Manifest V3, in development since late 2018, includes broad changes to how Chrome extensions work. See Also: Teens Spend More Than Half Of Their Daily Video Consumption On These Two Apps Upon Google’s switch to Manifest V3, these extensions will be automatically disabled, and users can no longer install them from the Chrome Web Store. Manifest V2 extensions will be disabled in Chrome Dev, Canary, and Beta builds as early as June 2024. (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) company aims to implement these changes by July 2024. What Happened: Google has announced that it is resuming plans to overhaul how extensions function on Chrome, threatening how several extensions, including the popular uBlock Origin ad blocker, work. This lets extensions modify network requests without intercepting them and viewing their content, providing more privacy.One of the most popular Google Chrome ad blockers, uBlock Origin, will soon stop working, with Google announcing that it is going ahead with implementing a new change in the Chrome browser. Using declarativeNetRequest, you can block or modify network requests by specifying declarative rules. Do this using the Declarative Net Request API. Instead of intercepting network requests and altering them at runtime with chrome.webRequest, your extension specifies rules that describe actions to perform when a given set of conditions is met. Manifest V3 changes how extensions handle modification of network requests. V3's has declarative blocking/redirecting of things vs v2's read/write access to all network requests on any page. Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. Firefox for example is keeping the old style as an option while still implementing support for MV3 and the declarative option: It isn't the manifest version directly that is doing this, just the permissions/api changes that are happening at the same time. Is it gestures why they would change the browser? Only if it also fulfills all the above. They like privacy features, like Firefox containers. They want that websites work on that browser. Whether the browser looks ”native” to the platform, is minor concern. They want to configure things and see the websites. The more advanced user, more settings buttons they want to see, and better extension support. If you compete with Safari on this, Safari already won becausd it was pre-installed. Basic end-user does not notice that <5% performance gain what focusing on single platform target might benefit. The basic end-user is usually satisfied with search bar and being able to organize tabs and bookmarks. Users still likely use mouse and scroll wheel for doing that. You want to see the websites, not the browser. Ideally, browser is used for browsing the internet. That might be true, but in the end, does it matter? And what is good? If user buys Mac, does it mean that they wants everything to be Mac-like? There is already Safari. That is not a sign of maturity if you ask me. I doubt they look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of lost in translation. So at least to me, they look 'young' and unpolished on a Mac despite being 20 years old. > Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. (Orion dev here, if it was not obvious)Įven if the browser would be the best browser on the Mac from UX side, people might not use it because they can’t use it elsewhere.įor example, every devoloper who currently buys Mac because of its power efficiency, that user base which is the most interested about privacy, is likely not adapting it because they use other operating systems too. We'd like to build similar native experiences for other platforms, but you have to start somewhere. Orion may be called young for many things, but not being cross-platform is not one of them. If that is a sign of maturity, then they did not age well. I doubt they even look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of hopelessly lost in translation. Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. This is exactly because they are cross-platform and have to carry the burden of being built by a committee on all these platforms. They do not use native controls and do not integrate native services. On the other hand, browsers like Chrome and Firefox are not native on Mac and look out of place when used on macOS. This specialization may be seen as a sign of maturity and devotion to a well-built, native user experience. The goal of Orion is not to go for maximum possible market share, but to be the best browser for Mac. I'd say that does not make a browser young, otherwise you would have to call Safari young too.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |