answered question
1
Vote
Vote
17
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
What do you think of Facebook framing (aka hijacking) other websites when you leave their domain?
|
Report
answers (17)
I am already incredibly annoyed by this. It's one thing that they hijack the page, but I am even more ticked off by how it destroys my browsing habits.
It has happened a couple of times that I clicked a link on facebook, went to a framed page, saw an interesting link on the framed page, clicked through, and felt a need to send that page to friends, or bookmark it. Annoyingly enough, the address bar is still being occupied by some Facebook URL. Now, if I close the Facebook frame with the button in the top right corner, it does not even preserve that I browsed onwards from the link, but instead it goes back to the page that was originally linked from Facebook.
Stealing the address bar is a bad enough offense on it's own, but breaking browsing habits like this is showing contempt for your users in my book.
It has happened a couple of times that I clicked a link on facebook, went to a framed page, saw an interesting link on the framed page, clicked through, and felt a need to send that page to friends, or bookmark it. Annoyingly enough, the address bar is still being occupied by some Facebook URL. Now, if I close the Facebook frame with the button in the top right corner, it does not even preserve that I browsed onwards from the link, but instead it goes back to the page that was originally linked from Facebook.
Stealing the address bar is a bad enough offense on it's own, but breaking browsing habits like this is showing contempt for your users in my book.
I think that if any other, smaller site did it, the public wouldn't stand for it. But since it is facebook, I think people will stand up with it... for a while.
They are taking realestate from their destination site in exchange for traffic to it. You could argue its a negotiable deal. Although, what is to stop nested frame in-frame in-frame horrendousness?
from a PRO pov I say: brilliant! just more good branding. no harm done
from a typical consumer POV I say " ..... duh, whatchu talkin bout..?"
from a typical consumer POV I say " ..... duh, whatchu talkin bout..?"
source(s):
www.xesenta.com
www.xesenta.com
A lot of other sites do this (or something similar). I don't particularly like it - it's not very user friendly.
Ick! Can you get out of it without closing your browser? If not, then double ick.
I thought they always did? I've found it a useful feature. If sites don't want to be framed they can always bust out anyhow:
This is an unfair characterization. It shows you which of your friends shared the link, allows you to comment on it, and is easily removable by clicking the clearly visible close box.
There is no reason to start a flame war over something that is actually beneficial for users.
There is no reason to start a flame war over something that is actually beneficial for users.
Fine by me! Its not tricking anyone! It shows the actual site (i.e. isn't a cached version of the site, goes and gets the latest from the site) and gives the option to drop the top bar. It should also be noted that this only occurs (to my knowledge) on links that are added by the links application. If the link shows up via a tweet or a comment or something in the status area, no framing.
If people are using it for promotion (as some would be) I think it works as it gives the option to share it with their friends extending the reach!
If people are using it for promotion (as some would be) I think it works as it gives the option to share it with their friends extending the reach!
Ask.com has been doing that for a couple weeks now, too. They (Ask.com) give you the option to click the little tiny "x" and opt to "permanently remove" the bar ... until you clear your cache, likely ... and I'd guess Facebook does the same.
Gut reaction, it bugs the dickens out of me. I like things oversimplified - if I click a link, I go to that link. Not a "Facebook presents" version of that link.
But ...
Does it really disrupt the stat-tracking? I mean, those people are going to show up as entering your site from Facebook, anyways. Subsequent links in the click-chain would suffer, but are people going to just cruise around with an open Facebook bar at the top of the screen?
Gut reaction, it bugs the dickens out of me. I like things oversimplified - if I click a link, I go to that link. Not a "Facebook presents" version of that link.
But ...
Does it really disrupt the stat-tracking? I mean, those people are going to show up as entering your site from Facebook, anyways. Subsequent links in the click-chain would suffer, but are people going to just cruise around with an open Facebook bar at the top of the screen?
It bothers me a little, but it's not really a huge deal. It is slightly annoying, but I usually just get rid of it without even thinking.
I really don't like it at all. I do have Ubiquity on one of my computers, and I don't know yet how this very popular extension handles it if I were to use it to send a page to someone.
I don't care for it and that's enough to keep me off sites like facebook.
I see the value in doing it - but it should only be done for sites owned by or related to Facebook. Whenever I do web development, if the linked site is not related to the one I am working on, I force it into a new window. If one MUST frame an external link, it should clearly state in the frame that the page is an external site, and is in no way related to Facebook.
In 1999, breaking the back button was number one in Jakob Nielsen's Top 10 Mistakes of Web Design. In 10 years that rule has not become less important:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
In 1996, the same expert, Jakob Nielsen, wrote that "Frames Suck" (most of the time). Again, this is not a design convention which has become more acceptable over time. In the 13 years since that was written, the use of framing on websites has nearly disappeared (thankfully):
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
The fact that FB is such a large site/publisher does not make it's breaking of conventions acceptable. Therefore, by some very long standing user interface conventions which have been documented by a useability expert, Jakob Nielsen, FaceBook absolutely has done something "improper" in framing other websites.
Jakob Nielsen wrote a book, called Designing Web Usability, which has 233 reviews on Amazon, and an average review of four stars (108 of them are 5 star reviews). Therefore, it can be said that Jakob Niesen is a qualified expert on web usability.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
In 1996, the same expert, Jakob Nielsen, wrote that "Frames Suck" (most of the time). Again, this is not a design convention which has become more acceptable over time. In the 13 years since that was written, the use of framing on websites has nearly disappeared (thankfully):
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
The fact that FB is such a large site/publisher does not make it's breaking of conventions acceptable. Therefore, by some very long standing user interface conventions which have been documented by a useability expert, Jakob Nielsen, FaceBook absolutely has done something "improper" in framing other websites.
Jakob Nielsen wrote a book, called Designing Web Usability, which has 233 reviews on Amazon, and an average review of four stars (108 of them are 5 star reviews). Therefore, it can be said that Jakob Niesen is a qualified expert on web usability.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X
source(s):
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
http://www.amazon.com/dp/156205810X
aren't you doing it on Mahalo, too - with the option to remove the frame. same thing you did on Propeller/Netscape, or please explain why this is different?
I don't like it .
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
