Contributing to Website Compatibility

General project discussion.
Use this as a last resort if your topic does not fit in any of the other boards but it still on-topic.
Forum rules
This General Discussion board is meant for topics that are still relevant to Pale Moon, web browsers, browser tech, UXP applications, and related, but don't have a more fitting board available.

Please stick to the relevance of this forum here, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Random" subjects don't belong here, and should be posted in the Off-Topic board.
User avatar
Pallid Planetoid
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4279
Joined: 2015-10-06, 16:59
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Pallid Planetoid » 2022-03-07, 00:23

The new direction of Pale Moon as I understand it is to place a greater focus on website compatibility. With this in mind, on would assume the method to optimally accomplish the newly espoused goals would be in a way that is the most safe and user friendly possible. I assume this new approach is, at least in part, because of a concern regarding the viability of the browser.

It's been my experience in the past the Pale Moon team has held the position that Pale Moon is ultimately intended for the more "technical user" - therefore there has reportedly been less concern expressed in regards to user-base retention/growth. Perhaps this former attitude has been modified to now consider user-base retention/growth as more critical than formally perceived and with that in mind whatever approach might make an impact in this direction should be taken into account. To be sure, my intention is in no way to be critical but rather my goal is to discuss options that would help Pale Moon be as successful as possible.

The reason I bring this up is because - we should all understand that users in general are, for the most part, only interested in websites working as expected as opposed to the technicalities involved to address an issue. On that point, arguably more bothersome technical approaches (i.e. repeatedly require the use of about:config to resolve website issues) can be arguably undesirable for a significant number of users to be perfectly honest.

On the other hand, scripts can be posted in a forum by qualified individuals and easily copied to a users clipboard and then pasted into a new script entry using GreaseMonky that is a "one-time fix" that allows websites to work as expected without any further intervention by the user. No further intervention has a nice ring to it - however the bugaboo that we have is making sure scripts address websites issues in an appropriate manner without causing extraneous problems. This can be presumably accomplished by making sure scripts are minimally "site specific".

An approach that uses a script that is both site specific and page specific would appear to be significantly more user friendly as well as absolutely safe opposed to what appears to be, at least in some cases, the preferred orthodoxy of requiring users to repeatedly take the 3 steps of enabling/disabling/enabling (from default to non-default and back to default) a preference setting using about:config (that in-and-of-itself can be risky if applied incorrectly) to accomplish the same thing that a script does as a one time procedure.

In conclusion: Taking into account the above, if the consensus is that the latter approach of using scripts would in general be preferred by users as a more convenient way to perform a "one-time fix". I would suggest that the forum (rules as such) consider adopting an approach where all scripts that are posted be restricted to only site-specific/page specific scripts. We can reasonably conclude that any poster who offers script solutions would know how to determine this. Using this new approach, regarding the use of site-specific/page-specific scripts would seem to me to be a rational suggestion that should not have any unintended consequences and therefore the only situation regarding the use of scripts that would warrant recrimination would be exclusively those that are not site-specific/page-specific.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

I'm assuming a lot of these sites will eventually be addressed through browser updates - but if this is going to take a matter of weeks/months as opposed to days in many cases then the approach that produces less damage to the user base would seem to be the better path to take. And of course scripts can very easily be either removed or minimally disabled if and when updates resolve the relevant issue.

Any opinions / ideas / suggestion on this? (for certain there is a huge number of forum contributors that understand this stuff far more than I do that I look forward to hearing from that have the knowledge/experience on the subject to know what's best :))
Current Pale Moon(x86) Release | WIN10 | I5 CPU, 1.7 GHz, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD[20GB SSD]
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-03-07, 04:46

I don't get what you're on about. Not all broken sites can be fixed using userscripts - some make use of features that simply don't exist here yet such as custom elements or the new regex parser. And if you're using Greasemonkey, Stylem or similar, scripts for them already can and are written to be site specific. Scripts have nothing to do with about:config, they can't modify it and with good reason. The most common about:config change is a SSUAO, and we already have PermissionsPlus and Sasuga to make it easier to edit those. So what is the problem here?
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
Pallid Planetoid
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4279
Joined: 2015-10-06, 16:59
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Pallid Planetoid » 2022-03-07, 05:20

I've noticed a reluctance to use scripts because of the potential risk of extraneous problems in the event scripts are offered in a haphazard manner that would likely occur absent making certain the script is minimally site-specific - so I was suggesting to make it a "standard" as far as the submitting of scripts are concerned that would apply to any script contributions to solve an issue be required to be minimally site-specific. This would only apply in the event a script would resolve a website compatibility problem - any other methods to address website compatibility issues is not relevant to the topic other than to say if the method of fixing a problematic site comes down to the choice between using a script that addresses the problem versus the alternate option of requiring users to reset about:config settings multiple times that the better choice would be to use a script solution that addresses the issue once and for all.

No problem, it's just a suggestion as to requiring a standard that would rule-out any scripts that fail a site-specific "standard" in order to feel more comfortable about using scripts which appear to me to be a relatively easy approach for users to address website compatibility issues when ever there may be an alternate choice to take to resolve the issue - and thanks for taking the time to read the topic. :thumbup:
Current Pale Moon(x86) Release | WIN10 | I5 CPU, 1.7 GHz, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD[20GB SSD]
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by moonbat » 2022-03-07, 05:55

Scripts are nothing but a band-aid, and will inevitably break given the mad pace at which websites keep changing their code to keep with the latest frills in Chrome.
Pallid Planetoid wrote:
2022-03-07, 05:20
minimally site-specific
Where have you seen scripts being offered on this forum that are not site specific?
And as I said earlier, it isn't as simple as 'use a script' vs 'change about:config'. The majority of broken sites are anyway due to Pale Moon not supporting either draft/non standard features, or custom elements or the new fangled regex parser, both of which are complex and time consuming to implement.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
Pallid Planetoid
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4279
Joined: 2015-10-06, 16:59
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Pallid Planetoid » 2022-03-07, 07:42

moonbat wrote:
2022-03-07, 05:55
Scripts are nothing but a band-aid, and will inevitably break given the mad pace at which websites keep changing their code to keep with the latest frills in Chrome.
That's a good argument against using scripts - but then what would you think is the more desirable approach for most users in the event the alternate approach involves changing preference settings? -- I would presume users would most likely prefer to get the issue fixed and behind them at least in the short-term, that would presumably last, at the very least, a matter a months in any event (by using the second approach):
1) Always need to repeatedly change a preference back-and-forth to use a site.
2) Apply a new script once and be done with it once and for all and use the website in a "normal" way from then on out.

As you point out, I guess either approach may not last indefinitely - what does? (but in the meantime the latter approach would appear to be less bothersome in the long run).
moonbat wrote:
2022-03-07, 05:55
Where have you seen scripts being offered on this forum that are not site specific?
My point is to only allow a "standard" that requires this that by doing so would avoid undesirable consequences and therefore facilitate the use of scripts for those who would otherwise be reluctant to use this approach.

What I have seen in the forum is a predilection to set a preference setting back-and-forth in about:config every time a site is used as contrasted to an inclination to avoid using a script that addresses the problem from then on out. It seems to me, regardless of the possibility that a script might become obsolete - the latter is going to generally be preferred by users to avoid repeated behavior as opposed to getting the problem out of the way at least for the time being. If a new script is necessary under the same scenario (assuming the issue will not have been addressed by a Pale Moon update by then) -- it will take just a one time application of a new script to get beyond the problem once again as opposed to once again requiring the user to repeatedly do something beyond just using the website in a "normal" fashion.

Keep in mind my objective is to minimally retain and hopefully grow the user-base by using the most user-friendly methods to address ongoing website compatibility issues.
moonbat wrote:
2022-03-07, 05:55
And as I said earlier, it isn't as simple as 'use a script' vs 'change about:config'. The majority of broken sites are anyway due to Pale Moon not supporting either draft/non standard features, or custom elements or the new fangled regex parser, both of which are complex and time consuming to implement.
These other examples are all points well taken, I'm sure, that I presume will need to be addressed as needed in whatever way is appropriate (all of which would in general be unfamiliar to me).
Current Pale Moon(x86) Release | WIN10 | I5 CPU, 1.7 GHz, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD[20GB SSD]
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising

User avatar
mollyvaynerchuck
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2022-04-17, 07:34

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by mollyvaynerchuck » 2022-04-18, 09:37

The mobile web is broken and you can help make it better!

Spreading the word
How you can help: Talks, tweets, blogs, videos, handing out flyers on corners.
Skills required: Passion for a free and open web.

Description: The more users and developers are aware of web compatibility the better! You can post as small as a tweet or as big as a blog, we can use your help spreading the word.

Get started: Follow us on Twitter, join our mailing list or come chat with us on IRC in #webcompat. To learn more browse the compatibility wiki or read our blog posts.

Casual bug reporting

How you can help: During your web travels, if you notice a website that works properly in one browser but not in another, you can report a bug to help get it fixed!

Skills required: Being awesome, only takes two minutes.

Description: Once you know what to look for it’s much easier to notice potential bugs during your regular browsing. If you notice a problem with a website you can report it in less than 1 minute with the Web Compatibility browser add-ons.
Get started: Report site issues at Webcompat.com or install a browser extension for Chrome, Firefox (29+), Opera, and Safari for the fastest bug reporting experience..

Outreach: Contacting websites with fixes
How you can help: Find contacts for websites. Contact websites with suggested fixes.
Skills required: Web research and communication.

Description: Once a compatibility bug is analyzed and a fix has been suggested, the site should be contacted to notify them of the issue. Your language skills and local knowledge make finding contacts easier. Find a contact at the website and send them a polite message. We have a tool to help explain the problem to non-technical contacts and email templates to make communicating in other languages easier.

Get started:
Create a Bugzilla account
Find bugs that are ready for the site to be contacted. Use Bugs ahoy!
Use the simple bug tool by going to this link and adding the bug number you're working on to the end of the URL. Example: http://webcompat.com/simplebug/#mozilla/966310

Don't be afraid to ask for help! Mentors are assigned to most bugs for this reason. If you want to talk something over just comment on the bug saying that you need some help, and a mentor will be notified and reach out to you
Learn more about finding good contacts and contacting websites.

Collecting information on popular sites in your local region

How you can help: Build lists of the most frequently used sites in your country/region
Skills required: Knowledge of popular websites in your region
Description: In order to ensure websites are working in Firefox all around the world, we build lists of the most popular sites in specific countries. We need your help to determine the most popular sites in your region. The list is used to perform automated compatibility tests for each site in that region.

Get started: Check for your country to see if there is a top 100 sites list already created and start adding. Please leave your changes highlighted in another color so we can update the master lists. If you think a site on the list is not important for the region, leave a note beside it but do not delete it. If your region is not listed or there is no link for a top site list let us know so we can add it.

Regional Ambassador
How you can help: Become a leader in your region and get others involved!
Skills required: Passion for the open web, good communication skills.
Description: Web Compatibility is a global effort that needs help in all regions. It’s your insight into local culture that gives you the chance to start a community of web compatibility advocates and contributors.

Get started: Check what activities are going on in your region and create a new locale if it doesn’t exist. Check how to start your own local community, read the Compatibility Guide and become an ambassador for the project!
Translation

Communication is key to any project but even more so for a global one. Websites are made by many developers in many languages, we need to be able to communicate with all of them. You can help make others understand the importance of a compatible web by helping with translations!

Translation
How you can help: Many sites and tools built for Web Compatibility are only in English, your help translating goes a long way to bringing the effort to more countries around the world.
Skills required: Languages: English + more

Description: Web compatibility is a global effort, that has sites and tools which should be available in multiple languages. Translating these can help others get involved, let site owners understand the reported bugs, and help supporters spread the word.

Get started: Check out the translation guide to see where you can help.
User experience and design

We want users and developers to have great experiences with the web compatibility effort. We need great UX and design specialists to help make that happen. Join us to help make the web more open!

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-04-18, 10:09

Does webcompat.com even care about Goanna? I bet they don't.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

BenFenner
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 588
Joined: 2015-06-01, 12:52
Location: US Southeast

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by BenFenner » 2022-04-18, 13:02

I tried the chat feature for www.webcompat.com and what do you know, it works on some browsers but not others. :crazy:
So I reported it as a web compatibility issue to their site. Interesting the "what other browser did you test with?" question doesn't have Firefox as an option. Obviously this a is a Mozzilla project. I guess they just assume people are reporting issues that don't work in Firefox, not the other way around... The hubris abounds.

User avatar
Pallid Planetoid
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4279
Joined: 2015-10-06, 16:59
Location: Los Angeles CA USA

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Pallid Planetoid » 2022-04-18, 17:03

What I get using (http://webcompat.com/simplebug/#mozilla/966310) link (on Pale Moon) - what appears to be a 404 error (and some broken glass :lol:):
using link.png
hmm, does that mean you win the "bet" Moonchild? (well..... not exactly - actually I guess the "issue" linked does not exist... the website https://webcompat.com works but not w/out issues as reported above presumably)
Current Pale Moon(x86) Release | WIN10 | I5 CPU, 1.7 GHz, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD[20GB SSD]
Formerly user Pale Moon Rising - to provide context involving embedded reply threads.
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers
Knowing Pale Moon is indisputably #1 is defined by knowing the totality of browsers. - Pale Moon Rising

BenFenner
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 588
Joined: 2015-06-01, 12:52
Location: US Southeast

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by BenFenner » 2022-04-21, 22:20

Hmm, there was actually movement on the ticket. Kind of surprised.
https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/i ... 1104965427

BenFenner
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 588
Joined: 2015-06-01, 12:52
Location: US Southeast

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by BenFenner » 2022-04-22, 12:49

(Tried to edit my post above but it's too late.)

It seems my report to webcompat is the 9th open issue referencing Pale Moon (another 17 are closed). So they are no strangers to this browser...

The cynic in me wonders if this is actually a way for Mozilla (and by extension Alphabet) to gauge how well they are doing in pushing other options out of the market... :?


Edit: Interesting, their group has even reached out to this forum at least once to report an "issue". This first link leads to the second:
https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/102776
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=28181

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35477
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Contributing to Website Compatibility

Unread post by Moonchild » 2022-04-22, 17:01

BenFenner wrote:
2022-04-22, 12:49
So they are no strangers to this browser...
Mozilla is well-aware that we exist.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Locked