Do you believe there should be a back button on a responsive website or should we rely on the browser's controls?  If you believe there needs to be a button in the design...   Would you have it appear all the time or only on small (smartphone) screens? Do you have any examples of websites that do this well?   FYI I'm working on a website which is more a tool than a content website. Users will need to be logged in and they'll probably visit this website several times a week.  I've found  about the topic, and although the answer is interesting, I don't see any studies/articles to support the points that are made.  Edit: there is a  about this but it's nearly 7 years old so it's probably not relevant anymore
122160
How about a website that has 4 pages with list and detail view structure?  Hope most of the users will be aware of using browser back button to go back to previous screen. Or should we provide a custom back button on the website?
52828
What is the best way to detect if a user leaves a web page?  The onunload JavaScript event doesn't work every time (the HTTP request takes longer than the time required to terminate the browser).  Creating one will probably be blocked by current browsers.
20241
In usability discussions about opening website external links in new windows, with regard to the argument of "keeping users on the site" there are occasionally references to usability studies which show that users are actually likely to leave the origin site instead of returning (thus defeating the purpose of opening the link in a new window).  But I can't find actual recent published studies on this, and I've searched extensively. Though Jakob Nielson is reputed to be a foremost expert, his recommendations are old and have no citations that I can find.  Does anyone know of credible, recent, published usability studies where users were disoriented by new windows and were more likely to not return to the origin site?  Update:   I understand there are accessibility issues, but as those matters are well-documented and backed up by the WCAG, I'm not in need of evidence supporting them.  This question is intentionally specific to the argument of "I want to keep users on my site" because it is the argument which -- due to lack of supporting evidence -- I can't effectively counter in discussions with the client.  Update:  Found this . Haven't fully deciphered it, but the thesis does claim that new windows / tabs increase the cognitive burden on users.
9370
Update:  Thanks for all the feedback and bug reports! I am locking this thread so people don't keep answering it when we no longer monitor it.  If you see a bug or want to raise a feature request, please do so in the usual manner, as a new question.    Some of you may have noticed that  the  and  pages that we have been talking about for a while now on .  Most? Well, yes, the new design is dependent on a SE network-wide update (a new base css framework) that the design team have been working on. This is an ongoing effort and we will be launching the new pages as sites are moved to the new design.  You've all been hugely helpful already - much of what we love most in here came from  and  you gave us on Meta.     But it's possible that it's not quite perfect yet. If you find any bugs and have any feedback to give, please post these as answers to this post.  Just post one issue per answer - that would help us focus on specific items one at a time.
69475
On the mobile site, can there be a button directly below the vote up/down buttons for viewing vote counts? When I am using the mobile site and I want to view vote counts, I have to switch to the full site to do it which is very inconvenient.   It could be a small link that says "vote counts," because I don't know what the button would be (the letter "V?" a "+/-" thing? I have no idea).  Related:  , but I am requesting an additional button below the vote buttons. That way you won't accidentally click a vote button.
79156
I'm developing a web app to be used on mobile devices.  I use a home button in our status bar to return to our "home" page.  When on this page however, the button will have no function.  My question then is what is the best way to handle this now unusable home button?  A few options I've considered:    making the home button invisible or removing it on this screen, though I don't like the idea of something that's there 95% of the time magically disappearing on users. Changing the appearance of the button to have some sort of indication that it's disabled, perhaps an X through it or have it greyed out. Just leaving it there, and letting users realize that when they are already on the home screen, this button has no function.   EDIT: I'm aware that the common convention now is to use the site/company logo as a "home" button.  Without diving into specifics, this simply doesn't make sense for my application.  Thanks for all of the input so far.
78949
Is there a way to respond to the back button being hit (or backspace being pressed) in javascript when only the location hash changes?  That is to say when the browser is not communicating with the server or reloading the page.
66339
How many times did you use a desktop app or an online page and you come across one or more menu items which are disabled and you have no idea why its disabled. Using help or documentation is of no use. It gets frustrating because it's stopping you from moving forward.  I have NEVER seen this usability practice used. Hover over the disabled item and a tooltip lists you the reasons and you go "Oh.. ok. now I know". Your other option is you have to contact support or post in a forum, explain what you were doing. Wait for what possibly be days tell you get an answer, if any. This is the difference between black &amp; white. Getting instant help by a simple hover or get frustrated and wait for hours.   If you are the one developing the app, you know exactly why an item is disabled because you disabled it in your code. So it's not hard to show the reasons to the user. Is it?  This little tip could have saved thousands of tech support calls. There are millions of posts on the web of Why something is disabled or grayed out.
64406
My firm has developed a small, domain-specific desktop GUI application. Being small, it loads fast (practically instantly) and initially presents a "home" screen, which in this app, is a kind of graphical menu. It has been suggested we introduce a 2-3 second delay in which we show some logo/splash-screen. The rationale is that this looks more professional.  What is the common wisdom on this?  Note: personally I hate this kind of screen; but I am just an engineer - the suggestion is that real users like them.   So I am really looking for evidence about what users do and do not like, not just what the people on this site like.  Update: Like me, most of you dislike the artificial delay.  But responses are more mixed about what users will want or accept. The story seems that, (a) people will accept a 1-2 second delay, and (b) users trust some applications better if they take their time.  But what evidence is there about this particular case of a software load-up screen?  We cannot be the first company that tried this, it must have been commonplace in the 90s.  Was there a backlash?  Were there studies to support either view?
79020
How do you exactly create a very responsive web design? Do you create application for your website to be responsive when using mobile and/or tablets?
37619
EDIT Dec 4 -  We're doing it live! Please post bugs or concerns as questions tagged [top-bar]  We have rolled out our 95% completed top bar for feedback.  Note:   We are still adding a few final features, so if you have a request for a feature that is not there you might hold off on that for a day or two Yes, the bar is black1. Also give that a day or two to sink in.   I also want to specifically address the meta/main/chat links.  I'm very aware that many of you like having the links at the top of the page and that this new version is different.  The thought process behind moving these links is that the "site switcher" should be an automatic place to go when you are on a site and want to go to another one. If you haven't already developed the muscle memory for these links, getting between them required a bit of a cognitive load: You must first decide that you want to switch sites and then you have to decide which area to go to to switch.  Also, we find that less familiar users aren't entirely clear what a standalone link that says "main" or "meta" actually does... Not to mention that it hurts my UX sensibilities that we are dynamically changing links in an element that should be fixed.  It is true that we have added a click in the process, but we have also removed a lot of clicks for other common actions that are much more frequent than switching between main and meta.  All I ask is that you give it a few days and see if the new "switch sites at the top left" paradigm grows on you.  What do you think?  1.  points out that technically it's not quite black.
34434
If you have developed a JavaScript based website, is it worth doing the extra work to make it accessible for visitors who don't have JavaScript enabled?   What percentage of visitors are in this position? Which browsers does it particularly affects? Are mobile devices JavaScript enabled?
44044
Can we please move the  "Start a bounty" link to be in the same location as all of the other action buttons? It makes no sense to me for this to be buried after the comments - It's an action on the Question. It can be very difficult to locate, especially when your question gets .  I don't think this should be that difficult to implement - it's just moving the location of a design element. Can we please get this button moved?
111822
I frequently visit Stack Overflow and other Stack Exchange sites from private browser windows, which means I get the cookie banner over and over. Does it really have to cover the most useful part of the viewport?  (Not a private window; this one is because I use NoScript when I am logged in.) I understand that for legal (but still annoying) reasons, this probably needs to be in a place where it is hard to miss when you have something more important than cookies on your mind; but could it be made even a tiny bit less intrusive? Removing the cookie outline image (I only realize now after trying to figure out a way to describe it that that's what it is supposed to be) or moving it to be next to the buttons rather than on top would already alleviate the usability problem significantly.
87750
I'm trying to find the best method of showing users on mobile devices that they can scroll in a &lt;div&gt;.   As iPhones/iPads don't have scrollbars, I will need an indicator to show that you can scroll. This should be subtle but present the idea well.
27344
I've noticed that most people when using a real or a virtual calculator, they hit the Clear button multiple times when clearing the screen (even though hitting it once is enough), so I started wondering: is there a flaw in the calculator's design that compels most people to do that?  What makes them trust the button less than the other buttons? Is there some sort of feedback mechanism that's missing? Even if it's just a habit, how does one end up developing it?
17695
With left nav, responsive design, and various new-user notices, this is what an anonymous user currently sees (browser window here is 1090px wide):    I realize that a lot of this content -- code of conduct, new-user intro, cookies notice -- is important.  And I get that the left nav is an important design element, and responsive design dictates the width of the right column.  But when you add it all up, Q&amp;A -- what the site is about -- gets a distressingly small portion of the screen.  Can we do better?   Maybe we can make that intro/mini-tour shorter? Maybe we can hide the right column for anonymous users? Maybe some things can wait until the user's viewed a few pages? Maybe other things I haven't thought of?   My concern is that anonymous users -- people coming from Google, people who were referred to a site by users hoping to recruit them, or others who find their way to us but aren't invested in us -- will turn away before seeing how rich and helpful our sites are.  Which would be a real shame, because our sites are awesome.  First impressions matter.  When I'm asking a rabbi to check out Mi Yodeya or a professional chef to check out Seasoned Advice or my vet to check out Pets (all of these have happened), I want to make a good impression.  I want the person to see more than 2.5 questions; I want to increase the chances the person will see something interesting or say "oh I can answer that!" and dig deeper.  Yes, the other stuff is important, but maybe not now?  Is there a better way to "stage" all this information for people we haven't yet hooked?