Look at that website: there's a social banner, a social footer, a social sidebar, animated gifs for ads. Make that 15 lousy web design trends.
I tried a few times but the experience has always been so terrible and inconsistent that I've long reverted to simply sharing the good old copy/paste way.
The suppliers of said social buttons do; every time you see one while you're logged into FB / G+ / Twitter, a hit of you visiting that site is registered at said parties, and they can all, thanks to the prevalence of these sharing buttons, track your internet usage.
My friend from Germany told me that in some (but not all) the pages, there are dummy social buttons loaded by default, you have to "enable" them. Try any article at . It actually displays grayed placeholders only , and things are fetched from G/T/FB only when you click it - you can see in HTTP console.
and a couple of others (fbcdn, facebook.net etc.).
I could spin up a VM and route the FB or non-FB traffic through a proxy, but I haven't reached that point, yet. (Probably, foolishly and to my detriment...)
P.S. In other words, state is already stored on their servers, not (or rather, in addition to) your browser.
Obviously, rulesets should be tuples of (source pattern, resource type, destination pattern), not silly lists ("allow google.com", huh?) like most browser extensions do.
However, there are some sites that stupidly execute JS that is vital to the running of the page after attempting to initialize Google Analytics or other services. The end result is that they get a "Cannot call method 'bleh' of undefined" error which prevents the rest of their JS executing, hence broken page. If I'm really interested in actually loading the page, then I have to resort to allowing the trackers to run. sigh.
Unfortunately, I can't see how this could be averted, stopping short of an extension which catches all uncaught exceptions, then tries to forcefully remove all JS which is meant to interact with 3rd parties. It could be done either via pattern matching, because Google Analytics code looks much the same on most peoples sites, or it could be through something more fun, like https://github.com/mattdiamond/fuckitjs (who would of thought there would actually be a proper use case for something like that??)
Neat. This looks like a very reasonable way to go if you decide to have social buttons.
Is there a ready-made solution for this?
I'd be interested in learning about good alternatives.
- https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=[Url to share]
SocialCount looks like it also cares about how many times a link has been shared, and uses a server-side script to figure that out. That seems like a nice approach if you really want that info, because it doesn't let the social service track the end user.
shareNice seems to have a wider range of services that it supports.
I think this is why such buttons are so ineffective. They have been used so badly for so long a lot of people just completely ignore them. Its a bit like ad's on the side of pages. A lot of people won't even register they are there.
If anybody knows if this is has changed, please chime in. I'd love to know.
edit: whoops, looks like somebody made the same comment before me, so i assume its still something they do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5369214
-- snip --:
I’ve never used this site before, so immediately asking me to create a free account is absolutely pointless, and more so when the pop-up does not automatically disappear when I ignore it.
I looked at the join thing at the bottom and actually felt it slip out of my mind into the bin of stuff to ignore on the web.
If you live in a glass house...
That dismissable footer covered half my screen, and the site ran so slowly that I was entirely unable to get it to dismiss.
And here I thought that relying on a browser's User Agent to make a page usable was bad form.
Maybe sourcemaps will help with that in the future.
 See, e.g., http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/developertools/source...
 ...or http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/tools-and-tips/source-maps....
One site I worked on did not manage to sort out a redirect of its .net version of its domain and its over 2 Years since a flagged this as a high priority problem.
See http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/ and http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/
So they have the skills, but maybe it's for other reasons they don't follow those practices.
Another example Google has a lot of smart people but they cant parse a robots.txt file with a BOM in it.
It's really, really not hard to use image sprites (not necessary here); merged JS and merged CSS.
What on earth does a 404 page have to do with HTML 5?
I agree, calling it html5 is a bit off, but the complaints are justified.
Every wave of technologies carries a certain culture with itself. A lot of the things in the list are quite characteristic of HTML5 culture. I agree on 404s, though.
And besides, this guy is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. 404 a "HTML5" problem? Auto-playing vidoes a "HTML5" problem? Low contrast colour schemes a "HTML5" problem? Has he even got the slightest clue what "HTML5" is as opposed to other HTML versions? All the examples in that article are just shit sites, nothing to do with "HTML5". Gimme a break, this is just link bait, what a joke.
Look, you wouldn't like it if every different document you opened or site you looked at took it upon itself to restyle your desktop and rearrange all your Photoshop preferences to suit the author, would you? Likewise, you don't think that Wikipedia would be improved by allowing every editor to restyle pages in Myspace or Geocities fashion, do you? Of course not, once you've configured or become familiar with a particular environment, consistency supports productivity.
Some of us want to navigate the web for content, without all the branding and UI inconsistencies. I read a variety of specialist web forums, for example, not unlike HN except that they're mostly running PHPbb or something along those lines. They all look different, with different layouts and so on, many of which are UI catastrophes. I would love to just download the semantic information and have a nice consistent UI of my choice that ran on the client side instead of consuming far more bandwidth than the content I am there to read.
I'm not arguing against a semantic web, but I will argue in favour of people being able to present and serve their content in any way they see fit. One page JS web app? Fine. 100% Flash microsite? Fine. Crazy Chrome only WebGL/NativeClient art experiment? Fine. Streamlined standards compliant site conveying great semantic value? Also fine. We need all of these. People can vote with their feet and we achieve progress. Like humanity the beauty of the web is the freedom and variety it offers.
* Quite often, for whatever reason, the overlay takes seconds to load (much longer than just loading the image)
* If the image takes long time to load, I cannot just put it in a background tab and continue browsing the page with the thumbnail while I wait.
* I cannot open several images simultaneously
* To close the overlay, I have to hunt down an 'x' button (for example pressing Esc usually does not work). The 'x' is likely camouflage dark grey in order to look good against the dark grey background, and placed creatively to make it difficult to find. Sometimes, the 'x' loads two seconds later than the overlay itself, to make sure the browsing experience becomes as frustrating as possible.
* Not uncommonly, the JS is so poorly coded that the overlay half-loads in my browser and cannot be closed at all without reloading the page. With JS disabled, trying to open the image might not work at all.
* If I react instinctively to the overlay by pressing backspace, it doesn't close the overlay; I get sent back to page before the page I was on.
At least the web designers who do this overlay crap are increasingly using JS for it, which is an infinite improvement over Flash.
1. The article clearly isn't an attack on HTML5 itself, but of designers who happen to be building HTML5 sites with a lack of concern for the user experience. The gap between design and UX has hugely narrowed in the past decade, and I don't want to see it open up again. It is a plea of sorts, and I apologise if I've mislabelled the headline.
2. The article is a response to the many posts I see that hold up these sites as being "inspirational examples of HTML5 design". I'm afraid that I don't think many of these sites are inspiring, given the UX issues. And yes, they could have been built in HTML4, but they're using HTML5 / CSS3. Hence the headline, though no doubt I could have chosen a clearer one.
3. Yes, our site has all manner of issues, though I've yet to see it in a compendium of 'inspirational' sites. The roll-up is there because sometimes business goals sometimes kick UX goals in the face. The roll-up should not appear immediately and should not obscure all of the screen (please suggest a more elegant solution).
4. 404 pages. A lame point. My bad.
<returns to bunker>
Trends I'm waiting to be over: people without a clue about the web writing about the web and people who upvote articles without reading them.
The two biggest offenders of this are Google Groups (the new layout) and wired.com. Both have mappings for "H" (capital), which I use to go back a page (via Vimium).
However, they decide instead that this should hide all the content and leave me on the page.
In the case of Wired.com, it sends me to a random article.
They frequently omit the little 'x' in the corner to close them out, they're rarely responsive, and they break zooming / scrolling.
What a terrible little login mechanism.
Please use labels, people. I have no idea why he didn't include that in this article.
Apple has a nice solution to this issue on their checkout pages - labels placed on top of inputs, only disappearing once text is entered.
Yes. The first job of someone putting up a website new design or redesign is to do usability testing. Can a user who reaches your site by a search engine result or some friendly inbound link accomplish a relevant task upon reaching your site? If not, why not? As Steve Krug says, "this isn't rocket surgery,"
and if you aren't investing in making your website usable for users, related to some purpose you had when putting up the website in the first place, you might as well do without having a website.
"Make no bones about it, HTML5 design is a massive, musty elephant in the room, and it is about to charge. In its path lies a flailing, unarmed Jakob Nielsen, backed up with legions of user experience professionals, who are gently sobbing."
It's funny how this article is featured on a site that has a fixed container at the bottom taking up almost a quarter of my viewport.
Users choose (and may pay for) the presentation layers that make most sense to them; one person may choose something redolent of newspaper, another person likes their news with Star trek theme, a third inexplicably likes their news delivered by Clippy, the office assistant. Designers offer a wide variety of different presentation and navigation tools to suit the whims of consumers instead of suffocating in an unwinnable race to discover the one format that rules them all from within the bowels of of a media conglomerate; serious journalists get to concentrate on information-gathering, reportage and quality of references, without having to fill an onerous fluff quota ('It's daylight saving time again, and that means rewriting last year's rewrite on daylight saving time!')
grumble grumble get off my lawn etc.
Agreed. It's like designers found out they can move things and are animating the crap out of everything.
They're forgetting what's important. The call to action button is the main focus and animating some random pictures get's the user distracted.
One thing that's horribly annoying, though, is searching for text, landing on a site that has the text you searched for in images or otherwise mutilated with CSS, and having no way to highlight it for copy/pasting. For pulling that one, there's a special place in web hell for you, right next to IE 6.
Kind of ironic when the very website this article's on has a bright red rising banner asking me to "Join FREE as a Bronze member".
Sure, most of the time in ordinary websites there isn't a point. On the other hand, there is now a class of "website" (such as games, demos, productivity tools etc.) more broadly in the category of "web application" that do need to load a bunch of resources, they can't run before they don't have them, and they will include a loading screen, for good benefit, too.
So the answer to loading screens is really: it depends, and not by default no.
"...but most people do not use iPads to visit websites"
Both are perfectly readable and big on my screen.
Huh . . . is this another bad HTML5 trend? :-)
Specifically on the "Dubious animation" section kikk.be ( DO NOT CLICK ) :
God, how I hate those things
This page is unviewable on my Opera Mini browser.