this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
919 points (98.8% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35493 readers
618 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Click a link and need to go back 10x to get back. Yes, I enjoy the footballs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 107 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This could easily be fixed by the browsers but they don't. Sure wish these back button tricks would stop. Especially news sites try to keep you from getting back to your search and makes your page refresh over and over. I wonder if that behavior counts as hits to their advertisers.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't know about "easily." replaceState() is actually intended to make single-page apps easier to use, by allowing you to use your back button as expected even when you're staying on the same URL the entire time.

Likewise, single-page apps are intended to be faster and more efficient than downloading a new static page that's 99.9% identical to the old one every time you change something.

Fixing this bad experience would eliminate the legitimate uses of replaceState().

Now, what they could do is track your browser history "canonically" and fork it off whenever Javascript alters its state, and then allow you to use a keyboard shortcut (Alt + Back, perhaps?) to go to the "canonical" previous item in history instead of to the "forked" previous item.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pop a window open with a your app in it (with the user’s permission) without a back button if you want that.

A web page should be a document, not an experience.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That would absolutely make everything worse, no question; the web should be more integrated, not less. We shouldn't incentivize even more companies to silo off their content into apps.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the word 'app' was being used in place of 'webapp' there, which is the general target audience for this feature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I think you're correct, but using browsers to coerce the web back into static documents will result in companies creating their own apps so that they can continue to deliver experiences. And the past 10+ years has shown that users will absolutely follow them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.

Concerning your points after "using the browser": I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I can handle life without the legitimate use case if it means no more clickjacking bs from companies that should know better

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'd prefer not to let the bad actors dictate browser design.

"Let's get rid of images since companies can use images to spoof browserchrome elements."

"Let's get rid of text since scammers can pretend to be sending messages from the computer's operating system."

"Let's get rid of email since phishing exists."

Nah. We can do some stuff (like the aforementioned forked history) to ameliorate the problem, and if it's well-known enough, companies won't find it necessary anymore. Heck, browsers like Firefox would probably even let you select Canonical Back as the default Back Button behavior, and then you can have the web the way you want it (like people who disable Javascript).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

like people who disable Javascript).

i do that, and i found that a TON of microsoft & bank/work websites just refuse to do anything without it. i love the modern internet /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I get it. But I fear that ship has sailed long ago.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.

I see a bad feature being abused, and I don't see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don't ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've been working in full stack for long enough to know that history manipulation is as much a part of the modern web as images and email. I'm not trying to be flippant, that's just the state of the modern web. Single-page apps are here, and that's a good thing. They're being used badly, and that's endemic to all features. So no, history manipulation is not "bad functionality," though I admit it's not fully baked in its current implementation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I accept that it's how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I get it, but like...the same could be said for emails in a world where phishing exists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that email and browser history are similar enough to make a meaningful comparison, honestly.

Maybe someone could say that, but I am not.

I see a specific instance of a specific bad feature being specifically abused. I don't care to entertain whatabouts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not a whatabout, but since you have your mind made up, by all means don't let me get in your way with facts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I don't think I'm disputing your facts, I was responding to the scenario you presented which was, essentially, "what about email". I would say it's fair that my opinion on a canonical browser history is solid and unlikely to change, though.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago

I just default to opening in a new tab because of shitty UX like this