4 ms·

I like this post but I disagree with the premise... the whole "webpages don't implement microformats and RDF so we're going to take away all their control" does

by throwaway2016a 10y ago

I like this post but I disagree with the premise... the whole "webpages don't implement microformats and RDF so we're going to take away all their control" doesn't settle right with me. If stores using microformats and semantic markup is important then give value added to the places that support it and people will start using. If readability is important start penalizing sites with bad readability indexes. But please don't take over my UX. I can't think of a faster way to stifle innovation.[1] Try the documentation, much less political https://mozilla.github.io/fathom/intro.html#why https://mozilla.github.io/fathom/intro.html#why [1] That's an exaggeration. I can think of lots of better ways.

r3bl 10y ago
I agree with you on one hand that a browser shouldn't mess with the layout, but it could provide an alternative layout of the content (kind of like the reader mode does) in the click of a button, and I'll be more than happy to use it (the same way I got used to reading articles in a single, clean layout. But, how do you think that a browser could theoretically penalize a website?
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  > But, how do you think that a browser could theoretically penalize a website? Easier to do on a search engine. But for a browser they already do: many browsers are or plan to call out sites that don't use HTTPs. Or as another example: the warning that happens when you try to access a page that uses a self-signed certificate. Granted the penalty needs to be proportional to the crime. So maybe the penalty and value add go together. If the value add is a useful feature that everyone wants and demands then not having it becomes a penalty to the sites that don't offer it.
CapacitorSet 10y ago
>If readability is important start penalizing sites with bad readability indexes. That's relatively easy to do when you're Google and you develop both a browser and the most used search engine; not so much when you're Mozilla and have no apparent mean to apply pressure to websites.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> But please don't take over my UX. The thing is, it's not your UX, it's my UX. The more power I have to easily clean out all the "design" crap websites throw at me, the better my experience and convenience in using the web.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  > The thing is, it's not your UX, it's my UX. The more power I have to easily clean out all the "design" crap websites throw at me, the better my experience and convenience in using the web. In my opinion, absolutely not true. If a UX annoys you so much that you don't want to use a site... stop using that site. That is the power you have. Vote with your wallet. You have the power to deprive the site of your business. That's it. Not to remove ads, not to change the UX, just to stop using it.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    But why? You're sending bytes to my computer, I get to do with them whatever I want. If you want to restrict me from doing that, DRM-ed protocols are the way to go.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      You are receiving bytes that I pretty clearly own the copyright to. You have an implied limited license to the content. You are not buying the content. But to be clear. I actually lean towards agreeing with you up to a point. And I think the topic shifted slightly from my original intend. But it is my opinion that the point you are pushing it on other people (by bundling it with your browser) is where I draw the line. I'm okay if you, TeMPOraL do some post processing of the data but if Mozilla (a browser) or Comcast (an ISP) does it on your behalf without your say and without the content creators say. Especially considering that I am responsible for customer service on my own site.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > but if Mozilla (a browser) or Comcast (an ISP) does it on your behalf without your say and without the content creators say. > Especially considering that I am responsible for customer service on my own site. That's a reasonable position I haven't considered. Thanks.

r3bl 10y ago

I agree with you on one hand that a browser shouldn't mess with the layout, but it could provide an alternative layout of the content (kind of like the reader mode does) in the click of a button, and I'll be more than happy to use it (the same way I got used to reading articles in a single, clean layout. But, how do you think that a browser could theoretically penalize a website?

throwaway2016a 10y ago
> But, how do you think that a browser could theoretically penalize a website? Easier to do on a search engine. But for a browser they already do: many browsers are or plan to call out sites that don't use HTTPs. Or as another example: the warning that happens when you try to access a page that uses a self-signed certificate. Granted the penalty needs to be proportional to the crime. So maybe the penalty and value add go together. If the value add is a useful feature that everyone wants and demands then not having it becomes a penalty to the sites that don't offer it.

CapacitorSet 10y ago

>If readability is important start penalizing sites with bad readability indexes. That's relatively easy to do when you're Google and you develop both a browser and the most used search engine; not so much when you're Mozilla and have no apparent mean to apply pressure to websites.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> But please don't take over my UX. The thing is, it's not your UX, it's my UX. The more power I have to easily clean out all the "design" crap websites throw at me, the better my experience and convenience in using the web.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
> The thing is, it's not your UX, it's my UX. The more power I have to easily clean out all the "design" crap websites throw at me, the better my experience and convenience in using the web. In my opinion, absolutely not true. If a UX annoys you so much that you don't want to use a site... stop using that site. That is the power you have. Vote with your wallet. You have the power to deprive the site of your business. That's it. Not to remove ads, not to change the UX, just to stop using it.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  But why? You're sending bytes to my computer, I get to do with them whatever I want. If you want to restrict me from doing that, DRM-ed protocols are the way to go.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    You are receiving bytes that I pretty clearly own the copyright to. You have an implied limited license to the content. You are not buying the content. But to be clear. I actually lean towards agreeing with you up to a point. And I think the topic shifted slightly from my original intend. But it is my opinion that the point you are pushing it on other people (by bundling it with your browser) is where I draw the line. I'm okay if you, TeMPOraL do some post processing of the data but if Mozilla (a browser) or Comcast (an ISP) does it on your behalf without your say and without the content creators say. Especially considering that I am responsible for customer service on my own site.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > but if Mozilla (a browser) or Comcast (an ISP) does it on your behalf without your say and without the content creators say. > Especially considering that I am responsible for customer service on my own site. That's a reasonable position I haven't considered. Thanks.