This quote explains it all:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

It's because the formatting Scratch uses for embedded YouTube videos is outdated. Here's the explanation:

Fupicat wrote:

I noticed the code for embedding the video on Scratch is very different from the code YouTube uses now. I'm guessing Scratch uses an earlier version of embedded videos and fullscreen doesn't work with it anymore because it is unsupported by YouTube.

This is the code Scratch uses:

<iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_S7WEVLbQ-Y?fs=1&amp;rel=0&amp;autoplay=1&amp;showinfo=0" width="538" height="324" frameborder="0"></iframe>

What defines if fullscreen is allowed or not is the “fs=1” argument in the url. As you can see, it's turned on.

And this is the code YouTube currently provides when embedding a video:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_S7WEVLbQ-Y" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What defines if fullscreen is allowed is the presence of the “allowfullscreen” attribute inside the iframe tag as opposed to inside the source url.

The new YouTube embed code defines whether it allows fullscreen in the iframe tag itself instead of in the url. Since the embed url is still the same (youtube.com/embed/blablabla), I assume the new embedded video page ignores arguments in the url and only looks for them in the iframe tag it is in, and since the old code doesn't have the fullscreen attribute in it, like the new code has, it assumes fullscreen is disabled.

If you paste the new embed code in the Scratch page, fullscreen works again.

It actually looks like the format YouTube uses has been updated yet again, to this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_S7WEVLbQ-Y?si=7MDADetW-F3_g-X-" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When you open inspect element and replace the old code with this, fullscreen works again. (see the highlighted code and the fullscreen button)

Before:

After:

EDawg2011 wrote:

WorldOfCountries wrote:

who knows

God knows; ask him.

The ST has better things to do than programming the full-screen thing, like moderating a huge website and developing, and while this might not be the reason, it perfectly explains it.

Scratch is using an outdated format, so this is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed. In fact, I'd argue it should be rather high priority, considering the reason the Scratch has the forums YouTube video viewer in the first place is “to hide comments and other content.” - but when users want to fullscreen and find that they can't, they'll press the “YouTube” logo to go to the original video and fullscreen there, which will end up exposing them to comments and other content anyways. Besides, this is a really easy fix (I literally did it in inspect element). Shouldn't take too much dev time at all.

If you can't answer the question, either put a bit of effort into trying to find the answer, or don't post anything at all, rather than telling someone to just ask God to answer their question, then giving them a completely vague and made up reason. That doesn't seem very helpful in actuality.
source

Scratch is using an outdated format, so this is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed.

Not all “bugs” necessarily need to be fixed. The ability to follow yourself, for example, was not intentional, so it is a bug, but it causes no harm and thus there is no need to fix it.

In fact, I'd argue it should be rather high priority, considering the reason the Scratch has the forums YouTube video viewer in the first place is “to hide comments and other content.” - but when users want to fullscreen and find that they can't, they'll press the “YouTube” logo to go to the original video and fullscreen there, which will end up exposing them to comments and other content anyways.

I can understand this logic, but I don't think this could be considered “high priority” since it would only affect at most 0.1% of Scratchers (since less than 0.1% of Scratchers use the forums).

Besides, this is a really easy fix (I literally did it in inspect element). Shouldn't take too much dev time at all.

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

As OP stated themselves: “The ST has better things to do than programming the full-screen thing.”

Za-Chary wrote:

Scratch is using an outdated format, so this is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed.

Not all “bugs” necessarily need to be fixed. The ability to follow yourself, for example, was not intentional, so it is a bug, but it causes no harm and thus there is no need to fix it.

Okay but ones that present problems do.

Za-Chary wrote:

Besides, this is a really easy fix (I literally did it in inspect element). Shouldn't take too much dev time at all.

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

As OP stated themselves: “The ST has better things to do than programming the full-screen thing.”

I mean it's one line. Plus, it seems to work for youtube, and it seems like both scratch and youtube use the same code so it probably works for scratch too. You could argue that it might not work, but we have no reason to believe that.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#2)

Scratch is using an outdated format, so this is clearly a bug that needs to be fixed.

Not all “bugs” necessarily need to be fixed. The ability to follow yourself, for example, was not intentional, so it is a bug, but it causes no harm and thus there is no need to fix it.

Although those bugs are only a nuance, bugs should still be taken care of. Bugs should be taken care of as it always isn't intended, even if it doesn't cause harm (imagine allowing a bug in a game that allows the player to clip through walls!)

I can understand this logic, but I don't think this could be considered “high priority” since it would only affect at most 0.1% of Scratchers (since less than 0.1% of Scratchers use the forums).

Where did you got this from? Here it says that less than 1% of Scratchers use the forums. Even then the source provided was flagged as outdated, so we could imagine the percentage even more bigger.

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

There have been changes the Scratch Team made onto the website which had been successful for at least most people.

Prime689 wrote:

Although those bugs are only a nuance, bugs should still be taken care of. Bugs should be taken care of as it always isn't intended, even if it doesn't cause harm (imagine allowing a bug in a game that allows the player to clip through walls!)

Sure. But in maintaining a website, many other things take priority. Just because it's a bug that can be fixed doesn't mean that it must be high priority.

Prime689 wrote:

I can understand this logic, but I don't think this could be considered “high priority” since it would only affect at most 0.1% of Scratchers (since less than 0.1% of Scratchers use the forums).

Where did you got this from? Here it says that less than 1% of Scratchers use the forums. Even then the source provided was flagged as outdated, so we could imagine the percentage even more bigger.

@codubee's profile. …Huh, it looks like the specific comment saying it was deleted. That's awkward. I'll stick with saying 1% from now on. I'm not going larger than that, partly because of @codubee's now-unfortunately-deleted comment, and also because I don't imagine the statistic has changed. It was also something that I heard a Scratch Team member say back when I was on the Scratch Team, but of course I recognize that this just seems like hearsay.

Prime689 wrote:

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

There have been changes the Scratch Team made onto the website which had been successful for at least most people.

Correct. Such changes were not necessarily easy, I could imagine. I don't want to belabor this specific point any further, though, because I'm starting to wonder if I'm being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic (which isn't good). Perhaps I just found the tone of the OP off-putting.

Za-Chary wrote:

Correct. Such changes were not necessarily easy, I could imagine. I don't want to belabor this specific point any further, though, because I'm starting to wonder if I'm being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic (which isn't good). Perhaps I just found the tone of the OP off-putting.

Every change big or small requires lots of effort to implement. Testing bugs, device compatibility etc. It definitely takes some resources. However, every change big or small also contributes to improving the site as a whole and in turn the accessibility and cohesiveness of it, increasing usage of the site. If scratch were littered with a bunch of ‘low priority’ bugs and mistakes (although one could wrgue it already is), it would not be as successful as it is. Development costs are certainly not the issue here either considering scratch literally gets millions in donations from their partners yearly.

ThatOneWeirdDude wrote:

Development costs are certainly not the issue here either considering scratch literally gets millions in donations from their partners yearly.

Remember that getting money doesn't mean cost is not an issue. Care needs to be given on what gets prioritized — fixing a single major issue may be higher priority than fixing 30 small issues. The Scratch Team must be responsible with how money is handled, too; they shouldn't be spending yearly close to the amount they earn. I've said this before: If you had $10,000 in your bank account, you wouldn't just go and spend all $10,000 on a brand new car, because if you did, then you would have no money left for food or rent (in that case, spending all $10,000 right away is the irresponsible thing to do). The key in life is to try to spend significantly less than what you currently have in your bank account. (This of course does not work for everybody, particularly those who make barely enough money even to spend on food and rent, but it's a good goal to be able to afford such luxuries while having the willpower to avoid spending so much.)

The rest of your post (the part I didn't quote) is mostly solid. I appreciate your reasonable thoughts.

This should go in Bugs and Glitches, as this is definitely an unintended bug, not suggesting a new feature or anything. I know cause back when the embedded code wasn't outdated, the fullscreen button worked. I forgot how long ago that was, but I've been on Scratch for a while. (reporting to be moved)

Za-Chary wrote:

Not all “bugs” necessarily need to be fixed.

True. But this one does.

Za-Chary wrote:

I can understand this logic, but I don't think this could be considered “high priority” since it would only affect at most 0.1% of Scratchers (since less than 0.1% of Scratchers use the forums).

Za-Chary wrote:

I'll stick with saying 1% from now on.

That statistic needs some context. I'm assuming this is out of the total number of users on Scratch, but I think it would be more fair to have the number of active users as the denominator, as the vast majority of users are inactive. Though it doesn't seem like there's a good way to get the real numbers… oh well, you are right in that people who use the forums are in the minority, but that doesn't change the fact that there're still a lot of people that are active on the forums, and I don't think it would be fair to reject such a small fix just because they are the minority of users. Besides, plenty of people from the main site get directed towards the forums, even if they don't become active on them. For example, when the Scratch Team made this official announcement, they posted a link to the video player, in a big image front and center, and the announcement was accessible from the Scratch home page in the “Scratch News” section iirc.

This bug may not be “high priority” at all, but ultimately, I don't think it matters discussing whether it is or not all that much. It all depends on what the Scratch Team thinks of it as, and all we can do is wait and see if the devs eventually fix it.

Za-Chary wrote:

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

As OP stated themselves: “The ST has better things to do than programming the full-screen thing.”

Obviously, fixing something with inspect element is nowhere near the same as making the fix and implementing it on the scale of the entire website, and I acknowledge that- but I did that to show all it really took was replacing the outdated format. A certain, popular browser extension that I cannot name was able to fix this issue reliably, and it was developed by a single Scratcher. (Of course, you'll just have to take my word for it I suppose, unless other users can come vouch for me, or unless you have the extension yourself.) I understand that this is not the exact same thing, but I believe it's close enough, and in any case, I'm confident that the ST has the adequate resources to fix this bug in the near future.

Za-Chary wrote:

I don't want to belabor this specific point any further, though, because I'm starting to wonder if I'm being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic (which isn't good). Perhaps I just found the tone of the OP off-putting.

It did seem a bit like that, if I'm being honest. Sorry if the tone of the OP was off-putting in any way, though.

za-chary wrote:

“Easy for one person to fix on their device” does not mean “Easy for the Scratch Team to fix and guarantee it works for everybody.”

If this is fixed it would work for everybody as this isn’t a change made on the actual website, it’s a change on YouTube’s embed functionality, which is a part of YouTube, not Scratch (obviously). This change would be extremely easy to do, it would be the same for everyone, and requires little planning. I don’t see any problems.

This isn't really a bug, just a feature that hasn't been implemented. Reporting to be moved to Suggestions.

jumpship wrote:

This isn't really a bug, just a feature that hasn't been implemented. Reporting to be moved to Suggestions.

do you even read???

me wrote:

This should go in Bugs and Glitches, as this is definitely an unintended bug, not suggesting a new feature or anything. I know cause back when the embedded code wasn't outdated, the fullscreen button worked. I forgot how long ago that was, but I've been on Scratch for a while. (reporting to be moved)

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

jumpship wrote:

This isn't really a bug, just a feature that hasn't been implemented. Reporting to be moved to Suggestions.

do you even read???

me wrote:

This should go in Bugs and Glitches, as this is definitely an unintended bug, not suggesting a new feature or anything. I know cause back when the embedded code wasn't outdated, the fullscreen button worked. I forgot how long ago that was, but I've been on Scratch for a while. (reporting to be moved)

why are you saying questions you know the answer to? no, they didn't read.