for dots that simply mean "someone just responded."

putzdown 10y ago

Why just six choices? Why these? Why not "Beautiful"? or "Ad-free"? You know, what I'd really like is a web full of intelligent and polite discussion. Where's that option? What does Mozilla mean by "Web" here? What exactly is on offer?

ravenstine 10y ago

The problem what that page is that it doesn't include answers that are antithetical to Mozilla's values. Add "I want a safe space on the internet" as a response, and I imagine you'll get far more people clicking that than anyone who wants freedom, privacy, learning, etc.

bcheung 10y ago

That list is so touchy feely. It makes me feel like one of those "What are our company values?" meetings where people spend hours deliberating about things that are just a random list of positive adjectives taken from a dictionary. How about a list of features instead? Here are some things I'd like to see: - prevent videos from auto playing / making sound - prevent sites from forcing me to turn off AdBlock - sleep mode for tabs (sometimes I leave tabs open that I mean to read later) but they still take up a lot of resources even if I don't open that tab for weeks. - readable mode (I don't want to see animations right next to the article I'm trying to read). It's extremely distracting. Maybe a pause mode (where the entire page is frozen and nothing can change?) - stop changing where the text is on the page as I read it (as pages load, as ads show up / disappear). - Scrolling should be linear. I shouldn't scroll down and see the text move in the opposite direction because some header disappears from the top of the page, this shifting the text up higher). - Raise the simultaneous download limit and/or allow a large number of them to be queued without me having to wait until a slot frees up to make sure that file is going to be downloaded. - Make it easier to kill distracting elements on a page with a single click. - Anything that allows me to be able to develop for a single platform (the web) instead of having to deal with native app development, app store restrictions, and another company taking a huge chunk out of sales.

anonbanker 10y ago

We as a society are being pushed away from the ideals that took root in the 90's, when the web/internet was a libertarian paradise. Most graybeards would put freedom much higher than privacy or anything else. It seems the millenials are more concerned with hiding. How can someone have one without the other?

LordLestat 10y ago

The web i want is a a web where Mozilla sees no reason to compete with Chrome, the web i want is where Mozilla still have faith in built inside customization and choice and options instead of design and simplicity and minimalism. The web i want is a web with a Mozilla which does not care for Google at all and puts them and their shady actions and browser development concept on ignore.