Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctoth | Hacker News Reader

> Similarly, Rubino says web apps in Firefox will not use a minimal browser frame and will continue to show a main toolbar with address bar, extensions, bookmarks...

Why is this so hard to understand? Why are they so against just making it work like it's supposed to? PWAs are actively useful and great and this is just frustrating.

View on HN

PWAs that prevent you from getting at your browser extensions are an inherently user-hostile idea.

Isn’t there a middle where you don’t show the whole browser chrome by default and still allow access to the extensions? Maybe add a tiny button to show the browser UI or add a shortcut?

From the Connect post I gather that a middle ground is basically the plan - you'll still have e.g. your extensions accessible, but there won't be a tab bar.

That is how it works in Chrome, right? Or am I going insane? When I open a web app I made with Chrome, there's a small icon in the top right of my window that opens the extensions dropdown.

Which is an issue I haven't had with Chrome or Gnome Web ('s version of extensions), even with things like VSCode which overrides the title bar as well

Any person's first contact with a PWA is going to be in the full-chrome browser. The user has to voluntarily choose "install as web app" to actually lose the browser chrome. Not giving users this choice and opting them into a windowed mode forever makes PWA support largely useless -- just open the app from your bookmarks!

The complaint here is that Firefox won't do what Chromium does, and Chromium's extensions are active and reachable in installed PWAs.

I don't really understand this viewpoint, Chrome does show your extensions

It is frustrating to not know what url I have open. Some apps add info based on account .

There is clearly a use case for keeping the whole UI. But it is the major use case and should the whole product philosophy be based on it ?

I feel there will be more sites where the URL won't matter or where the user will prefer simplicity to control.

I use Google Maps 99.99% in PWA mode and never mourned the lack of the URl bar, especially as I can open the site in normal browser mode anytime I ever want the full controls.

What if you want to copy and share the page?

I'd be fine with a 2~3 click operation to get the URL.

Which is basically how it works in Chrome in PWA mode: a few basic actions (get the URL, print, cast, adjust zoom etc) in a menu, and an option to punt it to the full chrome if needed.

That’s a fine idea.

Every PWA starts in a webpage, and you have to manually install it as PWA. If it's important for you to see the url, use it in the browser and don't install it? Installation only makes sense if the website/app is build for it.

Then use it as a web page?

Nobody is forcing you to use an installed PWA. Use it in a browser.

As I understand it, two problems are:

1) There's no clear definition of what it's "supposed" to. Not everyone who uses the term PWA wants the same things.

2. Some things are just a lot harder to implement than others.

1. if 90% of the people don't want a toolbar in a PWA (I'm being generous about 10% wanting it), it makes sense to not have it

2. It is not harder to implement a button to show the toolbar menu

In all case, it should be (it already is by the spec!) a developer option, not something enforced by the browser.

I have learned a long time ago not to make claims about how hard it is to implement something in other people's projects - I get it wrong often enough about my own.

(Also, I don't think there's a single "PWA spec".)

Firefox's UI can be easily tweaked with CSS. It's trivial, for example, to get rid of all chrome. The real problem is their ideological stance against PWAs.

It's definitely doable to make the bar disappear with a tiny bit of CSS. Did it myself in the past and the Firefox team does it partially for their vertical tabs feature

> Why are they so against just making it work like it's supposed to?

Who are you to tell the user how their device is supposed to work?

A frustrated user probably.

My take is they just want the 'browser' to be visible, kinda like how banks insist on their logos being visible on co-branded credit cards. Considering Firefox is nearly entirely how Mozilla makes money, and that browser has been disappearing more and more starting with Chrome's launch way back in 2008, this just feels like pearl clutching.

> Considering Firefox is nearly entirely how Mozilla makes money,

Is it? I thought they made money by taking it from theGoogs to be the "default" search when theGoogs probably thinks of it as ensuring there is "competition" so they are not tagged as monopoly. Same as the payment they make to Apple

Reply on news.ycombinator.com