3 ms·

Yes, I think that's exactly what danShumway meant by "users have to do this every single release", i.e., give feedback about a big upcoming change that should n

by ken 8y ago

Yes, I think that's exactly what danShumway meant by "users have to do this every single release", i.e., give feedback about a big upcoming change that should never have been made in the first place. One week it's the domain hiding, another week it's cookie clearing. Who knows what Google is planning to change next time? It's not sustainable for us to go reactive every month. There's an awfully big disconnect if the makers of the world's most-used web browser are routinely trying to change it in ways that users force them to immediately revert. That's not what good stewards do.

Lio 8y ago
I feel this attitude of “just do it and see if enough people complain” is inherent in these big web companies. Just look at how they do product naming. How many times have we seen Google or Facebook launch projects with the same name as an existing project and just use their size to steamroll over refernce to the existing work? E.g. the Go programming language or Facebook’s Flow checker for starters.
SquareWheel 8y ago
>Who knows what Google is planning to change next time? It's not exactly a secret. Go download Canary and see what's in the pipeline.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  You missed paren't point. It's not about if you can see the changes immediately in the next release, it's that you have to be constantly vigilant as to what they're going to do next, like looking over your shoulder. You can do that, but it's time consuming and exhausting. You're better off switching browsers.
  - SquareWheel 8y ago
    That's overly dramatic. Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see. They are examples of open source done right.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see. I still think you're misunderstanding. The problem is that Google as an organization has the incentive to pull shady shit. It may be noticed, but watching Reddit/HN to see if your browser, which should protect you/be trustworthy, is pulling shady stuff, or whether you may've missed a story of it doing so is still exhausting and keeps you wondering.
      - SquareWheel 8y ago
        All companies have the potential to do shady things. The majority of Google's changes to Chrome have benefited end-users, and not Hacker News goers. We live in a bubble here, and lately it's been an outrage bubble. There's little substance to any of it. A recent example: Hackers hate the idea of removing "www". Why? Because it's less accurate and we love accuracy. We think about what happens to the DNS if the www isn't a CNAME for the root, and how this isn't technically accurate. Real users don't care. The UI is cleaner and make important information like what domain they're actually on more pronounced. This may help reduce phishing attacks and make URLs more legible. Integrating sync is the same way. I'm not surprised that hackers hate it, but end users will appreciate the convenience. Android had the feature for years already. We need to get out of this bubble and stop assuming we're the core audience. It isn't evil to design for somebody that isn't us.

by ken 8y ago

Lio 8y ago

I feel this attitude of “just do it and see if enough people complain” is inherent in these big web companies. Just look at how they do product naming. How many times have we seen Google or Facebook launch projects with the same name as an existing project and just use their size to steamroll over refernce to the existing work? E.g. the Go programming language or Facebook’s Flow checker for starters.

SquareWheel 8y ago

>Who knows what Google is planning to change next time? It's not exactly a secret. Go download Canary and see what's in the pipeline.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
You missed paren't point. It's not about if you can see the changes immediately in the next release, it's that you have to be constantly vigilant as to what they're going to do next, like looking over your shoulder. You can do that, but it's time consuming and exhausting. You're better off switching browsers.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  That's overly dramatic. Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see. They are examples of open source done right.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see. I still think you're misunderstanding. The problem is that Google as an organization has the incentive to pull shady shit. It may be noticed, but watching Reddit/HN to see if your browser, which should protect you/be trustworthy, is pulling shady stuff, or whether you may've missed a story of it doing so is still exhausting and keeps you wondering.
    - SquareWheel 8y ago
      All companies have the potential to do shady things. The majority of Google's changes to Chrome have benefited end-users, and not Hacker News goers. We live in a bubble here, and lately it's been an outrage bubble. There's little substance to any of it. A recent example: Hackers hate the idea of removing "www". Why? Because it's less accurate and we love accuracy. We think about what happens to the DNS if the www isn't a CNAME for the root, and how this isn't technically accurate. Real users don't care. The UI is cleaner and make important information like what domain they're actually on more pronounced. This may help reduce phishing attacks and make URLs more legible. Integrating sync is the same way. I'm not surprised that hackers hate it, but end users will appreciate the convenience. Android had the feature for years already. We need to get out of this bubble and stop assuming we're the core audience. It isn't evil to design for somebody that isn't us.