5 ms·

Another one that really bombs UX is using javascript for the site navigation in general. That is, instead of <a href="/some/path">Place</a> They will do s

by dqv 5y ago

Another one that really bombs UX is using javascript for the site navigation in general. That is, instead of <a href="/some/path">Place</a> They will do something like <a href="#" onclick="window.location.href='/some/path'">Place</a> (or whatever the current equivalent is in framework du jour) Making it impossible to right click the link and open a new tab. Yo, I need to be able to reference data from multiple areas of the application and your javascript is making that really hard to do! I know that you can do this properly in javascript, but it would appear that at least some people have not gotten the memo. So I'm going to say - you don't need javascript for navigation.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
post-it 5y ago
> Making it impossible to right click the link and open a new tab Keeping `<a href="/some/path">Place</a>` but adding an event listener to capture your click and run some JS instead fixes that particular issue but opens a whole other can of shit.
- dorgo 5y ago
  for example?
  - delecti 5y ago
    Google does it. Search any query, hover over a link, and then click the link. While hovering (pre-click) you'll see the actual target link, but once you click it redirects through some Google tracking nonsense.
- chrisweekly 5y ago
  20 years ago this was called "unobtrusive javascript" and it's still a good idea today. BTW, https://remix.run https://remix.run is a sweet new framework that properly embraces progressive enhancement, ie almost everything works with JS disabled.
zippergz 5y ago
Reminds me of my favorite sign that the site has been developed by people who know nothing about the web: you aren't allowed to have more than one window or tab open to the same site (looking at you, ADP).
dr-detroit 5y ago
fleddr 5y ago
It's also really bad for SEO. At least in theory, a search crawler cannot follow that link to discover the target. In practice, they may actually try to parse this pattern, as they know the web is a mess.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
foresto 5y ago
It's also hostile to users who browse with javascript disabled, as a privacy or security precaution, for example.

by dqv 5y ago

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

post-it 5y ago

> Making it impossible to right click the link and open a new tab Keeping `<a href="/some/path">Place</a>` but adding an event listener to capture your click and run some JS instead fixes that particular issue but opens a whole other can of shit.

dorgo 5y ago
for example?
- delecti 5y ago
  Google does it. Search any query, hover over a link, and then click the link. While hovering (pre-click) you'll see the actual target link, but once you click it redirects through some Google tracking nonsense.
chrisweekly 5y ago
20 years ago this was called "unobtrusive javascript" and it's still a good idea today. BTW, https://remix.run https://remix.run is a sweet new framework that properly embraces progressive enhancement, ie almost everything works with JS disabled.

zippergz 5y ago

Reminds me of my favorite sign that the site has been developed by people who know nothing about the web: you aren't allowed to have more than one window or tab open to the same site (looking at you, ADP).

dr-detroit 5y ago

fleddr 5y ago

It's also really bad for SEO. At least in theory, a search crawler cannot follow that link to discover the target. In practice, they may actually try to parse this pattern, as they know the web is a mess.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

foresto 5y ago

It's also hostile to users who browse with javascript disabled, as a privacy or security precaution, for example.