5 ms·
"Sorry, this browser isn't compatible with Zoom Escaper. Please try Chrome on desktop." How many times will we have to learn the lessons of the late '90s/'00s?
by danaliv 6y ago
"Sorry, this browser isn't compatible with Zoom Escaper. Please try Chrome on desktop."
How many times will we have to learn the lessons of the late '90s/'00s?
- _Microft 6y agoI agree. Every webdev should know by now that you also need to tell visitors the screen resolution that a webpage is best viewed with.
- codetrotter 6y ago420x6969. Ultra portrait aspect ratio.
- dylan604 6y agoI miss visible visitor counters and guestbooks!
- motoboi 6y agoYeah, safari is the new internet explorer.
- saaaam 6y agoCreator of the Zoom Escaper here... Sadly it relies on a web audio feature that's chrome only. Also too bad because I use firefox as my primary browser.
- permalac 6y agoWell done. If someone wants to use this they should have no problem running in chrome.
- dylan604 6y agoSure, morals are no problem to get over. But hey, what's the price of privacy to run some software?
- bottled_poe 6y agoOh I’m sorry, did you pay for the development effort?
- dylan604 6y agoOf Chrome? I sure did. All of that information that Google has collected about me over the years without my say so has generated income for them.
- slig 6y agoIf you ever used any of their services you agreed on a bunch of ToS.
- dylan604 6y agoDoes that include all of those sites that include GA/GFonts/etc that I have zero control over? You don't have to use G/FB services to still be a money generator for them. To be a reader of this site and still not understand that, one must either be on ostrich or a new reader.
- slig 6y agoYou do have control over, just don't load things from them. Google "no-script", "uBlock", etc.
- fireattack 6y agoCould you elaborate a little bit? Just curious about the technical side of creating this cool application.
- runarberg 6y agoI’m interesting in knowing as well which standard in particular is being used which only Chrome supports. I was under the impression that the Web Audio API[1] was fairly well supported cross all modern browsers. 1: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_A...
- saaaam 6y agoIt's the setSinkId function which let's you select an audio output (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaElement/setSinkId https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) but it looks like I was mistaken -- it should actually also work with Edge and Opera. Will update the message for clarity...
- kelnos 6y agoLooks like it is supported on Firefox, but disabled by default, and requires an about:config tweak: https://caniuse.com/?search=setSinkId https://caniuse.com/?search=setSinkId Its MDN doc (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaElement/setSinkId https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) shows it as a not-quite-finalized feature, but even so, seems odd to have a pref just for it.
- throwanem 6y agoAlso of note that Firefox's Web Audio API implementation just isn't very good in general. It's my daily driver, but I won't run Airsonic in it, because after half an hour or so the music reliably starts glitching. Fine in every other client, so it's definitely a Firefox thing, and iO-808 [1] also calls it out in an alert if you go there in Firefox. (And also starts glitching out after a while, if you decide to ignore the alert and take your chances.) Granted, a glitchy audio implementation might be just the thing for this use case... [1] https://io808.com/ https://io808.com/
- slig 6y agoThanks for creating and for sharing with us! Disregard the negativity.
- nitrogen 6y agoThe negativity was probably meant for Chrome anyway.
- gfodor 6y agoThe lesson of those times was to not rely upon proprietary APIs in browsers. (Like ActiveX or other IE-only extensions which were often used.) When you see this warning nowadays, it's not usually about that, but about Firefox or Safari being behind in supporting already-specced APIs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 8ytecoder 6y agoI disagree. Chrome, by virtue of its popularity, market power and technical prowess, pushes through new features. In addition to that, they also port features from ChromeOS. Most of these features are either not standard yet or would never be. For example, the WebUSB APIs are still in draft community status but is already there in chrome. Presumably because they created it for chromeos, ported it to chrome and then submitted it to the standards body - in that order. They are definitely going to continue this. I don’t see chrome publishing and getting a standard approved before implementing it at all. It’s also how IE6 holdover came about. Web developers aren’t supposed to rely on non-standard features because it’s tight coupling and will bite you if the browser ever stagnates. That’s the lesson I learnt from the whole IE6 saga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebUSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebUSB
- GekkePrutser 6y agoYeah and Firefox still lacks full passwordless fido2 (ctap mode)
- gfodor 6y agoWell, yeah, you shouldn’t make your site incompatible with browsers that don’t support non-specced features if you can avoid it. Which is what I said the lesson was. But I like WebGL2 and SharedArrayBuffer and don’t feel bad blocking users until their browser catches up.
- coldtea 6y agoThe main lesson of the time was that users don't care about some "plurality" or browsers, and will flock to the browser that has the more features or best speed or more adoption.
- sneak 6y agoThe web decided to give up on the original tenets of graceful degradation and other such things. The web of the 90s/00s was actually a lot more resilient and compatible and secure than the bullshit js SPAs we get jammed down our throats today.