![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jeshyr) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2010-05-08 02:16 pm
Reloading a page with a returnto= URL should go to the return URL if already logged in
Title:
Reloading a page with a returnto= URL should go to the return URL if already logged in
Area:
login, entries
Summary:
If you try to view protected content while logged out you're bounced to the front page where (with most site schemes) you can log in. If you reload this page while logged in, I think it should bounce you back to the page you came from automatically.
Description:
Say I try to view the friendslocked entry http://rb.dreamwidth.org/1.html but I'm not logged in. I'll be bounced back to the front page so I can log in. The URL will now be:
http://www.dreamwidth.org/?returnto=http://rb.dreamwidth.org/1.html&errmsg=notloggedin
If I then log in, the page will automatically direct me back to http://rb.dreamwidth.org/1.html where I started from.
Now, supposing that I accidentally open three friendslocked entries in this manner while not logged in - I now have three front page screens staring at me, screens which will only automatically take me back to the original entries if I log in separately on each open login page. This is annoying and sorta frustrating... especially if you are like me and keep open tabs in your browser which will make this happen every time you open your browser.
My suggestion is that if I am faced with multiple login pages with returnto= parameters like this, I should use one of them to actually log in (DW now knows I'm logged in) and then for the other login pages I should just press reload on my browser and DW redirects me back to the page in the returnto= parameter in the URL. I can't think of any legit use case where somebody already logged in would be at a login prompt with a returnto= in the arguments, so I don't think this would mess anything up.
[ BTW, I know it's not a recommendation, but this is equivalent to what Facebook already does in this case :) ]
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
36 (85.7%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)
(I have no opinion)
6 (14.3%)
(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)
no subject
no subject