Skip to main content

The Point of No Back Button

My endless trek across the once-barren, now-lush lands of the interwebs have brought me to this point. I realized it just this moment. The feeling sank in my gut, chewed holes at every web usability study I've read, and screamed at my very world view: I don't use the back button. Ever.

Does it surprise you? It surprised me, for a moment.

What does your browsing experience look like? If you're like myself and a growing number of the web surfing public, you've probably hung up your surf board by now. Actually manually browsing around websites is boring, time consuming, and just gosh-darn unproductive in todays where-the-hell-is-Noah flood of information. The ark hasn't been built yet, but we make do, for now, with our dingy-scale feed readers. Heck, Google Reader even comes with an oar!

So as I browse down a single, long list of new gumdrops to read this day, a lot comes up I might want to look into further. Maybe I want to comment, follow up on some links, or just abuse the Firefox browser's tab functionality as a reading queue. A huge heaping majority (I'll guesstimate 95%) of the actual web pages I open actually have their back buttons disabled, because they have nowhere to go back to.

Now, exceptions are abound in the world of software (the monkeys in the audience will laugh in a muttered way and get a depressed feeling of omg-im-a-geek). Yes, I do use the back button. I use it quite rarely and I think the majority of the cases where I actually use it can be attributed to poor and annoying website design. A recent example case would be download links for GIMP for Windows taking me to the annoying SourceForge download pages, and not the file itself. I only used the back button to return to the Win-GIMP website to download the next file. So, if we attribute all the cases where I do but shouldn't have to use the back button, I might guesstimate even 99% of the tabs I have open never get their back buttons exercised.

I understand this is not the norm, but neither are the blog and feed devouring web lovers of the world, yet. Most of the information digesting public do tend to remain on the roaming plains of the network. Their numbers are dwindling, I suspect, in ratio to our own numbers. (Does anyone have numbers about this?)


Comments

Paul said…
I use the "Back" button all the time, but then I've been using the Web since around 1993/1994. It wouldn't surprise me if many people hardly ever use it, but it's still probably impossible to navigate effectively without it, and alternative browsing tools such as navigation history trees arguably provide a more intuitive interface that might be more useful even to people who shun the "Back" button. So, I don't think such things are obsolete by any means.
Michael Foord said…
I use the back button quite a lot as well. Often I just want to quickly glance at a page that is linked to, so rather than open it in a new tab I use the link followed by the back button...

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho