Hacker News Reader

Comment by cddotdotslash | Hacker News Reader

I'm torn on this. On one hand, yes, these modals are some of the most annoying parts of the web and are really ruining the experience on lots of pages. But on the other hand, why should Mozilla (or any browser) get to start fiddling with the content of web pages? If Comcast announced they were doing this, HN would be up in arms about how they were modifying traffic. I'm aware of the browser vs service provider difference, but the end result is the same. Suppose Google decided that it doesn't like websites with bad color schemes so it's going to have Chrome automatically update some websites to use their material design style? Suppose Microsoft decides that websites with small font aren't friendly enough to people with vision problems so they start upsizing all font below size ten in IE? The point is - the browser should render what it's given. If the user wants to modify that, use a plugin.

View on HN

There's a reason that the more generic name for a browser is user agent. That is, they are agents serving at the behest of the user, not the server.

> Suppose Microsoft decides that websites with small font aren't friendly enough to people with vision problems so they start upsizing all font below size ten in IE?

This is somewhat humorous for me, because one of the first things I do to my Firefox installs is lock the font and set a minimum font size that I can read. The most broken sites by far are internal ones at my company, where no one has given a damn about usability or ADA. Most public sites handle it just fine.

I do the same with font size and actually go so far as to disable all custom fonts and sizes. Everything is robo sans sizes 9-13

I do allow sites the choice between serif (Georgia), sans-serif (Segoe UI) and monospace (Courier New). But those are the only fonts permitted. Minimum font size is 13, and default font size is 16.

Is that a plugin you use to lock the font sizes? That's not a default option in Firefox that I can see. I only have default size and minimum size.

And if you have vision problem best thing is to force APHont on every site.That font is recomended for people with low vision.https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://w...

I wonder if asking HR how to report ADA violations on internal websites would get attention quickly... I've never been quite brave enough to do that (but then it isn't something that affects me though as my eyes get older it might soon)

Ironically, the MDN (Mozilla Developer Network) description of minimum contrast¹ fails the test it describes: in §1.4.3, the link is #3F87A6 on #F4F7F8 (3.7:1) at 16px. (And the unicorn vomit in MDN's code samples is even worse, sometimes below 3:1.)

¹ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/U...

MDN no longer stands for "Mozilla Developer Network", it's now "MDN: Web Docs" https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/future-mdn-focus-web-doc...

> If Comcast announced they were doing this

But they wouldn't do this.

They would do something like detect the popups and then inject ads for additional Comcast services into them. And they would do it secretively rather than making a public announcement beforehand. And they would hassle customers to no end about switching services in protest of that behavior, whereas most browsers would just provide a checkbox for turning it off.

Comcast is in no way a victim here.

One of the reasons for the "HTTPS everywhere" thing that people have been on about is exactly because ISPs were injecting ads or javascript into web responses (https://www.infoworld.com/article/2925839/net-neutrality/cod...).

So, yeah, they've already been caught doing exactly this.

I guess that puts you against Reader Mode, too, then? The difference between the cases you cite and a browser is the locus of control. As long as I, the user, am in control of how my browser renders the content it's given, it's nobody's business but my own.

Web browsers should always try to act in the best interest of the user, not just render what is given.

I slightly disagree. I think browsers should try to act in the best interest of the user, but should always have the option to just render what is given.

> The point is - the browser should render what it's given. If the user wants to modify that, use a plugin.

Maybe we can do better?

The browser should render what it's given by default. If the user wants to modify that, change a setting

I think that's a bit naive. Some changes from the default are so accepted and given today, we'd end up with a bizarre situation where browsers ship with a "broken" default that nobody wants.

We are just so used to it that we don't even think about it. Do you think websites should be able to spawn unlimited popups, even as you try to close them? I remember that horror.

The browser launches the first N popups and then offers to block the rest. No problem.

Blocking popups when the JS of the page is clearly trying to spawn more is not "default behavior" at all, it's a trick browser vendors do to enhance the user experience.

I much prefer the existing solution, where all popups are blocked, and I get an indicator showing that a popup was blocked, with the option of enabling it.

You're solution works as long as I can set N to 0, I guess.

Plugins offload a lot of culpa and work from the browser. Though obviously since browsers have taken on tasks like readability mode and popup blocking, they have made decisions here.

But as far as defaults go, I think of people like my parents. My dad was routinely fooled by those fake "Click to Download" ads and it breaks my heart that there are people out there who take advantage of others like this.

Defaults should help the average user. Power users can always turn a setting off.

> If Comcast announced they were doing this, HN would be up in arms about how they were modifying traffic. I'm aware of the browser vs service provider difference, but the end result is the same.

I wouldn't as easily dismiss the difference between the browser vs a service provider, but regardless, I assume Mozilla will make it an option you can turn on or off at will. I doubt Comcast would do the same.

If Mozilla comes out with something that changes content without user's choice, I'm willing to bet HN will justifiably be up in arms.

> If Mozilla comes out with something that changes content without user's choice, I'm willing to bet HN will justifiably be up in arms.

They did, and HN was up in arms. Did everyone forget the blowback from their cross-promotion deal with USA for Mr. Robot? https://beta.techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/mozillas-mr-robot-pro...

That wasn't even an integrated part of the browser, it was more a case of bad defaults with an auto-installed plugin and HN was (rightly) quite pissed off with them for it.

This is different IMO, this is changing how a website is rendered, not really very different at all than an adblocker which are already generally accepted.

Because Mozilla defends its users, while everybody else defends their revenues. That's why Firefox is the best browser.

You say that but it was Mozilla / Firefox that force-remote-installed an addon without user's permissions for a commercial party.

Mozilla is the best that I've seen at defending their users, but unfortunately that bar isn't very high. You are correct that this was an extremely shitty move on their part, but I don't see many alternatives.

But on the other hand, why should Mozilla (or any browser) get to start fiddling with the content of web pages?

They started blocking new-window popups 15 years ago. It's a little late to put the cat back in the bag.

It's just a mozilla devoloper making a dataset of modal popups to experiment, nothing more atm.

What about the _user_? I'd like a easily-enabled option that gets rid of _all_ pop-up, pop-under, modal, whatever junk. Why isn't Mozilla providing that? It shouldn't be a matter of Chrome, or Mozilla, or whoever deciding. It should be a matter of the user deciding.

(And is there really a plugin for that? One that gets rid of all the junk, all the time? If so, it needs to be publicized.)

I'd imagine Mozilla would put in a flag to enable/disable this item, leaving it up to the user as to which they would prefer.

Comcast probably wouldn't offer this option...or if they did, they'd charge you more for it.

Because I have lot more choice with my browser than I do with my ISP, and my browser isn't going to charge me a monthly service fee to disable it.

Ah but this is merely an experiment. It most likely will land as a Test Pilot addon, and later upgraded into a setting, just like Container Tabs were.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com