I happened to click a link that took me to the associated twitter X account for something I was interested in and was greeted by not one, not two, but four modern day web popups.

I know it’s nothing new. I’ve got a couple of firefox plugins that are usually quite good at hiding this sort of nonsense, but I guess they failed me today (or, I shudder to think, there were even more that were blocked, and this is what got through)

What’s the worst new/not-signed-in user experience you’ve encountered recently?

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I heavily disagree with this. Stepping back to “walls of text with hyperlinks” is a bad idea that’ll service no one and will never succeed in any reasonable capacity.

    Current web technology is not what caused bad web. The exception would be too powerful js where js should only provide interactivity and extra flavor to the page rather than run a full application which can fingerprint and punish user agents.

    Javascript, embeded images and audio are awesome things that can improve content readability a thousand fold. Just look at best docs on the web - all of them use these features to tend their users. Even wikipedia added js flavoring like hover pop ups. Because it works.

    • snail_stampede@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I actually prefer a mostly text web. If the trade off for ditching JavaScript is not getting hovering pop ups, I’m fine with that. I think that while JavaScript can help with usability, it’s main use right now is being a pain in the ass. Images and video are useful, don’t get me wrong, and that will always be the most popular “use” of the internet, but most of the time I just want to go on the Internet and read cool shit without fifty different corporations trying to fuck me over with the promise of “enhanced usability”. Like a link has to have some floating bullshit for me to click it. Absolute madness.

      • pixelscript@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        For me, multimedia is a non-negotiable part of the web experience.

        Yes, I get as annoyed as the next guy when I want, say, a simple tutorial written in a couple paragraphs, but the only ones anyone seem to want to make are eight minute long videos filled with fluff. That sucks. But purposefully excluding it from your protocol because it burned you a fee times is a gross overcorrection in my view.

        I appreciate the Gemini project, I respect its goals, and I am happy that it meets the needs of several people such as yourself. But for me, and I think for a great majority of people who would be potentially interested in its broader goal of simplifying the web but are dealbroken by lack of multimedia capabilities, Gemini will never be anything more than a toy. A quirky little curiosity that will never expand beyond a tiny clique of people who accept Gemini for what it is and are content to only ever see content from that same small pool of people.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        But lack of ability does not prevent any of that. Entrepreneurs who want to monetize stuff will find a way to spam and game the system.

        As someone whos responsible for docs and public facing material I’d never push text only content these days. There’s just way too much UX value left out with this limitation. Sometimes more is more.

        Additionally I’d argue that people who only want text are have advantage in the current system as you can strip and reformat everything on the front end and nobody will ever know or bully you into accepting their system. Just like nobody cared about ad blockers before they were widely adopted.