zagrebian

This is possible on the web with the Visual Viewport API.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I didn’t “select anything to be bait”. I found an interesting behavior on a website and wanted to share it. What exactly is your problem?

The headline that I wrote is a fact, pure and simple.

If I understand “total cookie protection” in Firefox correctly, this shouldn’t even be possible. When the website makes a request to Google, the user’s Google cookie is not included in the request, so Google does not know which user it is. All that Google can do is try to determine the user’s approximate location from their IP address.

edit: I asked Bard about this, and it told me that websites can get the approx. location of their visitors via the Google Geolocation API:

> To use the Google Geolocation API, a website must first obtain a Google Maps API key. Once they have a key, they can add the following code to their website:

    <script src="https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/js?key=YOUR_API_KEY"></script>
    <script>
      function getGeolocation() {
        var location = navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition();
        if (location) {
          var lat = location.latitude;
          var lng = location.longitude;
          // Do something with the location information.
        }
      }
    </script>

OP here. I’m not outraged. I’m just sharing interesting observations.

So the website asks Google for the user’s location, and it all happens transparently without the user’s knowledge? I’m not sure if I’d like that.

> I have used Chrome with a personal and a work profile, both of them tied to different Google accounts.

You guys have two Google accounts? I didn’t know that this was even possible.

Ok, when adding a new extension to the store. But “recommended extensions” get manually reviewed whenever they update.

The question is, is adhering to the HTML Standard (in other words, getting zero errors in the HTML validator) beneficial to websites? For example, does it make the job of web developers easier? Are there fewer user-reported issues in browsers?

> And yet to see a browser that actually cares about DOCTYPE

If a web page does not have the correct doctype, browsers run it in quirks mode instead of standards mode. If a web developer is fine with their websites running in quirks mode, they are not a good web developer, and you should probably stay away from them.

The biggest websites are proof that you don’t need web accessibility to be successful either, but that doesn’t make it right.

> Then there is the <doctype> thing which may seem like a lot of bullshit, I don’t know how it now but years ago it did make a difference because if you didn’t have it browsers would go into a compatibility mode with old web pages.

This is still true. Browsers run HN in quirks mode. Just open the devtools console in Firefox, and it will tell you.

So what video games do you play?

It’s about 4.5 seconds for me

https://imgur.com/a/qege0O9

If Hank was less excited about it, the video would not reach nearly as many viewers, so from an educational perspective, he’s succeeding at educating many more people about this topic. It matters less when we “figured this out”. The educational value is in the details.

On the web, nothing ever dies. It only gets shoved aside and forgotten about.

> URL bar show the cryptographic origin

Chrome’s URL bar? When was this?

Unless it’s 100% reliable or near 100% reliable, you’d still need manual testing. Right now, automatic accessibility testing can’t even detect most accessibility issues. So we haven’t even reached the stage where all issues are detected by tools, and probably never will. Fixing all issues automatically is significantly harder than detecting them.

80% sounds way to optimistic to me. The problem is that screen readers (and other assistive technology) have bugs and different behaviors, and some people use older versions of those tools with even more bugs and quirks. The only way to make sure that a website has a high level of accessibility is to perform manual testing in different environments. I don’t see how AI can solve this problem. And the people who perform the manual testing need to be experts in semantic HTML and ARIA to be able to identify problems and create reports. That means that semantic HTML remains important.

Are you suggesting that AI will solve web accessibility, which is based on semantic HTML and ARIA? Because if not, humans will still be required to ensure that web content is accessible, and in that case semantic HTML remains important.

Yeah, it’s the same with religion in general.

Don’t forget to end the article with “We’ve reached out to [company involved] for comment but didn’t receive a response in time.”

Why does this website require JavaScript?

> Your blog is not original.

Wrong. Literally everyone can have an original idea. Is this article parody?

For position:fixed elements, width:100dvh produces the same result as bottom:0. The dvh unit was not needed for this case.

How often do you read the CSS specs?

In that case, browsers should optimize SVG more.

> everyone needs a personal-knowledge-base

What is that? Do I need it?

That’s not a bad title for the movie.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziltBdyFxDo