[ddebernardy]

> "In God we trust, all others must bring data." Best practices should be grounded in data rather than opinions whenever possible, especially when they're based on claims about users' cognitive load like in the NN/g recommendations.

Indeed they should. Except that here, the case is bloody obvious. "Show me the data that says the grass is green!" "Show me that evolution exists!" The onus of finding the data is on whoever thinks the statements are unreasonable.

Look… Opening links in new tabs does break the back button; no extra evidence is needed here beyond stating the obvious. The hardware back button on Android phones do lead to unexpected behavior; no extra evidence needed either. Having a save button in a word processor is needlessly forcing 40-year old IO limits onto end-users; no extra evidence needed here either.

In each case, what you can argue with and request data for, is this: whether end-users successfully cope with it or not; not whether it's broken to begin with.

And sadly, we humans are wonderfully adaptable. Including to pathetically poor user interfaces decisions such as the need to click a Start button in order to shut down a Win95 computer.

> Besides, mobile browsers have gotten a lot better at managing RAM and most have been able to optimize background tabs for a long time, so I think the RAM issue is way overrated.

Not everyone has a modern device. A whole bunch of iOS 5.1 devices (3rd-gen iPhones, 1st-gen iPads) and old Android devices are still in the wild.

> For example, many people expect "help" links (like the one next to the HN comment box) to not make you leave the page and rely on the "back" function to restore your painfully typed comment once you realize it does.

And that would qualify as a session that shouldn't be interrupted — i.e. it's a perfectly valid use-case, including for the OP.

(I, for one, would nonetheless suggest that a floating div on the same screen might be superior in that case, because the current window/tab would not lose its focus — a hopefully obvious fact.)

> a lot of things break the back button because dynamic content has made it much easier to do so

Assuredly so. But two wrongs don't make a right, so posting that as a reason to break it further is dubious at best.

Speaking personally, I hate those sites because they break my back button. I actually use the damned thing a lot, come to think of it. Especially on my 1st-gen iPad, since RAM-starved device can't seem hold more than a tab or two in memory when browsing sites loaded with JS.

> the point of doing an actual study is to be able to measure them so we can compare them and say which trade-offs are worth it and which aren't

Indeed. But chances are you wouldn't actually be measuring these things due to the huge bias involved in the measurement itself.

By simply asking a user if he prefers A or B, even qualitatively, you may open up a whole new world that he was unaware of until you asked; if so, the odds are good that — of course! — he'll prefer it rather than his more familiar daily routine, since the latter is in shambles due to widespread bad practices.

But hold… Your profile states that you're a data scientist, and I see you attended IEP at that. So you necessarily know this, and the — obvious — fact that a great many studies out there are inconclusive due to dubious methodology.

[pyduan]

You're missing my point though. My point was not that opening links in a new window is always a good thing, just that usability experts keep parading the same old studies and scientific-sounding claims about "cognitive load" (and it's not just about this link issue) and that I was curious about how they were backing up their claims. Regardless of what I think the best behavior should be, as someone who cares about quality data and methodology I simply wished UX could be a little bit more rigorous, which is why I've been playing devil's advocate. Note that my original comment did not state any preference towards one side or the other (my last sentence even explicitly said so), I was just commenting on how I was curious to find more compelling arguments. If they were to say "it is the preferred convention because it seems reasonable and is consistent with our recommendations", that would be another story. But passing personal preference for scientific truth, and then using this as a pretext to be self-righteous about it (like the author of the linked post) is not OK.

My original argument was simple:

1) opening links in new windows is said to be bad because a) it breaks the back button, and b) the back button is the most important one

2) the back button does not seem to be as important as it is now because of multi-tabbed browsing. Furthermore, since what matters is not not the back button itself, but how users expect the back button to perform, the fact this functionality has become unreliable could change the user's expectations (it changed mine)

3) therefore, the original argument may not be relevant anymore

> Indeed. But chances are you wouldn't actually be measuring these things due to the huge bias involved in the measurement itself.

The burden of proof should be proportional to the size of the claims you make. You can only be as confident as your data: if you believe there are biases in the measurement, then you should stay measured, too.

By the way, you say:

> And that would qualify as a session that shouldn't be interrupted — i.e. it's a perfectly valid use-case, including for the OP.

Who defines what should and shouldn't be interrupted? In the case of an article, I could argue that when I click a link in the middle of an article (like in The Verge's case), it's generally just because I'm curious about the link, kind of like I would read a footnote in a book, but ultimately I don't want to lose my pace and that would interrupt my reading "session". It is definitely not an indisputable claim, but it sure is a justifiable one (unlike, say, auto-loading audio advertisements) so The Verge isn't evil for doing so. If they had an A/B test and it showed it increased retention and that this is worth irritating some users, that's their decision to make.

Anyway, I feel this discussion has grown way out of proportion to the original claim and that we're just arguing for the sake of being right at that point. I'll willingly concede that you're right to say that as of now, forcing new tabs may place an unnecessary burden on users using older hardware.