this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
1332 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59631 readers
2686 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
1332
Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox (www.theverge.com)
submitted 10 months ago by glowie@h4x0r.host to c/technology@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 27 points 10 months ago (5 children)

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..

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If the government cared at all about accessibility, then you'd be able to do your taxes in an HTML form.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah. Now that we have a functioning FCC again we might see some progress.

[–] WiseThat@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Mocheeze@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

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."

[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

Conforms to a specific revision of HTML with a specific revision of JavaScript and css, also requiring it to not use any proprietary extensions of either HTML or JavaScript.

Or the government could just use PDFs and email, I think that might be able to accomplish all the functionality of most websites.

[–] roertel@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

can you send fake device headers using a plug in?

Or can you use a stripped down version of Chromium?

[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works -2 points 10 months ago

I just use Chromium or Edge. It's too much effort to be stubborn otherwise.