Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platform combinations

[msa]

Hi there,

First off, let me say that I know that launching to full screen is a
bad idea. I would never do it given the choice, but I must follow
orders from my boss, the boss that desparately wants a desktop
application made out of Internet technologies.

We're writing an application that has JavaScript enabled as a client
machine requirement. We need to support Windows with IE 5+ and
Netscape 7+ plus Mac with IE 5+ and Netscape 6.2+.

I need to launch the application into fullscreen mode from each of
these browser/platform combinations using window.open.

Note that expanding the launched window to take up the entire screen
won't cut it, and I'm okay with the fact that, in Netscape, the title
bar will remain.

I'm fairly new to JavaScript, and my boss just told me now that he
needs a solution for this by tomorrow. Yikes! I've looked at the
newsgroup posts on this topic, but most say either you shouldn't do
this or gives a solution to maximize the window instead of forcing it
to fullscreen.

So, can someone please provide me with
1. if fullscreen can be accomplished for each combination listed
2. JavaScript code that will accomplish fullscreen with each
combination

Thanks a million for your help!

 

[DU]

Hi there,

First off, let me say that I know that launching to full screen is a
bad idea. I would never do it given the choice, but I must follow
orders from my boss, the boss that desparately wants a desktop
application made out of Internet technologies.

Sorry there. You must not know how bad it really is then because the
first thing to do is to convince your boss with the arguments you know
about.

We're writing an application that has JavaScript enabled as a client
machine requirement. We need to support Windows with IE 5+ and
Netscape 7+ plus Mac with IE 5+ and Netscape 6.2+.

AFAIK, NS 6.2+ and NS 7.x have turn off fullscreen.

I need to launch the application into fullscreen mode from each of
these browser/platform combinations using window.open.

How in the world can you make Mozilla-users do that? How is your webpage
going to make proxomitron users do that? How is your webpage going to
make Opera 7.x users do that?
Your request is childish, unrealistic and disconnected from any/all
basic usability principles.

Note that expanding the launched window to take up the entire screen
won't cut it, and I'm okay with the fact that, in Netscape, the title
bar will remain.

I'm fairly new to JavaScript,

Yes you definitively are.

and my boss just told me now that he

needs a solution for this by tomorrow. Yikes! I've looked at the
newsgroup posts on this topic, but most say either you shouldn't do
this or gives a solution to maximize the window instead of forcing it
to fullscreen.

Most Mozilla-based browser users and Opera 7.x users and proxomitron
users disable resizing existing windows. So, you may think you're
succeeding into maximizing a window but in fact you most likely fail
everytime for a majority of users.

So, can someone please provide me with
1. if fullscreen can be accomplished for each combination listed
2. JavaScript code that will accomplish fullscreen with each
combination

Thanks a million for your help!

Start understanding why fullscreen windows is a bad idea and then
explain your position to your boss. Either way, it won't matter a lot
since pure force on visitors and users rarely achieves the pursued goals.
A web author (through his boss or not) trying to impose his preferences
regarding the users' browser feature (toolbars, size, positions,
resizability, etc.) is a bad, incompetent web author who is going to fail.

DU

 

[David Dorward]

First off, let me say that I know that launching to full screen is a
bad idea. I would never do it given the choice, but I must follow
orders from my boss, the boss that desparately wants a desktop
application made out of Internet technologies.

First show him this:
http://www.dorward.me.uk/dumb/fullscreen.jpeg

Then point out that while many "Internet technologies" are useful for
building desktop applications around, web browsers are rarely among them.
It sounds like somebody is letting the tool define the end product rather
then the other way around.

 

[Brian Genisio]

Sorry there. You must not know how bad it really is then because the
first thing to do is to convince your boss with the arguments you know
about.


AFAIK, NS 6.2+ and NS 7.x have turn off fullscreen.


How in the world can you make Mozilla-users do that? How is your webpage
going to make proxomitron users do that? How is your webpage going to
make Opera 7.x users do that?
Your request is childish, unrealistic and disconnected from any/all
basic usability principles.



Yes you definitively are.

and my boss just told me now that he



Most Mozilla-based browser users and Opera 7.x users and proxomitron
users disable resizing existing windows. So, you may think you're
succeeding into maximizing a window but in fact you most likely fail
everytime for a majority of users.



Start understanding why fullscreen windows is a bad idea and then
explain your position to your boss. Either way, it won't matter a lot
since pure force on visitors and users rarely achieves the pursued goals.
A web author (through his boss or not) trying to impose his preferences
regarding the users' browser feature (toolbars, size, positions,
resizability, etc.) is a bad, incompetent web author who is going to fail.

DU

Wow. That was completely unnecessary. A requirement is a requirement.
The Boss wants it, there is little he can do to change his mind, other
than show the boss that it cannot be done. It is likely that the boss
will want it done as well as possible, even if only a few browsers are
supported. It is likely that the boss has seen it done before,
therefore knows it can be done, and cares little on the reasons against
it. Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to convince the boss
against doing something like this, but I object to your method of
patronizing, condescending tone.

The OP started off saying that he knew it was bad. You really don't
need to be such a jackazz about this. In your message you belittle the
OP and insult him/her. It is childish, and not needed here. The OP was
completely clear in his position, and is desperate for help. An answer
such as "It cannot be done because of X" is useful. Saying "Your
request is childish, unrealistic and disconnected" is crap. Calling the
OP a "bad, incompetent web author who is going to fail" is also crap.

Grow up.
Brian

 

[M A]

Thanks, Brian. You're lovely and have a good head on your shoulders.
You'll make a great leader one day, if you aren't already.

Let me stress again that this solution is needed for a LAN application,
not a web site. No, that doesn't make it any more acceptable, but I'm
pointing this out to explain why I need a solution only for Netscape and
IE.

The requirement for fullscreen original came from the client who has
asked us to build this application. After days and days of fighting
this requirement, I've opted to keep my job and give it a shot instead
of doing something rash and foolish like quitting.

 

[William Morris]

Jesus, DU, lighten up and read his post. Boss requirements, intranet app,
all that. If you can't post something constructive, at least don't
sermonize.

For the last five years, I've been working on an inter/intranet application
for business clients wanting to track complex relational data. I've become
somewhat of an expert on what works, what doesn't inside the browser, and
the fact of the matter is you're limited by the technology.

About six months ago, my "boss" - the senior partner who writes the checks,
at any rate - suggested it would be a great idea to have the application
open fullscreen. In IE5.5 and higher, that's a no-brainer. The problem is,
there's a bug in IE that causes certain parts of the interface to stop
functioning when you do that - it completely screws up the IE interface when
you try ( and I do mean, ~try~) to return to normal. Other browsers - as
other posters have noted - don't even allow that.

msa, I hate to say this, but you're screwed. You've been placed in an
impossible position, and one that is drastically unpopular with the
knee-jerkers of the programming world (re: DU, above). If I had to support
as many platforms and browsers as you, I'd quit my job. I really would.

Thank God we standardized on one platform (PC Windows 98se+) and one browser
(IE5.5+). Without starting a "Microsoft is evil" holy war over it, limiting
ourselves and the dictating those requirements to our client-base has made
the development process extremely efficient and cost effective.

Solution by tomorrow? That's a "boss" for you. The solution is "Sorry,
can't, the technologies as they are don't allow it, or are implemented in a
way that causes problems in the OS. What problem are you trying to solve to
which you think fullscreen is the solution?"

You find the pain point, msa, and you, as the developer, suggest the
solution. Your boss has it backwards.

- Wm

 

[Jim Ley]

DU wrote:
Wow. That was completely unnecessary. A requirement is a requirement.
The Boss wants it, there is little he can do to change his mind, other
than show the boss that it cannot be done.

This seems to be a peculiar viewpoint on the boss/employee
relationship, one that seems more prevalent in certain
countries/communities. Requirements are always negotiable, they
have to be, as in this case if the requirement is impossible, but the
developer should always let the boss know if the requirement is bad
(on accessibility, on cost to support, on cost to implement, on risk
to security etc. etc.) If you just follow orders, you are a _very
bad_ employee.

It is likely that the boss has seen it done before,
therefore knows it can be done,

but in this case it certainly can't be done.

Jim.

 

[William Morris]

countries/communities. Requirements are always negotiable, they
have to be, as in this case if the requirement is impossible, but the
developer should always let the boss know if the requirement is bad
(on accessibility, on cost to support, on cost to implement, on risk

Which is a very good way to handle it: put it in terms of $$ dollars $$.

to security etc. etc.) If you just follow orders, you are a _very
bad_ employee.

Yeah, until the boss starts building a guillotine in the company cafeteria.

William Morris
Product Development, Seritas LLC
Kansas City, Missouri

 

[Brian Genisio]

This seems to be a peculiar viewpoint on the boss/employee
relationship, one that seems more prevalent in certain
countries/communities. Requirements are always negotiable, they
have to be, as in this case if the requirement is impossible, but the
developer should always let the boss know if the requirement is bad
(on accessibility, on cost to support, on cost to implement, on risk
to security etc. etc.) If you just follow orders, you are a _very
bad_ employee.

This is not a peculiar viewpoint at all. If the employee just shuts up,
when he/she knows there is an issue, then there is a problem... I
agree. But, if you tell a boss or a customer that "What you want is not
considered a good idea by the community" and they come back to say "This
is what we want", then the implementer does not really have any say in
the requierement.

People make the blanket assumption that "just follow[ing] orders" is
what the OP is doing. You cannot make that assumption. From the way
the OP wrote it, it really sounds like the OP knows why it is bad, and
the boss wants it anyways. If you cannot convince the boss otherwise,
then you either implement it via specification, or prove that it cannot
be done. To say that "Requirements are always negotiable", you are
living in a dream world. To an implementer, requirements are _not_
always negotiable. If a requirement is a bad idea, and you explain why,
and the customer/boss still wants the requirment, there is not much you
can do.

but in this case it certainly can't be done.

I know that I have had web browsers take me into a full-screen (or a
pseudo-full-screen) mode automatically. If this is all I know, then the
only thing the OP can do is come back and prove why this cannot be done.
If one of the requirements is that the app in IE, and you can only get
it done in IE, then that is still acceptable to a boss. Doing more than
necessary for a requirement is often a bad move, unless the development
time is close to free. A developer peon will not convince a boss
otherwise. Only if nothing can be done, will a stuborn boss revist the
requirement.

The OP wanted to know if it can be done. He asked because he did not
know. DU came back with a completely unappropriate response. This
group exists for people to help others. Treating a poster like crap is
less than helpful.

We developers live in a world where we need to keep our jobs. Being
argumentitive does not aid in that goal. Being realistic does. The OP
was nothing but realistic and reasonable with the questions.

Brian

 

[Jim Ley]

Jim Ley wrote:
But, if you tell a boss or a customer that "What you want is not
considered a good idea by the community" and they come back to say "This
is what we want", then the implementer does not really have any say in
the requierement.

Of he course he does. the implementor always has a say, and in this
case as we know the implementation is _impossible_ the implementor is
the final arbiter as he cannot deliver, now he can accept the task and
fail, or he can explain up front that it's impossible and offer the
plausible alternatives.

To say that "Requirements are always negotiable", you are
living in a dream world.

No, I live in the real world, and as a contractor monkey, I've very
little say in what I implement - you know what, I generally get
listend to though, because I can explain the cost of the various
options.

I know that I have had web browsers take me into a full-screen (or a
pseudo-full-screen) mode automatically.

Yep, it's possible in IE, with the caveat that un-fullscreening it
will cause problems which are generally unacceptable. The OP knew how
to do it in IE, but also wanted to do it in other browsers, those
can't do it.

We developers live in a world where we need to keep our jobs. Being
argumentitive does not aid in that goal. Being realistic does.

Learning to be a valuable employee who can add value to the company,
and not just do what you're told not caring if it does contribute to
the product will help your employment prospects a lot more than just
shutting up.

Jim.

 

[Brian Genisio]

Of he course he does. the implementor always has a say, and in this
case as we know the implementation is _impossible_ the implementor is
the final arbiter as he cannot deliver, now he can accept the task and
fail, or he can explain up front that it's impossible and offer the
plausible alternatives.




No, I live in the real world, and as a contractor monkey, I've very
little say in what I implement - you know what, I generally get
listend to though, because I can explain the cost of the various
options.




Yep, it's possible in IE, with the caveat that un-fullscreening it
will cause problems which are generally unacceptable. The OP knew how
to do it in IE, but also wanted to do it in other browsers, those
can't do it.




Learning to be a valuable employee who can add value to the company,
and not just do what you're told not caring if it does contribute to
the product will help your employment prospects a lot more than just
shutting up.

Jim.

Jim,

You are not listening. Plain and simple. I have said many times in my
posts something like "If it cannot be done, then it is the implementer's
responsibility to show the boss/customer". I also agree that it is
important for an employee to speak up when there is a problem.

I object to the hands-down patronizing tone that DU gave to the OP. I
dont care if what the OP wants cannot be done in IE. The OP asked a
question, because he did not know the answer. He did not deserve the
treatment he got. He deserved a respectful answer.

I still stand by my statement that sometimes, the implementer has no say
in the matter. Here is a good example... I worked at a company that had
the reqirement to integrate two pieces of software, that worked in two
different operating systems. The software could not be ported.

The solution was to have the two pieces of software run on separate
machines, and communicate over the network. The customer came back and
told us that it was unacceptable to use two computers for the task.
This is because they did not believe they could convince their bosses to
buy two machines for each seat of the application.

We came up with a solution to integrate two OS on the same machine, and
set up the communication. The solution was much less efficient, and
ultimately much costlier to implement (than a dual-machine solution),
since a virtual PC software package had to be purchased per seat, and
the development was to exceed the cost of using two machines. It was
also painfully complicated. All in all, both I and my boss agreed that
this solution was much worse than using two machines.

The customer did not care. They decided to pay more money, for a
slower, more complicated solution, just so they did not have to have two
computers. We had no say in the matter. Either we complied to the
customer's requrement of a single system solution, or we lost the deal.

What do you do in a situation like this? This is not the only solution
that I had to implement something against my better judgement, in order
to fulfill an unwavering requirement. It has happened many times.
Customers know what they want, and they expect you to do it for them.

Brian

 

[Mark Preston]

You are not listening. Plain and simple. I have said many times in my
posts something like "If it cannot be done, then it is the implementer's
responsibility to show the boss/customer". I also agree that it is
important for an employee to speak up when there is a problem.

I have to agree with Jim here, and at the same time I want to be sure
not to criticise the OP.

Like most of us probably have done, in the past I've done the same as
the OP: buckled under when the boss said "jump" instead of looking at
the requirements and saying "no - that's not good enough". Its a hard
thing to do, and you have to be prepared to stand your ground and tell
the boss why its bad - and if you are told to do it anyway, you have to
tell them that you think its such a bad idea that you don't think you
can make it good whatever you do. Otherwise you simply are not being
fair either to yourself or to your boss. If you just do it, you get a
lousy product that's murder to maintain and nobody wants to use anyway.
This is business guys - that's called a failed project!

 

[DU]

Thanks, Brian. You're lovely and have a good head on your shoulders.
You'll make a great leader one day, if you aren't already.

Let me stress again that this solution is needed for a LAN application,
not a web site. No, that doesn't make it any more acceptable, but I'm
pointing this out to explain why I need a solution only for Netscape and
IE.

NS 6.2+ and NS 7.x have turn off fullscreen. That is a fact. Not an
opinion. I'm repeating myself here.

The requirement for fullscreen original came from the client who has
asked us to build this application.

What is wrong with first getting to understand first what the client
really needs for his website? Analysis, requirements, usability
constraints, etc...?

After days and days of fighting

this requirement,

Why did it take you days and days fighting this requirement? Ask
yourself more questions. You obviously need to open your mind a bit more
here.

I've opted to keep my job

Who is asking you to lose your job? Grow up yourself and become the
leader you see in others!

and give it a shot instead

of doing something rash and foolish like quitting.

Who told/ask/suggest you to quit???

One last thing. If you're going to post and reply to people, can you at
the very least quote people accordingly?

DU

 

[DU]

Wow. That was completely unnecessary.

Really?

A requirement is a requirement.

A rose is a rose and autological arguments are never acceptable by a
very wide majority of reasonable people. Your argument is still
undefendable.
Browser manufacturers are now more than ever giving users much more
power over authors' requests and javascript regarding secondary windows
for elementary reasons that your post never address. I did not make
those changes in browsers: browser manufacturers have done that. So
either wake up, grow up or start proving that fullscreen window can be
forced or fullscreen window are good for users
whether-they-like-it-or-not. The OP is just relaying the poor
perspective of his boss without even questioning issues or understanding
issues.

The Boss wants it, there is little he can do to change his mind,

Where did he say that? He never did. And I can not assume he tried to
talk to his boss nor I have to assume he did not. The bottom line is
still very ridig and factual: he can't force this and it's not
recommendable to "fullscreen" people's browsers.

other

than show the boss that it cannot be done. It is likely that the boss
will want it done as well as possible

You're assuming.

, even if only a few browsers are

supported.

That does not seem to bother you. What if you could do reliably
something in all browsers and know that doing such thing is bad from an
accessibility and usability point of view. You would recommend to do it
without even talking about these point of views.

It is likely that the boss has seen it done before,

therefore knows it can be done, and cares little on the reasons against
it. Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to convince the boss
against doing something like this,

And that's what I recommended.

but I object to your method of

patronizing, condescending tone.

The OP started off saying that he knew it was bad.

From his post, I don't think he knew how bad this is.

You really don't

need to be such a jackazz about this. In your message you belittle the
OP and insult him/her. It is childish, and not needed here.

You're way way out of proportion here.

The OP was

completely clear in his position,

No he was not.

and is desperate for help.

That's usual in newsgroups. I've been a web designer for a few years and
never requested urgent, desperate help like this. Good and competent
programmers don't insist on getting help with "desperate" words and
typical formulas.

An answer

such as "It cannot be done because of X" is useful.

Read again my post: that is what I have been explaining.

Saying "Your

request is childish, unrealistic and disconnected" is crap.

I repeat the same and I don't care who is relaying such request: it's
still excessive control, unrealistic, childish and disconnected from
professional webpage design. An user does not need to have a web author
impose his preferences on the way he uses his browser windows (chrome,
toolbars, resizability, position, etc). That's what browser
manufacturers have been realizing in the last 2 years. Obviously this is
a mature and realistic conclusion.

Calling the

OP a "bad, incompetent web author who is going to fail" is also crap.

Grow up.
Brian

I spoke my mind. You obviously focused on defending the poor guy in that
thread. You'll earn a lot more respect when you can defend the
perspective of users and visitors, not the perspective of bad design and
over-controlling preferences of a web designer.

DU

 

[DU]

This seems to be a peculiar viewpoint on the boss/employee
relationship, one that seems more prevalent in certain
countries/communities. Requirements are always negotiable, they
have to be, as in this case if the requirement is impossible, but the
developer should always let the boss know if the requirement is bad
(on accessibility, on cost to support, on cost to implement, on risk
to security etc. etc.) If you just follow orders, you are a _very
bad_ employee.

This is not a peculiar viewpoint at all. If the employee just shuts up,
when he/she knows there is an issue, then there is a problem... I
agree. But, if you tell a boss or a customer that "What you want is not
considered a good idea by the community" and they come back to say "This
is what we want", then the implementer does not really have any say in
the requierement.

People make the blanket assumption that "just follow[ing] orders" is
what the OP is doing. You cannot make that assumption.

Until a poster says otherwise, then yes, you should assume that he's
just blindly following orders, particularly if he uses "HELP!" and
"desperate" words.

From the way

the OP wrote it, it really sounds like the OP knows why it is bad, and
the boss wants it anyways.

That's not how it sounded to me.

If you cannot convince the boss otherwise,

then you either implement it via specification, or prove that it cannot
be done. To say that "Requirements are always negotiable", you are
living in a dream world. To an implementer, requirements are _not_
always negotiable. If a requirement is a bad idea, and you explain why,
and the customer/boss still wants the requirment, there is not much you
can do.




I know that I have had web browsers take me into a full-screen (or a
pseudo-full-screen) mode automatically.

It can not be done in several browsers by pure javascript force. And
even if it was doable by pure force, it would still be not recommendable
to do such and that is much more important to understand otherwise to
debate. But you never caught that.

If this is all I know, then the

only thing the OP can do is come back and prove why this cannot be done.
If one of the requirements is that the app in IE, and you can only get
it done in IE, then that is still acceptable to a boss. Doing more than
necessary for a requirement is often a bad move, unless the development
time is close to free. A developer peon will not convince a boss
otherwise. Only if nothing can be done, will a stuborn boss revist the
requirement.

The OP wanted to know if it can be done. He asked because he did not
know. DU came back with a completely unappropriate response.

You're way out of proportions here.


This

group exists for people to help others.

Wow! And you say others are dreaming?

Treating a poster like crap is

less than helpful.

So far, you have not brought any answer to the OP. If you claim my posts
are not helpful, then why don't you start giving an answer to the OP
yourself?

We developers live in a world where we need to keep our jobs.

Is bankruptcy of your client/boss a good thing? Have you ever heard
about the dot.boom phenomenon?

Being

argumentitive does not aid in that goal.

Even if that leads a website to get poor support/visit stats from users
and visitors? Even if this gets very weak score in an usability study?

Being realistic does. The OP

was nothing but realistic and reasonable with the questions.

Brian

Why don't you help the OP with clear answers and reliable solutions that
he can follow then? If none of what I said is useful, then get off my
back and answer something he can write in his web page.

DU

 

[DU]

Jim,

You are not listening. Plain and simple. I have said many times in my
posts something like "If it cannot be done, then it is the implementer's
responsibility to show the boss/customer". I also agree that it is
important for an employee to speak up when there is a problem.

I object to the hands-down patronizing tone that DU gave to the OP. I
dont care if what the OP wants cannot be done in IE. The OP asked a
question, because he did not know the answer. He did not deserve the
treatment he got. He deserved a respectful answer.

So far, in this whole thread, you've just been a lawyer of respect and
political correctness. You've certainly not demonstrated any kind of
javascript help. And on top of that, you claim that others - not even
you - should help him out because this is what others should do in this
newsgroup.

If there is one person who should be in the best position to educate the
boss on the judicious use of javascript - and this, in the name of the
business' survival, prosperity -, it should be the web programmer
himself. Failure to understand such duty - yes, duty: you are paid to do
so - is a big mistake to begin with. Speaking out in the name of sound
usability and respect of the user's browsers and users entire veto on
such issue is in no way suggesting that you're going to lose your job:
that's nonsense.

I still stand by my statement that sometimes, the implementer has no say
in the matter. Here is a good example... I worked at a company that had
the reqirement to integrate two pieces of software, that worked in two
different operating systems. The software could not be ported.

The solution was to have the two pieces of software run on separate
machines, and communicate over the network. The customer came back and
told us that it was unacceptable to use two computers for the task. This
is because they did not believe they could convince their bosses to buy
two machines for each seat of the application.

We came up with a solution to integrate two OS on the same machine, and
set up the communication. The solution was much less efficient, and
ultimately much costlier to implement (than a dual-machine solution),
since a virtual PC software package had to be purchased per seat, and
the development was to exceed the cost of using two machines. It was
also painfully complicated. All in all, both I and my boss agreed that
this solution was much worse than using two machines.

The customer did not care. They decided to pay more money, for a
slower, more complicated solution, just so they did not have to have two
computers. We had no say in the matter. Either we complied to the
customer's requrement of a single system solution, or we lost the deal.

What do you do in a situation like this? This is not the only solution
that I had to implement something against my better judgement, in order
to fulfill an unwavering requirement. It has happened many times.
Customers know what they want, and they expect you to do it for them.

Brian

Customers know the business goals but when it comes to web site designs,
implementation, usability and javascript, they don't know how and they
ignore what years of usability and accessibility studies have given us.
If it was only of them, we would still have blinking banner ads, popup
ads, marquees everywhere etc. on the web. Some of them went bankrupted
while others (started to trust and) listened to what trained, certified
web designers were saying.

"Human spirit works like a parachute: it works when it's opened."

DU

 

[DU]

Jesus, DU, lighten up and read his post. Boss requirements, intranet app,

He mentioned intranet app later, not in his first post.

all that. If you can't post something constructive, at least don't
sermonize.

[snipped]

I explained a few hard facts. He claimed to have searched a lot: I don't
think he has for many reasons I won't detail here.

Solution by tomorrow? That's a "boss" for you. The solution is "Sorry,
can't, the technologies as they are don't allow it, or are implemented in a
way that causes problems in the OS. What problem are you trying to solve to
which you think fullscreen is the solution?"

This meets my position as well. The real issue is rarely explained and
described (overall whole web context, web site analysis, goals, etc) in
such typical post. Only the assumed solution (here, fullscreen window)
is underlined.

DU

 

[Brian Genisio]

So far, in this whole thread, you've just been a lawyer of respect and
political correctness. You've certainly not demonstrated any kind of
javascript help. And on top of that, you claim that others - not even
you - should help him out because this is what others should do in this
newsgroup.

If there is one person who should be in the best position to educate the
boss on the judicious use of javascript - and this, in the name of the
business' survival, prosperity -, it should be the web programmer
himself. Failure to understand such duty - yes, duty: you are paid to do
so - is a big mistake to begin with. Speaking out in the name of sound
usability and respect of the user's browsers and users entire veto on
such issue is in no way suggesting that you're going to lose your job:
that's nonsense.

Giving an answer to the question is not necessary. The answer has been
given, and I stand by the answers given by others. The OP was asking if
it was possible:

So, can someone please provide me with
1. if fullscreen can be accomplished for each combination listed

I dont think I am out of line on how inappropriate your answer was. You
can answer it simply, or you can answer it with distain. I was
defending the OP, because I know how frustrating it can be. I know what
it is like to have requirements that are bad, and have a boss tell me
that it has to be done anyways.

The reality of the situation is this: What he wants to do can be done
in IE. If he learns from the NG that it cannot be done easily in other
browsers, then there is a good chance that browser support will be
reduced. Or, the impleneter will be asked to make it full screen for
IE, and make it look as good as possible in Netscape, Opera, etc.

And to make the blanket statement that full-screen is bad is a narrow
view of the situation. I can think of at least two situations where
full-screen makes sense. Have you ever made a kiosk application? They
are almost always full-screen. Have you ever made an application that
is meant to go on a computer as it's sole use for the computer? These
applications are also usually full-screen. (of course, there are other
solutions to both of these that do not involve making it full-screen via
Javascript)

If the application is meant to be used like normal web-browsing, I
agree. Full-screen is almost always a bad idea. In a restricted
environment, I'd have to hear the reason for full-screen. It might
actually be justified. Sometimes, a computer exists to host a single
application. In these cases, some of the normal usability rules can
(and should) be ignored. I dont know the application that the OP uses,
but I need to give him the benifit of the doubt.

But, when it comes down to it, you were rude, and I was standing up for
the OP. I did not think your rudeness was appropriate, and I said so.

Brian

 

[Grant Wagner]

A requirement is a requirement.

Yes it is, but it doesn't mean that the requirement flies in the face of
everything known and understood about usability and the actual technical ability
to accomplish the goal.

The Boss wants it, there is little he can do to change his mind, other
than show the boss that it cannot be done. It is likely that the boss
will want it done as well as possible, even if only a few browsers are
supported. It is likely that the boss has seen it done before,
therefore knows it can be done, and cares little on the reasons against
it. Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying to convince the boss
against doing something like this, but I object to your method of
patronizing, condescending tone.

There is a lot that can be done to change his mind.

Design and develop a prototype of what he envisions. Then demonstrate it in the
browsers where it works very well. He will not understand why you are arguing
against the design when it works so well. *Then* show him the design in a
browser like Firefox where the ability to resize or open new windows is
disabled. Demonstrate that the look and feel of the site, even if it can be made
to work in both browsers, will be a totally different, and possibly confusing,
experience for the end-user if they switch between different browsers.
Demonstrate that support will be an issue, because in browser A the screen looks
like this and the controls are here and there, and in browser B, the screen
looks like that and the controls are there and here. Explain how your help desk
will, with different designs, have to determine *precisely* which browser an
end-user is running and *precisely* how they have it configured before they can
even begin to help someone having problems.

Then demonstrate a different prototype. One that works flawlessly in every
browser you show him. How it provide a consistent look and feel for the
end-user. Explain how support (and development) costs will be much lower in the
cross-browser design.

The OP started off saying that he knew it was bad. You really don't
need to be such a jackazz about this. In your message you belittle the
OP and insult him/her. It is childish, and not needed here. The OP was
completely clear in his position, and is desperate for help. An answer
such as "It cannot be done because of X" is useful. Saying "Your
request is childish, unrealistic and disconnected" is crap. Calling the
OP a "bad, incompetent web author who is going to fail" is also crap.

And your response offers the OP no assistance either. If you wish to help him,
then help him. I would imagine you haven't helped the OP because you realize
what a pointless and massive task it would be to develop two (or more)
completely separate designs of the Intranet application he is developing to
support the browsers that need supporting.

--
| Grant Wagner <[email protected]>

* Client-side Javascript and Netscape 4 DOM Reference available at:
*
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/frames.html

* Internet Explorer DOM Reference available at:
*
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp

* Netscape 6/7 DOM Reference available at:
* http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref/
* Tips for upgrading JavaScript for Netscape 7 / Mozilla
* http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html

 

[Brian Genisio]

Brian Genisio wrote:




Yes it is, but it doesn't mean that the requirement flies in the face of
everything known and understood about usability and the actual technical ability
to accomplish the goal.

Sometimes, the requirement writers will want a feature that they know
goes against usability standards... and they want it anyways. (They
have the right to do this... they are paying for it) If it is
technically impossible, that is one thing, but if it can be done,
sometimes, it just has to be done to the way it was specified.

There is a lot that can be done to change his mind.

Design and develop a prototype of what he envisions. Then demonstrate it in the
browsers where it works very well. He will not understand why you are arguing
against the design when it works so well. *Then* show him the design in a
browser like Firefox where the ability to resize or open new windows is
disabled. Demonstrate that the look and feel of the site, even if it can be made
to work in both browsers, will be a totally different, and possibly confusing,
experience for the end-user if they switch between different browsers.
Demonstrate that support will be an issue, because in browser A the screen looks
like this and the controls are here and there, and in browser B, the screen
looks like that and the controls are there and here. Explain how your help desk
will, with different designs, have to determine *precisely* which browser an
end-user is running and *precisely* how they have it configured before they can
even begin to help someone having problems.

Then demonstrate a different prototype. One that works flawlessly in every
browser you show him. How it provide a consistent look and feel for the
end-user. Explain how support (and development) costs will be much lower in the
cross-browser design.

Prototypes cost time and money.

And your response offers the OP no assistance either. If you wish to help him,
then help him. I would imagine you haven't helped the OP because you realize
what a pointless and massive task it would be to develop two (or more)
completely separate designs of the Intranet application he is developing to
support the browsers that need supporting.

I did not need to give assistance. The correct answer was already
given. I was sick of heaing DU be as rude as he was. That is why I
posted. The OP appreciated it.

But, if the user base and environment is constrained, and the
requirements writers know this, the task becomes easier for the OP. If
the report is that it will only work with IE, then the people
responsible with the requirements can make a decision.

1. Do we want to only support IE?
2. Do we want to drop the requirement for full-screen?
3. Do we want full-screen in IE, but support others in non-full-screen,
even if it is confusing

That decision, is, ultimately up to the manager or the customer. It all
depends on what is more important to them, not the ideals of the
developer. There *are* valid reasons to take up the entire screen.
There *are* valid reasons for supporting only one browser. They may not
conform to normal usage scenarios, but that is fine, if the
*application* does not conform to normal usage scenarios.

All I hear is a bunch of close-mindedness about the way things _are_.
Sometimes, it is simply not true that the developer has a say in the
requirement. In theory, it should be so, but not always in reality.

Brian