5 ms·

Why can’t we just remove user-hostile features like this from browsers? At this point I’m starting to feel like we need to start over. Create a new web, focused

Why can’t we just remove user-hostile features like this from browsers? At this point I’m starting to feel like we need to start over. Create a new web, focused on the user, that doesn’t have any of this nonsense.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nerdponx 7y ago
Why can’t we just remove user-hostile features like this from browsers I wonder about what kind of a performance decrease you'd expect from being able to blacklist or whitelist chunks of the web API, like how you can blacklist syscalls in some container platforms.
- ygjb 7y ago
  There are so many reasons why the web would be awful with granular prefs (and I say this as someone who has wanted it for JS in particular). First off, it depends on how you define your block/allow list. Are they run-time prefs that can be toggled? There is UI/UX overhead, and related attack surface. If they are run-time prefs, are they loaded when the browser is run, or on each page load/content type load? Do you have to maintain a list of prefs by domain? etc, etc, etc. If they are compile time, then is it even worth doing for dramatic increase in complexity trying to support users with unusual configuration (e.g. THAT user that decides that preffing off JSON support is a good idea.) How granular do you allow user prefs on this, and how do you account for the fact that a user may pref off an api/feature that you use as a part of exploit mitigation? Do you want to log entries that are pref'd off so that users know what is making their favorite app fail? What are the abuse cases for pref'd features? How much attack surface is introduced by allowing pref'ing of features? Does doing this actually contribute to usability on the web, or will it simply lead to a proliferation of "Please ensure that all features are pref'd on" pages, similar to the Javascript pages you often see when browsing without javascript.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
There's a sibling comment to yours which a number of people replied to, with a pretty good list of situations where you would want to disable text selection.
beaconstudios 7y ago
it makes sense to apply user-select: none on draggable components, or those where the text is not actually text such as icon fonts. But it's one of those instances where a tool that's legitimately useful in one small, specific instance is used more generally without due consideration (or in other examples such as `confirm()` on window exit, actively malicious). I'm sure a better solution for the legitimate use cases could be designed though.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  > text is not actually text such as icon fonts Which is also hostile. Why not use something like an img/svg?
  - beaconstudios 7y ago
    I don't know - I'm describing it, not justifying it.
  - recursive 7y ago
    Fewer requests maybe?
  - baddox 7y ago
    I believe the major advantages of icon fonts over SVGs were potentially smaller file sizes and better browser compatibility. I think the former is minor if it exists at all, and the latter is probably a much smaller concern now.
seaish 7y ago
You can. This is just CSS, so it's pretty easy to install Stylus on Firefox mobile and create a rule.
- input_sh 7y ago
  I know that I can and how to do that. The problem is that I shouldn't remove their stupid decisions to make their own damn website actually useful.
gridlockd 7y ago
Not every text in a user interface is supposed to be selectable. Can you select the text on your buttons, your tabs, your dropdowns? Of course not, because it doesn't make sense. If you think it shouldn't be possible to develop user interfaces that rival the desktop inside the browser, then just say so. If you merely believe existing web standards make this possible without "hacks" like "user-select:none", then you are mistaken. By the way, I'm a "read with selection" guy myself and I find this behavior on paragraphs of text unacceptable. On the other hand, none of the text on that website is worth reading anyway.
- Soft 7y ago
  I don't think there are that many situations where it is actually productive to prevent user from selecting and copying text even if it's just part of the UI. To focus on your example, copying user interface text might be useful for users who are not sufficiently proficient in the language that the app/website is written in and would like to copy the text into something like Google Translate. This is especially a problem with many mobile apps that prevent selecting text.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    The worst bit is applications that prevent copying error messages, because they prevent copying all UI text. And then use complicated error codes. This makes searching for the error message/code excessively difficult!
  - recursive 7y ago
    I don't think it's that rare to have a UI element that's intended to be draggable and sometimes contains text.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    If there's even one important situation where it is necessary to disable text selection, then disabling text selection must be supported. I gave you several examples of these. The text for many UI elements isn't supposed to be selectable, because it interferes with user interaction. Your off-chance example where somebody is trying to copy-paste the text for translation because the application is in a foreign language is subordinate to this. Good UX is about choosing the right tradeoffs between functionality and usability.
mal10c 7y ago
Damn I miss my Geocities and <blink> tag!! (haha sorry, couldn't resist)
shotashotshota 7y ago
I have longed for the universe where all and every JS/CSS stuff are done on the user side. Basically the only thing that the web provide is the very basic HTML and its up to the user to colour their experiences. One would argue that there would be bloat -- having to install multiple extensions. But then visiting random websites is completely safe, and the only ones that we have to care about is the popular ones that many people have extensions for.
teekert 7y ago
I didn't check but I bet you can turn it off in Firefox, like that ridiculous block on pasting passwords. And that ridiculous no-zooming-allowed on mobile sites. One wonders who though of such bad ideas in the first place let alone the fact that actual people implement them.
anderspitman 7y ago
I've been thinking lately it would be fun to make a web browser that only implements a small percentage of the most useful HTML and CSS specs. Maybe no JS at all. Then start writing my personal sites to be compliant with that browser. Similar in concept to AMP but with very different driving incentives.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nerdponx 7y ago

Why can’t we just remove user-hostile features like this from browsers I wonder about what kind of a performance decrease you'd expect from being able to blacklist or whitelist chunks of the web API, like how you can blacklist syscalls in some container platforms.

ygjb 7y ago
There are so many reasons why the web would be awful with granular prefs (and I say this as someone who has wanted it for JS in particular). First off, it depends on how you define your block/allow list. Are they run-time prefs that can be toggled? There is UI/UX overhead, and related attack surface. If they are run-time prefs, are they loaded when the browser is run, or on each page load/content type load? Do you have to maintain a list of prefs by domain? etc, etc, etc. If they are compile time, then is it even worth doing for dramatic increase in complexity trying to support users with unusual configuration (e.g. THAT user that decides that preffing off JSON support is a good idea.) How granular do you allow user prefs on this, and how do you account for the fact that a user may pref off an api/feature that you use as a part of exploit mitigation? Do you want to log entries that are pref'd off so that users know what is making their favorite app fail? What are the abuse cases for pref'd features? How much attack surface is introduced by allowing pref'ing of features? Does doing this actually contribute to usability on the web, or will it simply lead to a proliferation of "Please ensure that all features are pref'd on" pages, similar to the Javascript pages you often see when browsing without javascript.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

There's a sibling comment to yours which a number of people replied to, with a pretty good list of situations where you would want to disable text selection.

beaconstudios 7y ago

it makes sense to apply user-select: none on draggable components, or those where the text is not actually text such as icon fonts. But it's one of those instances where a tool that's legitimately useful in one small, specific instance is used more generally without due consideration (or in other examples such as `confirm()` on window exit, actively malicious). I'm sure a better solution for the legitimate use cases could be designed though.

hunter2_ 7y ago
> text is not actually text such as icon fonts Which is also hostile. Why not use something like an img/svg?
- beaconstudios 7y ago
  I don't know - I'm describing it, not justifying it.
- recursive 7y ago
  Fewer requests maybe?
- baddox 7y ago
  I believe the major advantages of icon fonts over SVGs were potentially smaller file sizes and better browser compatibility. I think the former is minor if it exists at all, and the latter is probably a much smaller concern now.

seaish 7y ago

You can. This is just CSS, so it's pretty easy to install Stylus on Firefox mobile and create a rule.

input_sh 7y ago
I know that I can and how to do that. The problem is that I shouldn't remove their stupid decisions to make their own damn website actually useful.

gridlockd 7y ago

Not every text in a user interface is supposed to be selectable. Can you select the text on your buttons, your tabs, your dropdowns? Of course not, because it doesn't make sense. If you think it shouldn't be possible to develop user interfaces that rival the desktop inside the browser, then just say so. If you merely believe existing web standards make this possible without "hacks" like "user-select:none", then you are mistaken. By the way, I'm a "read with selection" guy myself and I find this behavior on paragraphs of text unacceptable. On the other hand, none of the text on that website is worth reading anyway.

Soft 7y ago
I don't think there are that many situations where it is actually productive to prevent user from selecting and copying text even if it's just part of the UI. To focus on your example, copying user interface text might be useful for users who are not sufficiently proficient in the language that the app/website is written in and would like to copy the text into something like Google Translate. This is especially a problem with many mobile apps that prevent selecting text.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  The worst bit is applications that prevent copying error messages, because they prevent copying all UI text. And then use complicated error codes. This makes searching for the error message/code excessively difficult!
- recursive 7y ago
  I don't think it's that rare to have a UI element that's intended to be draggable and sometimes contains text.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  If there's even one important situation where it is necessary to disable text selection, then disabling text selection must be supported. I gave you several examples of these. The text for many UI elements isn't supposed to be selectable, because it interferes with user interaction. Your off-chance example where somebody is trying to copy-paste the text for translation because the application is in a foreign language is subordinate to this. Good UX is about choosing the right tradeoffs between functionality and usability.

mal10c 7y ago

Damn I miss my Geocities and <blink> tag!! (haha sorry, couldn't resist)

shotashotshota 7y ago

I have longed for the universe where all and every JS/CSS stuff are done on the user side. Basically the only thing that the web provide is the very basic HTML and its up to the user to colour their experiences. One would argue that there would be bloat -- having to install multiple extensions. But then visiting random websites is completely safe, and the only ones that we have to care about is the popular ones that many people have extensions for.

teekert 7y ago

I didn't check but I bet you can turn it off in Firefox, like that ridiculous block on pasting passwords. And that ridiculous no-zooming-allowed on mobile sites. One wonders who though of such bad ideas in the first place let alone the fact that actual people implement them.

anderspitman 7y ago

I've been thinking lately it would be fun to make a web browser that only implements a small percentage of the most useful HTML and CSS specs. Maybe no JS at all. Then start writing my personal sites to be compliant with that browser. Similar in concept to AMP but with very different driving incentives.