4 ms·

> As someone who has had the misfortune of having to support out-of-date browsers, anything that can be done to force browser upgrades is a plus in my book. I

> As someone who has had the misfortune of having to support out-of-date browsers, anything that can be done to force browser upgrades is a plus in my book. I hope someone starts force-updating your terminal and editor/IDE, introducing all sorts of random changes. Maybe then you would understand why it is bad to make your users' lives worse to make your own life marginally easier.

philwelch 13y ago
I would love if all my software autoupdated itself. Including my editor.
- username223 13y ago
  You'll love getting new versions of the Ask toolbar every time Flash force-updates... More seriously, I have a software setup that I have configured to be secure and useful. Switching to a newer version of $whatever might help or hurt in either category, but it's a change I want to make deliberately. I don't see why changes preferred by $randomBrowserVendor or $adCompany will automatically be in my interest.
- omaranto 13y ago
  Do you mean you wish it received just bug fixes automatically? Or are random unsolicited UI changes OK too?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Realistically speaking, older versions aren't going to receive bug fixes and I'm going to always want the newest version anyway, so yes. But perhaps that's cheating because so far vim hasn't developed too many strange UI changes :)
  - tomswartz07 13y ago
    To be honest, we're talking about Google Chrome. the UI for Chrome hasn't changed that much (except for the Wrench/3lines menu button) since version 10.
comex 13y ago
Marginally? Have you ever heard of IE6? The requirement that nearly everyone, many of whom don't know what a browser is, update theirs before most serious websites can use new features makes the positive impact of autoupdates much more than marginal.
- userbinator 13y ago
  What "new features" exactly, and how do they have a "positive impact" on the end user? I disagree with the sentiment that somehow using new features is obligatory and directly related with how much "better" a website is; in fact the most informative and most visited sites I use, are also the ones that tend to be the oldest and not use any of these new features- often hand-written HTML4 or even 3.2.
  - callum85 13y ago
    > What "new features" exactly, and how do they have a "positive impact" on the end user? You've got to be joking? Even if it's true that you mostly use websites that don't make use of new features, then you are extremely unrepresentative. Anyway, even simple content-driven sites like Wikipedia make use of a lot of HTML5 stuff now in ways that aren't necessarily obvious to users. And although much of that stuff could theoretically be made to work in older browsers, it's not viable to do that because it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain. So not as much good stuff could get built. That's how end users benefit.
    - userbinator 13y ago
      So... what new features exactly would those be...?
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        1. Better usability through a more well-defined standard. 2. Geolocation, allowing for localized data. 3. Video support without basically needing Flash or obtuse browser plugins. 4. Better cross-browser support. Users use a variety of browsers these days. Being able to support more than one browser is essential. 5. Offline/local cache, which improves performance and usability. Lose your power while typing in your comment? Still there when you get back! 6. Improved performance allowing for more performant applications. But the real problem is this: > in fact the most informative and most visited sites I use You are mistaking yourself for the majority. Therefore, the reality is, none of the above will be "better" as defined by you. However, if what you are saying is true, then any site of yours using HTML 3.2 would be a better site as a result of using HTML5, as it's more semantic in nature, and as a result, provides better support for providing usability and accessibility. You are free to disagree, of course, but you'd be wrong because your reasons are not 'better' than mine.

philwelch 13y ago

I would love if all my software autoupdated itself. Including my editor.

username223 13y ago
You'll love getting new versions of the Ask toolbar every time Flash force-updates... More seriously, I have a software setup that I have configured to be secure and useful. Switching to a newer version of $whatever might help or hurt in either category, but it's a change I want to make deliberately. I don't see why changes preferred by $randomBrowserVendor or $adCompany will automatically be in my interest.
omaranto 13y ago
Do you mean you wish it received just bug fixes automatically? Or are random unsolicited UI changes OK too?
- philwelch 13y ago
  Realistically speaking, older versions aren't going to receive bug fixes and I'm going to always want the newest version anyway, so yes. But perhaps that's cheating because so far vim hasn't developed too many strange UI changes :)
- tomswartz07 13y ago
  To be honest, we're talking about Google Chrome. the UI for Chrome hasn't changed that much (except for the Wrench/3lines menu button) since version 10.

comex 13y ago

Marginally? Have you ever heard of IE6? The requirement that nearly everyone, many of whom don't know what a browser is, update theirs before most serious websites can use new features makes the positive impact of autoupdates much more than marginal.

userbinator 13y ago
What "new features" exactly, and how do they have a "positive impact" on the end user? I disagree with the sentiment that somehow using new features is obligatory and directly related with how much "better" a website is; in fact the most informative and most visited sites I use, are also the ones that tend to be the oldest and not use any of these new features- often hand-written HTML4 or even 3.2.
- callum85 13y ago
  > What "new features" exactly, and how do they have a "positive impact" on the end user? You've got to be joking? Even if it's true that you mostly use websites that don't make use of new features, then you are extremely unrepresentative. Anyway, even simple content-driven sites like Wikipedia make use of a lot of HTML5 stuff now in ways that aren't necessarily obvious to users. And although much of that stuff could theoretically be made to work in older browsers, it's not viable to do that because it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain. So not as much good stuff could get built. That's how end users benefit.
  - userbinator 13y ago
    So... what new features exactly would those be...?
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      1. Better usability through a more well-defined standard. 2. Geolocation, allowing for localized data. 3. Video support without basically needing Flash or obtuse browser plugins. 4. Better cross-browser support. Users use a variety of browsers these days. Being able to support more than one browser is essential. 5. Offline/local cache, which improves performance and usability. Lose your power while typing in your comment? Still there when you get back! 6. Improved performance allowing for more performant applications. But the real problem is this: > in fact the most informative and most visited sites I use You are mistaking yourself for the majority. Therefore, the reality is, none of the above will be "better" as defined by you. However, if what you are saying is true, then any site of yours using HTML 3.2 would be a better site as a result of using HTML5, as it's more semantic in nature, and as a result, provides better support for providing usability and accessibility. You are free to disagree, of course, but you'd be wrong because your reasons are not 'better' than mine.