5 ms·

Dear developer, I hate you[1] when you interfere with scrolling. Yes, some people do it right and so on. You are not one of them. Please. Stop. Yours, A user

by dotdi 9y ago

Dear developer, I hate you[1] when you interfere with scrolling. Yes, some people do it right and so on. You are not one of them. Please. Stop. Yours, A user that will close your website when scrolling is messed with. --- [1] not OP, but the average developer, which, under time pressure and without many resources, cannot test all desktop/phone and browser combinations. Assuming they even care.

csallen 9y ago
> Yes, some people do it right Who? Any examples?
- diafygi 9y ago
  I normally hate scroll jacking, but the Australian news article on the NK ballistic missile range was pretty cool, even on mobile. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile-range-map/8880894 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deno 9y ago
    This page doesn’t do scroll-jacking. Its state appears to update asynchronously based on the scroll position. That is the correct way to do this sort of thing. Scrolling on this article is buttery smooth on my Apollo Lake (1.1GHz Celeron) netbook, on both Firefox and Chrome, even if the background animations aren’t. No jank whatsoever.
    - Groxx 9y ago
      meanwhile... once I scroll to the globe, Chrome locks up. :| Scrolling in FF is indeed super smooth, but that background janks all over the place. Not sure what I'd prefer, tbh, though agreed that the vast majority of scrolljacking is utter garbage.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
Raphmedia 9y ago
This is a discussion about "addEventListener" not "scrollTo". The article has nothing to do with scroll jacking other than the fact that all JavaScript events are listened to via "addEventListener".
yoodenvranx 9y ago
> A user that will close your website when scrolling is messed with. Exactly, I stopped using https://news.google.com https://news.google.com because of its strange scrolling behavior on my phone.
adrianmonk 9y ago
Yeah, not a web dev myself, but this seems kind of like a new <blink> tag: very rarely makes for a better user experience, but tempting for sites to use. Unfortunately, browsers have a long history of giving sites the power to do things I probably don't want, like opening new windows, moving windows to the back, opening alerts that are implemented as modal dialogs (which block all tabs, even unrelated ones), and disabling context menus. I guess they are trying to provide a rich set of capabilities to allow web devs to make neat things, but from my perspective as an end user, they're all about could, not about should.
gldalmaso 9y ago
Not all users have a choice to leave a website. If a Chrome update breaks the governmental website that relied on some "never used" feature and the user can no longer, say, apply to unemployment insurance, real people would be getting affected in very real ways. We wanted technology to part of peoples lives, now it is, we have to own up to the responsibility.
- anchpop 9y ago
  Couldn't they use Firefox?
  - yladiz 9y ago
    So many websites have "Use with Chrome" that if a user sees the website not working in Chrome, it's likely that the user will assume the website is broken, not the browser.

by dotdi 9y ago

csallen 9y ago

> Yes, some people do it right Who? Any examples?

diafygi 9y ago
I normally hate scroll jacking, but the Australian news article on the NK ballistic missile range was pretty cool, even on mobile. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile-range-map/8880894 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/north-korea-missile...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deno 9y ago
  This page doesn’t do scroll-jacking. Its state appears to update asynchronously based on the scroll position. That is the correct way to do this sort of thing. Scrolling on this article is buttery smooth on my Apollo Lake (1.1GHz Celeron) netbook, on both Firefox and Chrome, even if the background animations aren’t. No jank whatsoever.
  - Groxx 9y ago
    meanwhile... once I scroll to the globe, Chrome locks up. :| Scrolling in FF is indeed super smooth, but that background janks all over the place. Not sure what I'd prefer, tbh, though agreed that the vast majority of scrolljacking is utter garbage.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

Raphmedia 9y ago

This is a discussion about "addEventListener" not "scrollTo". The article has nothing to do with scroll jacking other than the fact that all JavaScript events are listened to via "addEventListener".

yoodenvranx 9y ago

> A user that will close your website when scrolling is messed with. Exactly, I stopped using https://news.google.com https://news.google.com because of its strange scrolling behavior on my phone.

adrianmonk 9y ago

Yeah, not a web dev myself, but this seems kind of like a new <blink> tag: very rarely makes for a better user experience, but tempting for sites to use. Unfortunately, browsers have a long history of giving sites the power to do things I probably don't want, like opening new windows, moving windows to the back, opening alerts that are implemented as modal dialogs (which block all tabs, even unrelated ones), and disabling context menus. I guess they are trying to provide a rich set of capabilities to allow web devs to make neat things, but from my perspective as an end user, they're all about could, not about should.

gldalmaso 9y ago

Not all users have a choice to leave a website. If a Chrome update breaks the governmental website that relied on some "never used" feature and the user can no longer, say, apply to unemployment insurance, real people would be getting affected in very real ways. We wanted technology to part of peoples lives, now it is, we have to own up to the responsibility.

anchpop 9y ago
Couldn't they use Firefox?
- yladiz 9y ago
  So many websites have "Use with Chrome" that if a user sees the website not working in Chrome, it's likely that the user will assume the website is broken, not the browser.