How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

[Randy Webb]

Logical conclusion, yes. I suspected as much when I originally read the
post, and thought the post probably fell into the "not worthy of a response"
bucket

As evidenced by the OP's lack of a followup post to provide more
information, it still leaves it open to the discretion/conclusions of
the reader. And just as the toolbar issue is a logical conclusion, it
could (and is) a logical conclusion that it could be a back-end problem

I've received a few emails over the past few months with private responses
to public "disagreements" I've had with a few vocal posters. Like I said in
another thread, I don't think this is unique to this newsgroup at all. I
think it's typical of highly intelligent, technical, experienced people
interacting with new, inexperienced, naive users. It can be very
frustrating. Posts often become very sarcastic, very sharp and attack-like,
and generally not very helpful. The general atmosphere becomes one where
new, inexperienced users feel like they need to be at a certain level of
knowledge and experience before they _dare_ post amongst the wizards. And I
think that atmosphere makes the group worse for all readers.

That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book and it would appear I was an
"elitist". Its a catch-22 situation and you simply have to choose one or
the other and then live with your decisions.

Now, sit back and take a look at your own actions Matt. You are
complaining about the mentality and actions of some of the regular
posters, and you are semi-exhibiting the same behavior by wanting them
to change there habits to match yours, or at least, to be along the
lines of what you believe. Its not that I disagree, its a
self-introspection thing.

This shit oughta be in alt.psychology or something. Sheesh.

I understand it, and I don't think you're near the top of the "worst
offenders" list
I often start replies to posts, finish the whole thing, and then cancel it,
because I realize that it's not productive at all.

And the irony there is that *you* have to decide whether its productive
or not, and in the end it may very well be productive for an OP. Its
part of the "discussion" part of this group that seems to be missing.
But it also puts you into that "elitist" group where you are deciding
what an OP should/should not know. Cant win for losing.........

 

[Julie]

Randy Webb wrote:

That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book...

If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.

For example:

"There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.

 

[Lee]

Julie said:

Randy Webb wrote:


If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.

Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.

It is not reasonable to insult the OP based on assumptions about
missing information, but it is reasonable to point out that what
they are doing seems to be a bad idea.

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.

The fact that it ignored the OP doesn't detract from its value.
The OP received several answers.

 

[kaeli]

On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often emailed responses, I
might add)

Is that like having a girlfriend in Canada?

*grins*

I'm playing - don't get all mad, now. *heh*

--

 

[Matt Kruse]

Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.

In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
will give me an answer that works."

I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
you actually observe."

Many times, while the person is gathering the information to meet my
"requirements" they solve their own problem. And if they don't, I then have
all the information I really need in order to fully answer their question.
If they aren't willing to be more descriptive, I ignore them, because if
they aren't willing to invest time in asking a good question, then I'm not
willing to invest time in giving them a good answer.

I sometimes refer people to a post made almost 10 years ago from
comp.lang.perl which addresses the general, common problem of people not
knowing how to ask questions: http://perl.plover.com/Questions.html

There are two keys to getting good answers:
1) Asking the right people
2) Asking the right questions

People definitely need to be trained in #2, and shouldn't be allowed to "get
off easy" by asking sloppy questions and getting good answers from people
who happened to guess correctly about what their problem really was. IMO.

 

[Lee]

Matt Kruse said:

In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
will give me an answer that works."

I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
you actually observe."

Yes, I wasn't clear. There are many cases when the poster
just doesn't include enough information, or has left some
particular vital piece of information.

But, as in the case that started this thread, we can often
make reasonable assumptions, based on years of answering
similar questions.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Matt Kruse wrote:

On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often
emailed responses, I might add)

So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails? That
is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not influence the
tone of the group in any way. Contributions to the group are posted to
the group, anything else is just unrelated activity.

It also seems to carry the same associated problems as multi-posting, in
that contributors to the group have no way of knowing whether you have
already posted a response to any given question, what that response was,
and so do not know when they may be completely wasting their time
repeating explanations that the OP has already received from you. I
would not consider wasting the time of contributors to the group as a
contribution to the group, even if you are not letting on that your are
doing so.

It also deprives the OP of the advantages of having the responses they
get considered by the contributors to the group in general, so that any
issues arising from any individual suggestion can be pointed out. Being
made aware of issues allows people to make informed decisions about how
they can mitigate or avoid them and the more collective experience
available to identify issues the fewer will go unmentioned.

and in the form of my web site,

Your web site is not a contribution to this group, any more than not
posting to the group is a contribution to the group.

which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.

So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?

And although you are quite vocal about things like dynamic select
lists and how they are evil and a good solution isn't really
possible, you have your "solution" up at
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/example_scripts/dependent_select.html
which arguably ignores many issues one would need to address when
creating such a solution.

You may not be in a position to appreciate it but I base my statements
about javascirpt on more than just opinion. Prior to concluding that the
dependent select list concept cannot be satisfactorily implemented
exclusively with client-side scripting I have had a go at seeing if and
how the issues can be addressed. You will also find that I tend to
discourage the use of pop-up windows because of the issues arising from
pop-up blocking software, but a google search of the archives will also
reveal that the most complete scripts designed to open new windows while
handling those issues were written and posted by me. And similarly, when
an experiment demonstrates that something can be implemented
satisfactorily I post that code and express that opinion.

... . I've opened the door several times for critiques of
my ideas and code, and you've refused to participate in an
exchange of ideas, ...

<snip>

As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw, and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much point
in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions, inefficiencies
and general shortcomings of your code, as the best outcome could be no
more than a bad concept well implemented. But if you want your code
critiqued you only have to start posting it to the group, as someone is
likely to comment on anything you post and I am a very long way from
being the only contributor to this group who would be able to suggest
improvements to your code.

Richard.

 

[Randy Webb]

Randy Webb wrote:



If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.

No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
Paragraph 2.

For example:

"There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.

No, it started a sub-thread that, in your opinion, ignored the OP.
Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread, from the OP's standpoint,
and see just how much has been said with regards to his problem. Then,
it begs to ask just what his problem was, and the #1 problem with the
original post was a lack of information.

 

[Julie]

No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
Paragraph 2.

These are _not_ mutually exclusive options.

end.

 

[Matt Kruse]

So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails?
That is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not
influence the tone of the group in any way.

I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
So, your criticisms don't really apply.

So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?

As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not just
theoretical situations.

As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw

Which is an opinion very open to debate.

and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much
point in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions,
inefficiencies and general shortcomings of your code, as the best
outcome could be no more than a bad concept well implemented.

Wrong. You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have very
specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in. Or
techniques used within functions to accomplish a very granular task. That
is, improve the building blocks even if you disagree with what I build with
them. Even if you don't put the pieces into libraries, the pieces themselves
are still reusable.

But if
you want your code critiqued you only have to start posting it to the
group, as someone is likely to comment on anything you post and I am
a very long way from being the only contributor to this group who
would be able to suggest improvements to your code.

Again, Richard, the personal attacks get pretty boring and repetitive.
Perhaps I will post some example code to get recommendations. Feel free to
respond, when I do so.

 

[Richard Cornford]

I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
So, your criticisms don't really apply.

So you object to the way people will not answer the question asked,
don't post answers to the questions asked yourself and do post private
e-mails to questioners advising them on how to ask their questions?

If you are not willing to answer peoples questions I don't see any
grounds for you to be complaining when others are also not willing to.

As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not
just theoretical situations.

Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of being
used on a commercial web site? You imply that code posted to this group
would be in some sense inferior or deficient just by virtue of not being
able to tell whether it had ever been used on commercial web site.

Which is an opinion very open to debate.

It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly introducing
a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect design in an
Internet browser scripting context.

Wrong.

Wrong that you don't perceive the needless introduction of a javascript
dependency as an issue? If that is the case why have you just proposed
that it is open to debate? Or wrong that it would be a waste of my time
proposing modifications to your code knowing that you do not perceive
the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw, and so will not fix it?
That is a personal decision, I draw my conclusion form you reaction to
the suggestion that the needless javascript dependency is a fundamental
flaw in your code design, and I react accordingly. Not really something
that can be categorised as right or wrong.

You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have
very specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in.

<snip>

If you post them someone will comment on them. There is no reason it has
to be me.

Richard.

 

[Matt Kruse]

Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of
being used on a commercial web site?

Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by thousands of users,
yes.
What might be considered a great technical solution, in theory, may turn out
to be completely unusable in practice.
Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful, and
definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable code
that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world, in all
different situations, with different levels of experience, definitely
changes how you approach some things.
Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring. IMO.

It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly
introducing a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect
design in an Internet browser scripting context.

Quit being obtuse.
Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully without
javascript.
Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on javascript, and
pages would fail miserably without javascript enabled, that's still not
_wrong_. There are THOUSANDS of developers out there developing for
environments where javascript will always be enabled and of a certain
version. There's no reason not to develop reusable code for these people,
even if the same code wouldn't work well in an internet environment. You're
the one trying to limit the scope of the code to the one context it might
fail in, not me.

Or wrong that it would be a
waste of my time proposing modifications to your code knowing that
you do not perceive the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw,
and so will not fix it?

If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet environment
where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it as valid and look at
it differently? Or would you keep your blinders on?

Is good necessarily bad if it could possibly be applied in an inappropriate
way?

 

[Richard Cornford]

Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by
thousands of users, yes.

That is not much of a criteria as anything available through a public
URL is open to being used by thousands of users (and that includes
anything ever posted to the newsgroup because of the google archives).
So what is this extra "worth" that is acquired as a result of being
available on a public URL?

What might be considered a great technical solution, in
theory, may turn out to be completely unusable in practice.

You appear to be confused about the nature of theory. A theory is an
assertion; say the assertion that a particular application of javascript
could be implemented without a javascript dependency. Code written to
demonstrate that that was the case is not a theory, it either does dose
make that demonstration or it does not. Code is absolute in nature and
amenable to objective assessment.

Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful,

Absolutely, if someone makes an assertion that they cannot turn into a
functional demonstration, at minimum, then the sensible response is to
dismiss their theory.

and
definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable
code that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world,
in all different situations, with different levels of experience,
definitely changes how you approach some things.

Assuming you are talking about yourself, it certainly seems to have made
you complacent.

Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring.
IMO.

As far as I can see there is very little discussion of code that does
not have a practical application on this group. The odd purely
theoretical discussion happens; implementing the Curry function, whether
protected object members can usefully be emulated. They don't have
practical applications but anyone interested in maximising their
understanding of javascript as a language would still be interested in
the techniques needed and the mechanisms involved. And in the end being
able to apply understanding to any practical situation goes a very long
way towards producing an optimum solution.

Quit being obtuse.
Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully
without javascript.
Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on
javascript, and pages would fail miserably without javascript
enabled, that's still not _wrong_.

While you continue to define data in javascript structures instead of in
the HTML you are introducing a dependency on javascript. It may be the
case that someone using one of your libraries could implement sufficient
feature detecting, fall-back and server based alternatives to mitigate
that dependency but those possibilities are not inherent in more than a
couple of your scripts. And a copy-and-paste philosophy targeted at the
less knowledgeable (without detailed instructions on appropriate
implementation) is not likely to result in the coding of those
additional considerations.

If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet
environment where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it
as valid and look at it differently? Or would you keep your blinders
on?

<snip>

It is not necessary to author code to an Internet standard when it is
intended exclusively for use in the known environment of an Intranet.
There remain valid arguments for doing so anyway, but a javascript
dependency in code that was specified as only intended to be executed on
javascript capable/enabled browsers would not normally be subject to
comment.

Richard.