Here is a page with a video on it (you have to scroll down to see the video; the actual video is not the point, just that there is a video).
I got to this page by clicking on a link on the sfgate.com home page (here). Of course, this page changes all the time, so the actual link may not be there when you look.
When I get to the page with the video, the Back button no longer works. All the Back button seems to do is to re-set the video.
My question: is this just the way IE works, or is sfgate.com not posting the video properly on the page?
Roddy
This may be a browser issue – when I open that link in Firefox, from the main sfgate.com page, I have a back button. (I’m on a Mac, and don’t have a copy of IE handy at the moment.)
There’s nothing particular about a video that would disable a back button, but I believe it is possible to disable the Back button – at least in IE – through some javascript. I don’t see anything like that on a quick scan of the source, but I don’t have the time or in-depth knowledge to give you a definitive answer.
I have a back button in IE but it won’t let me go back, but I can right click and go back that way. Chrome and Firefox let me go back with a back button or a backspace
I’m pretty sure there’s some sort of redirecting page that IE treats as a previous page, while Firefox et al know to skip. I note that the previous page (when you hover over the back button) is labeled IframeSingle, rather than what was actually on the previous page.
It doesn’t surprise me that something like this would happen in IE8, but it’s also still present in IE9.
Given how insanely specialized many sites are in delivering different pages based on browser, it might not even be mainly a difference in how the browsers handle the page. It could be that sfgate is sending a different page to IE users.
Yeah, but why would you deliberately break the page in IE? If they’re actually coding specifically for it, you’d expect them to test with it.
Plus, I know of specific fixes in Firefox designed to deal with the issue of a redirect breaking the back button. I just expected IE9 to have employed them, too.
First, never ascribe deliberate behavior to web page programmers that cannot be explained by stupidity. Most every odd thing you encounter on the Net can merely be explained by idiot web page designers.
Interfering with back buttons is just one of the many things web site designers like to do out of said stupidity. And I have run into many pages (looking at the coding to check) where they don’t bother messing with things for Firefox and other browsers. What I’ve read in a few places is that this is because they consider alternate browser users more sophisticated and more likely to get angry about dumb things they do. So, they “go after” the IE users who they rate lower in web sophistication and less likely to stop visiting the site.
As to testing: I really, really doubt most web page designers do any significant testing. If it works on their bosses laptop, they take the money and go home.
The page was redirected prior to your viewing it, probably because of the embedded video, but that is just a guess. You can use the back button drop down to select an earlier page or use the in-page links to navigate back to the home page. (Or click back twice, really fast) The issue is specific to IE in this case, but you will likely see it in other browsers fairly regularly, especially if you have gone through any sort of security portal.
This being GQ, I’m going to have to ask you to provide a cite for your claims about the shortsightedness, ineptness and complete lack of perceivable intelligence of web programmers.
Actually being a web programmer, I can tell you that our time breaks down as follows:
10% - Development
25% - Making it work across all of the damned browsers (Try making even a simple website work in IE 6, 7, 8, 9, Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome. Don’t get me started on getting section 508 requirements to work on all of them as many of those requirements aren’t grounded in reality to begin with.)
65% - Testing and fixing nitpicky issues
In my experience, amateur web programmers only develop for Firefox, ignoring all else; Never IE and especially not older versions of IE. Professional web programmers tend to be required to develop for every browser, which is a source of endless frustration. Since, as evidenced by the OP’s issue, not all browsers function equally.
Very interesting discussion. I was afraid of the “idiot web page designers” problem, because I work with these people, and I have already brought this issue to their attention twice. The previous problem was when sfgate.com was running ads with videos, and every page that had one of those ads on it behaved this way. Eventually they stopped running those ads, so (silly me) I thought the problem was fixed.
Clearly it is not fixed. geneb, I would not say that this is a nitpicky little problem, nor is IE an obscure, seldom-used browser. So can you suggest an effective way for me to approach them about this issue, so that they will actually deal with it? Maybe they don’t use IE on a regular basis, but for those (in the same company, mind) that don’t have admin rights on our PCs, IE is what we are stuck with.
Roddy
This is (arguably) an issue that was never fixed in IE. AJAX is becoming more and more widely used (for good reason) but it relies on Active Scripting (ActiveX) in IE. Since, for security reasons, many companies will block ActiveX scripts from executing many websites will use IFrames to simulate AJAX in IE. There is a known issue with the back button taking the user back to the IFrame rather than the previous page. It’s not shoddy or lazy coding on the programmer’s part, it’s just how the browser functions.
So there are three options:
Don’t support IE.
Accept it as necessary and use the in-page navigation, the dropdown on the back button or click “Back” twice in rapid succession.
Have some of your coders work on creating a XMLHttpRequest library that doesn’t rely on ActiveX and implement it site-wide.
Web programming is all about compromise when it comes to cross-browser compatibility, so I would choose number 2, personally. It is a fairly minor issue with several workarounds that require minimal effort. Number 3 would fix the issue site-wide but would take many man hours to develop, test and implement. I also would advise against number 3 as I suspect IFrames will be going the way of the dinosaurs in the future and it may be wasted effort.
I should also say that, for option 1, it is not to not support IE as a whole, but just don’t support users who don’t allow ActiveX scripts as AJAX works fine without IFrames when your security settings aren’t on lock-down. (Also would require a bit of coding to remove the IFrames and use straight AJAX, but not nearly as much as option 3.)
After looking into the code on the page, it isn’t so much that your site is trying to use AJAX, per say; The newsinc video that is embedded into an IFrame on your site is. The video starts with a “Please wait while loading video player” message and then performs an asynchronous postback to hide that message and display the video. So, same issue, just not your site’s fault.
With this knowledge in hand, it is impossible that your developers can do anything about it as it is an issue with the way newsinc does their videos. As such, your options have changed:
Accept it as necessary and use the in-page navigation, the dropdown on the back button or click “Back” twice in rapid succession.
Get the sites you embed into your pages to develop a XMLHttpRequest library that doesn’t rely on ActiveX or to not support IE that refuses ActiveX scripts.
geneb, thank you so much for digging so far into this and educating me.
It is clear to me that option 2 just will not fly, at least not for news content. Maybe I can suggest that if we start carrying any more ads that have embedded videos like that, they require that solution from those advertisers.
My concern with pages like this is not my own ability to find my way back to the previous page, but for all the IE users who might end up giving up on sfgate.com because of this problem. Most of these users are probably not very sophisticated. If a site is hard to use, they won’t come back, and then our company suffers. At least now I understand what all the trade-offs are.
Glad I could help. (And hopefully show that web programmers aren’t lazy or stupid so much as limited by the fact that there are a number of different browsers that all function differently and all with different security and other settings, many of which are significantly out of date. Nothing will ever work perfectly on all of them but we do the best we can with what we have.)
I understand the usability issue you’re seeing. The only thing I can suggest is to either not use sources or advertisers that cause this issue (specifically newsinc videos and the advertisers you used int he past that caused the same issue) or, as you say, require them to fix it on their end.
I suspect that you will not see many of them as IFrames aren’t used much lately. And, as time goes on, will be used less and less by anybody worth their salt. I suspect that those few places that still have this issue simply haven’t put in the effort (or don’t have the resources) to update their methods yet.