5 ms·

All the dangerous ones come with comprehensive permissions prompts, and browsers can offer options for don't ask again/never ask etc, so if you're not intereste

All the dangerous ones come with comprehensive permissions prompts, and browsers can offer options for don't ask again/never ask etc, so if you're not interested there's still little downside to those being available for those who are. Personally, I've found a bunch of these super useful, as user and a developer. Being able to use tools like https://www.espruino.com/ide/ https://www.espruino.com/ide/ to play with hardware straight from the web is amazing.

plufz 2y ago
I would guess that most regular users are very quick to click “Allow” on a dialog box. I like how macOS handles unidentified apps where you have to navigate manually to the security settings to allow an unidentified app.
- jwells89 2y ago
  Also known as “yes click syndrome” or “make the stupid thing work already”, a phenomenon which can be and has been weaponized.
- latexr 2y ago
  > where you have to navigate manually to the security settings to allow an unidentified app. You don’t need to do that, you can just right-click the app and choose “Open”.
- buildfocus 2y ago
  For dangerous ones like WebUSB you can't just click 'Allow' - after granting permission, it shows you a list of connected devices, and you have to actively select the device you want the website to access, and then approve it.
isodev 2y ago
We already have a diverse ecosystem of platforms which are capable of using hardware components for various experiences - we call them "the OS". It comes with a security model, permission prompts and all kinds of bells and whistles (it's a mature platform, developed for decades). The browser (agent) is a native app designed to allow users to access and navigate web resources (we call them pages or documents). Pages can be styled (CSS) and made interactive (JavaScript). When one wants to create an experience which goes beyond the scope of the browser, one builds another native app that is able to leverage the needed resources. A dedicated native app can embed a browser (e.g. webframe) or consume web resources through other protocols. A native app can also request access to hardware resources via the OS.
- solarkraft 2y ago
  You describe the problem and how the web solves it quite well.
- hasanhaja 2y ago
  The desktop might be quite diverse, but the diversity on closed, proprietary ecosystems like iOS is controlled by one party. Either, we open up iOS so anyone can distribute apps without Apple being the ultimate authority (like on MacOS), or we enrich a much more mature platform (the web) that we already have to be more capable so we can deliver very similar experiences through the web that we currently build native apps for. Compared to iOS, the web platform is more secure with better privacy controls [1][2], and that feels like a better place to invest our energy. [1] https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ [2] https://changelog.com/jsparty/316#t=00:25:59.26 https://changelog.com/jsparty/316#t=00:25:59.26
  - isodev 2y ago
    I'm not sure how the close aspect of iOS is relevant, it feels like a strawman. You say the web is more mature, to which I reply that this is the same circumstance as leaving one browser to become dominant (which we already did). In a perfect world, having a closed option would be "one of the options on the table" but for the majority of users this is not the case. Introducing WebUSB (or any of the more exotic features on the list) will not help us towards an open platform. On the contrary, it will only worsen the dependence on a handful of corporations that can afford to invest to build a browser. Remember, even Microsoft couldn't afford to continue working on their own engine. As a developer, I care very deeply about being able to make my apps and experiences available to "all the platforms" but shifting the cost of compatibility into userland is not a long term solution. Just put yourself in the shoes of a traveller, struggling to pay for their last-minute plane ticket at the gate but being greeted with "Sorry, our checkout page doesn't work on your browser/device". This is not the way.
    - hasanhaja 2y ago
      The closed aspect directly speaks to how much diversity you can have on the platform. The features (like WebUSB) aren't the drivers for a more open platform, but they highlight what the impact of having no competition does. Opening up the platform will fuel competition and the market can decide what works and what doesn't. At the moment, we just have to trust Apple has our best intentions by supporting/not supporting certain features and standards. However, we know from the work the Open Web Advocacy has done that this isn't true. The primary driver for both stifling progress on Safari and keeping browser competition out is the profits from the App Store [2]. Chrome becoming the dominant browser is also concerning, and they will have to be held to a much higher scrutiny by us and policy makers to ensure they have users best interest at heart [3]. > shifting the cost of compatibility into userland What do you mean by this? > struggling to pay for their last-minute plane ticket at the gate but being greeted with "Sorry, our checkout page doesn't work on your browser/device". This is not the way. I agree! This is exactly why we can't depend on one organization to dictate what's allowed and disallowed on that platform. On iOS, think about how long it took Apple enabled Apple Pay support for non-safari browsers even though they all had to be WebKit-based. [3] https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#the-chromium-argument https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#the-chr...

plufz 2y ago

I would guess that most regular users are very quick to click “Allow” on a dialog box. I like how macOS handles unidentified apps where you have to navigate manually to the security settings to allow an unidentified app.

jwells89 2y ago
Also known as “yes click syndrome” or “make the stupid thing work already”, a phenomenon which can be and has been weaponized.
latexr 2y ago
> where you have to navigate manually to the security settings to allow an unidentified app. You don’t need to do that, you can just right-click the app and choose “Open”.
buildfocus 2y ago
For dangerous ones like WebUSB you can't just click 'Allow' - after granting permission, it shows you a list of connected devices, and you have to actively select the device you want the website to access, and then approve it.

isodev 2y ago

We already have a diverse ecosystem of platforms which are capable of using hardware components for various experiences - we call them "the OS". It comes with a security model, permission prompts and all kinds of bells and whistles (it's a mature platform, developed for decades). The browser (agent) is a native app designed to allow users to access and navigate web resources (we call them pages or documents). Pages can be styled (CSS) and made interactive (JavaScript). When one wants to create an experience which goes beyond the scope of the browser, one builds another native app that is able to leverage the needed resources. A dedicated native app can embed a browser (e.g. webframe) or consume web resources through other protocols. A native app can also request access to hardware resources via the OS.

solarkraft 2y ago
You describe the problem and how the web solves it quite well.
hasanhaja 2y ago
The desktop might be quite diverse, but the diversity on closed, proprietary ecosystems like iOS is controlled by one party. Either, we open up iOS so anyone can distribute apps without Apple being the ultimate authority (like on MacOS), or we enrich a much more mature platform (the web) that we already have to be more capable so we can deliver very similar experiences through the web that we currently build native apps for. Compared to iOS, the web platform is more secure with better privacy controls [1][2], and that feels like a better place to invest our energy. [1] https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/ [2] https://changelog.com/jsparty/316#t=00:25:59.26 https://changelog.com/jsparty/316#t=00:25:59.26
- isodev 2y ago
  I'm not sure how the close aspect of iOS is relevant, it feels like a strawman. You say the web is more mature, to which I reply that this is the same circumstance as leaving one browser to become dominant (which we already did). In a perfect world, having a closed option would be "one of the options on the table" but for the majority of users this is not the case. Introducing WebUSB (or any of the more exotic features on the list) will not help us towards an open platform. On the contrary, it will only worsen the dependence on a handful of corporations that can afford to invest to build a browser. Remember, even Microsoft couldn't afford to continue working on their own engine. As a developer, I care very deeply about being able to make my apps and experiences available to "all the platforms" but shifting the cost of compatibility into userland is not a long term solution. Just put yourself in the shoes of a traveller, struggling to pay for their last-minute plane ticket at the gate but being greeted with "Sorry, our checkout page doesn't work on your browser/device". This is not the way.
  - hasanhaja 2y ago
    The closed aspect directly speaks to how much diversity you can have on the platform. The features (like WebUSB) aren't the drivers for a more open platform, but they highlight what the impact of having no competition does. Opening up the platform will fuel competition and the market can decide what works and what doesn't. At the moment, we just have to trust Apple has our best intentions by supporting/not supporting certain features and standards. However, we know from the work the Open Web Advocacy has done that this isn't true. The primary driver for both stifling progress on Safari and keeping browser competition out is the profits from the App Store [2]. Chrome becoming the dominant browser is also concerning, and they will have to be held to a much higher scrutiny by us and policy makers to ensure they have users best interest at heart [3]. > shifting the cost of compatibility into userland What do you mean by this? > struggling to pay for their last-minute plane ticket at the gate but being greeted with "Sorry, our checkout page doesn't work on your browser/device". This is not the way. I agree! This is exactly why we can't depend on one organization to dictate what's allowed and disallowed on that platform. On iOS, think about how long it took Apple enabled Apple Pay support for non-safari browsers even though they all had to be WebKit-based. [3] https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#the-chromium-argument https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#the-chr...