5 ms·

If "reasonably formatted" means CSS comes along for the ride, prepare for tracking pixels behind onhover rules, and on and on we go...

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
By reasonably formatted, I would actually exclude onhover. To clarify, I meant a document that would be readable without any interaction. You've got me wondering if privacy-focused browsers like Brave have the ability to disable potential tracking mechanisms like onhover.
- ficklepickle 7y ago
  Disabling CSS :hover and :active states might break sites. Tracking pixels could be as simple as a background image set for either of those CSS states.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    Agreed, but it would likely break things that don't matter much to me. A well defined semantic document should say what it has to say, without the use or necessity of :hover or :active states.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    Browsers could disable downloading of external resources for CSS :hover and :active. When the user interacts with the interface, the CSS will still get applied but the tracking URL won't be accessed.
    - moring 7y ago
      Alternatively, such URLs can always be pre-fetched on page load.
  - GoblinSlayer 7y ago
    Turned off javascript is more about usability than tracking prevention.
a1369209993 7y ago
Why would that matter? If the browser fetches images hidden behind onhover, then presumably it would also fetch plain <img> tags, so why not use those. If it doesn't fetch onhover images (which admittedly might break the "reasonably formatted" bit), then tracking pixels are useless because, well, it doesn't fetch them.
- ojame 7y ago
  Because after you hover on something, it can be an indication of intent. Just loading an image when the webpage loads doesn't give you any insight into what the user 'interacted' with.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    > Because after you hover on something, it can be an indication of intent. Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. > Just loading an image when the webpage loads doesn't give you any insight into what the user 'interacted' with. That's what I said: regardless of whether the browser, when loading a page, does or does not include hidden images in what it fetches, that cannot possibly tell you anything about what the user interacts[0] with after the page has loaded and browser is no longer communicating with your server. 0: edit: obviously excluding clicking links or other navigation-causing interactions, but that's a separate problem.
    - rovr138 7y ago
      > Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. On hover can be easily done with css. selector:hover{background-image: url();} That can trigger a tracking pixel.
      - moring 7y ago
        A browser that disables Javascript could easily circumvent this too, either pre-loading URLs in :hover rules or ignoring those rules.
    - 7y ago

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

By reasonably formatted, I would actually exclude onhover. To clarify, I meant a document that would be readable without any interaction. You've got me wondering if privacy-focused browsers like Brave have the ability to disable potential tracking mechanisms like onhover.

ficklepickle 7y ago
Disabling CSS :hover and :active states might break sites. Tracking pixels could be as simple as a background image set for either of those CSS states.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Agreed, but it would likely break things that don't matter much to me. A well defined semantic document should say what it has to say, without the use or necessity of :hover or :active states.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  Browsers could disable downloading of external resources for CSS :hover and :active. When the user interacts with the interface, the CSS will still get applied but the tracking URL won't be accessed.
  - moring 7y ago
    Alternatively, such URLs can always be pre-fetched on page load.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  Turned off javascript is more about usability than tracking prevention.

a1369209993 7y ago

Why would that matter? If the browser fetches images hidden behind onhover, then presumably it would also fetch plain <img> tags, so why not use those. If it doesn't fetch onhover images (which admittedly might break the "reasonably formatted" bit), then tracking pixels are useless because, well, it doesn't fetch them.

ojame 7y ago
Because after you hover on something, it can be an indication of intent. Just loading an image when the webpage loads doesn't give you any insight into what the user 'interacted' with.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  > Because after you hover on something, it can be an indication of intent. Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. > Just loading an image when the webpage loads doesn't give you any insight into what the user 'interacted' with. That's what I said: regardless of whether the browser, when loading a page, does or does not include hidden images in what it fetches, that cannot possibly tell you anything about what the user interacts[0] with after the page has loaded and browser is no longer communicating with your server. 0: edit: obviously excluding clicking links or other navigation-causing interactions, but that's a separate problem.
  - rovr138 7y ago
    > Yes, that's (one of the many reasons) why javascript needs to die. On hover can be easily done with css. selector:hover{background-image: url();} That can trigger a tracking pixel.
    - moring 7y ago
      A browser that disables Javascript could easily circumvent this too, either pre-loading URLs in :hover rules or ignoring those rules.
  - 7y ago