Asklemmy

43958 readers

951 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What features and/or technologies would u like to see in a web browser ? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by LEVI to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And what features and/or technologies you'd rather not see in a web browser

Lets make this interesting: you can imagine features ( there's no wrong answers ) , its not just about features that you already saw in other browsers

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LEVI 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

that's a quite pessimistic stance, yes I do agree that web browsers are complexe and hard to maintain, but they can do more than viewing websites, you can play games, draw art, video chat, PDF viewing and editing, you can do a lot with just one app.. that's the beauty of Web browsers.. The problem is in the Ad business model..

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

they can do more than viewing websites

The question is: should they? There is a larger philosophical divide about whether software tools should be small and purpose-built, or monolithic. Having one do-it-all tool can be convenient but also creates a huge amount of overhead and complexity.

I go back and forth myself. I love the convenience of monolithic tools, but miss the way a small, purpose-built tool can really do its job well.

[–] LEVI 2 points 3 months ago

One of the best cases for building a versatile tool, is accessibility to less privileged populations, for example people who can't efford to have a reliable Internet because of their shady ISPs, they need a browser that renders web content as fast as possible, and also because they can't afford to download apps due to slow internet speeds, Flatpaks could take gigabyte of HDD space and you have to update them later, which is painful in other parts of the world

Even if the user had a reliable Internet and solid hardware, maybe they're a security minded individual, and want to keep their app installs to a minimum. To them many apps are considered bloat and that's dangerous.

I think the difficulty lies in wisely choosing what features to include, before your users start asking : hey, do we really need that ? Or : who uses that ?

that's why listening to feedback is so important

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 3 months ago

That's precisely what they're saying is the issue, that the browser must be a monolith which can do all of those things, and that if each of those tasks were a dedicated application then more companies/orgs could compete.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They shouldn't be doing any of those things, html should be for simple, static content only.

For dynamic / interactive things, programmers should write programs again like they used to.