4 ms·

A browsers first priority should always be to give the best USER experience and not let developers dictate what features are available on a specific website to

A browsers first priority should always be to give the best USER experience and not let developers dictate what features are available on a specific website to maximize profits or whatever they are up to, they should not be able to deny the user a feature the is GENERAL PURPOSE.

andrewstuart 3y ago
The developers (me, in this case) ARE trying to give the best user experience, but Firefox feels it knows best what that experience is. Splodging a big ugly and pointless Picture in Picture icon over a video is not the best user experience in all cases. As the application developer it should be up to me to make that decision, not Firefox.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > As the application developer As an application developer you're obviously shipping an executable or an app, so why is Firefox part of the equation? Totally lost rn. Could you please elaborate?
- jerojero 3y ago
  Maybe then developers should be asking for the button to be re-designed, rather than the feature to be disabled? Personally I make use of this feature a lot, it's one of the reasons I prefer firefox over chrome (though there's things to accomplish similar things on Chrome, but firefox native support is better... you even get some controls over the video on the pip window).
- Grimblewald 3y ago
  Care to provide an example where the icon is so offensive? It sounds to me like your trying to use tools in unintended ways to avoid best practice for what you're actually trying to achieve.
  - arp242 3y ago
    There's loads of people reporting real-world use cases and problems in that issue.
    - theamk 3y ago
      Actually after reading all the comments, there are surprisingly few specific problems (I was hoping for a good example but was disappointed). The way I interpret this, the original description mentioned "you can't display your ads, overlays or anything else and thus it breaks player implementations of content providers" - and I am pretty sure Firefox's decision for PIP feature was _specifically_ to allow one to watch picture without ads or (often terrible) players by content providers. Now, the commenters understood that, and rightfully assumed that asking "hey FF, you made a system to block ads.. can you add an attribute to disable that?" would get their request denied, again. So they all say words like "enterprise system" to explain why they cannot give an example. Note that any time there is a problem with specific website URL (like mirroring in comment 23, or video controls in comment 34 and 36) get assigned separate bugs and fixed. It's only vague "enterprise system" use cases which get rejected. (Well, that and spanish learning system in comment 29, which needs to be able to track how of the video was watched. I am split about this - from one side I see the usefullness of knowing that sometimes, from other side this is exactly a kind of creepy feature that firefox is known to not implement)
- hollerith 3y ago
  You're a web author who thinks web authors don't have enough control. Also: users don't need control. Does that about summarize your stance?
- goku12 3y ago
  > Splodging a big ugly and pointless Picture in Picture icon over a video is not the best user experience in all cases. You are over-exaggerating it to get what you want, aren't you? I had to go back and check. It appears only when you roll the mouse over the video and it's inconspicuous even then.
- demarq 3y ago
  If the icon was the problem why go after the entire feature?
- suby 3y ago
  I like this feature a lot. I would be upset if websites could arbitrarily prevent me from using it at their own whim. Anyone that doesn't like the pop-up which appears on hover can disable it themselves in the settings. It isn't your decision.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- redder23 3y ago
  You decided the button is ugly. You decided the users or your website do never ever want to watch a video on your website in a picture in picture view. You want to take the decision away from the user because you claim that user experience is better. What is so special about your website an your video that nobody ever would want to use a general purpose feature for that video?

andrewstuart 3y ago

The developers (me, in this case) ARE trying to give the best user experience, but Firefox feels it knows best what that experience is. Splodging a big ugly and pointless Picture in Picture icon over a video is not the best user experience in all cases. As the application developer it should be up to me to make that decision, not Firefox.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
15457345234 3y ago
> As the application developer As an application developer you're obviously shipping an executable or an app, so why is Firefox part of the equation? Totally lost rn. Could you please elaborate?
jerojero 3y ago
Maybe then developers should be asking for the button to be re-designed, rather than the feature to be disabled? Personally I make use of this feature a lot, it's one of the reasons I prefer firefox over chrome (though there's things to accomplish similar things on Chrome, but firefox native support is better... you even get some controls over the video on the pip window).
Grimblewald 3y ago
Care to provide an example where the icon is so offensive? It sounds to me like your trying to use tools in unintended ways to avoid best practice for what you're actually trying to achieve.
- arp242 3y ago
  There's loads of people reporting real-world use cases and problems in that issue.
  - theamk 3y ago
    Actually after reading all the comments, there are surprisingly few specific problems (I was hoping for a good example but was disappointed). The way I interpret this, the original description mentioned "you can't display your ads, overlays or anything else and thus it breaks player implementations of content providers" - and I am pretty sure Firefox's decision for PIP feature was _specifically_ to allow one to watch picture without ads or (often terrible) players by content providers. Now, the commenters understood that, and rightfully assumed that asking "hey FF, you made a system to block ads.. can you add an attribute to disable that?" would get their request denied, again. So they all say words like "enterprise system" to explain why they cannot give an example. Note that any time there is a problem with specific website URL (like mirroring in comment 23, or video controls in comment 34 and 36) get assigned separate bugs and fixed. It's only vague "enterprise system" use cases which get rejected. (Well, that and spanish learning system in comment 29, which needs to be able to track how of the video was watched. I am split about this - from one side I see the usefullness of knowing that sometimes, from other side this is exactly a kind of creepy feature that firefox is known to not implement)
hollerith 3y ago
You're a web author who thinks web authors don't have enough control. Also: users don't need control. Does that about summarize your stance?
goku12 3y ago
> Splodging a big ugly and pointless Picture in Picture icon over a video is not the best user experience in all cases. You are over-exaggerating it to get what you want, aren't you? I had to go back and check. It appears only when you roll the mouse over the video and it's inconspicuous even then.
demarq 3y ago
If the icon was the problem why go after the entire feature?
suby 3y ago
I like this feature a lot. I would be upset if websites could arbitrarily prevent me from using it at their own whim. Anyone that doesn't like the pop-up which appears on hover can disable it themselves in the settings. It isn't your decision.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
redder23 3y ago
You decided the button is ugly. You decided the users or your website do never ever want to watch a video on your website in a picture in picture view. You want to take the decision away from the user because you claim that user experience is better. What is so special about your website an your video that nobody ever would want to use a general purpose feature for that video?