HTML-Windows question

[Whitecrest]

yes, it is. but why do you want deliberately TAKE options to make own
decisions away from users?

Because I believe that the best way to present a site is for all the
links that are internal to that site be opened in the same window, and
that all the links that are external to the site be opened in a new
window.

You apparently disagree.

I also believe that there are exceptions to that,and that no "rule" is
right for every situation.

You apparently disagree.

I haven't said jack shit about users being too dumb to close a window. I am
not same guy...

No kidding your not? But then, this is usenet, and it is an open forum,
so I am not just talking to you specifically am I? Thoughts blend and
merge until there are very definite arguments. (In this particular case
in the red corner is the "hey I want to use _BLANK" and in the Blue
corner the "hey let the user choose")

Then there is myself, who states that both sides are right depending on
the situation.

your site would not get millions hits even if you'd have all bill gates
money and you'd try bribe users to visit it

You really are taking this way to seriously you know. You need to step
back and think about what your getting so pissed about.

 

[Whitecrest]

If you code properly (by indicating, notificating that clicking a link
will open in a new unnamed window), then users will be confused a lot
less by a new window.

Absolutely.

 

[DU]

I am missing the connection here.

User agents may provide users ways to override the target attribute: in
other words, ways to neutralize the attempts to open a new window thanks
to target. That is exactly what NS 7.0 did when it came out.

This image was NS 7.0 UI pref setting:

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/PNG/OpenLinkInNewWindowSetting.png

NS 7.1 and Mozilla 1.3+ (and other Mozilla-based browsers like K-meleon
0.8) still allows users to neutralize target="_blank" with this
instruction in the user.js file:

user_pref("browser.block.target_new_window", true);

I'm sure proxomitron has a similar command too. So, we're talking here
of potentially over 90% of all browsers in use out there can "sterilize"
target attribute.

DU

 

[Whitecrest]

User agents may provide users ways to override the target attribute: in
other words, ways to neutralize the attempts to open a new window thanks
to target. That is exactly what NS 7.0 did when it came out.

Thats fine that they do. If the user want to see my site differently
than I intended, then more power to him/her, but it may not work the way
I want it to, so you are on your own.

 

[Alex]

Element and attribute names are case insensitive. Attribute values
vary on a case by case basis.


Unlikely.

An absolute certainty. No more fumbling to find the original page.

Alex

 

[DU]

DU wrote:




The fact that some users are able to negate this does not excuse bad
authoring.

Correct. I agree. I definitively believe in educating, promoting better
coding practices. I've been doing so for the last 2 years at least on
this single issue of new windows.

At the same time, a big part of the problems on the web have
historically been created by software makers themselves (Microsoft,
Netscape, Macromedia, etc.) Now, they are restoring a balance of powers
between users and web developers by giving more veto powers to users via
UI pref settings, hidden custom files like Mozilla's user.js file, user
stylesheet, etc.. That way, you "solve" problems at the source, at the
root, bypassing the flaws/lazyness/incompetence/[whatever] of web designers.
E.g.: a web designer can remove statusbar and make a popup window
unresizable. Why is it that browser manufacturers gave such
anti-accessibility powers to designers in the first place? How come
browser manufacturers gave such powers to web designers to remove normal
standard browser window functionalities in the first place? Why web
designers can remove scrollbars of popup windows when content overflows
requested popup dimensions, when scrollbars would be needed to access
content? Why are browser manufacturers promoting in this way
counter-usability and anti-accessibility in the first place? Why do I
need to edit my user.js of my browser software just to tell my browser:
"if the window needs scrollbars, then do not remove them"?

MSIE 6.05 for windows XP SP2 is scheduled to be released in spring 2004
and it will have popup blocking; maybe it will also have an UI pref
setting for "_blank" new window. I personally expect (am even convinced
this will occur) to see UI pref setting regarding window features and
functionalities like allow/disallow move or resize of windows, change
statusbar text, remove status bar, allow windows to be resizable by
user, etc...

http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/40785/windowspaulthurrott_40785.html

DU

 

[Whitecrest]

An absolute certainty. No more fumbling to find the original page.

The user clicks on a link....
A window opens...
And they are hopelessly lost...

 

[DU]

From the link:
"Only open a new window in direct response to a user action, and think
about how to make it clear to the user that their action will open a
separate window."

I absolutely agree. Notice it does not say NEVER do it. I think (and
so does the author) that there are times when it is completely
appropriate to open a new window.

Here are some of the image icons major site have been using to notify in
advance that clicking a link will open a new window (therefore complying
with WAI guidelines)

Taken from a webpage at Microsoft:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/GIF/newwinMSIE.gif

Taken from a webpage at Sun Microsystems:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/GIF/popupImageSun.gif

Taken from some page I don't remember:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/GIF/popupImage.gif

Taken from WAVE 3.0 website:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/GIF/Popup_requested_new_window.gif

The one I use for requested popup:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/GRAPHICS/PNG/OpenRequestedPopup.png

DU

 

[Steve Pugh]

An absolute certainty.

They are surfing on.

If they want to come back five minutes, five days or five months later
then they have perfectly good methods of doing so - the back button,
the history list, the bookmark. They don't need your site sitting
behind their current window all this time.

No more fumbling to find the original page.

More fumbling. Instead of just hitting back they need to find which,
of the possibly many now you know how to do it, window it is in.

Steve

 

[Toby A Inkster]

The point is that if I feel
that like I want the link on my page

Your page? But it's in my cache, not yours!

to open in a new browser window,
then I have every right to FORCE you to open a new window.

Well, I have news to you: you can't. You can ask, but you can't force.

 

[DU]

From the link:
"Only open a new window in direct response to a user action, and think
about how to make it clear to the user that their action will open a
separate window."

I absolutely agree. Notice it does not say NEVER do it. I think (and
so does the author) that there are times when it is completely
appropriate to open a new window.

Ten Good Deeds in Web Design
"8. Use link titles to provide users with a preview of where each link
will take them, before they have clicked on it."
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html

Checkpoints
"10.1 - Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do
not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the
current window **__without informing the user__**."
http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/chk11-0.htm

The more a webpage works in a predictable manner or in a consistent
manner, the more the user will feel and will be in control, will be
empowered. Just by adding an image icon with a relevant title attribute,
a web designer reduces considerably the burden, problems some users
might experience with such links.
Just by coding accordingly to give back focus to a secondary window if
the user clicks on the opener's link, you reduce the users'
frustrations, helplessness and compensate for inherent weaknesses of the
windowing systems regarding multiple browser instances. But a wide
majority of sites do not do this or don't know how to do this or ignore
this problem.
Etc..

Again, if all sites - and first of all those with popup maker javascript
cut-N-paste - were coding correctly, according to guidelines, 90% of all
usability, accessibility problems related to new windows and requested
popups would disappear.

DU

 

[Whitecrest]

Your page? But it's in my cache, not yours!

My content not your

Well, I have news to you: you can't. You can ask, but you can't force.

Thats a given, but I am suggesting new window, it you like it that way
you do nothing, if you know no better, you do nothing. If you have
taken the time to change some configuration file on your system that
allows you to over ride that functionality, then fine. Have at it, and
more power to you. Enjoy.

 

[Whitecrest]

Ten Good Deeds in Web Design...

All opinions on how it should be. The web is way to big to have one set
of standards. Because I may not like the standards you picked out. You
obviously don't like the ones I picked out.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

All opinions on how it should be. The web is way to big to have one set
of standards. Because I may not like the standards you picked out. You
obviously don't like the ones I picked out.

If you don't like the W3C, why are you using HTML at all?

 

[Whitecrest]

If you don't like the W3C, why are you using HTML at all?

First, never said I don't like w3c.

But please tell me why I can not have a site that is all flash, or DHTML
menus, or Javascript navigation, or embedded media (or any thing else
that will cause one browser or the other to fail). If you (or anyone
else) doesn't like these kinds of things, then don't come here. Sorry I
wasted a few precious seconds of your life.... Because I am so bad,
please feel free to go to the competition, do what ever you want. But I
don't understand how you get off telling me how I can and can not
present content.

 

[kchayka]

http://kartoo.com/ open its links in a new window, which they think,
(and I think), is a great idea, especially for a search engine.

I imagine this would be a PITA for those who prefer search results get
listed in the browser sidebar. This alleviates having to mess around
with windows at all. Tabbed browsing is loverly for this kind of thing,
too.

We don't need no stinkin' new windows at all, especially when there are
so many alternatives.

 

[Whitecrest]

We don't need no stinkin' new windows at all, especially when there are
so many alternatives.

No you missed it, there are several methods of displaying new
information. And one of them is a new window. All are equally correct
in different situations.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

First, never said I don't like w3c.

No, but you said you don't like their standards.

But please tell me why I can not have a site that is all flash, or DHTML
menus, or Javascript navigation, or embedded media (or any thing else
that will cause one browser or the other to fail).

I didn't say you can't, I said you shouldn't. Why deny some people
access to your site for no reason?

If you (or anyone
else) doesn't like these kinds of things, then don't come here.

Don't come to a newsgroup on HTML because I don't like abuse of the web?
What?

Sorry I wasted a few precious seconds of your life.... Because I am so bad,
please feel free to go to the competition, do what ever you want. But I
don't understand how you get off telling me how I can and can not
present content.

I'm telling you how you should present content, not how you can.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:36:14 -0500, Whitecrest is reported to
have stated:
[opening new windows]

Thats fine that they do. If the user want to see my site differently
than I intended, then more power to him/her, but it may not work the way
I want it to, so you are on your own.

You're kidding, right? Your site doesn't work if a link opens in the same
window, instead of a new one?

Yikes.

 

[Sid Ismail]

: But please tell me why I can not have a site that is all flash, or DHTML
: menus, or Javascript navigation, or embedded media (or any thing else
: that will cause one browser or the other to fail). If you (or anyone
: else) doesn't like these kinds of things, then don't come here. Sorry I
: wasted a few precious seconds of your life.... Because I am so bad,
: please feel free to go to the competition, do what ever you want. But I
: don't understand how you get off telling me how I can and can not
: present content.


Relax. Take a deep breath. Count to 10.

Now think about this - in alt.html, it is incumbent not only for posters
here to post solutions, opinions, help-url's etc. for the problem at hand,
but also impress on all and sundry here on "better" methods. In effect,
whether you explicitly requested it or not, pitfalls with your method of
doing your website will be highlighted.

For the good of universal web development.

I do hope you have calmed down and look at this issue objectively. There is
nothing personal at all in posters remarks about their opinions on things
like Flash, Iframes (I detest them, btw), marquees, etc etc

Peace.

Sid