RE: Navigator standard change proposal

Yes, a browser has to work with web sites, and when it doesn’t? When there is a bug in the browser, what is the solution?

Hide and destroy users experience and developers ability to serve a website or to alert his users that there is a bug and that it is known and that it will be handled and that there is an alternative available?



I already explained this in such detail that I simply have to conclude that you did not read it…?

I gave detailed explanation and arguments and you simply ignored them. We cannot have a meaningfull discussion this way.
You’re simply repeating the "Ipse dixit" fallacy and I frankly do not have the time to waste on that.
Every time you repeat that browser detection is bad for a user you are simply repeating the same fallacy. It is not true.


I already agreed twice, and I will agree for the third time now that YES it is bad when the browser detection is used as feature detection.
It should be used for problems that are not feature detection related. I don’t know how many times do I need to repeat this?
So your example with new players is both absolutely valid and again completely besides the point.

Feature detection is simply not the magical all-in-one solution to all problems.
How do you intend to solve the problem of new features that are not yet standardized and thus each browser may have their own API for it?
Feature detection here actually creates an additional problem that only browser detection can solve.

It is simply a matter of fact that only with PROPER usage of BOTH feature and browser detection are we able to solve most of the problems.

Hiding UA information is not the solution, it IS the problem.
What do you as a browser developer gain when a website is not working in your browser due to a browser bug?
What do the users gain when a website is not working in your browser due to a browser bug?


The simple fact that I can find good examples for using ua sniffing actually PROVES that the Navigator object should be improved and not destroyed.

The fact that you can give day long examples of web sites doing the wrong thing proves NOTHING regarding the Navigator object for crying out loud.
How many times do I have to explain this simple fact?
That only proves that those developers need to learn and improved themselves. It is THEIR problem.
Do you want me to repeat the Harley/piano example? Did you not understand it?


Let me make it clear: the issue is NOT feature detection, the issue is browser BUGS and browser plugin BUGS which cause proper websites to crash.
I do not care about bad programmers, quite frankly. I do not care about small or big websites that do things wrongly.
I care about handling browser bugs and browser plugin bugs which affect properly written websites and their users.

Solve me that problem with feature detection and I will forget that the Navigator object ever existed.



Thanks,

[cid:image001.png@01CF28C3.147D1830]

Predrag Stojadinović  |  T +49.2405.4.78246  |  predrags@nvidia.com<mailto:predrags@nvidia.com>
NVIDIA GmbH, Adenauerstr. 20 A4, 52146 Würselen, DE  |  http://www.nvidia.de<http://www.nvidia.de/>




-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@la-grange.net]
Sent: 13. februar 2014 13:45
To: Predrag Stojadinovic
Cc: Adrian Roselli; Julian Reschke; Charles McCathie Nevile; Travis Leithead; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Navigator standard change proposal





Le 13 févr. 2014 à 20:09, Predrag Stojadinovic <predrags@nvidia.com<mailto:predrags@nvidia.com>> a écrit :

> One example is the Opera 9.8 issue you mentioned, where it simply

> makes no sense to mess up the navigator.appVersion attribute value in

> order to accommodate bad sniffers. That decision is doing more harm

> than good. But again, I digress…



It's not digression. It's exactly the core of the issue. :) A highly competitive ecosystem partly regulated by market shares. People do not pay their browsers. So the revenue stream is often based on the fact that the product will be used by many people. A direct effect of this is that the browser has to work with Web sites.



You can spend a lot of times trying to contact Web sites and trying to get them fixed. Opera until last year had a 12 persons team doing that on a daily basis (I was part of it). At Mozilla, we do it now with a team of 4 and a growing community for Firefox OS. Contacting Web sites, fixing UA sniffing frameworks, etc. It is costly, takes a lot of time, and often people don't care. It's not necessary because people are bad programmers, but sometimes they don't realize what they do OR/AND they have a project manager with business constraints. They are dependent of framework which are not up to date.



On top of that, you can add a daily dose of legacy Web sites which exist but will not be fixed. Ever. That's the business reality. When a browser had a hack to be identified in the user agent string for being identified, it's not with the flower between the teeth. It's always a painful choice, but one which is sometimes necessary to survive: The case of Opera with the version number.



When people are trying to do better "Firefox OS" by simplifying the user agent string and making it meaningful again or IE11 recently. You see plenty of developers arguing that browser vendors are breaking their sniffing algorithms. Search for "ua sniffing" on twitter.



I perfectly understand where you are coming with the desire to do good things with the feature. But as a matter of fact and with years of experience, we have seen the damage of hooks based on out-of-band of information for user agents. So it's a question of balance.



You will always find good examples for using user agent sniffing. It's normal.

But I can give you day long examples of Web sites doing the wrong things and not only small Web sites, big high profiles Web sites. Currently it is mostly used for redirection to mobile Web sites, and to deliver tier1 experience. The issue being that even capable browsers do not receive the tier1 experience just because the known company doesn't want to spend time on it. That's the sad reality.



It's even worse than that, because it creates a barrier of entry for new players. Not being in the UA database, not matching the algorithm of the site, the browser is getting the wrong version of the site, or worse being denied the entrance. So bad for the user, so bad for the business of the browser. Only well known products get more market shares. In fact, most of the time, the users think that it is the browser which is crappy, not the Web site. Because the Web site is working on the shiny toy of his friends.



Hope it helps to understand.



--

Karl Dubost &#128004;

http://www.la-grange.net/karl/




NVIDIA GmbH, Wuerselen, Germany, Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 8361
Managing Director: Karen Theresa Burns

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------