3 ms·

You can do this without spamming history, just replace the state instead of pushing it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bcyn 5y ago
I think you should be using `replace` more judiciously. IMO its primary use is redirecting from some kind of invalid state/URL, i.e. when the user does not want to ever go back. For all valid states/URLs, users expect that the browser's back and forward button work as expected, and that they can save or send that link to others.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  I think you should be using push more judiciously. If I visit a site, click 3 buttons and blow up my back button so I have to hit back 4 times to get back to HN/Google, I'm not returning. Users expect the back button to work for page transitions, not state/UI transitions. And again, this doesn't impact the ability to send the current page state as a link whatsoever.
  - vercadium 5y ago
    Thanks for taking the time to comment! I disagree with you on the history though. By the same token, a large portion of users would press 'back' to expect to return to a previous view, only to exit the site. If I land on a site from Google and click on 'About us', I expect to need to click twice to return. I think it's intuitive as-is. For what it's worth, pure state changes (that don't occupy a page within the router) do use history.replaceState though. I understand that this wouldn't be the case if I approached the design as per the rest of your feedback; placing a lot of this content within a single view could be done. However, the UI/UX is designed to be shallow, minimal and mobile friendly. For example, while I could put weapon selection in as a filter and add controls to toggle between data views - creating a single powerful view - this doesn't actually accomplish much other than trading valuable space for increased UI complexity to avoid moving views. Admittedly, I see this through a different lens as I'm aware of the amount of controls I need to somehow fit further down the line to support upcoming features. A desktop only site would be very different! I appreciate your feedback; it's great to see things from another perspective.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bcyn 5y ago

I think you should be using `replace` more judiciously. IMO its primary use is redirecting from some kind of invalid state/URL, i.e. when the user does not want to ever go back. For all valid states/URLs, users expect that the browser's back and forward button work as expected, and that they can save or send that link to others.

lwansbrough 5y ago
I think you should be using push more judiciously. If I visit a site, click 3 buttons and blow up my back button so I have to hit back 4 times to get back to HN/Google, I'm not returning. Users expect the back button to work for page transitions, not state/UI transitions. And again, this doesn't impact the ability to send the current page state as a link whatsoever.
- vercadium 5y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to comment! I disagree with you on the history though. By the same token, a large portion of users would press 'back' to expect to return to a previous view, only to exit the site. If I land on a site from Google and click on 'About us', I expect to need to click twice to return. I think it's intuitive as-is. For what it's worth, pure state changes (that don't occupy a page within the router) do use history.replaceState though. I understand that this wouldn't be the case if I approached the design as per the rest of your feedback; placing a lot of this content within a single view could be done. However, the UI/UX is designed to be shallow, minimal and mobile friendly. For example, while I could put weapon selection in as a filter and add controls to toggle between data views - creating a single powerful view - this doesn't actually accomplish much other than trading valuable space for increased UI complexity to avoid moving views. Admittedly, I see this through a different lens as I'm aware of the amount of controls I need to somehow fit further down the line to support upcoming features. A desktop only site would be very different! I appreciate your feedback; it's great to see things from another perspective.