Talk:Browser extension/Archive 1

Untitled
The Extensions section states that extensions were first introduced in Internet Explorer 5. Browser Helper Objects were, however, introduced in Internet Explorer 4.0. Are they not extensions? 91.153.95.169 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For our class at the University of Michigan, we are editing this page for our SI 110 course. So far, we have added a line about what programs can be used to create browser extensions and we added an image of the most popular used extension AdBlock Plus. Nhhuq (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I plan to add a table of the top ten most popular extensions for three major browsers: Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Apple Safari. This should give people an idea of the different types of things people commonly use extensions for. GiladGranot (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a section title "Controversy" and briefly described two browser extension removals. Jayneliu (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a little trouble finding how to go back to the previous edits. Anyway, I found that your edited article introduced the reader to what a browser extension was much better than the previously edited article. For example, you described in your first paragraph how browser plugins improve the user interface and by what means they do it in. The unedited version had multiple issues that needed to be fixed - good job on fixing those issues! I also liked that you merged the three sections "plugins," "toolbars," and "privacy" into one section under "functions." That edit made the article easier to read and improved it marginally aesthetically. Furthermore, I found that the addition of "most popular extensions" was a good thing to add since the unedited article was vague when it touched on extensions - it just listed extensions by various browsers and how long each browser supported extensions! Finally, I found that the addition of the "controversies" section did not do much to improve the article. In that section, you only wrote that Google removed two extensions. However, you did not say how removing those extensions was "controversial." Overall, you did a good job on the article! Hrushi11 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has it's good points, but could still use some adjustment. The summary in the introduction was good, and not too lengthy. I don't think the second section should just be "Extensions". That doesn't really help determine what would be in that section, since that's basically the name of the article. It's pretty clearly divided into a past and future of extensions, and a list of popular extensions. Maybe just call it a history? Also, that section could use more references; where did those dates come from? The "Function" section was better, very well balanced and informative, with good references. I did not believe the "Development" or "Controversy" sections added any content. In "Development" the only new idea introduced was about frameworks, but not extensively enough to add anything. I would mention the link in the intro. The "Controversy" section was not informative, or fleshed out enough to justify its own topic; it makes the page less balanced. I think this article was definitely improved from past iterations, but has a little more content than necessary. Ledadaehler (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The introduction should provide a good general understanding of the topic at hand. In this introduction, it vaguely states "extends the functionality ... in some way" and "improve the UI of the web browser." Are there any examples of how extensions improve user experience that could go here that could provide a better concrete understanding while still being brief? Just a suggestion. The idea of the table is a really unique idea. I like how it gives readers a way to relate to extensions they might have on their computer. It gives them an example they are already familiar with to relate with. In the function introductory paragraph, it talks specifically about ad and script blockers, but it isn't very introductory. It's followed by three subheadings that are completely unrelated. Although, the subheadings are nicely developed and I like the links to the main articles too. The development section is also well written and easy to understand. Lastly, I think the controversy is very vague. It should either be expanded on or deleted, I think. Nice see also section and references! Overall, I think this is an extremely helpful article. Nhiggins2013 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Web Extensions
I believe there needs to be a specific section on web extensions. Especially as it is all the rage right now and details about it are rather sparse. - KitchM (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * It is just a new name. Pretty much nothing has changed. The one sentence in the article about WebExtensions is enough, IMHO.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * EXCUSE ME??!? Mozilla "Add-ons" and "WebExtensions" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Starting with Firefox 57, the browser will no longer work with old "Add-ons." "WebExtensions" redirects here, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the article about these two different technologies and their compatibility issues. This is a pretty big omission IMHO. "Pretty much nothing has changed" is COMPLETELY WRONG. - Artificial Silence (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * I am afraid none of this is of any consequence to an encyclopedia. It is like saying cars A and B, even though completely identical both visually and functionally are completely different because their nuts, bolts, pipes, tires, seat covers and glasses are from totally different manufacturers.
 * For an encyclopedia reader, the difference between the two types of frameworks amounts to very technical gobbledegook of very little consequence. For developers, the changes amount to unnecessary headache, having to change the code with no net results. And none of this changes even if you write your whole message in all caps.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * An example: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017 and Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons. It will work in Firefox 52 ESR until ESR moves to Firefox 59 in 2018 (~Q2).
 * There is no "please port it" or "please add support for it" this time. The entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-ons gets dropped.
 * This is significant. Ignoring it here is a mistake. - Artificial Silence (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This subject is already addressed in the Firefox article. It has nothing to with the concept of browser extensions in general.
 * I myself use Firefox. I am aware that starting with the next version, the bulk of my add-ons will stop working, including "HTTPS Everywhere" and "Context Search". If Firefox is becoming Google Chrome, then I might as well move on to Google Chrome.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess this is more Firefox specific... but, the issue is, what Mozilla calls "WebExtensions" is very different from their legacy "Extensions," also called "Add-ons" (in terms of Firefox, "Extensions" are a type of "Add-on"). "WebExtensions" are NOT able to do all of the things that the legacy Extensions can do, mainly change the interface, and add things or take things away from the interface (among other things). There is nothing that can be done for authors of such legacy Extensions to "port" or rewrite their code... there is simply no way it will work in Firefox 57+. The only thing that will work is to use a port of Firefox that keeps legacy extension support, such as Waterfox or Pale Moon (although it remains to be seen if authors porting Firefox will be able to update their port to Firefox 57 or greater and still keep legacy extension support).


 * Since "WebExtensions" redirects here, people looking to read encyclopedic information about what Mozilla is calling "WebExtensions" aren't going to find what they are looking for. Google searching "WebExtensions" returns a vast majority of results that are Mozilla specific. So this redirect doesn't seem appropriate, useful, or user friendly IMHO. Wikipedia editors have a reputation for being out of touch, and this sort of thing doesn't help that. Maybe "Add-on (Mozilla)" would be a more appropriate redirect? Or at least a "{{font color|#8000FF| {{For| }}" heading above this article? - Artificial Silence (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Mycroft Project" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mycroft_Project&redirect=no Mycroft Project] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate/biased wording in history section
The article is clearing trying to push the narrative that all the other browsers adopted Chrome's API due to their low popularity. Although this is not entirely untrue, it's also very one sided. Edge, for example, certainly didn't change to Chromium for the extensions. Firefox also had a multitude of reasons ranging from security to multi threading to maintainability. 2A02:85F:E0BA:AF9F:40C9:4398:B9ED:4C32 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Nowhere does it imply Edge changed for the extensions, it simply states what happened. As for Firefox, its legacy API had to change for the big Electrolysis multi-process change (and they wanted less permissivity too), but the fact is they changed to a very similar API as Chrome's. (Mozilla could've done something different if they wanted, but they chose to conform as stated in the refs.) -Pmffl (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at this again today, I trimmed the Mozilla paragraph to be more neutral. -Pmffl (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)