4 ms·

Why is it rude to open a new tab? I truly hate when I’m trying to view a link and it navigates me away from what I’m reading. IMO new tabs should always be the

Why is it rude to open a new tab? I truly hate when I’m trying to view a link and it navigates me away from what I’m reading. IMO new tabs should always be the default.

nunuvit 4y ago
It overrides the user's browser settings. As a user, technically you can override the override, but it's only accessible sometimes through hidden settings or user scripts.
circuit10 4y ago
I don’t mind new tabs but what really annoys me is when things are set to open in a new window, and you have to fiddle with it to get it to merge back into the window you already have open
- circuit10 4y ago
  I’m surprised that someone downvoted this, I thought this would be very uncontroversial. Is there someone who actually likes this for some reason?
  - dalmo3 4y ago
    I didn't downvote, but links opening a new browser window, except for the occasional auth pop-up, hasn't been a thing since... 2008? What browser still doesn't use tabs by default?
    - circuit10 4y ago
      Websites can override the setting and force browsers to do it, and quite a lot of them seem to for some reason
- twic 4y ago
  Browsers could do two little things. Firstly, when mousing over a link which will open in a new tab, show a different pointer. I get a hand with the index finger extended when hovering over a normal link; it could be that but with a diagonal arrow, like the common "open in new window" badge, for a link which opens in a new tab. Secondly, in the context menu for a link which will open in a new tab, replace the "open link in new tab" option with "open link in this tab". As long as links are real links, and not JavaScript devilry, this would 85% fix it for me.
leephillips 4y ago
The reader should decide. It’s usually trivial to hold down a modifier key to open a link in a new tab or window, but if the `target` attribute is set in the link it’s not as easy to override it. This debate raged in the early days of the web: what is the better practice? A consensus emerged among web designers that leaving it to the reader makes more sense. I’m proud that I convinced J. Zeldman that his early practice of using `target='_blank'` hurt the user’s navigation, and so played a minuscule part in nudging designers in general away from this.
- zo1 4y ago
  Unfortunately, with the advent of SPAs, Web3.0 and the takeover of the web by Angular and friends, we can no longer rely on "links" behaving that way. For the time-being, we've lost that battle and the web is worse-off as a result. I.e. A lot of the time, links are actually various DOM elements that have onclick handlers and various JS-fuckery meant to obfuscate true behavior from the user and make it more difficult for the user to control the browser. Worse still, how about the user-hostile behavior of browsers that now allow JS to takeover and disable right-click, select and copy functions.
  - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
    Worse than that, even if you somehow try to force onclick handlers to not obfuscate true behavior, most truly bad SPAs don't even have valid intermediary states accessible thru URLs; the only way to navigate the "application" is sometimes by changing the state with interactive SPA use.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    Yes, deep-linking with SPAs is mostly broken. This came up here a few weeks ago. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34896472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34896472) Someone defended SPAs by pointing out that frameworks like React use Javascript and browser APIs to fake paths and history, and another noted that reimplementing basic browser functionality was madness.
kroltan 4y ago
Middle mouse button (or control+click) in any browser opens a new tab (as long as you're using actual links, don't get me started on the morons who think "span with a onclick handler" is an acceptable substitute) Forcing to open on a new tab breaks conventional behaviour, it should be left as the user's decision (either explicit every time, or a setting in their browser. This setting already exists btw, if you like more tabs you can enable it in your browser). (Maybe a case could be made if the website is actually an application and there would be data loss if not for the new tab, but I would argue design your application so as data loss is not possible in that case) --- As for myself, the browsing history is something very useful to have, I like keeping the amount of tabs down to near one per activity, so I regularly use the history to go back to what I was reading before. Forcing new tabs means I have to reach for more advanced tools like tab trees, which are often not worth the cognitive effort.
- Phurist 4y ago
  [flagged]
kevincox 4y ago
People have different preferences. Personally I have set `browser.link.open_newwindow = 1` in Firefox to force all links to open in the same tab, then I can middle-click to open in a new tab. This way I can do what I want without worrying about what the website author thinks I wanted. It does have some downsides though. Some sites don't use <a> tags but instead <div> with JS to open the link, then you can't choose to open in a new tab (on the other hand they can't force you to open a new tab so it is sort of even on average). Some sites break because they are trying to launch a new window that communicates with the parent. But overall I think it is a big improvement to the web.
crazygringo 4y ago
Because if the link is a normal one, the user can choose whether to open it in same tab (regular click) or a new tab (lots of UX shortcuts for this like Ctrl+click). But if the link is hardcoded as a new tab, the user has no choice. There's no way to open a new-tab link in the same tab. :( Not to mention that there's generally zero indication it's a new-tab link anyways, so not only does it take away choice, but it does so non-predictably. Ugh.

Why is it rude to open a new tab? I truly hate when I’m trying to view a link and it navigates me away from what I’m reading. IMO new tabs should always be the default.

nunuvit 4y ago

It overrides the user's browser settings. As a user, technically you can override the override, but it's only accessible sometimes through hidden settings or user scripts.

circuit10 4y ago

I don’t mind new tabs but what really annoys me is when things are set to open in a new window, and you have to fiddle with it to get it to merge back into the window you already have open

circuit10 4y ago
I’m surprised that someone downvoted this, I thought this would be very uncontroversial. Is there someone who actually likes this for some reason?
- dalmo3 4y ago
  I didn't downvote, but links opening a new browser window, except for the occasional auth pop-up, hasn't been a thing since... 2008? What browser still doesn't use tabs by default?
  - circuit10 4y ago
    Websites can override the setting and force browsers to do it, and quite a lot of them seem to for some reason
twic 4y ago
Browsers could do two little things. Firstly, when mousing over a link which will open in a new tab, show a different pointer. I get a hand with the index finger extended when hovering over a normal link; it could be that but with a diagonal arrow, like the common "open in new window" badge, for a link which opens in a new tab. Secondly, in the context menu for a link which will open in a new tab, replace the "open link in new tab" option with "open link in this tab". As long as links are real links, and not JavaScript devilry, this would 85% fix it for me.

leephillips 4y ago

The reader should decide. It’s usually trivial to hold down a modifier key to open a link in a new tab or window, but if the `target` attribute is set in the link it’s not as easy to override it. This debate raged in the early days of the web: what is the better practice? A consensus emerged among web designers that leaving it to the reader makes more sense. I’m proud that I convinced J. Zeldman that his early practice of using `target='_blank'` hurt the user’s navigation, and so played a minuscule part in nudging designers in general away from this.

zo1 4y ago
Unfortunately, with the advent of SPAs, Web3.0 and the takeover of the web by Angular and friends, we can no longer rely on "links" behaving that way. For the time-being, we've lost that battle and the web is worse-off as a result. I.e. A lot of the time, links are actually various DOM elements that have onclick handlers and various JS-fuckery meant to obfuscate true behavior from the user and make it more difficult for the user to control the browser. Worse still, how about the user-hostile behavior of browsers that now allow JS to takeover and disable right-click, select and copy functions.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  Worse than that, even if you somehow try to force onclick handlers to not obfuscate true behavior, most truly bad SPAs don't even have valid intermediary states accessible thru URLs; the only way to navigate the "application" is sometimes by changing the state with interactive SPA use.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  Yes, deep-linking with SPAs is mostly broken. This came up here a few weeks ago. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34896472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34896472) Someone defended SPAs by pointing out that frameworks like React use Javascript and browser APIs to fake paths and history, and another noted that reimplementing basic browser functionality was madness.

kroltan 4y ago

Middle mouse button (or control+click) in any browser opens a new tab (as long as you're using actual links, don't get me started on the morons who think "span with a onclick handler" is an acceptable substitute) Forcing to open on a new tab breaks conventional behaviour, it should be left as the user's decision (either explicit every time, or a setting in their browser. This setting already exists btw, if you like more tabs you can enable it in your browser). (Maybe a case could be made if the website is actually an application and there would be data loss if not for the new tab, but I would argue design your application so as data loss is not possible in that case) --- As for myself, the browsing history is something very useful to have, I like keeping the amount of tabs down to near one per activity, so I regularly use the history to go back to what I was reading before. Forcing new tabs means I have to reach for more advanced tools like tab trees, which are often not worth the cognitive effort.

Phurist 4y ago
[flagged]

kevincox 4y ago

People have different preferences. Personally I have set `browser.link.open_newwindow = 1` in Firefox to force all links to open in the same tab, then I can middle-click to open in a new tab. This way I can do what I want without worrying about what the website author thinks I wanted. It does have some downsides though. Some sites don't use <a> tags but instead <div> with JS to open the link, then you can't choose to open in a new tab (on the other hand they can't force you to open a new tab so it is sort of even on average). Some sites break because they are trying to launch a new window that communicates with the parent. But overall I think it is a big improvement to the web.

crazygringo 4y ago

Because if the link is a normal one, the user can choose whether to open it in same tab (regular click) or a new tab (lots of UX shortcuts for this like Ctrl+click). But if the link is hardcoded as a new tab, the user has no choice. There's no way to open a new-tab link in the same tab. :( Not to mention that there's generally zero indication it's a new-tab link anyways, so not only does it take away choice, but it does so non-predictably. Ugh.