4 ms·

Fix it at the rendering level. My device should default to not rendering a website the way the developer asks it to, but the way my defaults are set. Load a m

by basch 4y ago

Fix it at the rendering level. My device should default to not rendering a website the way the developer asks it to, but the way my defaults are set. Load a minimum viable site, ask my permission to execute more.

mhio 4y ago
I think there is a general security and privacy argument for this type of setup as well. As a web browser has become a general purpose VM, it has capabilities far surpassing what is needed at least 50% the time, I'd go as high as 90% of the time personally. Which is great that we have a magical run anything anywhere VM, but it's a double edge sword of the performance, security and privacy issues that come along with it. If there was a well defined subset of functionality that browsers presented as the default "web enclave" and then opening up all the bells and whistles further was an opt in choice, a large chunk of those issues would go away. But that requires a bunch of people to agree on what that subset should include and the horror of trying to keep it updated over time. And that's _everyone_, including users putting up with "opting in" rather than everything just working. I'm not sure I can see a subset of features becoming the default approach, at least until there is some horrible self propagating browser worm that impacts a large percentage of the world (or maybe by the 2nd or 3rd time, we will have had enough).
kaba0 4y ago
How exactly would you decide what is minimum viable? What about buying a ticket and it failing at the last step because your browser determined that js was unneeded?
- basch 4y ago
  Historically, browser vendors maintain per site settings of some sort. Whether that be Opera's Site Specific Patching or Brave. Basically have to keep giant lists of what js actually enhances the people experience vs just being useful to the publisher.

4 ms·

Fix it at the rendering level. My device should default to not rendering a website the way the developer asks it to, but the way my defaults are set. Load a m

by basch 4y ago

mhio 4y ago
I think there is a general security and privacy argument for this type of setup as well. As a web browser has become a general purpose VM, it has capabilities far surpassing what is needed at least 50% the time, I'd go as high as 90% of the time personally. Which is great that we have a magical run anything anywhere VM, but it's a double edge sword of the performance, security and privacy issues that come along with it. If there was a well defined subset of functionality that browsers presented as the default "web enclave" and then opening up all the bells and whistles further was an opt in choice, a large chunk of those issues would go away. But that requires a bunch of people to agree on what that subset should include and the horror of trying to keep it updated over time. And that's _everyone_, including users putting up with "opting in" rather than everything just working. I'm not sure I can see a subset of features becoming the default approach, at least until there is some horrible self propagating browser worm that impacts a large percentage of the world (or maybe by the 2nd or 3rd time, we will have had enough).
kaba0 4y ago
How exactly would you decide what is minimum viable? What about buying a ticket and it failing at the last step because your browser determined that js was unneeded?
- basch 4y ago
  Historically, browser vendors maintain per site settings of some sort. Whether that be Opera's Site Specific Patching or Brave. Basically have to keep giant lists of what js actually enhances the people experience vs just being useful to the publisher.