Yay, "our users are our beta-testers" hard at work.
How about devs evaluate a change by doing some testing, instead of using users as guinea pigs?
I agree with parent, this is an awful approach.
How about devs evaluate a change by doing some testing, instead of using users as guinea pigs?
I agree with parent, this is an awful approach.
This is not new either. Many such changes have been reverted after discovering that they broke more things than expected. One example is the Object.groupBy static method, which was initially Array.prototype.group.
That sounds like a pretty lame excuse.
So if a self-driving car manufacturer does testing, they are not testing the car, they are testing the environment? Sounds like a pretty neat trick, maybe marketing should adopt this attitude.
The change has been shipping in Firefox Nightly for a year. I have analyzed impact of affected pages in the HTTP Archive dataset (about 12,000,000 pages), twice:
https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7867#issuecomment-1977... https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7867#issuecomment-2595...
The next step is either rollout or ship directly.
Presumably they have done as much of that evaluation as is reasonable already.
It feels to me like usability testing and quality assurance have both joined security and accessibility on the back burner now.
That is kind of part of the bargain when you download a version of the browser explicitly labeled as a beta.
"Who would pay for it ?" Sincerely, Microsoft™