[FEATURE] Setting to select the browser that links are opened with 🔗

[lfr]

These days many of us have different browsers, in keeping with Signal's privacy DNA, it would be nice to be able pick the browser that opens links that we receive via the desktop app, as opposed to the OS default browser that might be work imposed.

[EvanHahn-Signal]

Thanks. I've filed this as a feature request.

[jrial]

Not sure this warrants attention. Most people who are in a position to install third party apps for personal use, such as Signal, on their computers are in full control of that computer, and can set their preferred browser on the system level. For the few that don't, the workaround is to right-click on the URL, click "copy link", switching to the browser, opening a new tab, and pasting the link in the URL bar. This takes all of 5 seconds without having to to rush.

I don't feel that removing this small inconvenience for such a small number of affected users warrants the extra clutter of having an extra setting for "preferred browser" (and associated code to maintain) in each and every application capable of displaying hyperlinks.

My two cents? Focus on stuff that benefits a reasonable number of users, and be brave enough to say no to adding technical debt that benefits a handful of users only. Especially when there's a workaround. More so when that workaround amounts to only a minor inconvenience.

[lfr]

@jrial here's my 3 cents:

• Those 5 seconds are far from insignificant if you're a heavy user of Signal or WhatsApp transitioning to Signal
• Even if you can change the default browser, this is a system-wide change which may not work for everyone's workflow, i.e. most of the links I open in my work computer are work-related and should be opened in the work browser, but 100% my Signal links are personal and I may want to open them in Brave (since you mention being brave)
• Default browser can be affected by corporate policy, meaning you can have the right to install signal without being able to change the default browser, or that change being reset upon signing in

[jrial]

I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it, nor do I think it's the project's responsibility to cater to it at the expense of adding UI clutter for every other user, and technical debt for the maintainers.

1. I never said that people who can install their own applications but not change their default browser don't exist. I said they were a negligible minority not worth catering to at the expense of maintainability for the team and UI simplicity for the majority of users.
2. Likewise for people who separate their browsing between work and private browsers. Most use their preferred browser for both. The only ones affected are those who need a particular work browser because their personal browser lacks certain functionality. Which again is a very small minority now that most browsers are compatible.
3. As for whether those 5 seconds (actually more like 2-3) per link add up or not, that depends depend on how many URLs you open on a daily basis. But on work machines where you don't have control over all the settings: if the extra couple of seconds to copy/paste a hyperlink into your browser add up sufficiently for you to lose an appreciable amount of time, then the couple of minutes you spend on each personal URL, not to mention the hours spent in personal conversations, will certainly add up to an appreciable amount of your employer's time. Not that I'm here to police you; I also got Slack, WhatsApp, Signal, Hangouts, Twitter etc... open on my work machine, and I'm certainly not above clicking on a link to 9gag during work hours. But it does weaken the argument that this is an issue worth addressing.
4. Even ignoring the previous point, it's pretty hard to argue that two mouse clicks, three keyboard shortcuts and one keypress are onerous enough that someone else needs to spend a couple of hours of their time, and complicate the application, just to shorten that to a single mouse click for a small minority of users. At least, unless you can demonstrate sufficient demand so that the total time spent by all users outweighs the required effort. For which I refer, again, to points 1 and 2.

I can only reiterate that since this is an improvement that only benefits a very small, very specific minority, and the arguments presented so far seem to have little merit, I don't believe it is worth implementing, for three reasons:

1. It takes resources away from other, more important issues.
2. It adds technical debt for a frivolous feature.
3. It adds extra clutter for every other user of the application, just to cater to a use case that impacts a handful of people at most.

And for what it's worth: I'm not saying you don't have a valid reason. I'm just saying that so far you haven't provided a compelling argument yet.

If you believe my reasoning is in error, feel free to explain what I'm missing. I'm not discounting the possibility that I may have missed something and am therefore in error. If not, then neither of us has anything to add. Let's just agree to disagree then. We both presented our views. The decision isn't ours, and won't be influenced by mere repetition of what's already been said.

Cheers, and have a nice rest of your day.

[chiraag-nataraj]

I don't really have a huge preference in this discussion, but I wanted to comment on one thing:

The only ones affected are those who need a particular work browser because their personal browser lacks certain functionality. Which again is a very small minority now that most browsers are compatible.

This is absolutely false. For example, for privacy and security reasons, I have 4 different browser profiles: One as my 'default' profile (general web browsing), one as my 'fail safe' profile (slightly lower levels of privacy, but still well above the defaults), one for all of my webapps (WhatsApp, Messenger, Whereby, forums, etc), and a dynamically-generated temporary profile (fresh, in case all else fails). All of these are the same browser (Firefox), just tuned in various ways.

Sometimes, I'll know that a link I'm opening will need the 'fail safe' profile (one-off site I don't need to setup content blocker rules for, for example), while other times I want to open the site in my 'default' profile. Obviously this is a pretty niche workflow, but I wanted to point out that this issue affects far more than just personal vs work browsing.

For what it's worth, I think your workaround is entirely reasonable, but this is partly because that is what I have been doing with all links for a long time now! That is, that workflow isn't unique to Signal for me, since I usually copy-paste all links into the specific browser profile I want to open them in.

[kwikwag]

For users with privacy concerns, how the app interacts seamlessly with external applications is a crucial one. This should not be restricted to browser links, but to any interaction of the app that communicates with external apps.

@jrial In response to your comments,

It takes resources away from other, more important issues.

Then put it in the backlog, no need to dismiss it. The amount of energy you put in to formulating a response could be invested in fixing the issue.

It adds technical debt for a frivolous feature.

Many features are frivolous, e.g. 'Hide menu bar' setting. But they add up into making a useful app.

It adds extra clutter for every other user of the application, just to cater to a use case that impacts a handful of people at most.

Settings are often a place of clutter. But they are enablers more than they are disablers. Plus you could push clutter into an "Advanced" section.

[crocodilus]

@lfr have you heard of utilities like choosyosx.com? There are similar ones for windows, but I haven't yet found one that can automatically choose a browser based on which app the link is launched from. Just a thought...

[lfr]

@crocodilus it's a good idea, but I've checked a few of them and it's all rules based on websites, not apps like you say, so this won't solve the problem, but what would solve the problem and it's the way I handle it for WhatsApp is if Signal makes a web client, that way I can just run it directly in the browser meant to open my personal links.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[lfr]

I believe this feature request shouldn't go stale, as a privacy focused messaging app, being able to specify which browser to open links with should be part of the roadmap.

[indutny-signal]

Assigning to myself to keep this feature request alive.

[alanna]

I would love this feature please! For exactly the reasons mentioned above. My default browser is for work and needs to stay that way, but all my signal links are personal and I want them to open in my personal browser, which is different. I am using the workaround to copy link and paste in my preferred browser, but it's a constant pain.

I don't believe 'UI clutter' is really an issue. Give us a big honking list of all the options in settings and let users pay attention to the ones we care about. It's not a problem.