3 ms·
In some sense I agree, but I think it's really difficult to understand where you would draw the line. For instance, the modern web is a UX nightmare - every ti
by skohan 5y ago
In some sense I agree, but I think it's really difficult to understand where you would draw the line.
For instance, the modern web is a UX nightmare - every time you go to a site, you get bombarded with popups, requests to send notifications etc.
But how can you define which level of interactivity is allowed on a document without limiting creativity and the potential of the platform to grow?
- cout 5y agoFor an extension like noscript or ublock, yes, it's hard to draw a line. One site uses one feature set, another site uses a different feature set, and if you draw the line around the union of those feature sets then it's too broad. Ads complicate things even more, because a simpler technology makes it easy to filter them. I don't think the solution is in trying to draw such a line. I think the solution is to build something that covers 80% of the use cases, AND makes it sublimely easier than the technology we use today, AND is backed by someone with the power to deliver it to users. There are examples in our history where we rejected a complex technology in favor of a simpler one, so there is some precedence. Remember HTML 3.0?