Annoying JavaScript
2005-04-08 14:06:52.849536+00 by
Dan Lyke
7 comments
Annoying use of JavaScript OTD: Alaska Airlines has two annoying features:
- You can't sign up for their mileage partner program from Opera for some reason, the error message
indicates gratuitous use of JavaScript.
- The really annoying one: Their search button has some JavaScript so
that clicking it repeatedly doesn't search again. Fine, except that
often what I want to do is search, then use the back button, change
parameters, and search again. This means I have to search, use the
back button, hit shift-reload, reselect all of the pulldowns
(because, noooo, they couldn't just give you a text box for date,
could they?) and if I wasn't going to a place that only they fly
to I'd have long ago found a carrier whose website actually wants
my business.
And, not JavaScript related, but:
- When retrieving an itinerary, you can enter your last name and one
of two fields, the reservation number or the e-ticket number. You
also have to select a pulldown to tell which one you filled in.
Like software can't check to see if one's filled in and the other is
blank?
[ related topics:
Web development moron
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-08 20:06:44.624418+00 by:
Brian
Heh. So, the evil workaround that'd actually be pretty cool: Use Firefox and greasemonkey[1] to change the javascript into something less stupid, after the page is loaded but before it gets rendered. You'd need a pretty deep understanding of what they're doing to fix it in any useful fashion, but then you could publish the resulting greasemonkey script and help other people too.
And the funny part is that this sort of code-patching-code-at-runtime action is called (at least in the python world) "monkeypatching".
[1]: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-08 21:06:20.555173+00 by:
meuon
Interfaces designed by interface-clueless code-clueless people and coded by micromanaged code monkeys - and/or - clueless code monkeys.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-12 00:12:39.123425+00 by:
Jerry Kindall
Wait. You mean there's actually code in there to keep the button from working the second time you click it? They did that on purpose? ARGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.
Yeah, this would be easy to fix with Greasemonkey, maybe I'll whip up something when I get a chance.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-12 03:21:43.575278+00 by:
markd
>
You mean there's actually code in there to keep the button from working the second time you click it?
I'm not too surprised. It's probably double-click protection. Lots of folks really like to double-click everything, even when told again and again (and again and again) to only click once. Being someone savvy enough to single click, and like to back and refill forms, it annoys me to no end.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-12 03:33:02.704699+00 by:
Pete
My credit union disables the "execute" button after one press when doing financial transactions. It seems reasonable then, as a means of avoiding unwanted extraneous transactions.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-12 13:59:48.183355+00 by:
Shawn
[edit history]
K used to work in the returns/refund dept at a local airline(*). You wouldn't believe the number of double/triple/quadruple/etc. charges that occur when people purchase tickets online.
It's been my experience that in the business world of web development/e-commerce it is considered standard/expected behavior to technologically keep the button from being pressed more than once.
(*) okay, okay - it's the one we're talking about.
#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-12 20:58:40.205713+00 by:
Jerry Kindall
Well, okay, protect the ticket purchase button from double-clicking. But there are no negative consequences to double-clicking the search button, and even if you want to protect it for some reason (e.g. to reduce server load) you could still put some kind of timeout on it so that the Back button remains useful.