alt Hacker NewsWhat Is a Dickover?
Comments
I have a theory that about 97% of developers and managers completed the cookie consent (or whatever) on their own product 5 years ago and hence never see it again, and they have no idea how bad the experience for new customers actually is.
So the developers and bosses all think they're doing a great job and they've got a carefully curated homepage, even though the regular users get a cloudflare captcha, then a cookie modal, then a newsletter modal, then an install-our-app modal, all blocking their access to the 'buy product' button.
One of criteria for inclusion into Kagi Small Web [1] is no dickovers. Thanks for naming it properly John.
I endorse this name because, once it's the standard name for this technique, people will have to use it in meetings when seriously proposing them, which makes it harder to seriously propose.
"And this is our design for the Dickover."
"Guys, I'm not sure we should Dickover the customers."
"You know, when you say it that way...."
Epilogue: six months later, the site is dead because they converted nobody to their newsletter.
I explicitly disable these on Substack but it adds them to my posts anyway. I'm not sure if that's a bug or the thing working as intended, but it was enough to make me stop using it. I don't want to do that to my readers.
If you zoom websites to be able to read them, like I do.
Then these are especially frustrating because I have to zoom out to find the close button. Its a chase every time, and sometimes I give up.
How are these allowed to exist when there are the EU Web Accessibility Directive ?
This is an excellent bookmarklet to have:
``` javascript:(function()%7B let i%2C elements %3D document.querySelectorAll('body *')%3B for (i %3D 0%3B i < elements.length%3B i%2B%2B) %7B if(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'fixed' %7C%7C getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'sticky')%7B elements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B %7D %7D %7D)() ```
Sometimes, this one is needed to fix scrolling after using the previous one:
``` javascript:var r="html,body{overflow:auto !important;}"; var s=document.createElement("style"); s.type="text/css"; s.appendChild(document.createTextNode(r)); document.body.appendChild(s); void 0; ```
Did anyone else think this was a clever keming pun?
Fortunately, for those sites where either JS is required for the content or to remove the dickover, browsers still have an Inspect Element tool that makes deleting this and other annoyances not too difficult and rather cathartic.
I've used the politer term "pie" for these things, since they are usually thrown in the user's face like a pie, after the normal screen has been shown for a few seconds.
In the old days, JS allowed window.open() which would create a new window on the user's sceren. That naturally was abused horribly, leading to pop-up-blocker extensions and then built-in browser permissions. We need the same thing for pies/dickovers, which are at root a workaround to the presence of pop-up blocking.
My first reaction to "dickover" was that it sounded like another Marion Zimmer Bradley fantasy fiction series...
DO YOU CONSENT WITH OUR TRACKING COOKIES POLICY?
[YES, I DO, THE IMPORTANT TRACKING ONES] [YES, I DO, ALL OF THEM] ⁿᵒ ᵃⁿᵈ ᶜˡᵒˢᵉ ᵈᶦᶜᵏᵒᵛᵉʳ
Did you know that a Substack's author can turn the annoying popup off? Go to dashboard -> settings, and then it's "Enable subscribe prompts on post page" under "Growth."
It's the first thing I did. Recommended.
Yeah this is really bad. Firefox + uBlock Origin + Filters cleans a lot of these dickovers. Some seem to slip through the cracks. There's a never ending fight between bad websites and the warriors trying to protect our attention.
For me the fact that dickovers are possible is a bug in all JavaScript interpreters.
In my opinion, any decent browser should make impossible both dickovers and also other related hostile actions, like the possibility for a Web page to modify the right-click menu or to prevent text selection.
Unfortunately completely disabling scripts is rarely a solution, because many sites do not work at all. But the kind of actions mentioned above never serve a useful purpose for the user, so they should be ineffective and their should be no way for the hostile site to determine whether they work or no.
Modal windows may sometimes be useful in applications that are controlled by myself, but it should always be possible to override them in externally-controlled applications, like when browsing Internet sites.
He claims that dickovers aren't as bad as the dickbars, but I think they're equal.
The dickover is a big, immediate distraction that you can't help but deal with.
But the dickbar is insidious because you forget it's even there. You just get used to always seeing whatever banner is there and think it's just a permenant piece of the interface and you adapt to not having 25% of your viewport.
> But some sneaky, cowardly bastards sucker-punch you with their dickbars only after you have started reading, and begin to scroll down the page.
Yeah, about that, news websites who want to sell me a subscription. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but can you please wait until I've read at least one or two sentences (let alone the short preview of your paywalled articles) BEFORE you dickoverslap me to consider subscribing?
By the time the thing comes up, I haven't even been able to tell whether your writer can form a coherent sentence. "Subscribe PLZ" at that point will make sure I barely even consider staying for the rest of it.
The only surprising thing about the Tom’s Hardware example was that John Gruber evidently does not use an adblocker
Does big tech understand consent?
[ ] Yes
[ ] Maybe later
Talking of dark patterns I’ve noticed that many site “accidentally” have the bottom aligned cookie consent banner “break” on mobile Safari, such that the buttons are arranged such that “Accept All” is the only button you can press because the “Deny All” or “Customize” go out of viewport when you go to click on them. This might be related to how mobile Safari changes the bottom bar as you move to click the button. I often have this with the NYT Wordle game. Even though I use pi-hole to block ads, it’s still annoying.
I was thinking it would be nice if you could at least drag the popup out of the way so you could delay reading it while you first focus on what’s underneath. But then I realized, that would technically be a dick move.
You can prevent the loading of most pop ups and many nag screens and cookie demands by simply having a browser configured with an "add-on" that allows you to toggle of and toggle on javascript. There are several add-ons available.
Alternatively, you have another browser with javascript permanently disabled and keep it minimized in the tray, or in the background.
A lot of websites that demand subscriptions, post nagscreens or use other blocks whereby the website can be read by simply toggling off javascript.
Javascript in websites has become what corporations use to manipulate & control us and do things like post nag screens & demand subscriptions.
When I run across websites that demand javascript before they will load I just shitcan them and eliminate them from viewing forever.
Any site I visit regularly gets a user stylesheet via Stylus that I use to hide anything like this.
If you show me a modal dialogue, there better be a literal fire.
for the first 2m, I read that as "dick-lover", and I was like "why would you call it that..."
Never thought to call them dickovers before, but it’s apt. At a certain point, I noticed my finger reflexively hitting the ESC key because that usually dismisses a lot of them.
"Login with your Google or some other globalist public-private tyrannical spyware trash" is the most common "dickover" around.
Need of the hour :
Browser personalization tools or extensions ...
A combination of User stylesheet (stylus) or User scripts (greasemonkey) -- superpowered by AI models that can let users target screen elements and shape webpage display and behavior without having to manually deal with precise DOM elements or CSS JS syntax
Best useful tweaks could become part of a curated list like uOrigin ad block lists
> asking the user to accept “cookies” [...] or anything else that the user couldn’t give two shits about.
Oh, I absolutely care about cookies and whenever I have the option I do not allow the website to place them. That said, I would much prefer an architecture where I express that once in a browser setting and the browser relays that information on to any website somewhere in the background.
Dickovers are annoying -- tell me, what's your solution? For me, a combination of a) not patronizing these sites, but when I have to b) some ad blockers help. Nothing seems to work well though.
Sometimes I read something and think “wow a lot of problems in the world would be fixed if people would take just a moment to not be assholes”
I block a lot of these with ublock.
This is pure cinema. I'm glad he's using his platform to call this out, it's rampant!
I usually just toggle Firefox's reading mode whenever a dickover like this pops up and they magically go away, allowing me to continue reading in peace.
He nailed it.
But please increase the font size.
> They’re popovers, but dickheaded.
So they're popovers.
Seriously. I've never seen a popover used for any legitimate purpose. If it was the content the user wanted, you can put it in the page where it goes.
The web needs more 'Get Bent' buttons.
In a similar vein, If I had to explain what javascript was to someone non-technical I would say "you know all that crap that covers up a web site you are trying to look at? That's javascript."
dickover n. : a modal panel, popover, or curtain presented by a website or app, deliberately obscuring its own content to frustrate the user with an unwanted, unnecessary, mandatory interaction
Solution: reader mode.
That's what she asked.
Maybe if people don't like dickovers, paywalls, and all the other bad patterns , they should stop submitting and voting them up.
Wow, yeah, fuck off with the dickovers.
My own blog has none of that crap. No Google analytics, no tracking. If someone visits my site, I have no idea. And I don't care.
I hate this new web behavior and leave sites immediately whenever I run into it.
This is now the word
Fanboys Annoyances List for Ublock. Install it on your family's computers when they aren't looking. It aims to filter ALL this crap.
[dead]
I'm sorry but this is such a stupid name. Where did the author get this name from?
Why would I say that in front of any female colleage or any non-technical layman? We already have a name for this and it is a "popup".
Which sounds better?
"Remove this popup" or "Remove this dickover"
Be honest.
Gruber's usually too much of a walking Apple ad for my taste, but I love this.
We need to define the things we hate. Give them words. Use the words as weapons.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently with "watermarks" of the statistical and non-visible kind used to track image creators. (Google embedding "this image is AI but also here's the user ID".)
I've been thinking that practice needs a new word too. It's not watermarking, it's signals-math based tracking, so maybe sigtracked.
That might not sound gross enough though.
Thank you, I got a good laugh out of that.
My experience was probably exactly as intended. Click on the "What is a dickover?" link trying to come up with things that it might be. And a brief moment after the page loaded (this little pause is crucial) I am hit in the face with a big annoying popup saying "This is a Dickover" followed by immediate understanding.
Now at least I know what to call it the next time I visit Substack.