6 ms·

Stop using vague language like "moving forward". That is exactly the same justification for "deprecating" America's public transit infrastructure in the 1950s,

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...
Silhouette 10y ago
The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. Fear not, my friend. If we accept the premise that everyone should be forced to switch software every few weeks to retain access to useful content, even if doing so means losing access to other content in the process, then much of this time won't be looked back on at all.
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  Luckily, that's not how it is.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    The thing is, I think that is exactly how it is. For example, I'm pretty sure multiple decades of little visual aids developed by academic tutors as Java applets just became inaccessible to almost everyone. There was nothing wrong with many of those demonstrations in the content they presented, nor is there anyone responsible for replacing them. That valuable content has effectively now been lost. There are discussions going on about Firefox 52 today on every relevant technical forum I follow online, and all of them (including this one) have threads showing a variety of other useful content or services that relied on these plugins. There is no reasonable argument that this was necessary because maintaining support was too difficult. The same browsers eliminating NPAPI support are the ones adding things like WebAssembly. There is no reasonable argument that this was necessary for security. Most of the plugins were click-to-play in all major browsers already, dramatically reducing the risk associated with them, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that browsers won't suffer from a similar level of security vulnerabilities as they add ever more native functionality to replace what the plugins were used for before. I realise I'm posting on HN, where the culture and interests are often more about building throwaway web apps and worrying about longevity later, but most of the Web and most of the world isn't like that. There is a price to pay when support for standards that have been around for 20+ years is dropped.
vacri 10y ago
> I deeply miss the good old days, when I could trust that my computer would behave as I expected it to. So don't update your browser. Or at the very least, use an ESR. > So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router You're using the wrong tool to connect to your router. The web has always been in flux. If your router only supports web login and requires mildly fancy web code which might get deprecated, that's a problem with it, not the browser. Similarly, it's not the browser's fault that google has bad UX, and you can make sparse-looking pages with ye olde html as well.
JohnBooty 10y ago
You're conflating sooooooooo many orthogonal things here. 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. The problem here isn't that browsers are getting better. The problem is that you paid for a router that evidently uses some broken and unsupported web interface. Not blaming you; that kind of thing's happened to me too. I'm guessing it either relies upon proprietary junk (Flash, Java) or nonstandard HTML/JS, or it does something terribly insecure that modern browsers don't allow. Non-broken HTML from the dawn of the web onward works fine in modern browsers. Had your router manufacturer done something sensible in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 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. [...] The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. Actually I totally agree! I think the web is worse than it was 10 years ago. But, this is due to bad site design, not the fact that browsers are more capable now. You could argue that today's more-capable browsers enable and encourage this crap, which is kind of true. But in the old days site owners did the same horrible crap; they just used Flash and Java and ActiveX to do it. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I hope so, because that'll mean it's gotten better. 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. Right. And those were all terrible and/or proprietary ideas, all of them contrary to the ideas (originally) underpinning the web. Those ideas were rightfully tossed into the trash bin of history. Mostly. But, I don't see what harmful assumptions and proprietary closed technology have to do with one of the jewels of the open-source software world (Firefox) continuing to improve itself while remaining open.
- apostacy 10y ago
  > The problem here isn't that browsers are getting better. The problem is that you paid for a router that evidently uses some broken and unsupported web interface. Not blaming you; that kind of thing's happened to me too. I'm guessing it either relies upon proprietary junk (Flash, Java) or nonstandard HTML/JS, or it does something terribly insecure that modern browsers don't allow. If a router manufacturer used completely correct and standard SSL and Java implementations in the past, it would likely be inaccessible today. A reasonable assumption should be made that if you implement something correctly today, that it will be accessible by a web browser in the future. I understand that these technologies have been found to be insecure. But some people still need them. And it is possible, and not even that hard, to run Applets securely. I do it. They can be sandboxed externally. I'm actually thinking of putting my "distro" of Firefox on github, for running applets. Appletviewer is not enough. These features are not removed for our benefit. They were removed under pressure from commercial entities. For example, Facebook pushed hard to kill flash with extreme prejudice two years ago [1]. If it had been up to them, everyone's Flash would have stopped working back then, and been very hard to re-enable. Facebook didn't do this out of concern for safety, they did it because it financially benefited them, and shrank their support window. [1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/14/0112229/facebooks-new-chief-security-officer-wants-to-set-a-date-to-kill-flash https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/14/0112229/facebooks-n...

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...

Silhouette 10y ago

The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. Fear not, my friend. If we accept the premise that everyone should be forced to switch software every few weeks to retain access to useful content, even if doing so means losing access to other content in the process, then much of this time won't be looked back on at all.

nkkollaw 10y ago
Luckily, that's not how it is.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  The thing is, I think that is exactly how it is. For example, I'm pretty sure multiple decades of little visual aids developed by academic tutors as Java applets just became inaccessible to almost everyone. There was nothing wrong with many of those demonstrations in the content they presented, nor is there anyone responsible for replacing them. That valuable content has effectively now been lost. There are discussions going on about Firefox 52 today on every relevant technical forum I follow online, and all of them (including this one) have threads showing a variety of other useful content or services that relied on these plugins. There is no reasonable argument that this was necessary because maintaining support was too difficult. The same browsers eliminating NPAPI support are the ones adding things like WebAssembly. There is no reasonable argument that this was necessary for security. Most of the plugins were click-to-play in all major browsers already, dramatically reducing the risk associated with them, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that browsers won't suffer from a similar level of security vulnerabilities as they add ever more native functionality to replace what the plugins were used for before. I realise I'm posting on HN, where the culture and interests are often more about building throwaway web apps and worrying about longevity later, but most of the Web and most of the world isn't like that. There is a price to pay when support for standards that have been around for 20+ years is dropped.

vacri 10y ago

> I deeply miss the good old days, when I could trust that my computer would behave as I expected it to. So don't update your browser. Or at the very least, use an ESR. > So, you're saying that I should lose the ability to log into my router You're using the wrong tool to connect to your router. The web has always been in flux. If your router only supports web login and requires mildly fancy web code which might get deprecated, that's a problem with it, not the browser. Similarly, it's not the browser's fault that google has bad UX, and you can make sparse-looking pages with ye olde html as well.

JohnBooty 10y ago

You're conflating sooooooooo many orthogonal things here. 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. The problem here isn't that browsers are getting better. The problem is that you paid for a router that evidently uses some broken and unsupported web interface. Not blaming you; that kind of thing's happened to me too. I'm guessing it either relies upon proprietary junk (Flash, Java) or nonstandard HTML/JS, or it does something terribly insecure that modern browsers don't allow. Non-broken HTML from the dawn of the web onward works fine in modern browsers. Had your router manufacturer done something sensible in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 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. [...] The direction the web has taken recently is horrible. Actually I totally agree! I think the web is worse than it was 10 years ago. But, this is due to bad site design, not the fact that browsers are more capable now. You could argue that today's more-capable browsers enable and encourage this crap, which is kind of true. But in the old days site owners did the same horrible crap; they just used Flash and Java and ActiveX to do it. And I'm convinced that this time will be looked back on with disgust. I hope so, because that'll mean it's gotten better. 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. Right. And those were all terrible and/or proprietary ideas, all of them contrary to the ideas (originally) underpinning the web. Those ideas were rightfully tossed into the trash bin of history. Mostly. But, I don't see what harmful assumptions and proprietary closed technology have to do with one of the jewels of the open-source software world (Firefox) continuing to improve itself while remaining open.

apostacy 10y ago
> The problem here isn't that browsers are getting better. The problem is that you paid for a router that evidently uses some broken and unsupported web interface. Not blaming you; that kind of thing's happened to me too. I'm guessing it either relies upon proprietary junk (Flash, Java) or nonstandard HTML/JS, or it does something terribly insecure that modern browsers don't allow. If a router manufacturer used completely correct and standard SSL and Java implementations in the past, it would likely be inaccessible today. A reasonable assumption should be made that if you implement something correctly today, that it will be accessible by a web browser in the future. I understand that these technologies have been found to be insecure. But some people still need them. And it is possible, and not even that hard, to run Applets securely. I do it. They can be sandboxed externally. I'm actually thinking of putting my "distro" of Firefox on github, for running applets. Appletviewer is not enough. These features are not removed for our benefit. They were removed under pressure from commercial entities. For example, Facebook pushed hard to kill flash with extreme prejudice two years ago [1]. If it had been up to them, everyone's Flash would have stopped working back then, and been very hard to re-enable. Facebook didn't do this out of concern for safety, they did it because it financially benefited them, and shrank their support window. [1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/14/0112229/facebooks-new-chief-security-officer-wants-to-set-a-date-to-kill-flash https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/07/14/0112229/facebooks-n...