On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:39 AM, <nmork_consult...@cusa.canon.com> wrote: > >> Spinner is not sufficient. All user activity must stop. They can take >> a coffee break if it takes too long. Browser must be frozen and locked >> down completely. No other options are desirable. All tabs, menus, etc. >> must be frozen. That is exactly the desired result. >> > > My browser isn't yours to lock down. My menus aren't yours to freeze. > You don't get to halt my browser, it doesn't belong to you. > > In this case, a freeze on all browser operations is desirable. > > > It may be desirable to you, but it's never desirable to the user, and > users come first. > > This seems rather cold (I wouldn't presume that the described usage is actually bad for the users, not having seen the program in question), though assertion is technically correct (if users are at odds with development of a technical report, users come first). I would point out: It may be cheap for the developer to use synchronous mode, but it's not the UI event loop works, and as such it's almost always a bad proposition for the user. It's not a sustainable coding pattern (what if you want to listen for two operations at the same time?), it's generally a hack all around. It doesn't negate the need for your application to perform sanity checks like "Is the data loaded? Does performing this operation make sense?", even if using synchronous mode *seems* to let you avoid such checks. Maybe there's another reason: Good idea or no, removing this feature DOES break reverse compatibility with the de-facto behavior of many Web browsers. I'm not sure that's reason enough to standardize on the behavior, though. However, it may be enough a reason to file a bug report if the behavior ever breaks (though if they come back and say "it was never standardized behavior to begin with, you shouldn't have been using it in production", I can't really blame that either). Austin Wright.