Chrome 62 Released With OpenType Variable Fonts, HTTP Warnings In Incognito Mode (bleepingcomputer.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 62 Released With OpenType Variable Fonts, HTTP Warnings In Incognito Mode (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 18, 2017 @02:00AM from the new-browser-releases dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier today, Google released version 62 of its Chrome browser that comes with quite a few new features but also fixes for 35 security issues. The most interesting new features are support for OpenType variable fonts, the Network Quality Estimator API, the ability to capture and stream DOM elements, and HTTP warnings for the browser's Normal and Incognito mode. The most interesting of the new features is variable fonts. Until now, web developers had to load multiple font families whenever they wanted variations on a font family. For example, if a developer was using the Open Sans font family on a site, if he wanted a font variation such as Regular, Bold, Black, Normal, Condensed, Expanded, Highlight, Slab, Heavy, Dashed, or another, he'd have to load a different font file for each. OpenType variable fonts allow font makers to merge all these font family variations in one file that developers can use on their site and control via CSS. This results in fewer files loaded on a website, saving bandwidth and improving page load times. Two other features that will interest mostly developers are the Network Quality Estimator and the Media Capture from DOM Elements APIs. As the name hints, the first grants developers access to network speed and performance metrics, information that some websites may use to adapt video streams, audio quality, or deliver low-fi versions of their sites. Developers can use the second API -- the Media Capture from DOM Elements -- to record videos of how page sections behave during interaction and stream the content over WebRTC. This latter API could be useful for developers debugging a page, but also support teams that want to see what's happening on the user's side.

79 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:04 · Score: 1

I'm curious if this could be used to gather video of users interacting with my website, and if so how the best way to go about doing this is? I would like to maintain logs for several days of every interaction with my site for usage profile statistics and just general curiousity. Can video of the entire desktop be logged? I would like to also inventory other running applications and what files are open in each. For data logging and analytical/research purposes.
1. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 10 does that already.
2. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by omnichad · 2017-10-18 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is exactly the problem. Unless this has user opt-in required for each site, this is a gaping potential security hole.
3. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-18 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  This Media Capture from DOM Elements API sure sounds like a potential grand-canyon-sized security hole.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re: Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Do you honestly think that Google, one of the largest software developing organizations in the world, employing many of the most talented software developers in the world, overlooked such obvious security implications?
  If a lowly /. user like you was able to identify these potential security issues, then Google's developers know about them too, and factored mitigation measures into the design of this functionality.
5. Re: Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  >Google
  >most talented developers in the world
  LOL, tell me another.
6. Re: Media capture from DOM elements by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-18 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  Google's developers surely know about these potential security issues, however Google isn't run by developers. It's run by marketing, ads and data-mining.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
7. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  the title and the article are a big exaggeration.... the tags this api capture are <video>,<audio> and <canvas> not much remote debugging there....
  In Firefox this api has to be enabled in about:config
8. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by Merk42 · 2017-10-18 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  You can get video of people interacting with your site with Fullstory this does not extend past your particular site, nor outside of the browser, though.
9. Re:Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Geez, you just don't get it...as Google Asshole Shawn Willden would readily tell you, gaping potential security holes are a Really Good Thing!!
10. Re: Media capture from DOM elements by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Have you never used a google service and not noticed the not intuitive UI, broken functions, missing basic features, jokingly bleak help pages devoid of true technical information and the overall very amateurish implementations of everything they do?
Chrome: Embrace, Extend and Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:25 · Score: 0

Is google using microsofts EEE strategy on the web? Google is introducing so many new non-standardized APIs that chrome seems to be on its way to be the new IE6.
1. Re:Chrome: Embrace, Extend and Extinguish by Merk42 · 2017-10-18 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  What non-standardized APIs are you referring to?
  What is stopping other browser vendors from having those same APIs?
Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:28 · Score: 0

It's amazing how quickly Chrome is being developed. Each release brings about significant changes. If any browser is dictating the future direction of the web, it's Chrome. The other browsers are stuck playing catch-up. While we see Safari and Edge making good progress, it's Firefox that I'm most worried about. I just don't think it can keep up with the other browsers. While browsers like Chrome, Safari and Edge keep improving, Firefox keeps falling further and further behind.
There's been a lot of hype building about Firefox 57. It's supposedly faster, but I've been using it for some time now and I haven't noticed any difference. What I did notice was nearly all of my extensions breaking, now that Firefox uses a poor imitation of Chrome's extension model. Firefox 57, which last I heard is supposed to be released in mid-November, could very well be the release that effectively ends Firefox's usability for many users. I don't think that regular users will put up with the broken extensions. They'll think that Firefox is completely broken and they'll just switch to Chrome or Edge or Safari instead.
It didn't have to be like this. Firefox was doing great not so long ago, when it had well over 30% of the market. Now it's down to about 5% of the market. Firefox could have been leading the direction that the web takes. But they squandered all of this! Firefox's unwanted imitation of Chrome's appearance ruined it for many users. Failed efforts like Firefox OS, Rust and Servo have taken away resources that could have been used to improve Firefox.
What's the end result? Google, and to a lesser extent Apple and Microsoft, will decide the future of the web. Firefox will be dragged along, with no real say of its own.
1. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by dicobalt · 2017-10-18 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  Firefox 57 actually is fast in real use scenarios, not just on a pointless benchmark. Not sure how you don't notice, the change is incredibly glaringly obvious to me. The older versions had horrible problems freezing up the entire UI while content was being downloaded or waiting for the server. As far as the broken extensions, many extension developers will be launching versions compatible with 57 when the browser is finally released.
2. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter if Firefox 57 feels faster than Firefox 56. What matters is that Firefox 57 still feels far slower and way more bloated than Chrome (and Blink-using browsers like Vivaldi, Opera and Brave), Edge, and Safari. When people have at least 6 other better browsers they could use instead of Firefox, they'll use one of those other browsers instead!
  And it doesn't fucking matter if some of the extensions broken by Firefox 57 will eventually be modified to support it. The damage will be done as soon as users upgrade and find that few or even none of their extensions are still working! They'll switch to Chrome or Edge or Safari or some other browser right away, and never use Firefox again.
  I've already had to preemptively switch some non-technical users I help out from Firefox to Chrome in anticipation of the Firefox 57 broken extension debacle. I don't want them to have to suffer with broken extensions like I did when I tried the Firefox 57 beta. So now they're using Chrome, and I will likely never switch them back to Firefox.
3. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Riddler+Sensei · 2017-10-18 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What is this, FUD?
  I installed Firefox 57, headed over to /., and the render speed was jarring. I gave Firefox Sync a round of testing and found it wildly superior to Chrome's sync strategy (FSync actually keeps track of changes, whereas Chrome merely does a set union on your current running instance and the remote server - meaning that any sort of deletion action requires interesting gymnastics). The dark bar took a moment to get use to, but in the end feels great (too many websites shoot for the pure-white-elegance look and having the browser do that as well just hurts the eyes by the end of the day).
  Servo failed? Servo is a testbed for Firefox, and ported chunks of it are what makes Firefox 57 so fast.
  Rust failed? People are having serious discussions on how a kernel written in Rust would play out.
  Firefox has no say? I mean...in what regard? UI? User tracking? Sure. In other fields, such as cryptography policies, Mozilla plays the flute.
  Come on, now. Don't be so dramatic.
4. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Your comment is a superb example of how the Firefox community drives away Firefox's users.
  Somebody points out problems they're having with Firefox: it's slow, it's bloated, and Firefox 57 breaks a lot of extensions.
  These are very real problems, with very negative effects on Firefox's users.
  So when a Firefox user brings up these problems, how do you and your kind respond?
  With attacks.
  With vitriol.
  With hatred.
  With false accusations of "FUD" and "being dramatic".
  With outright denial of these very real problems.
  Of course users won't put up with this kind of shoddy treatment for long!
  Why would they?
  They probably already have Edge or Safari installed, and can switch to those instead of Firefox with next to no effort.
  They can easily download Chrome, and use that instead of Firefox.
  Firefox is down to around 5% of the market now because of Firefox supporters like you who treat other Firefox users like total crap.
  It's also no wonder that Chrome's usage is about 60% now.
  Chrome is fast, it doesn't waste memory, it doesn't break installed extensions, and most importantly, the Chrome community treats Chrome users with respect.
  Users like using Chrome, and they like being treated well by Chrome's community.
  Users don't like using Firefox, and they really don't like being treated like dirt by Firefox's community.
5. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Riddler+Sensei · 2017-10-18 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Except...I'm a Chrome user. Have been for maybe nine years. On a whim I gave Firefox 57 a shot and it feels great, so I'm using it.
  Really, what is the chip on your shoulder?
6. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  I gave Firefox 57 a shot and it feels great, so I'm using it.
  So you're not a Chrome user, like you've wrongly claimed.
  You're a Firefox user, like you just stated.
  Since you're using Firefox, you're part of the Firefox community.
  And you just treated another Firefox user like dirt.
  Please don't deny the obvious.
  And please don't treat Firefox users like dirt.
  It just drives them away when you do that.
7. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by tepples · 2017-10-18 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Do these "real use scenarios" include accidentally pressing Ctrl+Q when reaching for Ctrl+Tab or Ctrl+W, and having to restart the entire browser? Because the extensions that users of Firefox 56 and earlier could use to prevent Ctrl+Q from closing the entire browser no longer work in Firefox 57 and later.
8. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by theweatherelectric · 2017-10-18 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  Rust and Servo have taken away resources that could have been used to improve Firefox
  Rust and Servo are being used to improve Firefox. Those resources have not been wasted and neither Rust nor Servo are failures.
9. Re:Firefox can't keep up with this pace. by theweatherelectric · 2017-10-18 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  What matters is that Firefox 57 still feels far slower and way more bloated than Chrome
  It doesn't. You've plainly not used Firefox 57.
Interesting but... by barbariccow · 2017-10-18 02:34 · Score: 2

The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website? Maybe some kind of feature test could support this optimization, but then you'd have divergent code paths and that gets messy too. This is why it's better to work on updating STANDARDS instead of just adding one-off features... else it's internet explorer all over again.
1. Re: Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  Chrome is effectively the standard because it's what 60% of web users use. It's also the browser that web devs target and test with. Web devs don't even bother testing with Firefox these days because so few people use it. It's more important to test with the Big 3 browsers: Chrome, Safari, Edge. If a site doesn't work in other browsers then it doesn't matter much. Only a small number of users will be affected, abd they'll most likely just fire up Chrome and use it instead.
2. Re:Interesting but... by aardvarkjoe · 2017-10-18 03:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website? Maybe some kind of feature test could support this optimization, but then you'd have divergent code paths and that gets messy too. This is why it's better to work on updating STANDARDS instead of just adding one-off features... else it's internet explorer all over again.
  After reading your first sentence, my first thought was "the same sort of people who used to design IE-only websites."
  I got stuck using a Chrome-only website for a "training course" for work a couple days ago. Since Chrome now has a share of about 60%, this sort of thing is going to keep happening.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
3. Re:Interesting but... by 0100010001010011 · 2017-10-18 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website?
  "Who in their right mind is going to design an IE6 only website!?" History does repeat itself.
  Also, I can see a lot of projects adopting Chrome's core to provide a UI to an app. When looking at the mess that is Python's UI toolkits we decided to go with Flask and HTML5. With a bit more work we can just make 'a double click this exe and the app opens' interface. All driven on the backend by a web framework and HTML5, rendered locally in a chrome window.
4. Re: Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Are you working on pgAdmin 4, by any chance? It's one of those web apps bundled with a browser, like you describe. I found it to be absolutely terrible when I used it. It was slow, laggy, bloated, and buggy. I thought that pgAdmin III, which used wxWidgets was bad. But pgAdmin 4 is so much worse, in my opinion. I never want to use one of these browser-bundled web apps ever again!
5. Re:Interesting but... by bdcrazy · 2017-10-18 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds exactly like back in the day. A ton of business apps embedded IE to render text and layouts. Removing it would break these apps because they assumed: I'm running. I only run on windows, therefore IE is available. Hence one reason (good/bad) that MS insisted IE couldn't be removed. It would cause a lot of hassle for the business customers.
  
  --
  Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
6. Re:Interesting but... by barbariccow · 2017-10-18 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing my qualifier, "right mind." Yes, there are people/companies that do stupid things. Anyone who had to support IE8 where having an id and a name that were the same meant document.getElementById could not longer fetch the id knows this all too well. And don't get me started on IE6...
  And even if it does have 60% of the global market, that does not mean it has 60% of YOUR market, nor does it mean that 40% isn't important. 40% growth in ANY market is HUGE HUGE HUGE, and 40% loss the same.
7. Re:Interesting but... by ioErr · 2017-10-18 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website?
  If you're using Google Fonts for font hosting then you don't link the fonts directly; you link a CSS file on the Google servers that in turn links the font files. And they already serve different CSS files based on your user agent. Thus, from my understanding, for any site using Google Fonts this can be enabled transparently for supporting browsers without the site developer even knowing about it.
8. Re: Interesting but... by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-18 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  And since Apple don't release Safari for older versions of OS X, it means my only choice is to switch to Chrome if I want to keep up with the latest web technologies.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
9. Re:Interesting but... by mccrew · 2017-10-18 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website?
  
  If you hadn't noticed, this is standard play from the Chrome playbook. They go for the first mover advantage by implementing something before anyone else. When the standards groups finally start taking notice, Chrome has an already-working implementation that serves as the basis for new standards. We've seen this in the HTTP/2 an QUIC protocols.
  
  --
  Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
10. Re:Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  I read "Until now, web developers had to load multiple font families whenever they wanted variations on a font family" thinking, And now we have to do it two different ways to accommodate for Chrome and all the others.
11. Re:Interesting but... by wonkey_monkey · 2017-10-18 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website?
  It's not an either-or choice.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
12. Re:Interesting but... by tepples · 2017-10-18 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website?
  The owners of Discordapp.com. Normally, someone who owns a "server" (their term for a guild, or a group of related users and channels) on Discord or has the "Manage Emoji" permission on a server can add up to 50 small images that can be used within in a message or as a reaction to a message. Uploading emoji works in Chrome, but it has been broken in Firefox since May 23, 2017. A Firefox user can only rename or delete emoji, not upload new ones. Clicking the Upload button neither has any visible effect nor produces a line in the console. This has been reported for months but has not been fixed.
13. Re:Interesting but... by tepples · 2017-10-18 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing my qualifier, "right mind."
  Are you claiming that users ought to boycott sites operated by developers not "in their right mind" in favor of a different site operated by developers "in their right mind", or just doing without if there exists no suitable replacement?
14. Re:Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm witnessing more sites that don't work with javascript too. One is almost entirely blank but you can read the text anyhow (even see at least some of the pictures) by turning off CSS (in Firefox : View, Page Style, No Style). This also bypasses some lazy paywalls. Was a bit amazing to see a blank page turn full, this is why I'm mentioning it.
15. Re:Interesting but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Is this the same thing though? I don't know enough about the IE incidents to understand. Chrome is adding a bunch of features, but they are well documented, and CAN be used in other browsers if they (other browser developers) choose. I thought that with IE, the changes were very difficult to port to other browsers, and therefore sites were hooked on IE. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am right, this is not quite the same.
16. Re:Interesting but... by campuscodi · 2017-10-18 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome-only websites are actually a problem these days. Just like IE-only websites were a problem ten years ago. Trust me, they're a lot of them.
17. Re:Interesting but... by antdude · 2017-10-18 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome only? Argh. I hate Chrome. I really wished web developers and designer stop being lazy and on one specific web browsers like that (remember IE only?). :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
18. Re:Interesting but... by thisisauniqueid · 2017-10-18 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is not Chrome-only. Variable fonts (OpenType Font Variations) were jointly developed by Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Adobe. It's part of version 1.8 of the OpenType font format specification. It will be built into a Windows release this year, and Apple will also release support in the near future.
19. Re: Interesting but... by spongman · 2017-10-18 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and Apple has only themselves to blame.
20. Re:Interesting but... by barbariccow · 2017-10-19 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I am targeting developers with my statement and questioning why any in their right mind would develop browser-specific anymore when there are standards. Nothing to do with end users other than them being a market, and the out-of-mind developer/business choosing willingly to ignore a chunk of them.
And broke Flash again... by freak0fnature · 2017-10-18 02:37 · Score: 1

VSphere Web client no longer works in Chrome...yay!
1. Re:And broke Flash again... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  VSphere Web client no longer works in Chrome...yay!
  Works for me.
2. Re:And broke Flash again... by Billly+Gates · 2017-10-18 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Or stop using insecure outdated software. I believe later versions don't use flash anymore
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
3. Re:And broke Flash again... by freak0fnature · 2017-10-18 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I would if I could!
Yes, but.... by Kierthos · 2017-10-18 02:40 · Score: 0

can you put the tabs below the address bar?

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
1. Re:Yes, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What's the point of that? The address bar belongs to the tab you're in. Putting it above the tab makes very little sense in conveying this information to the user.
2. Re:Yes, but.... by grumpy-cowboy · 2017-10-18 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  No
  
  --
  Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
3. Re:Yes, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because in terms of UI design, putting it under the tab means every tab has its own address bar control while if it was above the tab then the browser would only have one address bar. Thus keeping it above the tab can save a lot of resources. Unless the tabs aren't true tabs but simple buttons.
  Historically, it used to be above the tabs. Then there was massive outcry when it was moved under, and now people don't even remember the old standard. The even older standard of being able to move any control you want to any position and edge (vertical or horizontal) you want has been completely abandoned.
4. Re:Yes, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  I once used Opera 2.x (16bit) when it was severely outdated (getting a slow 486 onto the web for shit and giggles, on the 10BaseT LAN and very good at the time DSL). You could even manage the tabs as independent child windows, such that you can see the content of two or more tabs at the same time if you want!
  Wouldn't be a bad feature, now that we're often stuck on 1920-wide monitor that are a big too big for a single page.
  Tabs on the bottom of the entire window weren't too bad either in fact spreadsheet programs seem to do just that, maybe we could find a few other examples.
  Child windows were not too bad although not great if you want a very document-centric interface or running arbitrary X11 window managers. It would work with the systems that moved back somewhat to application-centric (Windows 7+ default task bar, Unity, moronic alt-tabbing in OS X, docks and application switching in general)
  We won't get them back because UX designers would hate to admit that their precious Gnome3 or mac OS or ... is nothing more than a pretty Windows 3.1.
If anyone's to blame, it's moz://a, I think. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 02:43 · Score: 2

I don't think that Google is embracing-extending-extiguishing the web. They can't really help it that Chrome has over 50% of the browser market. It's not a monopoly situation; there are numerous other competing web browsers out there, including from major vendors like Microsoft and Apple, that have a sizable share of the market.
I know a lot of people mistakenly think that Chrome is successful because Google advertises it. Well that's not the case at all. The reality is that people use Chrome because it's the least worst of all of the browsers. They typically don't like Chrome's UI, but the other browsers don't offer a better UI, either. Where Chrome really shines is that it's fast and light. While Edge and Safari aren't slow, Chrome still often feels faster. If there's one browser that consistently feels slow and bloated, it would have to be Firefox, in my experience. So users do the sensible thing: they use Chrome, or sometimes Edge and Safari. They avoid Firefox.
If anyone is to blame for the current situation, I think it would be moz://a. Firefox was well on its way to becoming what Chrome is today: the majority-used browser. Firefox was up there around 35% of the market around its peak. But then the Firefox developers started making so many unwanted changes to Firefox, even after users begged them not to make the changes. The Firefox developers trashed Firefox's UI by trying to imitate Chrome's rather awful UI. The Firefox developers even put "sponsored tiles", which is a deceptive way of saying "advertisements", into Firefox for some time! Then it took them many years to get multi-process support working. More recently they've made changes that will soon break a lot of extensions. Yet during all of this time we've seen little done to address the performance and excessive memory usage complaints users have been pointing out for many years.
It really doesn't help that moz://a has wasted time and resources on failures like Firefox OS, Rust, and Servo, instead of directing these resources toward improving Firefox.
Even if Chrome crawled along at a snail's pace, they'd still be leading the direction of the web because the competitors, especially moz://a, just can't seem to get their acts together.
We should have been living in a 2017 where Firefox was used by 60% of browser users, IE/Edge was used by 20%, Safari was used by 15%, and the remaining 5% were various niche browsers like Opera. But I think moz://a made some serious missteps along the way, and instead we live in a 2017 where Chrome dominates the browser landscape. Thanks, moz://a!
1. Re:If anyone's to blame, it's moz://a, I think. by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-18 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  So users do the sensible thing: they use Chrome, or sometimes Edge and Safari. They avoid Firefox.
  If you avoid Firefox, Edge is your only other choice on Windows and Safari is your only other choice on macOS. And both of these are the default browsers, so in both cases people have to choose to download and install Chrome.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:If anyone's to blame, it's moz://a, I think. by narcc · 2017-10-18 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome comes bundled with many other popular applications. Like other malware, it even makes itself the default browser when possible. Users often get stuck with Chrome accidentally.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
3. Re:If anyone's to blame, it's moz://a, I think. by theweatherelectric · 2017-10-18 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Rust, and Servo, instead of directing these resources toward improving Firefox.
  How are Rust and Servo failures? The work on Rust and Servo is being integrated into Firefox to improve Firefox. Mozilla is doing exactly what you claim you want them to do.
"Incognito" mode? by Nexus7 · 2017-10-18 02:48 · Score: 1

It doesn't save history, etc. etc. but when you open an incognito window, it is in a striking black background with a highly contrasting icon and letters saying "YOU ARE IN INCOGNITO MODE". Hey world, see, this browser window is in INCOGNITO MODE!!! Did you miss that? Here, let me use high contrast theme to tell you that this BROWSER IS IN INCOGNITO MODE!!!
1. Re:"Incognito" mode? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  It was never expected to hide your browsing from people watching you while you are browsing. Just afterwards.
Keep adding features & complexity? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 03:21 · Score: 0

Keep adding features & complexity? You'll create more bugs & security issues... mark my words.
* Complexity due to 'feature creep' is usually the enemy of security typically...
APK
P.S.=> ... & 35 security issues fixed? How MANY more exist & WHY DO THEY EXIST?? I'd bet it's what I originally wrote above... apk
1. Re:Keep adding features & complexity? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Can't all our security woe's be resolved through the HOSTS FILE though?
  APK
  PS -- Hosts file.
Certificate viewing?? by Billly+Gates · 2017-10-18 04:25 · Score: 2

Still no way to view certificates for my users. Unacceptable as developer tools are too hard to use for my older users over the phone to check if a site is a scam site or if they have been infected.
Why the hell did Google remove this feature? It's security 101

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:Certificate viewing?? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-19 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  chrome://flags/#show-cert-link (was added in Chrome 60, IIRC.)
2. Re:Certificate viewing?? by denbesten · 2017-10-20 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  chrome://flags/#show-cert-link (was added in Chrome 60, IIRC.)
  Thanks, random AC for this. I added it to my browser and it will make my life a bit simpler. However, the grandparent's concern still exists. It still is difficult to help users over the phone.
Can it render a page if one of the ads is slow? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 04:27 · Score: 0

That's my most desired feature now: give me a setting where if one of the page elements fails to respond in an amount of time I can specify, it is omitted and the rest of the page renders.
OTOH, Firefox is opt-in by DrYak · 2017-10-18 04:51 · Score: 1

I don't know how Chrome is handling video streaming,
But on the Mozilla side, all video streaming are opt-in.
Unless you authorize a website, it won't be able to stream video.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Brave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 05:17 · Score: 0

Brave Browser is going to pummel both Chrome and Firefox once it is out of beta. Brendan Eich is sitting on a $35 million treasure chest, has a top-level team, and is completely reinventing the browser concept around a secure, private user experience that also allows publishers to monetize. Mozilla is slowly dying, Microsoft is so far out of the browser game that they arenâ(TM)t even in the stadium, and Googleâ(TM)s politicization and spying is leading to growing resentment and backlash. Brave is the only one actually innovating in a big way.
Fonts wasted on me by michael_cain · 2017-10-18 05:25 · Score: 2

One of my long-standing complaints about the Web was/is the number of pages that tempt you to ask the designer, "Did you have to study ugly and unreadable in school, or are you just naturally talented?" Font choices, both the number used and the fonts themselves, are a significant part of that.

A couple of years ago I did everything I could with preferences and a user .css file to limit things to one of two fonts. Then I wrote a GreaseMonkey script that goes through almost every page I download and replaces styling with one of those two fonts, and one of a handful of sizes. I'm a whole lot happier with how the Web looks these days :^)
1. Re:Fonts wasted on me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, if you just turn off downloadable fonts, it does a great deal for legibility of the modern interwebs.
  gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled
  captcha: teletype
Does "Chrome user" necessarily mean exclusive? by tepples · 2017-10-18 06:27 · Score: 1

I gave Firefox 57 a shot and it feels great, so I'm using it.
So you're not a Chrome user, like you've wrongly claimed.
You're a Firefox user, like you just stated.
By "Chrome user", did you mean "occasional Chrome user", "regular Chrome user", or "exclusive Chrome user"? I seek this clarification because neither "occasional Chrome user" nor "regular Chrome user" is mutually exclusive with "occasional Firefox user".
Press Ctrl+Q and I'll reply by tepples · 2017-10-18 06:29 · Score: 1

Really, what is the chip on your shoulder?
The chip is that extensions to disable the Ctrl+Q shortcut no longer work. Try composing a reply to me in Firefox 57 for Linux and then pressing Ctrl+Q before submitting it.
1. Re: Press Ctrl+Q and I'll reply by corychristison · 2017-10-18 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  The question must be asked, why are you pressing Ctrl+Q.
  I've used Firefox since it was called Firebird (and Netscape before that), and never once have I had this problem.
  I think this is a user error. But that's just my opinion.
2. Re: Press Ctrl+Q and I'll reply by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  I've had the same problem a few times. It isn't too difficult to fat-finger Ctrl+Q when trying to close a tab or switch tabs. It is beyond idiotic that Firefox doesn't let you change key bindings. No modern software should have static key bindings.
Accidental Ctrl+Q when reaching for Ctrl+Tab by tepples · 2017-10-18 09:08 · Score: 1

The question must be asked, why are you pressing Ctrl+Q.
Because I am reaching for Ctrl+Tab to switch to the next tab or Ctrl+W to close a tab and missing, instead by accident pressing the key between them.

I think this is a user error.
How would I go about making my copy of Firefox 57 resilient to this sort of error that I have identified?
Impersonating me? Poor job of it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 09:08 · Score: 0

See subject & if that's the "best ya got" in trying to impersonate me, you did a lousy job. Hosts don't cure everything (nothing can) but here is what they DO do vs. inferior inefficient browser addons https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11250645&cid=55390857/ & TOP THAT LIST OFF w/ UBlock's latest security bug too http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/17/ublock_origin_csp_reports/ that UBlock's Ray Hill refuses to fix apparently...
APK
P.S.=> Hosts do more for added speed, security, reliability & anonymity than ANY SINGLE other "so-called 'security solution'" by FAR & do so for FAR less resources consumed + less complexity by using what you already have NATIVELY built-into the kernelmode IP stack itself (proven since 1973 when hosts were added iirc)... apk
1. Re:Impersonating me? Poor job of it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  "Hosts don't cure everything" I beg to differ...
  APK
  P.S.=> Hosts cure cancer and consume fewer resources than "so-called 'vaccines'" (with no autism proven)... apk
"We should take another look @"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 14:03 · Score: 0

See subject & "Arc-ReAcToR Technology" - Tony Stark, Iron Man 2008
"It's as strong as steel & a 3rd the weight" - Howard Stark, Capt. America
& yes, I have via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
* Hosts ARE such a technology & IF I worked @ MS (or whoever really controls the IP stack)? Quote Leonardo DiCaprio from "The Aviator"? "She'll go faster..."
(HOWEVER/again, to my 'impersonator' (lame by the way to even do but...) - Hosts do NOT "Cure ALL" despite you trying to "put words in MY mouth" I never myself ever once said, even ME in fact admitting where they don't work (upmodded +5) http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450/ )
APK
P.S.=> HOWEVER, in the end? Yes, "It works" (Tony Stark again, Iron Man 2008) & better than ANYTHING else, no less on TONS of levels, unquestionably... apk