Great. Can we do ctrl-f search hijacking next. So jarring when websites replace core functionality with their own broken crap because they think they’re special. Some also seem to hijack right click menu now
Don't get me started on scroll hijacking.
A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
251–260 of 532 posts
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#252Great. Can we do ctrl-f search hijacking next. So jarring when websites replace core functionality with their own broken crap because they think they’re special. Some also seem to hijack right click menu now
This misses the point. Websites are allowed to replace default keyboard shortcuts for a reason. There are only a few exceptions to this, like Ctrl+W. In other words, you can design your website however you want, except to make it more difficult to leave. This is an implementation of the same philosophy.
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fix is to not to implement anti-user patterns. What you're describing is a loophole around it.
> The fix is to not to implement anti-user patterns. That's not a fix the user can implement themselves. Holding down the back button is comparatively trivial.
Why on Earth would the user be expected to implement a fix for a problem they didn't cause themselves in the first place?
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#254Ok, you can start with LinkedIn, I'll wait... If you are wondering how it works. You get a link from LinkedIn, it's from an email or just a post someone shared. You click on it, the URL loads, and you read the post. When you click the back button, you aren't taken back to wherever you came from. Instead, your LinkedIn feed loads. How did it happen? When you landed on the first link, the URL is replaced with the homep…
and then if you click the back button again it just reloads the page, trapped in a vicious loop!
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#255I hope this applies to Android as well. Reddit is a particularly egregious offender.
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#256Frustrating it took this long for something to be done about this, but glad its now got something being done.
> When a user clicks the "back" button in the browser, they have a clear expectation: they want to return to the previous page. Back button hijacking breaks this fundamental expectation. It seems pretty stupid. Instead of expanding the SEO policy bureaucracy to address a situation where a spammer hijacks the back button, the browser should have been designed in the first place to never allow that hijacking to happen.…
Especially since, who cares about traditional SEO any more?
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#257How does this work? How can a site inject a totally different site into the history? I thought eg the History API only lets you add to the stack and pop, not modify history?
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing loaded from the web should be able to fiddle with any browser behavior, yet here we are.
It should be opt-in per website, per feature, because IMO it can be quite useful in some cases. Like clicking back on a slide-show bringing you to the overview page, instead of only going back one slide
> clicking back on a slide-show bringing you to the overview page
That behavior is expected in exactly one case (assuming slides, not the whole presentation, are modeled as a page each): If I navigated to that specific slide from the overview.
In any other scenario, this behavior amounts to breaking my back button, and I'll probably never visit the site again if I have that choice.
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#259> Notably, some instances of back button hijacking may originate from the site's ... advertising platform I feel like anything loaded from a third party domain shouldn't be allowed to fiddle with the history stack.
anything loaded from a third party domain shouldn't be allowed to run scripts.
That restriction would both be trivial to circumvent by malicious advertisers and annoying for many legitimate web concepts.
Re: A new spam policy for “back button hijacking”
#260Great. Can we do ctrl-f search hijacking next. So jarring when websites replace core functionality with their own broken crap because they think they’re special. Some also seem to hijack right click menu now
This misses the point. Websites are allowed to replace default keyboard shortcuts for a reason. There are only a few exceptions to this, like Ctrl+W. In other words, you can design your website however you want, except to make it more difficult to leave. This is an implementation of the same philosophy.
> you can design your website however you want, except to make it more difficult to leave.
Who decreed that page navigation is in scope and search navigation is outside?