Here's another idea for this: how about a "stealth deny" button that will tell the website that you allowed notifications, but not actually show them to you?
back
1 comments
Would that actually work? Don't notifications cause your browser to communicate regularly, in the background, with the site?
Would you actually want your browser doing that?
If you have that site open in a tab, then it could do that anyway, and if you don't, then it could just stop talking to that site and pretend your computer is off until you visit it again.
> Would that actually work? Don't notifications cause your browser to communicate regularly, in the background, with the site?
no, communication is done through a push provider.
The technical answer is a little messy. Lying to the Notifications API doesn't make the browser itself do anything on the network, but it'll make the site think the user has opted into features that require network activity, so you'll incur all the technical costs of the site trying to send you notifications, even though you're not actually seeing the notifications.
Not regularly, but during the initial permissions prompt the website is told whether you've accepted it or not. Granted, I've personally never seen a website that outright refuses to work with notifications disabled so I'm not sure whether there's value in this.
> Granted, I've personally never seen a website that outright refuses to work with notifications disabled so I'm not sure whether there's value in this.
I do. I encountered a few sites that outright refused to function with the notification disabled. Only way for those site to work is to accept the notification. There are value to have a silent notification or fake acceptance.
> I've personally never seen a website that outright refuses to work with notifications disabled
The example in the linked article is a site that covers the page with a gray box and an arrow pointing at the notification request, labeled "Click ‘Allow’ to enter!"