You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm inquiring about the level of friction required to install an extension which replaces your new tab.
First you accept a modal which disclaims your new tab will be replaced.
Then the extension gets disabled and you would have to click the secondary button to proceed to re-enable.
Then you have to enable the extension.
Then you are shown a dropdown which checks in if you wanted your new tab replaced.
We understand the need to notify / warn users about new tab replacing extensions as there is legitimate concern there. Is disabling the extension after the user has just granted it permission to replace the new tab the best way to go about this? We're curious about the rational behind this decision. If the initial disclaimer is not sufficient, could that be made more prominent instead?
Is there something we can do differently on our end to prevent automatic disabling of the extension?
Chrome, just has steps 1 and 4, which seems reasonable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @Sporradik, thank you for reaching out. We have noted your query and will forward it to our team for further verification. We will get back to you once we have an update.
I'm inquiring about the level of friction required to install an extension which replaces your new tab.
We understand the need to notify / warn users about new tab replacing extensions as there is legitimate concern there. Is disabling the extension after the user has just granted it permission to replace the new tab the best way to go about this? We're curious about the rational behind this decision. If the initial disclaimer is not sufficient, could that be made more prominent instead?
Is there something we can do differently on our end to prevent automatic disabling of the extension?
Chrome, just has steps 1 and 4, which seems reasonable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: