Re: single page apps, URL hash setting, bookmarking, & the back button.

On Jul 7, 8:25 pm, Hamish Campbell <HN.Campb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 8, 11:55 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Remember, not
a lot of users are even conscious of the URL or what it means.

Again, that's my point.  So why are you worrying about creating an
illusion for users with no expectations to begin with.  If you think
about it, you are creating an illusion for other Web developers (the
illusion that you are "cool" enough to do tricks like this.)  As
illustrated, even with a simplified example, the crack W3C developers
blew it.

I see where you're coming from, but I wonder - I got an email today
for a conference that included a maps link that took be straight to
the right location with popup (Google Maps). That was very useful.

Of course. That's done with a query, which is normally processed
server side (thought not necessarily.) It's only done with a hash
when there is actually a fragment by that name (or ID.)


Would it be fair to say then, that it has a place for specific uses
(such as non-discrete data like map locations)?

We aren't talking about the same thing.


Nothing has really changed except that developers have started adding
lots of state changes within a single document.

That's not new.  It started with IE4.  BTW, I was there.  ;)

You know what I mean - every man and his dog using XHR to load page
content - for example.

Providing equivalent
browser-friendly navigation manipulation has been slow to catch up,

Wrong.  Navigation is as it has always been.  Just as with popup
windows, there are lots of incompetent developers out there trying to
muck it up.

Popup windows where blocked by vendors because people hated them, not
because they were incompetendly implemented or broke browser
functionality.

Incompetence and broken browser behavior were definite factors (with
particular emphasis on the former.)

There is not going to be a [conscious] user backlash
against hash-links. People might stop using websites that use hash-
links because they [unconsciously] find the website hard to use, but I
don't see that happening.

If the bar is only to avoid a world-wide backlash, then virtually
every design is successful.


My point is this: the way in which many websites work has changed, for
good or for bad.

You aren't really saying anything related to the design decision.
Seems this whole thread has been one generalized statement after
another. It's like everybody is sure this is their new toy and can't
see the potential choking hazard. I'm telling you it's there.

The way the browser handles navigation has not
changed fundamentally, so it seems like good practice to allow the
browser to continue to behave the way it was intended and is expected,
*given* that the website is making a lot of state changes to
individual pages.

You aren't making any sense at all here. The point is to let the
browser handle the navigation. That's what it has always done. State
changes have nothing to do with navigation. They never have. If you
want to persist state, use a cookie.


It seems like there is a case for them, and if there is a set of
guidelines for doing it 'right', maybe that is what we should be
talking about, rather than the myriad ways to screw it up (of which, I
accept, there are many!).

I already told you. Leave the location alone. Are you implying there
is some really cool Website idea that cannot be implemented without
resorting to faux navigation? Somehow it would confuse the users
otherwise? I'm telling you there isn't. Additionally, the number of
ways you can screw it up should be your first indication that I am
right to recommend complete avoidance.


I suggest that Google's JS developers are completely clueless, even
about basic accessibility issues.  Go to their "My Account" page and
see how their menu reads without images.  Then click "Adsense" and
notice that the back button breaks.  Doesn't get any more basic than
that (and that's just the tip of the iceberg.)

Heh, my biggest complaint about Gmail is there insistence on moving
the cursor to next input element on page load - except that I'm
already half-way through typing my username by that point so I get
shunted to the password field.

Woohoo! I just signed up for a completely accessible, usable Web mail
service hosted by a huge company that can surely afford droves of
competent Web developers.

It's called GMail. DOH! Thr abject failure of all three examples
cited in this thread (W3C, Google and Facebook--see other post on
them) is your second indication.


You are right that they're not exactly shining lights in that regard,
but still, they've raised the expectation of what is possible.

They've shown some very bad things are possible. Bad things that
occasionally resemble good ideas to people who either aren't thinking
clearly or have no idea what they are looking at. I put it to you
that their Ajax-Web2.0 nonsense would have looked like old hat to me
in 1998. The Web has caught up to what is possible, but virtually
everything is being done wrong.
.