I made a add-on for myself to shun sites that behave in ways I don't like. It removes links to their sites from every page. It effectively removes them from the internet. I think that's a way scarier scenario for a website owner than just getting their ads blocked. If the list were community driven and widely used, I think site owners would start changing their behavior. I know most people just want the content and don't care if they block a few ads but I'm sure, like me, there a good chunk of people that are fine with respecting the site owners wishes and just never going to the site (by never seeing their site mentioned ever again) since I'm not going to "pay" in any form.<p>I did publish the Firefox add-on (desktop only) just so I could avoid having to use web-ext or temporarily install it every time I run FF. It's a complete hassle to set up and configure at the moment. <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ssure/?src=search" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ssure/?src=se...</a><p>Edit: Source is here <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/files/browse/601156/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/files/browse/601156...</a> in case you want to try and not worry about it doing something shady.
I use Safari and I almost always click/tap the reader view icon as soon as the page loads. This:<p>1) Shows the text even if a modal has already tried to obscure it.<p>2) Ensures a legible font and contrast.<p>3) Undoes stupid scroll jacking. Yay, the text scrolls smoothly again.<p>4) Fixes the scroll bar so that it provides an accurate indication of how far through the page I've read, since the non-text crap I don't care about isn't part of the view now.<p>5) Allows me to copy text w/o worrying about anything else getting inserted to the clipboard.<p>6) Doesn't disclose to the site how far I've scrolled, which is none of their business.<p>And probably other good things I'm forgetting. Tapping the reader view icon as soon as the page loads has become habitual.<p>I obviously run an ad blocker as well.<p>This is in both iOS and macOS. Reader view FTW. It's the next best thing to disabling Javascript entirely.<p>Chrome and Firefox should include an as good reader view built in.
This is what happens when you mindlessly optimise for metrics like user signups - not surprisingly, you get more signups when you block the content with an obnoxious modal but after a few years, you wonder where all your users went. How much value do you really get from a user who was forced to sign up with a gun to their head?
IMO it doesn't worth the time to discuss appropriate and inappropriate uses of JavaScript. It's way simpler to disable it entirely. I use two browsers: Firefox with "YesScript" extension which keeps the black list of sites where JS is disabled: see a popup? laggy scrolling? sticky headers? Bam! hit the button and you won't see it again.<p>For work, where web applications like Google suite matter, I use Chrome.<p>Some time ago browser developers realized that letting Javascript open new windows was a bad idea and every browser now has a setting (on by default) to block pop-ups. IMO now it's time to introduce a few other anti-abuse settings. My candidates are:<p><pre><code> - code execution on "scroll" events
- CSS animations (web devs, your transitions are NEVER smooth, even of MBP)
- position:fixed (auto-replace to position:static)</code></pre>
Yes it's annoying but they work:<p>"sticking a big ole pop-up in their face can be one of the most effective ways to jolt their attention & grab their email for a return visit." Peep Laja.
<a href="https://conversionxl.com/popup-defense/?hvid=2EcGFw" rel="nofollow">https://conversionxl.com/popup-defense/?hvid=2EcGFw</a>
I think Google is fighting this by giving a lower rank to pages that do this[1].<p>[1]: <a href="https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-easily-access-content-on.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-easi...</a>
These are also bad for accessibility reasons — they generally have a light gray "x" on a white background, which you have to hunt for if you want to dismiss the modal. For normally-sighted individuals, this is a hassle. For people with low vision or motor impairments (e.g. Parkinson's or other tremors), this creates a much bigger problem.
This battle will never be won by those who oppose the pop-ups. The reason? They work.<p>If you put one on your site the metrics show a definite upturn in conversion, be it sales or sign-ups or whatever you're pushing. Then you take it down for awhile maybe, then you put it back up with something different and you get the upturn again.<p>I personally despise them with every bone in my body, but I don't see them ever going away.
I'm not too annoyed by modals but I'm sick and tired of websites whose content shifts around due to inline ads loading.<p>It's very frustrating when you're trying to read something and the page keeps changing its layout for 10 seconds, especially on a mobile device where you can accidentally click on a link or ad pretty easily. Makes me wonder if they do this on purpose...
Instead of asking "Do you want to participate ..." ask one relevant question that actually has some value for you. And put one field for entering free information. If I'm in the mood, I could actually help you to develop your business/web site by providing some highly insightful information.<p>Can't see any value in these questionnaires, since the population who answers to them must be highly biased. If you spend many hours per day on web, there's probably a dedicated section in your brains scanning for clickable [X], "No thank you", "Close" entities on the view and giving direct commands to your mouse hand.
Placing the newsletter signup form at the bottom of the articles on my site is my preferred method. Only engaged readers get there, and those are the people I want subscribing. Adding double opt-in also weeds out mistaken subscribers.
Publishers should approach everything from the point of view of a person on the street: if it wouldn’t be acceptable in real life, WHY is it acceptable online!?<p>The equivalent of a pop-up newsletter modal is somebody on the street PULLING you aside, standing <i>directly</i> in front of you and preventing you from going any further until you answer their question. All without bothering to observe what you were doing beforehand. Your choice then is to step back the way you came to avoid the creepy sidewalk-blocking people. Ridiculous, creepy and unacceptable in real life but essentially exactly how web sites treat their visitors.
Yes, I want to subscribe to your newsletter!<p>Automatically with a browser plugin, with an address that will even accept your mails. Unfortunately no human will read them in the end, but I'm sure your metrics will be great. I might even accept a cookie so you know I'm already subscribed to your great newsletter.<p>Now if everybody were to do that...
My default action with these popovers is to Cmd+Opt+C to trigger DevTools Select Element feature, click on the modal background div and just delete it from DOM. Most of the times quicker than hunting for the small X button somewhere.
I'm not sure the headline succinctly conveys the prime message of the article, which is that modals have replaced pop-ups as a nuisance.<p>In general, I agree. My reaction to most modals is to simply close the tab. Often it's halfway through an article. I can't be bothered to finish it if I'm being interrupted rudely.
I started just closing the tab if a site thinks I want to signup before reading the content.
If sites are do desperate for the quick fix, I do not expect them to have good content below that modal dialog.
Why can't we just agree to do away with popup windows/overlays altogether? Then this kind of thing would be harder, and hacking a workaround would be more obviously bad practice.<p>Software interfaces are becoming common even in car consoles and heavy equipment. Bad UI is moving from annoying to life threatening.<p>'9' != 'yes'<p>Is a life threatening inequality if the '9' on a phone keypad, and the 'yes' is the confirmation of a popup. Are you calling 911 or agreeing to upgrade the os? Dramatically different intents yet indistinguishable if they should occur at the same time.<p>Popops are perhaps one of the best known examples of user hostile GUI patterns. Popups induce 'mode errors' and violate user security and safety by redirecting input at random and potentially critical moments of user interactions. We've known for a very long time, perhaps since the 90s that the correct way to notify a user must not assume user awareness and must not steal focus. Notifications should be added to a list that can be reviewed buy the user at any time. Never steel focus, never obscure users activity, never assume you have the users full attention or or mental capacity to make choices. The time for such considerations <i>must</i> be chosen by the user.
Good thing we replaced those annoying Flash banners with javascript </irony><p>Old guys like me saw this coming from miles away, it's just history repeating itself.<p>To give you all a heads-up: in the future browsers will ask you "This site wants to open a new javascript dialog. Show/block"
From the perspective of crowdfunding<p>1. The crowdfunding sites themselves maintain HUGE newsletter lists and use very advanced analytics to determine what to place in those newsletters.<p>2. For campaigners, the size and activity of your email list is a huge factor in determining your campaign success. Just like this web tool <a href="https://www.thunderclap.it/about" rel="nofollow">https://www.thunderclap.it/about</a> sending a direct email blast to a good list can mean the difference of a successful hard launch and campaign, or a lackluster or failed campaign. The email lists of the sites themselves which feature several campaigns, are hugely influential on campaign success, and in my experience has at least once lead to the production of 4x our total raise goal in a single platform newsletter feature of our campaign.<p>Sometimes people do want to be notified. Newsletters are something of a different issue, but the case above seems like a newsletter to me. Especially because we used our first campaign backers + second campaign + interest landing pages and social media gathering email campaigns to continually send emails about new campaigns and products.<p>Essentially therefore I'm arguing, the ability to gather a quality, targeted email list and generate a recurring newsletter without a 10%+ attrition rate [1] is both difficult and valuable.<p>[1] CANSPAM compliance requires unsubscribe link, my personal interpretation is 1-click unsubscribe should be the rule, no loading email setting pages behind login walls. Good design is honest. Crowdfunding requiring physical good production in quantity is very difficult for the uninitiated. And then it remains difficult, time consumer over time, and requires constant attention. This is essentially scaling issues but in the physical world. So many of the failed to deliver crowdfunded projects are not so much dishonest as naive, but also consider Jobs' thoughts on the subject<p>> great artists ship<p>though Dieter Rams (most famous living Industrial Designer) says<p>> designers are not fine artists who we are often confused for
In Firefox, right click on popups and bring up "Inspect Element". Then find the top level element of the popup in the inspector, and Delete Node. The modal disappears. This even bypasses some paywalls. Some sites won't then scroll, though.<p>An add-on to dismiss modals should be possible. Most people do ad-removal add-ons by looking for explicit HTML text, but there are more general approaches. Look for a big box that has a high Z index. That's the modal. Then proceed up the tree until you rejoin with the main document text. Delete the subtree with the modal. Then force scrolling behavior to return to the default.
> This is because there is no single implementation of modal windows. Many are custom-built.<p>Actually, 90% are from the same few plugins. Unfortunately, those plugs are designed with <i>dark patterns</i> to prevent Element Hiding Helper or Element picker from removing anything from that domain.<p>Some use use randomized IDs each page creation. The worst offenders remove the page scrollbar during the modal so even if you can hide the modal, you can no longer any pages on that site.
Just hit the back button when this happens.<p>A website covering its content with trash is a good indicator that the content wasn't worth spending your time on in the first place.
NoScript unless they earn the privilege of executing code. I wish whatever spec would have covered the concern had stated script execution MUST prompt the user.
I'm irrationally annoyed by these popovers to the extent that I'm tempted to just start locally blocking every site that has them. Just need a handy button to add the domain of whatever page I'm viewing to hosts.deny and preferably fire off an email to the site's admin telling them I prefer never visiting their site again to having to be subjected to their method of promotion.
It's interesting how most of the solutions here surround just blacklisting those websites, removing them entirely like ad blocks do with ads. I'd like to point out in a lot of cases we visit those websites not because there are 20 other sites with the same content, but because we care about <i>their</i> content! That's why we're there. Or if there are other sites with similar content we haven't found them yet and/or that would require additional expenditure of time/energy to do so. So I'm not so sure why this is a highly shared solution here.<p>I also think we have to differentiate between behavior that is user action based vs. default case. Pop ups were stopped by browsers because they were triggered on page load for example, it was an action that should have produced a deterministic outcome. If part of a page that is not tied to a user action is blocked that is a passively executed scenario and can be used arbitrarily to censor anything by anyone and that's not a place we should move to.
The full-screen modal-with-windowshade newsletter prompts are super annoying. But I realize bloggers will always want to "expand their reach," to use the distasteful marketing term. I'd much prefer the prompted blinded in from the side quickly, or ideally, appeared in the site's sidebar. I'm guessing they're used everywhere because you could drop in a code snippet to do everything for you, and a vast majority of code snippets are the "in your face windowshade" variety.<p>I don't know what to do about this situation other than to write my own paste-in package for newsletter signups, which I don't really have time for. I guess the best thing I can do is announce: if your newsletter prompt doesn't cover the main content of the page, I'm much more likely to subscribe (~20%) than if it's a modal + windowshade (0%).
How about extension with some kind of machine learning? You know, all 4 borders and all 4 corners going dark w/o user interaction. At the same time some kind of form input appear at highest z-index.<p>Extension would delete that DOM subtree rightaway. + some kind of cloud harvest from users reporting false-positives.
Lots of predictable complaining. OTOH, email marketing works pretty well with 'average folks', or it did in the past. So: maybe avoid it on your geek oriented site, but on something meant for regular people, it might work well.
To put a finer point on it, no, I'm not too dumb to find a regular ordinary signup link somewhere when I'm interested, and no, I didn't accidentally forget to click yours. Face it, website, I'm just not that into you!
Anybody know an FTC commisioner's email address? I've always thought it would be funny to put that into every subscription nag I see. (The FTC is in charge of enforcing US spam laws.)
How about cookie policy popups/notifications/extra-top -bar? It's getting increasingly annoying to browse the Web. Basically you have to close some signup modal, cookie warning, chat head before you can start reading the content only to get another blocking modal right after scrolling - which will 'kindly' ask you to disable ad blocker... It's getting better and better!
I have to try with having special gmail e-mail address and set every mail that gets there as spam.<p>If more people would do this they could penalize the host.
Since we're talking about ads and such, has anyone tried AdNauseam [0]? It's an extension based on uBlock that clicks ALL ad links in the background. I find the idea fascinating because flooding my ad profile with random noise sounds appealing.<p>[0]: <a href="https://adnauseam.io/" rel="nofollow">https://adnauseam.io/</a>
I would be quite content if the Web became something more akin to a "Reception", i.e. that there was the opportunity to meet/chat with a Real Human, instead of automated software.<p>Is it not true that automatic things are better when experienced at the hands of a human, than a machine? I think this factor is at play here ..
I think the OP here hit the nail on the head: if you don't like it, leave. He has no right to demand a web property owner appease his every whim. The owner has every right to have modals on their site. Just like Walmart has every (legal) right to mistreat their employees. So I don't shop there.
> The only solution is to unite in changing our behavior. We need to give website operators an ultimatum: Remove the modals, or we leave.<p>Firstly: most of these modals only show up on exit intent and only once per ~90 days (if you allow cookies), so this ultimatum is fairly hollow.<p>Secondly: do you value your pageview so highly that you think web publishers must respond to your demands? Are you paying these sites for their content/whatever else you're looking at? If not, then maybe clicking out of a modal once per 90 days is a fair price to pay for whatever it is that you're looking at.<p>Thirdly: as you mention, the reason these modals are all over the place is that they work. Fortunately, all highly-effective marketing tactics get repeated perpetually until consumers become immune to them...that will surely happen here, you might just need to wait a bit longer.<p><i>should note that, like @petecooper below/above, I'm in the newsletter business and don't use these modals. But I also see no reason why people who want to use them shouldn't use them</i>
Why don't adblockers work on these? Don't they just block elements based on CSS selectors? If so, why can't we collect a database of CSS selectors for the top 1000 sites, CSS classes used by popular modal popup libraries, etc.?
You can suspend the modal pop ups, at least the majority of them, by detecting if they use Bootstrap or Foundation and add CSS code to take over the modal classes from those libraries. Most sites use one of those two framworks anyway.
I give the forms junk data now to make it expensive for them to maintain. I only ever hit the form once, but I have heard of people writing bots to hammer these forms in the realm of hundreds or thousands of submissions.
> The only solution is to unite in changing our behavior. We need to give website operators an ultimatum: Remove the modals, or we leave<p>Another solution is to have ad blockers also block modals, like there is to be for popups
Old Opera browser used to have a button to disable CSS that would return page to a readable state. Also it was helpful on websites with white-on-black color scheme.
first I hated those popups, but then I turned it into a funny game -- in every popup which asks for email I fill in email address like "f*ck-off@this-popup.com" :)
Author linked to the <i>i hate popup modals</i> tumblr, where I was confronted with a (subtler than most, granted) popup. <a href="http://pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=113889" rel="nofollow">http://pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=113889</a>
If you don't want to see my pop up asking you to subscribe to my newsletter after you've scrolled through half the article I wrote (that you have shown to be interested) then you are free to leave and not come back. Deal.