Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by ernst on Thursday February 06, 2014 @06:47AM
(#7189862)
I lolled at "as not yet seen on" too.
The proxy issue is indeed unacceptable.
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by thehodge on Thursday February 06, 2014 @06:23AM
(#7189790)
I had a chuckle at that, and the links to tweet them was a nice touch :)
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by jamessb on Thursday February 06, 2014 @06:53AM
(#7189881)
With Firefox 27 (or Safari 7.0.1) on a MBP running Mavericks I get the error:
"Bummer! Creating a Snapbugz currently only works on desktop computers."
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by pornel on Thursday February 06, 2014 @07:12AM
(#7189922)
Where can I discuss that bug? ;)
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by grexi on Thursday February 06, 2014 @07:18AM
(#7189948)
For all having this "desktop" issue on real desktops - please give us more information via hello @ snapbugz.com. Kudos!
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by pornel on Thursday February 06, 2014 @08:34AM
(#7190240)
My suggestion is instead of chasing UA sniffing (which is a losing proposition), just give up on blocking "mobile" or any kind of browser.
FWIW my mobile browser is just as capable as my desktop and as long as you don't block zooming I can deal with an "unoptimized" layout.
Re:Show HN: Snapbugz – The easiest way to discuss bugs.
by grexi on Thursday February 06, 2014 @08:47AM
(#7190309)
The creation part of snapbugz is just not ready for mobile/touch usage as UX patterns on the annotation part are different. However, the result / collaboration part is already finished: http://www.snapbugz.com/p/88a7a69a
Latest Chrome probably shouldn't have this.
> "As not yet seen on:"
Putting this at the bottom of the page with a list of popular website's icons is disingenuous to say the least.
It's also not clear to the user, but this service silently proxies any site you go to with little concession for what the user might be doing. Given that they're already being so unpleasant with the bottom links, I wouldn't hesitate to think that they are capturing user content as well. Even if they aren't collecting private data, they're stripping SSL data and serving it back up in plain text.
Completely unacceptable.