If your use case is so simple that essentially any browser meets your needs, why do you find it strange that others might have different needs?

I never understood why people have such a hard time with choice. And why saying something no longer meets your needs evokes such reactions.

Because safety. Mozilla and others are just making the Web browsers safer.

It was necessary the Internet and explosion of security exploits to realize that although plugins in-process are easier to implement, the older out-of-process architecture was safer and harder to exploit.

> Because safety. Mozilla and others are just making the Web browsers safer.

And yet they broke things like NoScript, which provided security/privacy features missing from plain Firefox and unavailable on any other browser no matter what extensions you installed. If safety was really such a high priority, they would have waited until after a full-featured NoScript WebExtension was possible to implement before deliberately breaking XUL extensions.

Vimperator/Pentadactyl are mostly useful for plain HTML/CSS pages, not webapps :)

They're mostly a way to use the regular browser functions, only with the keyboard rather than the mouse. But this works best for regular sites, and poorly for webapps that use JS-activated links and such.

This is unfortunately true, though it doesn’t have to be. The problem with webapps generated with JavaScript is that it’s tempting to create a custom implementation of built-in functionality. Good old anchor tags are “visible” to screen readers that visually impaired people use to browse the web. Chances are your JavaScript Link hack isn’t because you forgot to include the role=“link” attribute. Keybinding extensions are similarly blind when developers write inaccessible markup.

The solution is for developers to spend a day learning about accessibility. A good starting point is https://webaim.org/intro/.