4 ms·

How is breaking websites good for the user?

• UncleMeat 9y ago
  Adblock is "breaking websites". If a website is doing something crappy, I'd prefer to not have that crappy thing happen than experience the developer's true intent.
  • taneq 9y ago
    Adblock is opt in.
  • nashashmi 9y ago
    Adblock is opt-in. If the browser misbehaves because of an extension, the browser nor website is to be blamed. Chrome cannot decide on a whim that old websites should be broken. It is not how the web moves forward. Take for example Firefox that kept breaking extensions with every update, now they have few compatible extensions.
    • comatose 9y ago
      it's a little reductio ad absurdum but what about defaulting to popup blocking? blink? marquee? It's not the same thing but maybe worth considering when defending web author's intent being ignored.
      • robryan 9y ago
        At least popup blocking has an opt out if you need it.
        • mcv 9y ago
          Exactly, and this issue could and should have been handled in the same way.
      • walterstucco 9y ago
        > what about defaulting to popup blocking? that's a misbehaviour of the browser, not the developers The browsers were designed for viewing a single page at time popup blocking is fixing a browsers misbehaviour, as much as fixing a car that when you hit the brake accelerates
    • 013a 9y ago
      Choosing to use Chrome is also opt-in. Its the same concept. Its not ideal, but it is what it is.
      • walterstucco 9y ago
        developers cannot opt-in
        • 013a 9y ago
          They also can't opt-in to adblock or noscript or me choosing to run Netscape version 4. Developers fundamentally do not get a say on what I choose to run on my system; at best the only control they have is saying "nope we aren't even going to try to run on whatever you've got" but even that isn't a guarantee.
          • walterstucco 9y ago
            > They also can't opt-in to adblock or noscript or me choosing to run Netscape version 4. This is a gross oversimplifcation They also cannot opt-in if you don't have electricity in your house or don't own a computer DOH! This is not a real argument A real argument is obsolescence Of course there's a point when older versions are not supported anymore Here we are talking about future versions breaking compatibility, without a shared consent, without a deprecation roadmap, that need to be supported, in a Chrome specific way, making Chrome the new IE for no real benefits to the user and a vendor lock-in by Google When they users will try a different browser, for whatever reason, they will experience a different web, that for the majority of them being non techy will look like a broken web
      • nashashmi 9y ago
        I believe Chrome on mobile is the default (only?) browser. So it is opt-out, and a very painful opt-out that requires technical knowledge. You ship an experience like that, you end up not only breaking old websites but shift the emphasis on regularly updated websites that work on mobile. That was the intent! But it is not the web we know and love.
  • ksk 9y ago
    I would wager that if asked, a user would prefer that a website continue to work.
  • walterstucco 9y ago
    > Adblock is "breaking websites" because that's what I want it to do.