6 ms·

How is it good for the user if it breaks the website?

by ksk 9y ago

Klathmon 9y ago
The same way getting your flu shot can make you feel worse for a bit, but can prevent you from getting the flu which will make you feel worse for much longer, and it can help prevent others around you from getting the flu. Yes, it breaks some websites, and for those users in that moment things might be worse, but it is making the web better for significantly more people, and even the users affected aren't really "impacted" by it in most cases (generally only seeing "sticky" headers warp around while scrolling outside of a few specific types of applications).
- ksk 9y ago
  >and for those users in that moment things might be worse, but it is making the web better for significantly more people, What are you basing this on?
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    I explained this in my first comment, but I'm also basing it on my own testing in february when this came out, as well as from user feedback for years from users of mobile safari which has done this for quite a long time and it has greatly improved the scrolling performance in their browser.
    - ksk 9y ago
      But how does this apply to the majority of users as you suggest? As a user, I'd like the website to keep working. I don't agree with simply breaking working websites via a top-down dictatorial approach.
      - Klathmon 9y ago
        Because in my personal case a majority of users would take smoother scrolling over a small UI bug that doesn't impact the usability of the application which is fixable in a few hours at most. Because any websites that need this "blocking events" functionality can opt-in to it quite easily. Because as I explained in my first comment, the breakages didn't affect that many websites, and the sites it did affect were mostly just small UI bugs that didn't impact usability. Yes, some sites were impacted and broken, but they were the extreme minority, and even if you accounted for all of the users of all of those sites I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't come anywhere close to being a "majority" of web users. Hell I'd wager that it's not even close to 1% of web users that were negatively impacted by this change in any way.
        ksk 9y ago
        Sorry, I am not convinced with your arguments. Anyway, have a nice day.
- gw 9y ago
  This is a really paternalistic attitude. The local presbyterian church down my street can't afford a full-time web developer to update their website every time Google decides to break it. The idea that sacrificing actual functionality in exchange for smoother scrolling makes the web "better" is a claim that makes sense only in a terrifically isolated bubble.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    If your local church added a scroll listener for their small website, they deserve it.
    - nolemurs 9y ago
      To be fair, most likely someone's teenage son added a scroll listener when he built the small church's website before going off to college. In the category of "poor decisions made by teenagers" this is pretty tame.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        what for?
        nolemurs 9y ago
        My best guess? Because he thought it would be cool. I'm not saying the decision makes sense. It obviously doesn't. But small organizations like a local church just don't have the expertise or resources to make good decisions about this sort of thing. Saying they deserve what they get is pretty unhelpful - it is completely unrealistic for them to hire someone who knows what he's doing. They can't fix that problem. So what you're basically saying is "parochial institutions without expertise or money deserve to be screwed over." Personally I'd like to live in a better world than that. Of course, I also agree with the decision that Chrome made, so... there's that. But the fact that groups like the church got screwed over is unfortunate.
        9y ago

How is it good for the user if it breaks the website?

by ksk 9y ago

How is it good for the user if it breaks the website?

The same way getting your flu shot can make you feel worse for a bit, but can prevent you from getting the flu which will make you feel worse for much longer, and it can help prevent others around you from getting the flu. Yes, it breaks some websites, and for those users in that moment things might be worse, but it is making the web better for significantly more people, and even the users affected aren't really "impacted" by it in most cases (generally only seeing "sticky" headers warp around while scrolling outside of a few specific types of applications).

ksk 9y ago
>and for those users in that moment things might be worse, but it is making the web better for significantly more people, What are you basing this on?
- Klathmon 9y ago
  I explained this in my first comment, but I'm also basing it on my own testing in february when this came out, as well as from user feedback for years from users of mobile safari which has done this for quite a long time and it has greatly improved the scrolling performance in their browser.
  - ksk 9y ago
    But how does this apply to the majority of users as you suggest? As a user, I'd like the website to keep working. I don't agree with simply breaking working websites via a top-down dictatorial approach.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      Because in my personal case a majority of users would take smoother scrolling over a small UI bug that doesn't impact the usability of the application which is fixable in a few hours at most. Because any websites that need this "blocking events" functionality can opt-in to it quite easily. Because as I explained in my first comment, the breakages didn't affect that many websites, and the sites it did affect were mostly just small UI bugs that didn't impact usability. Yes, some sites were impacted and broken, but they were the extreme minority, and even if you accounted for all of the users of all of those sites I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't come anywhere close to being a "majority" of web users. Hell I'd wager that it's not even close to 1% of web users that were negatively impacted by this change in any way.
      - ksk 9y ago
        Sorry, I am not convinced with your arguments. Anyway, have a nice day.
gw 9y ago
This is a really paternalistic attitude. The local presbyterian church down my street can't afford a full-time web developer to update their website every time Google decides to break it. The idea that sacrificing actual functionality in exchange for smoother scrolling makes the web "better" is a claim that makes sense only in a terrifically isolated bubble.
- jhasse 9y ago
  If your local church added a scroll listener for their small website, they deserve it.
  - nolemurs 9y ago
    To be fair, most likely someone's teenage son added a scroll listener when he built the small church's website before going off to college. In the category of "poor decisions made by teenagers" this is pretty tame.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      what for?
      - nolemurs 9y ago
        My best guess? Because he thought it would be cool. I'm not saying the decision makes sense. It obviously doesn't. But small organizations like a local church just don't have the expertise or resources to make good decisions about this sort of thing. Saying they deserve what they get is pretty unhelpful - it is completely unrealistic for them to hire someone who knows what he's doing. They can't fix that problem. So what you're basically saying is "parochial institutions without expertise or money deserve to be screwed over." Personally I'd like to live in a better world than that. Of course, I also agree with the decision that Chrome made, so... there's that. But the fact that groups like the church got screwed over is unfortunate.
        9y ago