> Web apps don't require less trust than proper ones. Their developers can use dark patterns, abuse your data, etc. They do, mostly because the browser allows

> Web apps don't require less trust than proper ones. Their developers can use dark patterns, abuse your data, etc. They do, mostly because the browser allows it. > I have no idea why you think I mind hypertext Perhaps a better model would be that the web shouldn't be hypertext by default (or can be something else), and instead that hypertext is one of the possible formats for something on the web, along with others - the web would be the "envelope" and not the definition of the content. If you follow your line of thought to the end, then the conclusion would be that we should be left to pure hypertext. > Are you seriously claiming zooming is not an accessibility feature? No, I'm claiming that there's no reason to not allow someone to control the behaviour of certain parts of the browser when browsing a web property of someone else, as long as it doesn't pose a security risk. While at it, the browser could implement white listing of actions, data, and other details that the web property has access to without my consent. If I visit a website for a game and it tells me "this website is going to: - disable zoom - change your scrollbars - change the right click button; check which ones you agree/do you agree" there's no loss of accessibility. And the same for scripts, watching mouse input, text typing, hijacking the back button, showing me popups, etc. Of course that would be technically very challenging to implement. > Please stop the flaming. The first rule is if you don't like something done to you, you shouldn't do it to others. Once you do you have to man up. > Sure. And once there are strict accessibility laws, worldwide, that everyone follows, and all the legacy software has been replaced, we can give developers control over zooming again. Why do they need to be strict and before-hand?