Thanks for your comment, Matt. I agree that bugs are unavoidable and it's a part of the software. So I'm with you on that one. I'm super excited by the things being accomplished by the Chrome dev team and I think they're the main reason the web is so important today. Full credit to their ingenuity and hard work.
However, I'm sure you'd agree that some bugs/ aren't acceptable for publishing and should be 'blockers'. So now the question is, what is acceptable and what isn't?
Font rendering is a huge part of the browsing experience. Getting that right should be a priority. The Chrome team was aware of the bug before publishing (therefore it was avoidable). That fact alone makes this bug worth discussing because it wasn't found after publishing.
Since it was avoidable and I'd love to know the reasons why it wasn't considered as a blocker. From what I've seen. There has been no explanation. If there was I'd probably be happy and move on. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this doesn't affect accessibility and it fits within a margin of error. But I'd like to see that first before deciding.
I understand that there are pressures etc but Chrome is 65% + of the browser market share. That's a huge responsibility. All I'm asking is some clarity and openness on why that decision was made.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Thanks for your comment, Matt. I agree that bugs are unavoidable and it's a part of the software. So I'm with you on that one. I'm super excited by the things being accomplished by the Chrome dev team and I think they're the main reason the web is so important today. Full credit to their ingenuity and hard work.
However, I'm sure you'd agree that some bugs/ aren't acceptable for publishing and should be 'blockers'. So now the question is, what is acceptable and what isn't?
Font rendering is a huge part of the browsing experience. Getting that right should be a priority. The Chrome team was aware of the bug before publishing (therefore it was avoidable). That fact alone makes this bug worth discussing because it wasn't found after publishing.
Since it was avoidable and I'd love to know the reasons why it wasn't considered as a blocker. From what I've seen. There has been no explanation. If there was I'd probably be happy and move on. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this doesn't affect accessibility and it fits within a margin of error. But I'd like to see that first before deciding.
I understand that there are pressures etc but Chrome is 65% + of the browser market share. That's a huge responsibility. All I'm asking is some clarity and openness on why that decision was made.