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

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I really just want web browsers to die, and be replaced by one of the slimmed down options like gemini, gopher, or some markdown viewer.

    The web just keeps getting increasingly bloated and ad-ridden, and filled with popups. Web browsers are as complex as entire operating systems now, so only 2 orgs (google and mozilla) have the resources and expertise to build a browser, and mozilla might throw in the towel eventually, leaving the internet as one big google ad.

    IE move viewing of mostly static content into these simple variants like gemini, and move dynamic things to local apps with API access.

    • ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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.