4 ms·
Very good point, and 100% agree. Browsers need to be on the side of users, if only because authors are demonstrably terrible at user experience. This isn't ju
by npunt 8y ago
Very good point, and 100% agree.
Browsers need to be on the side of users, if only because authors are demonstrably terrible at user experience.
This isn't just because there's intrusive, bright/colorful/motion ads everywhere (though that's part of it). It's because authors suck at font choice, text size, line length, line height, text/background color & contrast, reflow across device sizes, and all the other basics of written content.
Browsers need to also do things like:
- make content more accessible to people with visual impairments and other disabilities
- filter out content that doesn't need to be loaded
- translate content into your language
- make content appear consistent across sites and according to your preference (e.g. most recently, dark mode)
- protect users from malicious content
- bake in standard functionality like sharing & bookmarks
A necessary feature of browsers should be 'render the author's intent faithfully', but that's by no means sufficient in today's browser market. Browsers are translators of content, both figuratively and literally. They're a window to another world, but also your guide. We need a guide we can trust, something that's on our side.
- zzo38computer 8y agoI agree that authors suck at font choice, text size, line length, line height, text/background color & contrast, etc. I generally do not specify any in documents I write, instead the client will render the document according to the user settings; this also reduces the file size. (In fact, I would even want to ensure most of them will work on Lynx, too.) (Also, many thing I write I use plain ASCII text files anyways; that is far more portable than HTML anyways) It need on the side of users not only because authors are demonstrably terrible at user experience, but also the user may wish to override anything.