Browser behaviour

[WebMaster]

.oO(WebMaster)


So should many "webdesigners".

Well, at least those have some understanding of how things work. It's a
start
If those users mentioned don't learn something after the first (or the first
few) time(s) that the described behavior happens, they are downright morons
(but then again, George is president of the USA again)...

 

[WebMaster]

Yes, they should. Moreover, stupid people (like you) should be kept from
making websites.

yeah right
Wel, at least I know that when a new window opens, there's an other one
under it somewhere. If you don't learn that after the first time it
happened, you are not especially bright. I asume you recognise
yourself? Well, cheer up, we can't all have brains, I'm sure you have
many other beautifull qualities in stead of intelligence (like a high
amusementvalue, for instance)...

Rudy

 

[WebMaster]

http://www.karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=25

as I've been watching this group for many years now (on and off), I do
not feel that a lot of the regular posters here are more then self
declared "specialists" that have no other purpose in life then making
fun of newbies. Mister Core is one of them
Any serious sources?
Anyway, I even skimmed through the article mentioned (I'm not totally
evil). If I saw correctly, it happens to be about studie(s) in the USA.
This country is the place where more then 50% of people reelected
George Bush as president. This is more then enough argument

Having watched over the shoulders of many .. ah, shall we say .. less

than astute .. users [1], almost all of them have maximized browser
windows and they get totally lost when a new window completely covers

the original site. The Back button no longer works. So what do they
do? They go back to google.com and look for another site.

Later that day, when they are finished browsing, they *might* find
your site still in that hidden window. That is ... if they didn't just
reach over and turn off the power.

[1] Unfortunately, this even includes people (programmers, sysops,
bosses) in the IT department of the company I recently retired from.
The sales and clerical staff was even worse.

as I pointed out in other posts, if you don't learn something so easy
like that after it happenend once (or, okay, a few times), well, then
you probably lost your brain somewhere...

 

[C.W.]

WebMaster wrote:
[snip]
Later that day, when they are finished browsing, they *might* find
your site still in that hidden window. That is ... if they didn't just
reach over and turn off the power.

[1] Unfortunately, this even includes people (programmers, sysops,
bosses) in the IT department of the company I recently retired from.
The sales and clerical staff was even worse.

as I pointed out in other posts, if you don't learn something so easy
like that after it happenend once (or, okay, a few times), well, then
you probably lost your brain somewhere...

Depends on if the fault lays at the user beign felt "inadequate" or
"lacking a clue or two" when the person behind the said site set a
pop-up window to a specific size - particularly 800 x 600 in hopes of
covering at least one screen size.

This would not be readily "as apparent" if the user had their browser
originally open to 800 x 600 unless they looked at the tool bar on
their desktop. If they had more than just their browser open this may
not have it apparent, even iwth the toolbar, at first glance that
another application [a new browser window] was open.

If the pop-up had been sized to being something like 350 x 350 then I
could agree with the argumentation attempt of the user being the one
totally clueless.

Carol

 

[Karl Core]

yeah right
Wel, at least I know that when a new window opens, there's an other one
under it somewhere. If you don't learn that after the first time it
happened, you are not especially bright. I asume you recognise
yourself? Well, cheer up, we can't all have brains, I'm sure you have
many other beautifull qualities in stead of intelligence (like a high
amusementvalue, for instance)...

There's 'fantasy' and then there's reality. You apparently live in LaLaLand
where you: believe yourself to be intelligent and witty. You've also somehow
tricked yourself into believing in idealisms. No matter what ideal you'd
love to see come true, the cold hard truth of the matter is that user's do
not pay close enough attention to the fact that the new window will cover up
the already existing one. You can continue to go through life behaving like
a pompous asshole, or you can accept reality.

 

[WebMaster]

WebMaster wrote:
[snip]
Later that day, when they are finished browsing, they *might* find
your site still in that hidden window. That is ... if they didn't just
reach over and turn off the power.

[1] Unfortunately, this even includes people (programmers, sysops,
bosses) in the IT department of the company I recently retired from.
The sales and clerical staff was even worse.

as I pointed out in other posts, if you don't learn something so easy
like that after it happenend once (or, okay, a few times), well, then
you probably lost your brain somewhere...

Depends on if the fault lays at the user beign felt "inadequate" or
"lacking a clue or two" when the person behind the said site set a
pop-up window to a specific size - particularly 800 x 600 in hopes of
covering at least one screen size.

This would not be readily "as apparent" if the user had their browser
originally open to 800 x 600 unless they looked at the tool bar on
their desktop. If they had more than just their browser open this may
not have it apparent, even iwth the toolbar, at first glance that
another application [a new browser window] was open.

If the pop-up had been sized to being something like 350 x 350 then I
could agree with the argumentation attempt of the user being the one
totally clueless.

I can go along with that, isofar that it is possible to overlook the fact
that a new window is opened. After all, we are only human. But, if, for
instance, you try the backbutton, and it doesn't seem to work, that should
put your mind back in gear, no? Even if you are an inexperienced user, you
should notice that the original site is still open when you close the new
window. That also should ring a bell somewhere. And then maybe not the first
time, but the fifth or so should at least make you wonder... And then again,
there is also the toolbar, as you pointed out. I agree with your arguments
there too, but then again, it is an extra signal. You may miss it once, or
twice, but if you never see it, then maybe a checkup of your eyes is
needed...

Rudy

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I can go along with that, isofar that it is possible to overlook the fact
that a new window is opened. After all, we are only human. But, if, for
instance, you try the backbutton, and it doesn't seem to work, that
should
put your mind back in gear, no? Even if you are an inexperienced user,
you
should notice that the original site is still open when you close the new
window. That also should ring a bell somewhere. And then maybe not the
first
time, but the fifth or so should at least make you wonder... And then
again,
there is also the toolbar, as you pointed out.

Agreed. And once you notice that some #@*77&*#@@ web authors do this to
you, you switch to a browser that gives _you_ back the complete control
over whether or not a new window should be opened.



--
,--- --<--@ ---- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses:
------------.
| weblog |
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html> |
| webontwerp |
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html> |
| zweefvliegen |
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> |
`------------------------------------------------------ --<--@
-------------'

 

[WebMaster]

There's 'fantasy' and then there's reality.

One persons reality may very well be anothers fantasy...

You apparently live in LaLaLand

Good old europe, actually. Belgium, to be precise (the ones from the
"french" fries and the beer, and so. Located in Brussels, as far as
americans are concerned...).

where you: believe yourself to be intelligent and witty.

I actually am intelligent and witty, among other things, people who
know me can confirm this

You've also somehow

tricked yourself into believing in idealisms. No matter what ideal you'd
love to see come true, the cold hard truth of the matter is that user's do
not pay close enough attention to the fact that the new window will cover up
the already existing one.

The cold hard truth of the matter has yet to be proven. I personnally
do not think that the majority of users is as stupid as you describe.
I've worked with people who were on the average not the brightest minds
on this earth, (and that is putting it politely), but none of them, not
a single one of them, behaved as described in your "study" (I did this
for about 2.5 years). Of course, there where no us citizens involved in
this, maybe that makes the difference (although that is rather hard to
believe, even for me )

You can continue to go through life behaving like
a pompous asshole, or you can accept reality.

I do not really remember who said it, but it goes something like this:
the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man
keeps trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man. (of course, this goes for women too).
I kinda like the side of the "pompous assholes", as you call them...
For starters, you could try to educate users (if there is such a need,
that is). Ever thought of that? Probably not

Rudy

 

[WebMaster]

Agreed. And once you notice that some #@*77&*#@@ web authors do this to
you, you switch to a browser that gives _you_ back the complete control
over whether or not a new window should be opened.

complete control does not exist in this world
Be happy for that...

Rudy

 

[Karl Core]

Karl Core wrote:

The cold hard truth of the matter has yet to be proven. I personnally
do not think that the majority of users is as stupid as you describe.

Anytime you want to come to the USA to observe in our usability lab, let me
know.

For starters, you could try to educate users (if there is such a need,
that is). Ever thought of that? Probably not

Ah yes! The solution to every usability problem is to educate the users!
Let's set up massive re-education camps for all the legion of moronic
computer users out there! That's practical, cost effective, and efficient.

 

[WebMaster]

describe.

Anytime you want to come to the USA to observe in our usability lab, let me
know.

If you're paying for the trip, I'll be happy to come anytime

But, come to think of it, some of the money you people get for your
usability lab could maybe be used better for training of people, rather
then for observing them...

Ah yes! The solution to every usability problem is to educate the

users!

Yep, it is. See, 20 years or so ago, computers were found in banks,
universities, the military, ... but not in home, nor at the average
workplace. And now, they are. People have more or less learned to live
with them and use them (although I wouldn't say there's no room for
improvement...). People seem to be able to learn, apparently (some more
then others, but that has always been so). But, the big issue about
people learning something, is that most only learn when they are forced
to do so. Most can't work very well with a computer, but the things
they can do are the ones they need to know to comfortably do what they
want to do. I've seen people who could work very good with very badly
written programs, for instance. I've seen the same people struggle and
curse with software that was much better written, and replaced the
previous. But they learned, eventually. All this to say that you will
not create experienced users by taking away everything that possibly
might annoy them. On the contrary, you'll make them more stupid that
way...

Let's set up massive re-education camps for all the legion of moronic

computer users out there! That's practical, cost effective, and

efficient.

Some small courses could work wonders, especially if people had time to
follow them, en were encouraged to do so. Especially if they also
explained why to do things so and so, so that they see clearly that
they benefit from doing so...

Massive re-education camps wouldn't be such a bad idea to cope with
some problems though. As for the cost, just cut the budget for your us
defense in half, and you'll have all the money you're ever wanted...

Rudy

 

[Karl Core]

If you're paying for the trip, I'll be happy to come anytime

But, come to think of it, some of the money you people get for your
usability lab could maybe be used better for training of people, rather
then for observing them...

Our job isn't to train users. Our job is to train dumbass web "designers"
who know nothing about the way humans interact with computers

While you're dreaming about educating users, I live in this thing called
"The real world" in which our citizens understand that you simply cannot
train the entire world population to operate their computer.

Quick quiz for you: What's the #1 contributor to airplane safety?
Answer - not better training for pilots. The #1 contributor to airplane
safety is more user-friendly cockpits.

Massive re-education camps wouldn't be such a bad idea to cope with
some problems though. As for the cost, just cut the budget for your us
defense in half, and you'll have all the money you're ever wanted...

Ah, the old "I don't like this person's nationality, so they must be bad"
tactic.
Why don't you go make some Zyklon-B and start up the showers in Auschwitz
while you're at it?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

WebMaster wrote:

as I pointed out in other posts, if you don't learn something so easy
like that after it happenend once (or, okay, a few times), well, then
you probably lost your brain somewhere...

Being a computer/web expert, you probably don't realize that there are
some out there in the real world who are simply untrainable in the use
of a computer, or of navigating the WWW when inconsistencies arise.

Case in point: a friend, otherwise fairly intelligent, *cannot* get
his mind around the fact that a web site link I send him in an email
needs to be either clicked on, or typed into his browser's location bar.

He constantly tries to enter it into some search bar at his online
email application, and may be doing that wrong because he always
answers that he can't find the web page.

One day I will make the 250 mile trip to his house and attempt to show
him...

 

[WebMaster]

Our job isn't to train users. Our job is to train dumbass web "designers"
who know nothing about the way humans interact with computers

given the nature of computers, some skills are needed to operate them.
Hence the need for training of the user. The need for training for,
say, working with a hammer is far less

While you're dreaming about educating users, I live in this thing called
"The real world" in which our citizens understand that you simply cannot
train the entire world population to operate their computer.

I do agree with that. That is why I said that some people shouldn't use
those things in the first place. If it takes you an hour to understand
why the on/off button is for, as a matter of speaking, just leave the
thing alone...

Quick quiz for you: What's the #1 contributor to airplane safety?
Answer - not better training for pilots. The #1 contributor to airplane
safety is more user-friendly cockpits.

What is your point? I agree with that, although I will not step in an
airplane when I know that the one who flies it hasn't had proper
training, and I frankly don't care how userfriendly the cockpit is in
that case. I guess you wouldn't either
So the key point here is still training of the user (in this case the
pilot) that comes first. And preferably a thouroug and good training...

It's technically probably possible to fly airplanes automatically,
including landing and take-off, but I for one prefer the ones with
pilot, just in case something unexpected happens. A well trained pilot,
that is

Here's a surprise for you: I don't need research to tell me the obvious

In the usa they apparently do. I've read somewhere there was a study
costing some $65000, of wich the conclusions where something like this:
young, healthy people who are financially independent, are more likely
to be happy then old, sick poor people. Next time you people need some
conclusions like that, just give me the $65000, and I will provide

Ah, the old "I don't like this person's nationality, so they must be bad"
tactic.
Why don't you go make some Zyklon-B and start up the showers in Auschwitz
while you're at it?

You begun about massive re-education, not me

It is not the nationality that bothers me in the case of the usa.

But while we're at it, in the last three or so decennia, the usa needed
to meddle in a whole lot of countries. Not one of those countries were
better off when the americans left there. On the contrary (although the
americans always claimed otherwise)... If you don't believe me, read
some historybooks (not those certified by american government).

Concerning the Zyklon B, that were the Germans, not the Belgians. You
can maybe ask the Vietnamese and other people what they think of agent
orange and stuff like that. Still a lot of genetic problems over there.
Of course, that was different, eh, americans fighting for freedom and
so. Or maybe more recently, let's talk about guantanamo or abu greib
and stuff like that. Yeah, again the great american nation defending
liberty (pun definitly intended)...

And the last "intervention" you people are carying out, well, we all
know the real reasons behind that, don't we? Money, oil and a bad
economical situation at home. No better cure for that last one than to
start a little war (and make our own reasons (read lies) to justify it
to the homefront and the rest of the world). Some thousand americans
killed (don't really care for them, they had a choice), and how many
tens of thousends killed over there? But this is no problem to the
average american, no sir. But one naked breast on television and the
whole nation is shocked, law suits follow, someone is sure going to pay
for this one!!! Televisionstations don't go life anymore, but put in a
few seconds delay so they can censor the shocking nudity of the human
body. But innocent people getting killed, who cares eh... Ethics of the
average us citizen? Maybe you need to set up a $65000 worth
"scientific" project to figure that out, I don't...

So you see, it's not the nationality that bothers me, it's the way they
behave and the way they think (or don't think). And to make matters
worse, they now have a president appointed by god, and who is on a holy
war. G.W. Bush and the not exactly last crusade, I guess...
And I'm not the only one, and the americans know that very well. Why
else would there be a website where they sell t-shirts and other stuff
with the canadian flag on, so us citizens can pretend to be canadian. I
really had some fun when I came across that one
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/07/canada.tshirts.ap/ in case
you don't believe me

I could go on, but I don't really think it's worth it...

And yes, I do know that a minority of us citizens are different (some
of them move to canada and apply for canadian citizenship), I even know
some of them personally...

Rudy

 

[WebMaster]

WebMaster wrote:


Being a computer/web expert, you probably don't realize that there are
some out there in the real world who are simply untrainable in the use
of a computer, or of navigating the WWW when inconsistencies arise.

oh, but I do realize. That is why I said that some people just should
stay away from computers, somewhere earlier in this thread... But I am
also convinced that that is a very small minority...

Case in point: a friend, otherwise fairly intelligent, *cannot* get
his mind around the fact that a web site link I send him in an email
needs to be either clicked on, or typed into his browser's location bar.

He constantly tries to enter it into some search bar at his online
email application, and may be doing that wrong because he always
answers that he can't find the web page.

One day I will make the 250 mile trip to his house and attempt to show
him...

I suggest you make some screenshots, write some explanation around
them, print them out, put the pages in an enveloppe and mail them to
your friend. Will cost you less, in time and in money
I'm sure your friend is trainable
Rudy

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Karl Core scribbled in the mud:

Quick quiz for you: What's the #1 contributor to airplane safety?
Answer - not better training for pilots. The #1 contributor to airplane
safety is more user-friendly cockpits.

How many airplanes & pilots were sacrificed in these tests?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I suggest you make some screenshots, write some explanation around
them, print them out, put the pages in an enveloppe and mail them
to your friend. Will cost you less, in time and in money I'm
sure your friend is trainable Rudy

Way ahead of you. Already did that, to no avail. Big red arrows drawn
on the pages...

"Type it HERE <red>------></red>" No joy.

 

[Karl Core]

While sitting in a puddle Karl Core scribbled in the mud:


How many airplanes & pilots were sacrificed in these tests?

Eh, it doesn't matter. We pulled them from the re-education camps.

 

[C.W.]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
WebMaster wrote:
[snip]
Later that day, when they are finished browsing, they *might* find
your site still in that hidden window. That is ... if they didn't
just
reach over and turn off the power.

[1] Unfortunately, this even includes people (programmers, sysops,
bosses) in the IT department of the company I recently retired from.
The sales and clerical staff was even worse.

as I pointed out in other posts, if you don't learn something so easy
like that after it happenend once (or, okay, a few times), well, then
you probably lost your brain somewhere...

Depends on if the fault lays at the user beign felt "inadequate" or
"lacking a clue or two" when the person behind the said site set a
pop-up window to a specific size - particularly 800 x 600 in hopes of
covering at least one screen size.

This would not be readily "as apparent" if the user had their browser
originally open to 800 x 600 unless they looked at the tool bar on
their desktop. If they had more than just their browser open this may
not have it apparent, even iwth the toolbar, at first glance that
another application [a new browser window] was open.

If the pop-up had been sized to being something like 350 x 350 then I
could agree with the argumentation attempt of the user being the one
totally clueless.

I can go along with that, isofar that it is possible to overlook the fact
that a new window is opened. After all, we are only human. But, if, for
instance, you try the backbutton, and it doesn't seem to work, that should
put your mind back in gear, no? Even if you are an inexperienced user, you
should notice that the original site is still open when you close the new
window. That also should ring a bell somewhere.

All the inexperienced user will notice is that the original site is
still open but that may not explain to them that a full screen pop-up
was the fault for that extra window still being open.

And then maybe not the first

time, but the fifth or so should at least make you wonder... And then again,
there is also the toolbar, as you pointed out. I agree with your arguments
there too, but then again, it is an extra signal. You may miss it once, or
twice, but if you never see it, then maybe a checkup of your eyes is
needed...

Everyone is on a different level of "expertise" on the Web. Some
people may look at the toolbar while surfing - some may only look it
periodically - while others may not give it a second thought.

You may be trying to use your own surfing habits as a basis for how
other people "should" react. That may be partial fault of the
argumentation of the user being the one at fault for not picking up
that a pop-up window had been triggered.

Recall the pop-up in question uses a common resolution size [800 x
600] so is meant to present a 'full page' of information ... that
information is presented by the user clicking on a link that triggers
the said pop-up window. All the user may know is that they clicked on
a link offered and had a page of info appear, but not pick up on it
covering the original page.

If using the thought of an inexperienced user - then that user may not
even try using the BACK function but look for a link... if none is
provided to help them return 'from whence they came' then that reduces
the number of clues given to them about that new page being a new
browser window. In a tabbed browser it may not be as apparent either.

Then one should recall the pop-under [generally used for ads but not
100% of the time] of all various sizes that people did not always
realize were triggered since they loaded 'under' the other windows.
All they know is somewhere along the line a pop-under had been
triggered - and, if using pop-up blocking software, that maybe one
just somehow 'got past' their program.

The flaw in the argumentation attempt of the 'user' being the one
where fault lays at [for not picking up on a new window being opened]
is the notion that the user of the site should be the one keeping
their eyes peeled for new tabs or windows or the BACK button not
'highlighting' for their ease in using the said site. Which the
presented argumentations about "users" lacking a clue is only trying
to shift the blame from the person behind the site, and how they opted
to present content to those users, and nothing more than that -
particularly if the site is not trying to target just the
"experienced" or "knowledgeable" web user.

Sorry, but the user is not always the person where one can point to
as where the fault lies; and then there is that phrase about when you
point to someone else as to being the one at fault [in this case, the
user of a site] ... remember that at least three fingers are pointing
back to yourself [the person responsible for how the content was
presented to that user].

Like I said, if the user-activated pop-up window had been set to a
much smaller size [so more obvious] - then that would been something I
considered on my side. In this instance, the person wanted to present
a full page [at least 800 x 600] of content via a pop-up and I see no
harm in the person in being warned about considering other
alternatives - especially if presenting content that way to help guide
users into making a purchase.

Carol

 

[Neal]

Way ahead of you. Already did that, to no avail. Big red arrows drawn on
the pages...

"Type it HERE <red>------></red>" No joy.

No, no, that's all wrong. To accomplish that you need

<red style="dothis: really;">------></red>