4 ms·

If anything, I get a little chuckle when I see this stuff. I'm sure we've all been there trying to make things clearer for the user. That said, I'm more concer

by alttab 10y ago

If anything, I get a little chuckle when I see this stuff. I'm sure we've all been there trying to make things clearer for the user. That said, I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't go to any web page these days without getting one of these pop-ups. It's even worse when the pop-up comes 20 seconds later since loading all of the Javascript takes a while on mobile - and then shows up halfway down the page. It's even worse when being scrolled down the page prevents the widget from rendering correctly. The internet is quickly becoming a ghetto, and other parts of the internet (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit) are getting incrementally controlled and censored. ... Sigh ...

coldpie 10y ago
NoScript, my friend! Sadly no good solution for mobile.
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  What's wrong with NoScript on mobile? Just breaks too many sites?
  - JohnTHaller 10y ago
    Parent is likely talking about Chrome since it doesn't support extensions. Firefox on Android can use NoScript, uBlock or what have you without missing a beat.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Yeap! https://noscript.net/nsa/ https://noscript.net/nsa/
      - pasbesoin 10y ago
        Just getting a new phone set up with what I want. So, hadn't looked for it, previously. By viewing the addons.mozilla.org NoScript entry and then clicking on "View All Versions", I was able to find a mobile (NSA) version in the version history. I started with that, as I'm leery of installing from third parties until I have some confidence that the source is authentic and uncompromised. I'd appreciate some feedback on the current thinking / best practice for installing NoScript (Anywhere?) on Firefox mobile (on Android 6).
    - coldpie 10y ago
      No, I use Firefox. I just find NoScript on mobile to be way too much of a pain to use, so I don't think of it as a "good" solution. Maybe they've updated in their UI since I tried it a year or two again?
- ryan-c 10y ago
  I ran into a site (tweaktown) recently that redirects you to an ad-blocker shame page if you block ads (they try to circumvent, though) or disable javascript (meta refresh wrapped in a noscript tag).
  - J_Darnley 10y ago
    Thank god that NoScript has an option to catch those redirects. Whenever I see them the page has rendered just fine without needing to anything special for the script-less.
  - rdiddly 10y ago
    Yeah I see a fair amount of adblock-shaming on a routine basis now. How many of these beggars turn around and speak ill of homeless people begging on the street?
    - alttab 10y ago
      I love the Forbes.com one that said I should disable ad-block for a better experience - an experience they just made worse by preventing me from reading whatever half-assed article their editor approved.
pekk 10y ago
The practice isn't designed to make things clearer for the user, it's a dark pattern. It's designed so that the user either doesn't notice or feels guilty about choosing to opt out. If you wanted to design a clearer interface, you wouldn't hide the "no" option, you'd make it parallel to and near the "yes" option so it was clearly conveyed that you have two options.
acangiano 10y ago
> I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't go to any web page these days without getting one of these pop-ups. People use these pop-ups (Landing Pages, Optinmonster, etc) because they are extremely effective at capturing emails. Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply. The site has now converted a random passer-by, into someone who might continue to receive new content (and marketing material) in the future. Nothing comes even close to the ROI that you get from people subscribing to your mailing list. Note that I'm not talking about whether this is right or wrong, just that it's done for a very good reason. Would I put a pop-up form on a programming blog? Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. When you don't see one it's often either an ethical choice (the site owner decided to maximize user experience, not profit) or lack of knowledge of how effective these pop-ups are.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  >"Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply." ... especially if you shame them into it!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gedrap 10y ago
  Exactly. >>> Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. This. Most (all?) of the mentioned ones are run by companies, not individuals who are not seeking any profit or anything. In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. Some sneaky checkbox to receive spam is bad. Sneaky checkbox for addon when purchasing is horribly bad. But pop up with email field? Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. At the end, it's a business decision whether it's worth annoying some users in order to extract more value later from a fraction of them and it's the users choice to accept or not. It's a personal choice, to each their own. You think the UX is so crap because of it and surely something better can be done? Take it as a business opportunity!
baby 10y ago
I always close that kind of pages. Do you really need to read everything?
joezydeco 10y ago
It's even worse when the pop-up comes 20 seconds later since loading all of the Javascript takes a while on mobile - and then shows up halfway down the page. How about when you're using a mobile device in landscape view and the popup was designed for a (taller) portrait-height screen?

by alttab 10y ago

coldpie 10y ago

NoScript, my friend! Sadly no good solution for mobile.

TD-Linux 10y ago
What's wrong with NoScript on mobile? Just breaks too many sites?
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  Parent is likely talking about Chrome since it doesn't support extensions. Firefox on Android can use NoScript, uBlock or what have you without missing a beat.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Yeap! https://noscript.net/nsa/ https://noscript.net/nsa/
    - pasbesoin 10y ago
      Just getting a new phone set up with what I want. So, hadn't looked for it, previously. By viewing the addons.mozilla.org NoScript entry and then clicking on "View All Versions", I was able to find a mobile (NSA) version in the version history. I started with that, as I'm leery of installing from third parties until I have some confidence that the source is authentic and uncompromised. I'd appreciate some feedback on the current thinking / best practice for installing NoScript (Anywhere?) on Firefox mobile (on Android 6).
  - coldpie 10y ago
    No, I use Firefox. I just find NoScript on mobile to be way too much of a pain to use, so I don't think of it as a "good" solution. Maybe they've updated in their UI since I tried it a year or two again?
ryan-c 10y ago
I ran into a site (tweaktown) recently that redirects you to an ad-blocker shame page if you block ads (they try to circumvent, though) or disable javascript (meta refresh wrapped in a noscript tag).
- J_Darnley 10y ago
  Thank god that NoScript has an option to catch those redirects. Whenever I see them the page has rendered just fine without needing to anything special for the script-less.
- rdiddly 10y ago
  Yeah I see a fair amount of adblock-shaming on a routine basis now. How many of these beggars turn around and speak ill of homeless people begging on the street?
  - alttab 10y ago
    I love the Forbes.com one that said I should disable ad-block for a better experience - an experience they just made worse by preventing me from reading whatever half-assed article their editor approved.

pekk 10y ago

The practice isn't designed to make things clearer for the user, it's a dark pattern. It's designed so that the user either doesn't notice or feels guilty about choosing to opt out. If you wanted to design a clearer interface, you wouldn't hide the "no" option, you'd make it parallel to and near the "yes" option so it was clearly conveyed that you have two options.

acangiano 10y ago

> I'm more concerned with the fact that I can't go to any web page these days without getting one of these pop-ups. People use these pop-ups (Landing Pages, Optinmonster, etc) because they are extremely effective at capturing emails. Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply. The site has now converted a random passer-by, into someone who might continue to receive new content (and marketing material) in the future. Nothing comes even close to the ROI that you get from people subscribing to your mailing list. Note that I'm not talking about whether this is right or wrong, just that it's done for a very good reason. Would I put a pop-up form on a programming blog? Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. When you don't see one it's often either an ethical choice (the site owner decided to maximize user experience, not profit) or lack of knowledge of how effective these pop-ups are.

xiaoma 10y ago
>"Your average programmer or techie on HN is horrified when prompted to sign up via a pop-up, but many regular users will just comply." ... especially if you shame them into it!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gedrap 10y ago
Exactly. >>> Obviously no. Know your audience. But on a regular site? Not doing so is literally leaving money on the table. And that's why they are ubiquitous. This. Most (all?) of the mentioned ones are run by companies, not individuals who are not seeking any profit or anything. In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. Some sneaky checkbox to receive spam is bad. Sneaky checkbox for addon when purchasing is horribly bad. But pop up with email field? Nope. Calling it ethical decision is a stretch. Worst case scenario - you close the tab and move on with your life. If anyone loses then it's the business, not you. At the end, it's a business decision whether it's worth annoying some users in order to extract more value later from a fraction of them and it's the users choice to accept or not. It's a personal choice, to each their own. You think the UX is so crap because of it and surely something better can be done? Take it as a business opportunity!

baby 10y ago

I always close that kind of pages. Do you really need to read everything?

joezydeco 10y ago

It's even worse when the pop-up comes 20 seconds later since loading all of the Javascript takes a while on mobile - and then shows up halfway down the page. How about when you're using a mobile device in landscape view and the popup was designed for a (taller) portrait-height screen?