3 ms·
> As a user, I certainly do not care about “being part of moving the web forward aggressively”. Why should I? I like my stuff working, not broken. Actually, I
by s17n 9y ago
> As a user, I certainly do not care about “being part of moving the web forward aggressively”. Why should I? I like my stuff working, not broken.
Actually, I do want to be part of websites being faster, and I don't care about the functionality that is being broken. Performance isn't a secondary concern - if it's bad, the site is unusable from my point of view.
Your shitty scrolljacking site breaks the web, Chrome is trying to fix it.
- mrighele 9y agoBut his shitty scrolljacking doesn't break the web, at most his own website. Google probably broke a lot of website _except_ its own.
- s17n 9y agoThis is a change to how Chrome deals with sites that use onScroll. In their current state, most of these are broken as far as I'm concerned. Chrome's changes will partially fix a lot of these sites, at the cost of breaking some that aren't currently broken. That is a win for the user. My only problem with this change is that developers can still override the default and cancel scroll events. The handful of legitimate use cases this enables aren't worth the cost of letting shitty designers abuse it.