Red flags for websites

Remote fonts. Fuck that shit.

File: 1456373646141.gif (94KB, 460x258px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 460x258px

>>58831304

>>58831368
What's wrong with remote fonts?

>Disables right-clicking

Has any website done this in the last 10 years? Do browsers even allow it anymore? I remember there being a setting in Firefox to block it but I can't find it now.

>>58831304
>7. Opens popups without the user's request
it's 2017 we JS modal dialog now

>>58831433
Just as bad.

>>58831422
I found it. It was removed from settings in Firefox 3 and is now only available in about:config.

dom.event.contextmenu.enabled = false

>>58831304
>Won't work without javascript enabled
AUTISM

>>58831304
People can post anonymously. Oh wait...

>>58831304
It's not like you were going to give money to any site in the first place, since you're a poor NEET living in a basement.

File: 1478927560424.jpg (50KB, 500x698px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x698px

>1. Won't work without javascript enabled
Its 2017 grandpa, sites need dynamic content
2. Won't work without flash enabled
Well, this is an ok point, but some site won't invest on new front-end if the site is xbox-hueg
3. Targets messages towards and/or denies entry to adblock users
This is probably the only legit complain I see here
4. Infinite scrolling instead of numbered pages
Welcome to modern web faggot, no one like loading entire page nowadays
5. Splits a small article into multiple pages to generate more clicks and/or display transitional ads
Second valid complain, but adblock exist
6. Contains 40MB of javascript moving elements and other bloat cancer when the information the user is looking for is no more than 5-10KB in size
Heard of mobile version of the sites?
Welcome to 2017 again grandpa, you can disable image loading if you have 3rd word countries data caps
7. Opens popups without the user's request
Third valid complain
8. Disables right-clicking
This hasn't been an issue since more than a decade ago or when "view source" of the page was first introduced
9. Will not let the user directly save media such as images or video
Planning on stealing other peoples assets?
10. Embedded social media buttons
Sorry the internet hasn't targeted the basement dwelling neckbeard neet in a long time now
11. Embedded Google-anything
So every site ever?
12. Makes the user consent to being tracked before being allowed to access a page
Its because a law was made to inform users of this behavior, otherwise they would just do it like, they have alwayd did before, ever heard of "cookies"?
Your autism rating is 8/10

I would expect "LEGIT" complains like sites using resolution to determine if they show you the "mobile" version when browsing or crippling the mobile version of basic functionallity present on the desktop version and useful things like that.

>>58831555
projecting much shitlord

File: 2017.png (62KB, 326x212px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 326x212px

>>58831651
>Its 2017 grandpa, sites need dynamic content

File: 1484620247795.jpg (475KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 3264x2448px

>>58831688
>Post a non argument

File: 2017_2.jpg (72KB, 669x664px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 669x664px

>>58831715
It's as much of an argument as stating that it's 2017. So two can play at this game.

>>58831756
Ok.
Web has evolved to a point that it can deliver rich animations and on the fly content so stupid people pay more attention and find what they want from a site more easily, that's what I meant saying its 2017, sites use that to be more user/stupid friendly.
Not a bad thing.

>>58831795
>that's what I meant saying its 2017, sites use that to be more user/stupid friendly.
Then wouldn't a site that panders to stupid people be one that doesn't offer much in the way of intellectual value, thus the red flag?

>>58831947
No because most of the population is stupid, saying that is just an egocentrical thing that elitist and people with superiority complex would feel (AKA Faggots who think that knowing a little about technology make them better than others)

>>58831978
>Faggots who think that knowing a little about technology make them better than others
Isn't tech elitism the whole point of /g/ though?

>>58832026
If you're a 12 year old, yeah

You know what I don't like? It's more obscure, but I don't understand the design of high-end websites.

For example... I was looking at speakers out of curiousity because I wanted to see what the most obnoxious price I could find was, but all the high-end ones have terrible websites.

It's this "experience" they try to throw at you. It's so annoying and pretentious. Almost like they're insecure and feel the need to make the item seem more valuable.

Literally just tell me how much it costs. Make it simple and easy. I was looking at Focal speakers and could not find the price anywhere. Had to go to a review site, that I barely found... Turns out they're $50,000 a piece.

The fuck. Rolls-Royce does this too I believe. Just tell me the fucking price you fucking faggots I don't give a shit about an experience holy shit.

Apple does this the best. Gives you their shitty presentation but on the top right you can instantly click Buy Now (or whatever it is) to skip all that.