Are there vendors, browsers or developers who have committed to not adopt this standard?
This gets down to something that used to be a common UI design principle before software became so feature-ful it became impractical: manifest interface.
The idea of a manifest interface (which also is a principle in language and API design) is that if the software has a capability you should be able to see it. You shouldn't have to root around to stumble upon it. Tabs follow this principle; there's enough visual and behavioral cues to suggest that you need to click on a tab. The little "x" in the tab also follows this principle.
But context menus you access by right-clicking break this rule, which means that there may be millions of people laboriously clicking on "x" after "x", unaware that they can make all the extraneous tabs in their browser disappear with just two clicks.
This, by the way, is why Macintoshes were designed with one button on the mouse. But even Mac UI designers couldn't get by with just single and double-click, so you have option-click too, bit by in large you could operate most programs without it.
Anyhow, to make sure people know about this kind of feature, your program is going to have to watch their behavior and suggest they try right clicking. But that way lies Clippy...
What a foul crock of denialist horseshit you just spewed. Shame on you.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
That's true. The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant. Comparing predictive results of climate models to actual measurements shouldn't give anybody the warm fuzzies that climate scientists have any idea what's going on.
Sayeth the noob who didn't think about how long testing the change would take...
Agreed that replacing tested/working code with new "more efficient" code does incur a re-validation cost.
On the other hand, that's also an argument for writing the more-efficient implementation the first time, rather than waiting until some later release. Since you know it's all going to have to go through the testing cycle at least once, why waste your QA group's time testing slow/throwaway code, when you could have them spend that time testing the code you actually want your program to contain? (Assuming all other things are equal, which they often aren't, of course)
The shortest distance from A to B is a straight line.
Comcast wanted to offer me 265 TV channels including HBO for 4 cents more than I was paying for 200Mbit Internet alone. I simply don't watch TV, so I don't need it.
Removing features is what made Firefox great. Firefox became a well-known piece of utter shit when it had added feature after feature and bloated to an enormous, complicated hulk of options lost in hundreds of options. Then alternate browsers came along with their slimmed-down feature sets, and people moved.
Chrome is ditching menu items few people use. It might not die of featuritis.
There has been A LOT of added functionality since Windows 3.1 days! Not just changes in the UI, but changes to security, API's, and so on. Windows, and for that matter other operating systems, are far more complex than they have ever been.
Possibly, but at least developers don't have to deal with the segmented memory model and other 16-bit limitations from Windows 3.1. Writing programs to run in the original 16-bit Windows API was one of the most byzantine things I have ever done.
So many sellers that use the name of the company of the product they are selling that are NOT actually that company. Sorry, but SONOS is not selling Sonos speakers under the name "Sonos Speaker Depot" and they need to insta ban those users doing that crap.
same person that when the brakes you fixed fail and you mow down schoolchildren.
Put your big boy underwear on and take responsibility when you drive a large piece of machinery.
Many people think Trump is an idiot. He is not. He knows exactly what to say in order to make enough people vote for him.
A non-idiot would also know when it is time to stop campaigning for votes and start governing. (or, if his plan was to retain support by remaining permanently in campaign mode, it isn't working)
This country (with no hostile neighbors) will cease to exist if it doesn't spend more on war than the next 7 most militaristic countries combined?
Look at the naive little baby who fell for the "oh we're Canada we're so nice and so sorry about everything no threat here!" act.
Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.