5 ms·

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 usef

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?

amelius 9y ago
I hope that Firefox will fix the "permissions" problem for web-apps. 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.
- drb91 9y ago
  This is totally the dream. Tangentially related, I wish I had fine grained control over whether or not websites can access (or block) pasting, keybindings, etc. I think currently you’d have to write an extension or userscript to monkey patch the functionality in javascript land before the site executes.
- wang_li 9y ago
  We could push for a signing regime. Every page has a certificate applied for every individual developer who worked on the page, and for every publisher whose content is on the page. Then the browser provides a simple button that will blacklist the developers and publishers from ever getting content onto the user's screen again. Users can opt in to a sharing service which consolidates the blocked certificates across multiple users. When a threshold is crossed for a particular certificate, that certificate can be propagated broadly to all the participants in the sharing service and said developers and publishers can lose the ability to put anything onto a user's across wide ranges of users. I think when people start having things to lose, they might start acting more responsibly and respectfully.
  - amelius 9y ago
    I like the idea, but it has still some problems. Such as: what if competitors start gaming the system? Will this not result in enormous bureaucracy? How do you control that developers do not swap/sell their certificates? Perhaps it's best to keep things straightforward at first (?)
- _dark_matter_ 9y ago
  Firefox does have permissions already, for things like push notifications and accessing camera/microphone. You can grant/deny them overall, or on a page-by-page basis.
slezyr 9y ago
ublocks everything for me on WaPo page, so I don't see need to remove anything using dev tools.
Vinnl 9y ago
> where it is now going to be blocked 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 9y ago
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.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  That worked well at first, and then pop-up ads switched from generating the pop-ups as soon as you visited the page to generating them in response to clicking links on the page. I'm guessing we'll see similar goofiness with modals. And that we'll reach a similar terminal state where nobody uses them anymore, except for your bank, who will doggedly refuse to let you see your monthly statement unless you display your modal blocker first.
  - kijin 9y ago
    Your idea of a terminal state sounds much better than the status quo where everybody and you bank throws modals at you. It's okay if it isn't perfect, as long as it gets rid of like 95% of annoying pop-ups.
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      Absolutely. But it's depressing that the Web is such that we can never have nice things. I've taken to browsing with JavaScript disabled, and many sites' "no script" version of the page is just an impassioned plea for me to re-enable JavaScript so that they can do all the popups and tracking and whatnot that prompted me to turn it off in the first place.
ep103 9y ago
I'm trying to find the "clearly" browser extension you mentioned, but have had no success. Where is it?
- nashashmi 9y ago
  Sorry. Should have mentioned this: https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/17/evernote-to-end-support-for-clearly-evernote-for-pebble-and-versions-of-skitch/ https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/17/evernote-to-end-su...
WorldMaker 9y ago
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.
- bigmanwalter 9y ago
  The truth is that modals are easier. You don't need to worry about elegantly maintaining context. They introduce a side context. Unfortunately the spell breaks when you want to switch contexts again. The side context makes it awkward. There is also an issue for URLs as modals are difficult to share. They may solve one specific problem, but are less adaptable than doing the hard work of making separate views.
- sly010 9y ago
  > A overlaying modal always interrupts the user's focus and often gets in the way of otherwise useful information or actions before confirming. But an overlaying action-bar with a "confirm" button that otherwise allows you to scroll before you delete would be a great middleground. But how can a browser tell the difference?
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    In this specific case of what Mozilla is trying to achieve, they are researching the topic and looking for help. Mozilla doesn't sound like they want to ban all overlays, just the obnoxious ones. When I think "action bars", I tend to think of banners that expand into a flexbox row or rows of my choosing and I don't overlay anything. If it is meant to hide a part of the UI, it's better to hide or replace that UI explicitly rather than cover it up graphically in an overlay. Another reason to explicitly hide/replace UI instead of covering it graphically is because that doesn't stop someone from interacting with that covered UI, it just makes it more irritating to do so. I'm not just talking about Dev Tools and similar "cheat" options, but not every user is necessarily interacting with your site or application with sight/graphically. An overlay doesn't stop a screen reader, for instance. (A lot of the modal popups that Mozilla is hoping to block are entirely ignored by a browser's "Reader Mode", which is sometimes my first attempt when I see one.)
petee 9y ago
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.
- cpeterso 9y ago
  I wrote a Firefox extension called "Open Page in Private Window" that adds a toolbar button and context menu item to open the current page in a new Private Window. This is useful for reading articles on websites that limit the number of articles you can read per month. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-page-in-private-window/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-page-in-...
mFixman 9y ago
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.
- bobthepanda 9y ago
  Maybe an adult content blocker from a page not normally expected to have it?
RossM 9y ago
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.

amelius 9y ago

I hope that Firefox will fix the "permissions" problem for web-apps. 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.

drb91 9y ago
This is totally the dream. Tangentially related, I wish I had fine grained control over whether or not websites can access (or block) pasting, keybindings, etc. I think currently you’d have to write an extension or userscript to monkey patch the functionality in javascript land before the site executes.
wang_li 9y ago
We could push for a signing regime. Every page has a certificate applied for every individual developer who worked on the page, and for every publisher whose content is on the page. Then the browser provides a simple button that will blacklist the developers and publishers from ever getting content onto the user's screen again. Users can opt in to a sharing service which consolidates the blocked certificates across multiple users. When a threshold is crossed for a particular certificate, that certificate can be propagated broadly to all the participants in the sharing service and said developers and publishers can lose the ability to put anything onto a user's across wide ranges of users. I think when people start having things to lose, they might start acting more responsibly and respectfully.
- amelius 9y ago
  I like the idea, but it has still some problems. Such as: what if competitors start gaming the system? Will this not result in enormous bureaucracy? How do you control that developers do not swap/sell their certificates? Perhaps it's best to keep things straightforward at first (?)
_dark_matter_ 9y ago
Firefox does have permissions already, for things like push notifications and accessing camera/microphone. You can grant/deny them overall, or on a page-by-page basis.

slezyr 9y ago

ublocks everything for me on WaPo page, so I don't see need to remove anything using dev tools.

Vinnl 9y ago

> where it is now going to be blocked 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 9y ago

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.

bunderbunder 9y ago
That worked well at first, and then pop-up ads switched from generating the pop-ups as soon as you visited the page to generating them in response to clicking links on the page. I'm guessing we'll see similar goofiness with modals. And that we'll reach a similar terminal state where nobody uses them anymore, except for your bank, who will doggedly refuse to let you see your monthly statement unless you display your modal blocker first.
- kijin 9y ago
  Your idea of a terminal state sounds much better than the status quo where everybody and you bank throws modals at you. It's okay if it isn't perfect, as long as it gets rid of like 95% of annoying pop-ups.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    Absolutely. But it's depressing that the Web is such that we can never have nice things. I've taken to browsing with JavaScript disabled, and many sites' "no script" version of the page is just an impassioned plea for me to re-enable JavaScript so that they can do all the popups and tracking and whatnot that prompted me to turn it off in the first place.

ep103 9y ago

I'm trying to find the "clearly" browser extension you mentioned, but have had no success. Where is it?

nashashmi 9y ago
Sorry. Should have mentioned this: https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/17/evernote-to-end-support-for-clearly-evernote-for-pebble-and-versions-of-skitch/ https://blog.evernote.com/blog/2015/12/17/evernote-to-end-su...

WorldMaker 9y ago

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.

bigmanwalter 9y ago
The truth is that modals are easier. You don't need to worry about elegantly maintaining context. They introduce a side context. Unfortunately the spell breaks when you want to switch contexts again. The side context makes it awkward. There is also an issue for URLs as modals are difficult to share. They may solve one specific problem, but are less adaptable than doing the hard work of making separate views.
sly010 9y ago
> A overlaying modal always interrupts the user's focus and often gets in the way of otherwise useful information or actions before confirming. But an overlaying action-bar with a "confirm" button that otherwise allows you to scroll before you delete would be a great middleground. But how can a browser tell the difference?
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  In this specific case of what Mozilla is trying to achieve, they are researching the topic and looking for help. Mozilla doesn't sound like they want to ban all overlays, just the obnoxious ones. When I think "action bars", I tend to think of banners that expand into a flexbox row or rows of my choosing and I don't overlay anything. If it is meant to hide a part of the UI, it's better to hide or replace that UI explicitly rather than cover it up graphically in an overlay. Another reason to explicitly hide/replace UI instead of covering it graphically is because that doesn't stop someone from interacting with that covered UI, it just makes it more irritating to do so. I'm not just talking about Dev Tools and similar "cheat" options, but not every user is necessarily interacting with your site or application with sight/graphically. An overlay doesn't stop a screen reader, for instance. (A lot of the modal popups that Mozilla is hoping to block are entirely ignored by a browser's "Reader Mode", which is sometimes my first attempt when I see one.)

petee 9y ago

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.

cpeterso 9y ago
I wrote a Firefox extension called "Open Page in Private Window" that adds a toolbar button and context menu item to open the current page in a new Private Window. This is useful for reading articles on websites that limit the number of articles you can read per month. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-page-in-private-window/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-page-in-...

mFixman 9y ago

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.

bobthepanda 9y ago
Maybe an adult content blocker from a page not normally expected to have it?

RossM 9y ago

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.