A fair warning - while occasionally serious, this thread is a rant, so unless you want to join in, stop reading now!

I've been a Chrome user ever since Firefox took a nosedive and Google swiftly filled its shoes, so anything I write might well seem like juvenile anti-Google sentiment. While that is not the immediate intention, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Google on systematically stuffing Chrome to the point where it's become a piece of semi-dysfunctional bloatware. Well done there. However, that is not the topic of this thread.

Over the past year or two I've, occasionally considered migrating back to FF or switching to Opera (which used to be teh caek two thousand years ago in lolcat time), but I have to admit that there is the odd Chrome extension, which I simply cannot be bothered to look an alternative for. But again - that is not the topic of this thread.

What I really wanted to discuss is a nigh-imperceptible stagnation in browser functionality on the most basic of levels. Allow me to elaborate, since some of this stuff is quite unintuitive:

- about 4-5 years ago copy-pasting text used to be as simple as pressing Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V to first copy the text into the clipboard and then to paste it into a text box (I'm assuming Apple PCs still have buttons so there's probably an equivalent way to accomplish this*). Somewhere along the line, however things like GMail started to behave differently. You copied your text as usual, but when you pasted it, the browser spat it at the caret and for some inane reason would select all the text in the textbox body from the caret to the very end. After typing in another two words (because you're computer literate and can watch a lolcat video while typing and browsing Reddit using voice commands) you would find yourself stomping the undo command to get your email back. Why that started happening and under what circumstances it would happen has, frankly, eluded me. A similar behavior crops up occasionally while pressing Ctrl+A to select text in the browser, which seems to select up to the caret only. This happened to me once more only just now while going over this very post.

- have you ever tried to select text, or worse - links -, in a browser without extensions? Good luck *thumbupwink*. Just prior to writing this post I spent two or more minutes trying to copy half a line of text from GMail's one-line body text that contained two links. The browser's behavior was nothing short of those how-to-keep-an-idiot-busy games where you have use the mouse to chase Nyancat on your desktop, which keeps moving away from the cursor (Nyancat, not the desktop, that is). Being mildly computer literate I have the copy link extension installed so I can hover over a link and press Ctrl+C to copy it. So it's all cool. But it isn't. Because I had to spend several minutes trying to accomplish something that should take me three seconds and require no voodoo. And I keep stepping on the same damn rake. I KNOW I can't select text in the browser any better than I can in Adobe Reader, yet I keep doing it. Why? Because it's 2015 and I'm naive computer literate enough to know that sometimes software changes for the better. You know - like Doom 2 was to Doom 1, to bring a timely example.

- the third item is related to security and happens to be the one thing I really can't fathom. Ever migrated to a new PC or reinstalled the OS to find that it's no longer 1995 and you don't need to install any drivers or perform any set up beyond choosing your locale and possibly a password? Neat, isn't it! Well - if you're a Google user (and I'm guessing there are a few), then one other thing you don't need to do anymore is remember any passwords. Okay, you need to remember one - your Google account password, which silently stores and migrates ALL of your passwords that you've chosen to remember on another device. You can likely turn that off somewhere, though, so I should probably digress. And I do, because I'm mildly computer literate. But that's kind of like being the tallest midget in the bunch, because most people are morons not computer literate and most computer literate people are simply lazy****. About 60% of my friends use a pattern lock on their phones, which I've been able to unlock on at least four different occasions - all while very generously inebriated - simply by tracing the lines of grease on the screen. The cold hard truth is these people have no idea which sites Google provides automatically filled in passwords for that are directly usable on their phones' browser by simply navigating to the site and clicking "Yes" at the pre-completed "Would you like to log in?" prompt. Not because they want to, but because they're computer illiterate (which they have a perfect right to be) and are consequently completely at the mercy of their own technology illiteracy. I might be mistaken, but as far as I can remember no browser at any stage has ever prompted me for anything like two tier verification the way Steam does or warned me adequately clearly that the passwords I remember on a device will essentially keep me logged in on any other devices I might already own or will at any later point own. God forbid, I happen to sit down at a poorly sessioned net cafe and forget to go full haidouken on the computer before I leave. The only thing related to this that I've seen is Google opting me for a second layer of security (AFAIR phone-based) against password loss or theft. Yeah, that'll be useful once I unlock Retrospect Level 1.

- as a bonus point I'd like to address the issue of load times, particularly on mobile. I'm not a web developer, but my guess is this one probably has more to do with page design than the browser itself, or even the network. Nevertheless, this whole category of issues is one of the biggest gripes I have with evolving technology and, being a bit more particular, if I had to surmise a more specific reason, then this little bar:

[attachment=28319:waitingfor.jpg]

The screenshot was taken while loading letterboxd.com, which doesn't include any of the big offenders - copious load-time use of the Facebook Graph API or a massive amount of other multi social media buttons. In fact, I'm guessing most pages in their raw form, unless the server is under considerable stress, would indeed load instantly (comparatively speaking, that is, if only to appease Einstein). Nevertheless, seeing load times of 5 seconds plus on mobile for fairly basic pages while having full 4G coverage (I have a Nexus 5, which is not the worst thing around even now) is a disgrace. It's the same thing with IDEs - I can still remember VS2005 being a very responsive system (if more than unnecessarily unstable) on a far lesser setup while 2008 and 2010 became progressively worse. In a very similar manner both the web and the browsers are abusing the technology they have access to, which means we're pandering away all the advances we're making in the underlying hardware. Finally, to connect this with the anti-Google sentiment implied at the top of the post, Chrome is one piece of software that has forgotten this. And that makes me sad, because Chrome really used to be the standard for me.

There are several other quirks I've come across, but despite the seriousness of #3 what baffles me the most is actually #2. People have needed to select text in browsers for four lolcat millennia and at this point it's no longer a valid argument to blame things like poor page design or user incompetence. Instead of becoming more bloated, memory-hungry and occasionally bafflingly unstable (ironically I can't check this right now with a random URL since I'm typing this in Chrome, but the last time I wanted to browse to an FTP address the entire browser crashed kind of like the alien mothership in Independence Day), anyone who needs the smallest shred of additional productivity from a browser apart from being able to play lolcat videos, feels like they're stuck in a groundhog day set in 1999. Well, at least I often do. But probably with even less security.

Do you have any gripes related to the web or the browsers that be? Unleash the kraken - that's what this thread is for!

* just kidding - all you need to do is rub its round corners and hope if won't throw up something icky like iTunes on you**

** I'm really sorry - I simply have no sympathy for Apple. I know you guys have the Command key and it's just as good as the Control key, but designed for people who have three fingers, blablabla. So I promise I won't pick on Apple any more***

*** seriously, though - I'm kidding. I have no sympathy for Apple.

**** source: looking in the mirror

I have similar observations that you have. Chrome used to be simple fast and lightweight browser, but as they never stopped adding "useful features" it is no more fast or lightweight. The same probably happened to MySQL - once simple and fast db, they kept adding new and new features to "catch up" with other engines to the point that it stopped be simple and fast.

As for the webpage load times on mobile network, you are absolutely right. They are ridiculous but it is not quite "lazy devs" that are responsible for it (at least not always ;)). I used to work for a company that develops web applications and UI guys opened champagne every time IE7 felt out of scope... in 2014. Add this to the fact that client always wants fancy stuff on their website and everything have to look the same regardless of browser and device and there we are - 10 different conditional and bloated css + dirty hacks for most browsers as supported browsers besides of IE include at least few major versions of FF and Chrome. No wonder you have to wait half a minute for a "simple" page to load....

As for security you also have valid point. But I can see it as a race to simplification. As make everything easier to use. Also warning users that "remember password" works for every device you will ever use wouldn't change much. Those that should be warned wouldn't even bother to read it (blah, blah, blah, another technical message that annoys me).

What can I say? I guess we just have to adopt to this. I wouldn't say it's changing for worse. Just different...

I use Chrome. I can select sections of text just fine. I can Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V just fine. It works as expected - inserting where the carat is without overwriting anything extra.
I don't typically use Ctrl+A, but a quick test shows that it works just fine.

To copy URLs, I just right-click a link and select "Copy link address".

And yes, Chrome is very fast - both on my current newer PC, and on the seven-year old budget PC that I finally replaced.

I strongly suspect you've installed plugins willy-nilly and one or more of them are getting in the way of Chrome's normal, correct, behavior. And then you're blaming Chrome for something that's actually the plugins that you installed. You blame Google Chrome for the bloat, but I think you're the one who downloaded the bloat and said, "Inject it into my arm here".

Kind of how people generically blame "viruses" for their computer running slow, when it's really because they've installed fifteen browsers, twenty toolbars, and enough adware to start a cold war.

This is the double-edged sword of computers: It either runs well regardless of what you do to it, but greatly limits what you can actually do, or it gives you to the freedom but if you don't know what you're actually doing it'll run slow. Either it's Macintosh, or it's Windows. (If you use Linux, you can replace "runs slowly" with "crashes" when you don't know what you're doing)

- the third item is related to security and happens to be the one thing I really can't fathom. Ever migrated to a new PC or reinstalled the OS to find that it's no longer 1995 and you don't need to install any drivers or perform any set up beyond choosing your locale and possibly a password?

Nope, because there are often pieces of hardware where the default-installed one isn't fully functional for what I want to do.

Well - if you're a Google user (and I'm guessing there are a few), then one other thing you don't need to do anymore is remember any passwords.

Heheh, nope. In an increasingly internet-connected world, giving Google control of all my passwords is equivalent to me just mailing them my social security number, birth certificate, and bank account. It'd be silly of me to give Google control of my entire digital life, because digital life and non-digital life is getting increasingly integrated. I do sometimes use "Sign using your Google Account" for minor 3rd-party sites.

I use Chrome. I can select sections of text just fine. I can Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V just fine. It works as expected - inserting where the carat is without overwriting anything extra.
I don't typically use Ctrl+A, but a quick test shows that it works just fine.

To copy URLs, I just right-click a link and select "Copy link address".

And yes, Chrome is very fast - both on my current newer PC, and on the seven-year old budget PC that I finally replaced.

I strongly suspect you've installed plugins willy-nilly and one or more of them are getting in the way of Chrome's normal, correct, behavior. And then you're blaming Chrome for something that's actually the plugins that you installed. You blame Google Chrome for the bloat, but I think you're the one who downloaded the bloat and said, "Inject it into my arm here".

Kind of how people generically blame "viruses" for their computer running slow, when it's really because they've installed fifteen browsers, twenty toolbars, and enough adware to start a cold war.

That is fair criticism and I do happen to have a number of extensions enabled. While on the one hand these extensions do help bog down the browser, they generally do not count towards the memory footprint and they do address a lot of the functionality without which I would not be willing to use any browser. That is to say, I'm not sure where there line goes here, but I suspect it's the same for all browsers. I merely exemplified Chrome (and was careful to frame it as such) because I'm a Chrome user. While it does make my post biasd, it does, in fact, not get any of the other browsers off the hook.

As for the copy-paste/select all thing - like I mentioned, it oftentimes feels like completely undefined behavior. If you've never seen it, then lucky you I guess...

As for the copy link address - if you read the paragraph again, that's not really what my qualm was about. It just happened to be handy example ;).

I do sometimes use "Sign using your Google Account" for minor 3rd-party sites.

Hm - I never do that. Use my Google account for sign-in, that is. Occasionally, mostly when I don't care about the service all that much I sign up with Facebook, but that's about it. What I had in mind is that while you're logged into your Google account (eg Chrome/Youtube/Google+ etc) and you happen to click on "Remember password" for an arbitrary site that is in no way related to Google, then this password gets propagated and automatically filled in on other devices where you're logged into the same Google account. What you're mentioning is pretty evident and does not generally pose a security risk. What I have in mind is grounds for blatant negligence, because people do not effectively know how to make sure their Google account isn't being accessed while they're looking away.

The web really sucks these days, and not just because browsers are crap. :(

Ah, well. It could be worse (Internet Explorer *cough*). Maybe 1.5 years ago I switched from Firefox to Chrome, for no particular reason. I have never looked back.

I do sometimes use "Sign using your Google Account" for minor 3rd-party sites.

Hm - I never do that. Use my Google account for sign-in, that is. Occasionally, mostly when I don't care about the service all that much I sign up with Facebook, but that's about it. What I had in mind is that while you're logged into your Google account (eg Chrome/Youtube/Google+ etc) and you happen to click on "Remember password" for an arbitrary site that is in no way related to Google, then this password gets propagated and automatically filled in on other devices where you're logged into the same Google account. What you're mentioning is pretty evident and does not generally pose a security risk. What I have in mind is grounds for blatant negligence, because people do not effectively know how to make sure their Google account isn't being accessed while they're looking away.

Hahaha... I'm actually using my Google account right now. When Google asks to remember your password for a site, you could always choose "Never". I've always done so not for security reasons, but because I tend to forget my passwords if I'm not typing them regularly.

The web is a total clusterfuck of a mess but people keep piling new technology on broken technology in order to try and fix it.

It's rotten from the javascript which runs in your browser to the latest 'node.js' bullshit server the thing come from. But we charge on! Trading software efficiency in the name of 'programmer efficiency' and somehow end up fucking up both.

As for Chrome; I once has a 100% reproducible crash bug which was caused by pasting a url ending in .txt into the address bar. The app would freeze, crash and when restarted kill itself because it tried to reopen the old url it has saved.

At the time this surprised me, I've seen since behind the curtain enough to realise practically every bit of software Google does is crap so it no longer surprises me. Seriously for a 'web company', beyond search, they really can't web properly at all and don't get me started on how much of a clusterfucking piece of shit Android is and continues to be...

Just out of curiosity. Most big IT-related advances originate or were at least conceived either in the lab (meaning a university) or a garage. Facebook is the last big big example, which relatively recently revolutionalised how we use the web.

Why couldn't the same happen for the web itself?

I mean, there's no way current megacorporations will put their eggs in one basket and come up with a unified standard that's both feasible and doesn't get tangled in some horrible rights/patent lawsuit mess before it dies a horrible flaming death. This kind of begs for the messiah to be an underdog - a system that can safely discard everything that's currently there and fix it on a fundamental level. Like Facebook did for social networks (of the time at least).

Birthing something like this as a substitute network for universities seems like a proven and possibly incredibly powerful way to set things afoot. Unify the platform, take care of security in a modern way and at the core and replace all the current JSs/Flashes/HTML5s with AN actual API that is properly standardised, documented and implemented for speed. If you build it they will come kind of stuff.

I'm not saying this would work, but it would at least be going down a proven path. Besides, university projects can fail without shame, so there's no real pressure to speak of. Ultimately if there's a better solution in existence, then the motivation to upheave the current one will start gaining momentum. As it is right now, nothing will or can happen.

Birthing something like this as a substitute network for universities seems like a proven and possibly incredibly powerful way to set things afoot. Unify the platform, take care of security in a modern way and at the core and replace all the current JSs/Flashes/HTML5s with AN actual API that is properly standardised, documented and implemented for speed. If you build it they will come kind of stuff.

Obligitory xkcd:


If there is one thing i've learnt from making games, building it does not mean they will come. Whatever work you put into making it, now double it to convince people why they should be using it.

The current form of the web will likely die someday, but its not going to be for a good long while imo. Hell folks still use IE6. The old saying is "science advances one death at a time", i'd say the web advances one generation at a time.

I'm having no trouble copy/pasting nor copying link, but i'm using IE :)

As for the Google analytics issue yes it's slow but if it's making you wait the guy who did the page screwed up, it's supposed to be called asynchronously and not block the page at all. I have a website based on my own CMS where everything is returned within, literally, 1ms. When you look at it in firebug's network view it loads near isntantly (if you connection allows for it) but you see a multiple second line down the road with ga, it has 0 slowdown effect on the end user however as it just happens whenever it happens but doesn't block the rest.