3 ms·
That explanation seems to be having it both ways. If it's really a spoofing security risk, do they still intend to provide functionality that is sufficient for
by jessaustin 6y ago
That explanation seems to be having it both ways. If it's really a spoofing security risk, do they still intend to provide functionality that is sufficient for the original purpose?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> If it's really a spoofing security risk, do they still intend to provide functionality that is sufficient for the original purpose? The explanation explictly says that the original functionality was a spoofing security risk, but even so was “insufficient for their original purpose (making website elements look like their native OS counterparts)”. So, no, they've fairly explicitly abandoned the original purpose. They retained functionality has a more limited purpose, which I would describe as providing a vehicle for the user/browser/OS to provide defaults which pages/apps can reference, which when provided by the OS, minimize aesthetic clash and preserve contrast/accessibility between the page/app features and native UI without disguising the nature of the web page/web app, rather than actually mimicing native system UI.