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

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by msa, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. msa

    msa Guest

    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!
    msa, Apr 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    msa wrote:

    > 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
    DU, Apr 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. msa wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    David Dorward, Apr 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    DU wrote:

    > msa wrote:
    >
    >> 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


    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
    Brian Genisio, Apr 29, 2004
    #4
  5. msa

    M A Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    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.



    *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
    Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
    M A, Apr 29, 2004
    #5
  6. 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

    --
    William Morris
    Product Development, Seritas LLC
    Kansas City, Missouri



    "DU" <> wrote in message
    news:c6pb0s$la0$...
    > msa wrote:
    >
    > > 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
    William Morris, Apr 29, 2004
    #6
  7. msa

    Jim Ley Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:54:14 -0400, Brian Genisio
    <> wrote:

    >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.
    --
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
    Jim Ley, Apr 29, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations


    > 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
    William Morris, Apr 29, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Jim Ley wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:54:14 -0400, Brian Genisio
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >


    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.


    >> 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.


    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
    Brian Genisio, Apr 29, 2004
    #9
  10. msa

    Jim Ley Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:03:34 -0400, Brian Genisio
    <> wrote:

    >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.
    --
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
    Jim Ley, Apr 29, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Jim Ley wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:03:34 -0400, Brian Genisio
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.


    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
    Brian Genisio, Apr 29, 2004
    #11
  12. msa

    Mark Preston Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Brian Genisio wrote:

    > 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!
    Mark Preston, Apr 30, 2004
    #12
  13. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    M A wrote:

    > 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


    >
    >
    > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
    > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
    DU, Apr 30, 2004
    #13
  14. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Brian Genisio wrote:

    > DU wrote:
    >
    >> msa wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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

    >
    >
    > 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, Apr 30, 2004
    #14
  15. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Brian Genisio wrote:

    > Jim Ley wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:54:14 -0400, Brian Genisio
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    >
    > 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, Apr 30, 2004
    #15
  16. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Brian Genisio wrote:

    > Jim Ley wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:03:34 -0400, Brian Genisio
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >
    > 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, Apr 30, 2004
    #16
  17. msa

    DU Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    William Morris wrote:

    > 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

    > You find the pain point, msa, and you, as the developer, suggest the
    > solution. Your boss has it backwards.
    >
    > - Wm
    >
    DU, Apr 30, 2004
    #17
  18. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    DU wrote:

    > 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:

    msa wrote:
    > 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
    Brian Genisio, Apr 30, 2004
    #18
  19. msa

    Grant Wagner Guest

    Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for manybrowser/platformcombinations

    Brian Genisio wrote:

    > 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 <>

    * 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
    Grant Wagner, Apr 30, 2004
    #19
  20. Re: Browser to fullscreen - solution needed for many browser/platformcombinations

    Grant Wagner wrote:

    > Brian Genisio wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.


    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.

    >> 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.
    >


    Prototypes cost time and money.

    >>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.
    >


    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
    Brian Genisio, Apr 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steffen Loringer

    Fullscreen of IE

    Steffen Loringer, Jan 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    451
    Anatoly
    Jan 29, 2004
  2. jcc
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    4,675
    Nigel Wade
    May 12, 2006
  3. Coca
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    629
    Alan Balmer
    Jan 14, 2004
  4. , India
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,030
    James Kanze
    Oct 1, 2007
  5. Kaspar Schiess

    platform.rb (was: PLATFORM tests)

    Kaspar Schiess, Nov 25, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    113
    Kaspar Schiess
    Nov 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page