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

  • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 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
      ·
      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