6 ms·
For another and possibly more egregious example, look at Chrome's <input autocomplete=""> handling [0]. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ar1q
by DCoder 7y ago
For another and possibly more egregious example, look at Chrome's <input autocomplete=""> handling [0].
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ar1qj1/x/egl52wk/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ar1qj1/x/egl52...
- Benjamin_Dobell 7y agoUnfortunately, it's not just Chrome doing stupid stuff with auto-complete. The latest Safari (bundled with Mojave) tries to auto-complete email addresses using your address book. That's not at all a bad idea, except that like most things Apple of late, the implementation sucks. When you give the input box focus, it opens up some sort of weird dialog prompt, which pulls you out of full-screen mode if you had it enabled. Really messed up our 3D web viewer.
- JoshTriplett 7y agoThe user (via their user-agent) should be in complete control of autocomplete, and sites that think otherwise are broken. Mechanisms to specify the semantic nature of a field are great; by all means, make it easy for a user-agent to know what to fill in. But "autocomplete=off" was originally invented because a few large sites (archaic bank sites of the same type that did browser detection and rejected any browser they didn't recognize) wanted to prevent users from using their browser to remember their password. That's not something the site should have control over.
- Dylan16807 7y agoIgnoring "off" isn't so bad, though it could be smarter. Ignoring everything a site says about the nature of a field is awful. I shouldn't have to resort to weird hacks to get chrome to stop picking a random field on a form and pretending it's a username.