|
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. |