1332
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
1332 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59696 readers
2859 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When a company' website doesn't work on Firefox I don't get angry at Firefox, I just don't use the site. When a company makes their cookie popups are a pain in the ass I don't get angry at the EU, I get angry at the company that made the popup. I use Firefox as a Canary that dies when a website is a piece of shit.
Maybe it's a win-win, I don't have to deal with Apple's bullshit and Apple doesn't have to waste resources on me, for me to block all their shady shit.
I feel the same but I also cannot avoid some sites. Ohio's unemployment and job board only works with Chrome based sites and I have to use those when I'm in between jobs.
This brings up an interesting thought though. Should governments and states be able to prefer you to use a certain browser or should they be required to make the website function on all..
If the government cared at all about accessibility, then you'd be able to do your taxes in an HTML form.
But then how will congress give taxpayer dollars to a private company to do a terrible job?
I mean, we COULD have a government run agency that retains skilled engineers and keeps a good talent and knowledge pool of people specialized at delivering services that hundreds of millions of people rely on OR we could give money to the lowest bidder and blame "government inefficiency" for the contractor's fuckups.
Pretty sure the old fuckers in the legislature aren't writing that into the contracts. If you ask them what browser they're using they'll probably say "internet."
You would have to find a good definition of "all browsers", and I think that would be nearly impossible.
I absolutely agree that governments should support Firefox, that's a reasonable claim. But do they need to support the earliest version of netscape? Or the browser I made as a hobby project last week and published as open source? There's a limit to what's reasonable and workable.
Specific versions of basic standards would do. HTML forms, as another comment says. With tables and CSS which doesn't make it unusable if your browser doesn't support CSS.
As the others have mentioned, it's about following standards. Like if you specify a design for a plug using standard measurement units, people can then make plugs that plug into that using whatever measurement and calibration tools they want because they all generally follow standards.
It would be like if the government released some device that was meant to be repaired by anyone but used some proprietary Apple screw head for all the screws. That's not repairable by anyone, that's only repairable by Apple customers.
Most government sites must be accessible to individuals with disabilities such as low vision or other imapirments. You can't require a blind person to use chrome to apply for a job.
They just ignore it, even if it's law somewhere, because "are you nuts, everybody's using Chrome, you are a luddite boomer, we'll do things the normal way".
Well, it would be nice to be enlightened about countries where government sites really are usable with screenreaders and\or Lynx.
It would be reasonable for a govt to tell Google that actions taken on their platform which force users to use a certain browser to access a govt website are violating some equal opportunity law or something.
That's not really where the problem lies. It lies in the choices made when developing the site. "Do we use a framework or feature that isn't part of the HTML standard to force users to use the subset of browsers that support that or do we use one of the many other options that do follow the standard?"
It wouldn't surprise me if those choices are being made by some web devs because those high up don't even think about it and those implementing it don't think much about the standards and just do it the way they do it because it's easy or that's just the way they know how to do it.
Governments (and their agents) shouldn't be choosing proprietary options that force people to use a specific company's resources.
can you send fake device headers using a plug in?
Or can you use a stripped down version of Chromium?
There's an extension called Consent-O-Matic that will deal with the popups automatically for you.
Presumably rejecting them? It's the legitimate toggle that gets me though. How do 400 partners require access to my browsing information in order for your site to run?
That's the obvious bullshit lol, exactly
I think you can configure it but I have mine set to reject them all.
But yeah the excuses are absurd. This tracking is not only not necessary, it's also wrong.
Firefox has add-ons that automatically reject all on cookie pop ups. It works great and sometimes you see it working which is really satisfying.
I use it. Sometimes it can't though, which is my cue to leave.
Until Chrome starts doing its bullshit "attestor" stuff that'll essentially make websites not work on Chrome if they allow Firefox and other browsers that respect privacy.
Pretty much zero websites will choose Chrome over Firefox.