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.
Comment on Redirect to prevent back button
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week agoI 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.
4am@lemmy.world 1 week ago
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
ggppjj@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think the word ‘app’ was being used in place of ‘webapp’ there, which is the general target audience for this feature.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
I can handle life without the legitimate use case if it means no more clickjacking bs from companies that should know better
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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).
gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
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
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah, I get it. But I fear that ship has sailed long ago.
ggppjj@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Image