Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Will Block Tab-Under Behavior (bleepingcomputer.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google is working on blocking tab-under behavior in Chrome, according to a document seen by Bleeping Computer. For users unfamiliar with the jargon, Google considers tab-under behavior when an unsuspecting user is scrolling or clicking on a page, but the site duplicates the current page in another tab and shows an ad or a new website in the page the user was initially reading. Countless of website owners and advertisers have abused tab-unders to show ads and redirect users to unwanted sites, all for the sake of ad impressions and redirection fees. This demo site created by Google engineers that shows how tab-unders work. Earlier today, Google published a document detailing three ways it's currently looking at for dealing with tab-unders in Chrome. The current approved proposal is for the browser maker to block websites before opening a new tab, similar to the pop-up blocking mechanism. According to Chrome engineer Charles Harrison, the tab-under blocking feature will be supported on five of the six Blink platforms -- Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, and Android, but not Android WebView. Once the feature is ready, it will ship with Chrome Canary under its own option on the chrome://flags settings page.
I've never seen "tab-unders". Thank you, NoScript!
xhamster does it. how do I know? errr a friend told me. honest.
And to think that ad companies wonder why ad blockers are so prevalent.
"Gosh, we are purveyors of annoying content that nobody wants and we use every dirty trick in the book, including exploiting browser bugs, to get our content in front of faces. Why do people hate us so much?"
Like the ones I constantly run into here on slashdot. I try to scroll down the page away from the ad and it just stays there blocking the top-half of my screen. My vertical space is short enough already on a 16:9 monitor thank you!
I've never seen these "tab-unders" in the wild but the "half page scroll" ads are very prevalent on slashdot and other sites paid by ad.doubleclick.net.
Sheesh, we have an absolutely fucking endless series of rude advertiser behavior enabled by javascript, constant behavioral surveillance, and another endless list of security exploits using javascript as an attack surface.
95% of what pages use javascript for does not need it, and could use plain old HTML, or like in this case, simply should not be done at all. Anyone not disabling javascript by default by now (white list it in select cases) is a fool. Don't give control of your browser to random web pages.
I'll give the browser makers more credit when they stop websites from opening a huge opaque overlay over something I just started to read.
Although I've blacklisted every website that does that I've hit so far, and don't see it so often any longer.
We're starting to see some backlash, though. Preventing auto-play videos, invasive-unasked-for sound... those are great browser fixes.
Oh, they can't monetize my visit without my cooperation? I really don't care. :)
I still support websites that behave reasonably. I subscribe to Soylent, for instance. Used to describe to Slashdot, but after years of no improvements at all and considerable degradation of the site, I figured I could do something more useful with the fee, minor as it is. At least the people over at Soylent are trying to do a good job.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They fundamentally break the browser behaviour. The problem is as soon as you close the advert to get back to your page you have now low the history. If you ended up there as a result of a search, screw you, no back key for you, start from the beginning.
This isn't just an advert.
This isn't just a quirky way of getting attention.
This is fundamentally screwing with the web browser and to me is as offensive as a HTML5 pop-over that can't be cleared.
I'd stay anonymous if I wrote like that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You, sir, are no capitalist. Where would we be if everyone adopted your selfserving attitudes?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Yes, Benson, yes.
Yes. Just Yes.
I always wondered what that other tab was loading in the 0.4s it took me to spot and close it.
Great. Now start treating modals the same way you treat popups: if they're not triggered by user activity, block them. (I know it's a little trickier than a popup, but you can monitor for behavior that modifies visibility, z-index, position, and opacity values.) And mobile browsers should ignore position: fixed entirely.
I rarely see it on my Windows PC or my Linux Laptop. I do see it all the bloody time on my iPad and Android Phone.
And it's not just that trick. I go to a site on my iPad and start reading an article and all of a sudden there's an ad taking up the entire screen and not giving me an option to close the ad short of closing the browser.
I'd have to say that fully 2/3rds of the articles I want to read don't get read by me since I'm denied access to them thanks to the ads.
And I'm just loving (sarcasm dripping) the fact that so many sites out there nag you about the fact that we're using an ad blocker. Well gee, if the ads were what they used to be, banner ads on the top and sides without pulling all sorts of fuckery, maybe we'd not use them.
Cases in point. The banner ad that forms in the middle of the screen and blocks what you're there to read. The ads that can't load at the same damn time and jump the text back to the beginning of the article so you have to scroll to find your place...only to have ANOTHER ONE pulling the same bullshit. Or there are the ads that change the position of the screen in random directions so when you are trying to click on a link, it jumps to making you click on the ad instead.
There are companies that I stopped using their products because they've annoyed me to no end as a result of their shenanigans. After one night of TV watching and listening to my Google Home looking up information on the Whopper over and over and over again...I've given up on using the damn thing and stopped giving BK my patronage.
I know they want to be creative in how they market their product, but with me and many other people...they're going to find that they'll face a backlash where people avoid them.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"