5 ms·

I'm glad that major sites don't support older browsers. This way users will have to upgrade, and the web can move forward. One thing is to keep supporting som

I'm glad that major sites don't support older browsers. This way users will have to upgrade, and the web can move forward. One thing is to keep supporting something that costs hundreds of dollars (like an iPhone), but there is very little sense IMHO to spend a lot of effort and—potentially—make everyone's experience worse just because some users won't bother downloading a 50MB free update. A lot of things happen in 3 years in this field! Google was smart in making Chrome updates automatic. I doubt the average user cares the slightest anyway.

apostacy 10y ago
Stop using vague language like "moving forward". That is exactly the same justification for "deprecating" America's public transit infrastructure in the 1950s, and replacing it with highways. I don't consider a lot of updates to be upgrades. And the cost associated with updates isn't 50Mb. The cost is losing essential features that I rely on. So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router, all so you can use the latest template bullshit that will be abandoned in a year. And it's not even that a major feature will be deprecated specifically, it's the threat and uncertainty that the constant update cycle creates. I deeply miss the good old days, when I could trust that my computer would behave as I expected it to. The fact that things have become so damn unreliable is itself taking away from the UX, and more than offsets any improvements. Google has an awful UX, because of how unreliable it is. All the financial websites that I use over the last two years have been ruined in the pursuit of UX. Information density has plummeted. I used to be able to copy and paste data on screen in a predictable manor. The browser responded instantly. Now, it's a messy, slow, and far less readable. I'm thankful that I don't rely on accessible technology. The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I was a web designer from the late 90s to early 2000s. I vividly remember everyone saying how Flash needed to be pushed on users, and how HTML was obsolete. And that unskippable flash intro pages were cutting edge UX. And playing sounds in the background was a great idea. And that all users were 800x600 resolution. The attitudes have not changed. I think they've actually gotten worse.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Amen
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  > Stop using vague language like "moving forward". Sorry, I don't have time to go into the specifics of all the APIs that modern browsers have started supporting since 2014, but they're a lot. > That is exactly the same justification for "deprecating" America's public transit infrastructure in the 1950s, and replacing it with highways. I don't consider a lot of updates to be upgrades. Why are you comparing public transportation with web standards? Web standards evolve about 100 times faster than public transportation. > So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router, all so you can use the latest template bullshit that will be abandoned in a year. I don't see why you'd lose it. More modern browsers will still be able to interpret old code (http://info.cern.ch/ http://info.cern.ch/)! The problem is the other way around: old browsers can't understand new code. Also, although I take it that you don't like updating your software, if something doesn't work if you updated your router firmware or software you might find out that it starts working again. You can also keep an older browser installed if you need to access some specific software, but I don't think it's a good idea to use an obsolete browser as your main browser, if anything for security concerns. > he direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I was a web designer from the late 90s to early 2000s. I vividly remember everyone saying how Flash needed to be pushed on users, and how HTML was obsolete. And that unskippable flash intro pages were cutting edge UX. And playing sounds in the background was a great idea. And that all users were 800x600 resolution. Then, I find it hard to understand how you believe that things have gotten worse, since all browsers follow the standards now, most things are open source and build on open technologies. > The attitudes have not changed. I think they've actually gotten worse. Judging by your tone and attitude, I actually agree with you on this one.
  - apostacy 10y ago
    First of all I'm sorry for my forceful language. I was in a rush and needed to get lunch > Sorry, I don't have time to go into the specifics of all the APIs that modern browsers have started supporting since 2014, but they're a lot. > Why are you comparing public transportation with web standards? Web standards evolve about 100 times faster than public transportation. Web browsers and public transit are both infrastructure that everyone relies on. And we have a responsibility to think carefully before we make big changes that can harm, or even inconvenience people. And I think that too often, we make the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. We take for granted that things like ATM machines, or door knobs will remain pretty much the same. The are infrastructure, too. And the language used to describe these changes are often misleading. Slashing the number of buses that service a neighborhood is an "optimization". Or like downgrading a proposed light rail line to a bus rapid transit, and then finally to a regular bus line. And then selling it to the public as some sort of improvement. I strongly dislike when people use the word "progress", to imply some sort of change is an improvement. Donald Trump bulldozing low income housing in order to replace them with gaudy luxury condos would be called "progress". I do not think that much of the changes that we have experienced could be called "progress". I don't think that updates are "upgrades". And often times this language is used deceptively, to hide value being subtracted, and features being removed. > I don't see why you'd lose it. More modern browsers will still be able to interpret old code (http://info.cern.ch/ http://info.cern.ch/)! The problem is the other way around: old browsers can't understand new code. Also, although I take it that you don't like updating your software, if something doesn't work if you updated your router firmware or software you might find out that it starts working again. You can also keep an older browser installed if you need to access some specific software, but I don't think it's a good idea to use an obsolete browser as your main browser, if anything for security concerns. Um, if I update my software, I might find that features are removed or radically altered. Like when Cisco decided to completely change the operating system on their routers, to one which had far fewer features, and would phone home to them[1]. There are too many examples to list, but, just off the top of my head, most Android updates remove useful features. iOS is so awful, that Apple goes through amazing lengths to force users to update. Do you really think they're doing it out of concern for the user experience? They're doing it because users are less likely to complain if you don't give them a choice. > Then, I find it hard to understand how you believe that things have gotten worse, since all browsers follow the standards now, most things are open source and build on open technologies. Yes, I am happy about that. However, websites themselves are as awful as ever, in new ways. We've taken everything bad about Flash, and baked it into html5. Just as many pigheaded assumptions are made about the end user's computer setup as in the late 90s. We're actually regressing in a lot of ways. I've actually seen popups when I try to load a webpage, telling me that I need to have higher resolution. That is geocities crap. > Judging by your tone and attitude, I actually agree with you on this one. I guess we have different visions of what the web should be. And your vision is winning. [1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushing-cloud-connect-router-firmware-allows-web-history-tracking https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushi...
sedachv 10y ago
> One thing is to keep supporting something that costs hundreds of dollars (like an iPhone), but there is very little sense IMHO to spend a lot of effort and—potentially—make everyone's experience worse just because some users won't bother downloading a 50MB free update. My browsing experience has been made significantly worse than it was 5 years ago by websites abusing new browser features. I have had to start running uMatrix to disable JavaScript except on whitelisted websites, and have had to start using youtube-dl to download videos instead of viewing them in the browser. Firefox Reader View is a must because of bad CSS everywhere. I use Firefox for most browsing but keep Chrome around just to view problem websites. Most websites serve up text, the only reason they "need" new features is for serving intrusive ads. I also regularly use Lynx and think it continues to be a good browsing experience. Most websites can be (and historically are/have been) very usable and quick to navigate in text browsers. I continue to design personal webpages to work in text browsers.
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  Taking it as far as saying that they need new features just to serve ads, wow. The fact that web technologies have become powerful enough to make using complicated software a click away instead of forcing you to install a native app for every little thing..?
  - Nadya 10y ago
    Take Twitter as an example - using older versions of Firefox. They claim that "videos are not supported in your browser" but on occasion the video begins playing before being paused. Sometimes the "what version is your browser" check takes long enough for the entire video to finish playing. The videos are obviously supported because they work! I know this because the same video that tells me "it isn't supported" will sometimes partially or completely play (so it isn't that different videos are being served differently). So why is Twitter telling me they don't work?
    - nkkollaw 10y ago
      Sorry, what's your point in relation to what we're talking about..?

apostacy 10y ago

Stop using vague language like "moving forward". That is exactly the same justification for "deprecating" America's public transit infrastructure in the 1950s, and replacing it with highways. I don't consider a lot of updates to be upgrades. And the cost associated with updates isn't 50Mb. The cost is losing essential features that I rely on. So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router, all so you can use the latest template bullshit that will be abandoned in a year. And it's not even that a major feature will be deprecated specifically, it's the threat and uncertainty that the constant update cycle creates. I deeply miss the good old days, when I could trust that my computer would behave as I expected it to. The fact that things have become so damn unreliable is itself taking away from the UX, and more than offsets any improvements. Google has an awful UX, because of how unreliable it is. All the financial websites that I use over the last two years have been ruined in the pursuit of UX. Information density has plummeted. I used to be able to copy and paste data on screen in a predictable manor. The browser responded instantly. Now, it's a messy, slow, and far less readable. I'm thankful that I don't rely on accessible technology. The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I was a web designer from the late 90s to early 2000s. I vividly remember everyone saying how Flash needed to be pushed on users, and how HTML was obsolete. And that unskippable flash intro pages were cutting edge UX. And playing sounds in the background was a great idea. And that all users were 800x600 resolution. The attitudes have not changed. I think they've actually gotten worse.

quadrangle 10y ago
Amen
nkkollaw 10y ago
> Stop using vague language like "moving forward". Sorry, I don't have time to go into the specifics of all the APIs that modern browsers have started supporting since 2014, but they're a lot. > That is exactly the same justification for "deprecating" America's public transit infrastructure in the 1950s, and replacing it with highways. I don't consider a lot of updates to be upgrades. Why are you comparing public transportation with web standards? Web standards evolve about 100 times faster than public transportation. > So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router, all so you can use the latest template bullshit that will be abandoned in a year. I don't see why you'd lose it. More modern browsers will still be able to interpret old code (http://info.cern.ch/ http://info.cern.ch/)! The problem is the other way around: old browsers can't understand new code. Also, although I take it that you don't like updating your software, if something doesn't work if you updated your router firmware or software you might find out that it starts working again. You can also keep an older browser installed if you need to access some specific software, but I don't think it's a good idea to use an obsolete browser as your main browser, if anything for security concerns. > he direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I was a web designer from the late 90s to early 2000s. I vividly remember everyone saying how Flash needed to be pushed on users, and how HTML was obsolete. And that unskippable flash intro pages were cutting edge UX. And playing sounds in the background was a great idea. And that all users were 800x600 resolution. Then, I find it hard to understand how you believe that things have gotten worse, since all browsers follow the standards now, most things are open source and build on open technologies. > The attitudes have not changed. I think they've actually gotten worse. Judging by your tone and attitude, I actually agree with you on this one.
- apostacy 10y ago
  First of all I'm sorry for my forceful language. I was in a rush and needed to get lunch > Sorry, I don't have time to go into the specifics of all the APIs that modern browsers have started supporting since 2014, but they're a lot. > Why are you comparing public transportation with web standards? Web standards evolve about 100 times faster than public transportation. Web browsers and public transit are both infrastructure that everyone relies on. And we have a responsibility to think carefully before we make big changes that can harm, or even inconvenience people. And I think that too often, we make the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. We take for granted that things like ATM machines, or door knobs will remain pretty much the same. The are infrastructure, too. And the language used to describe these changes are often misleading. Slashing the number of buses that service a neighborhood is an "optimization". Or like downgrading a proposed light rail line to a bus rapid transit, and then finally to a regular bus line. And then selling it to the public as some sort of improvement. I strongly dislike when people use the word "progress", to imply some sort of change is an improvement. Donald Trump bulldozing low income housing in order to replace them with gaudy luxury condos would be called "progress". I do not think that much of the changes that we have experienced could be called "progress". I don't think that updates are "upgrades". And often times this language is used deceptively, to hide value being subtracted, and features being removed. > I don't see why you'd lose it. More modern browsers will still be able to interpret old code (http://info.cern.ch/ http://info.cern.ch/)! The problem is the other way around: old browsers can't understand new code. Also, although I take it that you don't like updating your software, if something doesn't work if you updated your router firmware or software you might find out that it starts working again. You can also keep an older browser installed if you need to access some specific software, but I don't think it's a good idea to use an obsolete browser as your main browser, if anything for security concerns. Um, if I update my software, I might find that features are removed or radically altered. Like when Cisco decided to completely change the operating system on their routers, to one which had far fewer features, and would phone home to them[1]. There are too many examples to list, but, just off the top of my head, most Android updates remove useful features. iOS is so awful, that Apple goes through amazing lengths to force users to update. Do you really think they're doing it out of concern for the user experience? They're doing it because users are less likely to complain if you don't give them a choice. > Then, I find it hard to understand how you believe that things have gotten worse, since all browsers follow the standards now, most things are open source and build on open technologies. Yes, I am happy about that. However, websites themselves are as awful as ever, in new ways. We've taken everything bad about Flash, and baked it into html5. Just as many pigheaded assumptions are made about the end user's computer setup as in the late 90s. We're actually regressing in a lot of ways. I've actually seen popups when I try to load a webpage, telling me that I need to have higher resolution. That is geocities crap. > Judging by your tone and attitude, I actually agree with you on this one. I guess we have different visions of what the web should be. And your vision is winning. [1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushing-cloud-connect-router-firmware-allows-web-history-tracking https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/29/1425210/cisco-pushi...

sedachv 10y ago

> One thing is to keep supporting something that costs hundreds of dollars (like an iPhone), but there is very little sense IMHO to spend a lot of effort and—potentially—make everyone's experience worse just because some users won't bother downloading a 50MB free update. My browsing experience has been made significantly worse than it was 5 years ago by websites abusing new browser features. I have had to start running uMatrix to disable JavaScript except on whitelisted websites, and have had to start using youtube-dl to download videos instead of viewing them in the browser. Firefox Reader View is a must because of bad CSS everywhere. I use Firefox for most browsing but keep Chrome around just to view problem websites. Most websites serve up text, the only reason they "need" new features is for serving intrusive ads. I also regularly use Lynx and think it continues to be a good browsing experience. Most websites can be (and historically are/have been) very usable and quick to navigate in text browsers. I continue to design personal webpages to work in text browsers.

nkkollaw 10y ago
Taking it as far as saying that they need new features just to serve ads, wow. The fact that web technologies have become powerful enough to make using complicated software a click away instead of forcing you to install a native app for every little thing..?
- Nadya 10y ago
  Take Twitter as an example - using older versions of Firefox. They claim that "videos are not supported in your browser" but on occasion the video begins playing before being paused. Sometimes the "what version is your browser" check takes long enough for the entire video to finish playing. The videos are obviously supported because they work! I know this because the same video that tells me "it isn't supported" will sometimes partially or completely play (so it isn't that different videos are being served differently). So why is Twitter telling me they don't work?
  - nkkollaw 10y ago
    Sorry, what's your point in relation to what we're talking about..?