Maybe some webmaster education to teach people that popping up a dialog begging for Facebook follows or email addresses is generally considered a hardcore dick move? Seriously, who decides to employ those dialogs? A newsletter signup is best embedded in the page itself, as is any social follow ads. To shove them in my face is always rude, and usually means not only am I not going to sign up for your newsletter, but I'm to close out of your page altogether. You lose, go home [and fix your jerky web design].
> Maybe some webmaster education to teach people that popping up a dialog begging for Facebook follows or email addresses is generally considered a hardcore dick move?
That doesn't work. Before Bayesian filtering and Gmail, 90% of my mail was spam. The people who did it knew that it was wrong, they just didn't care. $$$ > almost anything.
I bet it gets enough leads and or sales so that even though it annoys a bunch of users that it is worth it. If it had no conversions they would have stopped doing it by now.
Arguing that etiquette should be observed when you have a lead / sales generation flow doesn't work.
Browsers need a button so the user can categorize a page/site as dickish. In the future, visits to the site will cause the browser to stop with a reminder, similar to the "this page is insecure" dialog, giving the user the option to click through or go back.
Or that monstrous dialog Facebook has on its pages asking its visitors to join Facebook. Annoying on desktop, supremely annoying on mobile. Just another reason I usually don't bother clicking on Facebook links.
It's not like most people had education specifically for this. The truth of the matter is most of us are winging it big time. Hence the wild west improvisation.
It is sad that one of the most powerful CSS features ha been abused to the point where it is now going to be blocked in finicky ways. Modal boxes are quite useful in apps. And they are great for notifications.
But they are annoying when they block everything and prevent you from doing anything further. (I'm looking at you WaPo). I used the clearly extension to bypass things like this. And if that did not work I would go into Dev tools and delete things.
I guess a machine learning approach might be a good approach. But would it learn from all of the benign use cases when people are only reporting negative stuff?
Modal boxes are generally a bad user experience in every case. I'm not going to advocate for blocking them entirely, but certainly I think web developers are over-using them in general (beyond just the intentionally annoying ones Mozilla is hoping to block), and its funny because desktop developers have mostly finally stopped using modals on Windows and Linux. (macOS feels quirky and outdated here now by somewhat recently doubling down on modals for things that don't need to be and probably aren't modal.)
Even for things like confirmations: a user might likely still want to see (and maybe interact with) the thing they are confirming. For instance, if confirming to delete an object, it's still helpful to be able to scroll to see the entirety of the object to double/triple check that it is indeed the object you plan to delete. A overlaying modal always interrupts the user's focus and often gets in the way of otherwise useful information or actions before confirming.
I think the point is not to block all of them, but the annoying "subscribe to our newsletter" ones that pop up even before you've read anything on that site.
That aside: the main reason modals are useful are because they prevent you from doing anything else - sometimes that's needed. If not, a modal is probably not the solution.
I think it would make sense to block modal boxes that show up without any user action, but allow them if there's user action in the chain of events that leads to their appearance. That's how most pop-up blockers work, and it's simple but very effective.
Re: ML - I think it might be possible to do some sort of generic popup-detection: a container that's initially invisible, containing a clickable that the mouse accelerates towards shortly after becoming visible. With opt-in, they could use those detections that aren't reported to identify good use-cases (though sending passive data like that might not be very Mozilla).
The tricky bit will be getting rid of the darkened full-screen overlay as well as the modal, but I guess you could track element visibility changes/removals around the same instant as the mouse click.
WaPo 'you've read enough' block is usually defeated by using Private mode, so they can't easily track article views.
That said, paywalls on news sites have made me realize two things: good journalism needs monitary support, and that news is so expensive I can only afford to support one, maybe two news outlets. Vicious.
What's a good example of a page-blocking modal box? I never found one that wouldn't be better as a pop-up, like the new email dialog on Gmail, or as extra content to the main page, like most confirmation dialogs.
I'm torn on this. On one hand, yes, these modals are some of the most annoying parts of the web and are really ruining the experience on lots of pages. But on the other hand, why should Mozilla (or any browser) get to start fiddling with the content of web pages? If Comcast announced they were doing this, HN would be up in arms about how they were modifying traffic. I'm aware of the browser vs service provider difference, but the end result is the same. Suppose Google decided that it doesn't like websites with bad color schemes so it's going to have Chrome automatically update some websites to use their material design style? Suppose Microsoft decides that websites with small font aren't friendly enough to people with vision problems so they start upsizing all font below size ten in IE? The point is - the browser should render what it's given. If the user wants to modify that, use a plugin.
There's a reason that the more generic name for a browser is user agent. That is, they are agents serving at the behest of the user, not the server.
> Suppose Microsoft decides that websites with small font aren't friendly enough to people with vision problems so they start upsizing all font below size ten in IE?
This is somewhat humorous for me, because one of the first things I do to my Firefox installs is lock the font and set a minimum font size that I can read. The most broken sites by far are internal ones at my company, where no one has given a damn about usability or ADA. Most public sites handle it just fine.
They would do something like detect the popups and then inject ads for additional Comcast services into them. And they would do it secretively rather than making a public announcement beforehand. And they would hassle customers to no end about switching services in protest of that behavior, whereas most browsers would just provide a checkbox for turning it off.
I guess that puts you against Reader Mode, too, then? The difference between the cases you cite and a browser is the locus of control. As long as I, the user, am in control of how my browser renders the content it's given, it's nobody's business but my own.
> If Comcast announced they were doing this, HN would be up in arms about how they were modifying traffic. I'm aware of the browser vs service provider difference, but the end result is the same.
I wouldn't as easily dismiss the difference between the browser vs a service provider, but regardless, I assume Mozilla will make it an option you can turn on or off at will. I doubt Comcast would do the same.
If Mozilla comes out with something that changes content without user's choice, I'm willing to bet HN will justifiably be up in arms.
What about the _user_? I'd like a easily-enabled option that gets rid of _all_ pop-up, pop-under, modal, whatever junk. Why isn't Mozilla providing that? It shouldn't be a matter of Chrome, or Mozilla, or whoever deciding. It should be a matter of the user deciding.
(And is there really a plugin for that? One that gets rid of all the junk, all the time? If so, it needs to be publicized.)
The most annoying ones for me are the ones that trigger when your cursor leaves the tab. TheHackerNews.com (unrelated to HN) does this constantly. Would it be too drastic to just disallow mousemove events? I see no good use for them outside of needless analytics and bugging users when they try to leave your site.
I have had this extension installed for about a day and already reported numerous in page pop ups. Not only does it feel good to help a blocking effort, it's also a good vent for the anger caused by these things.
There will be a few fairly simple ways to block these - probably some libraries or pieces of code reused by almost all websites employing these UX-crimes.
As mentioned before, maybe the solution is to just block mousemove events.
How about just make a time machine and stop the Netscape from creating JS. I think it was a mistake adding a client side language to the web standards.
I think we need blacklists. When I access a URL, the browser should check if it is present in the blacklist. If present, compare the reason of the blacklist (for example adblock avoidance system) and check the associated action specified by the user (for example, block the site or ask for a confirmation). Users would be able to choose the blacklist he prefers and to report missing sites.
I‘m really curious how this will play along with GDPR, which will pretty much absolutely need forced modals in order to to legally capture tracking consent. It could also create interesting legal constellations: How do you prove you asked for user consent when your client side code was blocked or modified?
Shitty sites like Reddit hide the scrollbar until you manually click the button that makes the popup disappear, so automatically hiding the popups is going to break them.
I wish the browser could present a huge screen (2000px high or bigger) to the webpage and render it.
After that I would love to scroll this viewport without the page even knowing about it.
This would resolve all problems with position fixed and also block the page from showing real modals once scrolling starts.
Float-overs and ridiculous full-width bars are some of the most annoying "innovations" that have appeared in recent years. But I don't see why browsers have to do anything - the publishers clearly like the way their pages work and consider it worthwhile.
Blocking things like this is different from blocking third-party advertising in my mind. I should be able to stop my browser from contacting a third-party site.
If the author of a page wants to see a float-over then so be it. I can choose to close the tab and not come back.
Detecting popups like this automatically seems like it will be more of a cat & mouse game with developers trying to find ways around it and then a bunch of legitimate use cases being blocked out.
And Firefox still hasn't fixed their issues with native popups: http://fan-pages.herokuapp.com (WARNING: if you use FF it may crash your browser)
How is this possible? Real popups windows were mostly blocked by only allowing them in user event handlers (sketchy sites like bittorrent trackers can still create popup windows because you have to click on the site at some point).
But an in-page popup window can be created in loads of different ways. I can't see a general heuristic you could apply to detect them.
Worst offenders are iZooto guys peddling their crappy web notifications fixed position dialog all over the Indian news sites. Solves no purpose other than steal good amount of space on the screen. Waiting for either their junk product to die or Mozilla to release this blocker soon.
Makes me think of what you often hear that browsers are the new operating systems. They definitely are, even in the worst vices: here we go, we also need the antivirus now.
I think it is about time we rethink the whole web to the foundations. In the meantime we can install Lynx.
[+] [-] culot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oblio|8 years ago|reply
That doesn't work. Before Bayesian filtering and Gmail, 90% of my mail was spam. The people who did it knew that it was wrong, they just didn't care. $$$ > almost anything.
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|8 years ago|reply
Arguing that etiquette should be observed when you have a lead / sales generation flow doesn't work.
[+] [-] wang_li|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toxican|8 years ago|reply
Usually some out of touch marketing, SEO, advertising, etc. person. Most web developers aren't the decision makers in situations like this.
[+] [-] bhauer|8 years ago|reply
Or that monstrous dialog Facebook has on its pages asking its visitors to join Facebook. Annoying on desktop, supremely annoying on mobile. Just another reason I usually don't bother clicking on Facebook links.
[+] [-] kolpa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gboudrias|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Turqueso|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hotwire|8 years ago|reply
I'm clicking it more and more these days - even those damn fixed navs that take up a stupid percentage of the screen give me the shits.
If clicking the bookmarklet doesn't get rid of your stupid modal newsletter sign up or annoying sticky nav, I'm just closing the tab.
Here's the bookmarklet btw:
javascript:(function()%7B(function () %7Bvar i%2C elements %3D document.querySelectorAll('body *')%3Bfor (i %3D 0%3B i < elements.length%3B i%2B%2B) %7Bif (getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'fixed') %7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()
[+] [-] nashashmi|8 years ago|reply
But they are annoying when they block everything and prevent you from doing anything further. (I'm looking at you WaPo). I used the clearly extension to bypass things like this. And if that did not work I would go into Dev tools and delete things.
I guess a machine learning approach might be a good approach. But would it learn from all of the benign use cases when people are only reporting negative stuff?
[+] [-] WorldMaker|8 years ago|reply
Even for things like confirmations: a user might likely still want to see (and maybe interact with) the thing they are confirming. For instance, if confirming to delete an object, it's still helpful to be able to scroll to see the entirety of the object to double/triple check that it is indeed the object you plan to delete. A overlaying modal always interrupts the user's focus and often gets in the way of otherwise useful information or actions before confirming.
[+] [-] Vinnl|8 years ago|reply
I think the point is not to block all of them, but the annoying "subscribe to our newsletter" ones that pop up even before you've read anything on that site.
That aside: the main reason modals are useful are because they prevent you from doing anything else - sometimes that's needed. If not, a modal is probably not the solution.
[+] [-] kijin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RossM|8 years ago|reply
The tricky bit will be getting rid of the darkened full-screen overlay as well as the modal, but I guess you could track element visibility changes/removals around the same instant as the mouse click.
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
I.e., allow web-apps to request permissions, and allow users to grant those permissions. In a way that is not intrusive.
Then, I can see this work, and actually be useful.
[+] [-] petee|8 years ago|reply
That said, paywalls on news sites have made me realize two things: good journalism needs monitary support, and that news is so expensive I can only afford to support one, maybe two news outlets. Vicious.
[+] [-] ep103|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mFixman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slezyr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cddotdotslash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdmichal|8 years ago|reply
> Suppose Microsoft decides that websites with small font aren't friendly enough to people with vision problems so they start upsizing all font below size ten in IE?
This is somewhat humorous for me, because one of the first things I do to my Firefox installs is lock the font and set a minimum font size that I can read. The most broken sites by far are internal ones at my company, where no one has given a damn about usability or ADA. Most public sites handle it just fine.
[+] [-] bunderbunder|8 years ago|reply
But they wouldn't do this.
They would do something like detect the popups and then inject ads for additional Comcast services into them. And they would do it secretively rather than making a public announcement beforehand. And they would hassle customers to no end about switching services in protest of that behavior, whereas most browsers would just provide a checkbox for turning it off.
Comcast is in no way a victim here.
[+] [-] mikro2nd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dec0dedab0de|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antsar|8 years ago|reply
Maybe we can do better?
The browser should render what it's given by default. If the user wants to modify that, change a setting
[+] [-] robteix|8 years ago|reply
I wouldn't as easily dismiss the difference between the browser vs a service provider, but regardless, I assume Mozilla will make it an option you can turn on or off at will. I doubt Comcast would do the same.
If Mozilla comes out with something that changes content without user's choice, I'm willing to bet HN will justifiably be up in arms.
[+] [-] neves|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgottenpass|8 years ago|reply
They started blocking new-window popups 15 years ago. It's a little late to put the cat back in the bag.
[+] [-] c3833174|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radford-neal|8 years ago|reply
(And is there really a plugin for that? One that gets rid of all the junk, all the time? If so, it needs to be publicized.)
[+] [-] kpwags|8 years ago|reply
Comcast probably wouldn't offer this option...or if they did, they'd charge you more for it.
[+] [-] vorpalhex|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kroltan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] franga2000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vinnl|8 years ago|reply
Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/in-page-pop-up-rep...
(both for reporting such pop-ups - the blocking hasn't been implemented yet.)
[+] [-] zaarn|8 years ago|reply
That would be quite amazing, some newspaper outlets have that annoying inpage popup that nags me on disabling adblocker.
And if you dismiss it, it shows up every 5 seconds. And that's not even exaggerated. It was legit 5 seconds.
[+] [-] solarkraft|8 years ago|reply
There will be a few fairly simple ways to block these - probably some libraries or pieces of code reused by almost all websites employing these UX-crimes. As mentioned before, maybe the solution is to just block mousemove events.
[+] [-] anfilt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reacweb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endymi0n|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yAnonymous|8 years ago|reply
I like it.
[+] [-] austincheney|8 years ago|reply
If Mozilla really wanted to block actual popups could do so directly by directly removing the userland functionality spawns a new browser window.
[+] [-] atesti|8 years ago|reply
This would resolve all problems with position fixed and also block the page from showing real modals once scrolling starts.
[+] [-] AndrewStephens|8 years ago|reply
Blocking things like this is different from blocking third-party advertising in my mind. I should be able to stop my browser from contacting a third-party site.
If the author of a page wants to see a float-over then so be it. I can choose to close the tab and not come back.
[+] [-] wybiral|8 years ago|reply
And Firefox still hasn't fixed their issues with native popups: http://fan-pages.herokuapp.com (WARNING: if you use FF it may crash your browser)
[+] [-] IshKebab|8 years ago|reply
But an in-page popup window can be created in loads of different ways. I can't see a general heuristic you could apply to detect them.
[+] [-] option_greek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dullgiulio|8 years ago|reply
I think it is about time we rethink the whole web to the foundations. In the meantime we can install Lynx.
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|8 years ago|reply