Link TARGET Attribute Enhancement

Discussion in 'HTML' started by randau, May 13, 2005.

  1. randau

    randau Guest

    I would like to use the Link Target attribute, but am
    inhibited by the likelihood of a newly opened browser window
    completely hiding the Parent browser window. Thus offering
    the illusion that you're still in the same browser, but the
    Back Button no longer works.

    I've done some experimentation and came up with the
    conclusion that Microsoft's IE browser has a relatively
    small likelihood of that happening, but that Netscape's
    browsers have a considerably higher likelihood of it
    happening.

    MICROSOFT BROWSER:
    The Microsoft IE-6 browser opens new Target windows using
    the Partial Screen window size of the Parent browser whether
    or not the Parent is currently in Full Screen mode. The
    only way this becomes a problem is if the Parent's Partial
    Screen window size virtually covers the entire screen. That
    is the user has, at some point, dragged the Partial Screen
    window boundaries out to fill the entire screen.

    NETSCAPE BROWSERS:
    Netscape's browsers open new Target windows using the size
    of the Parent browser or a Background browser immediately
    beneath the Parent browser, if one exists. The likelihood
    of either being Full Screen is relatively high.

    WHY USE THE TARGET ATTRIBUTE:
    Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    are: I like having separate browser windows opened when
    linking to a different web site or to information that's
    made more useful by being able to view two windows at the
    same time or swap between them. More often than not, you
    don't think about opening a link in another window yourself
    till after the fact. You don't always know whether or not
    the link is to another web site. It may just be an internal
    link. Then there's how many users that don't bother or even
    know how to open links in new windows.

    As much as I'd like to use the Target attribute in my web
    site postings, I think I'll cease doing so, because of the
    significant probability of some users being subjected to
    full screen or virtually full screen browser windows
    completely covering the parent browser. And, then being
    under the illusion that they're still in the same browser,
    but the Back Button no longer works.

    ENHANCING THE LINK TARGET ATTRIBUTE:
    I'd like to see the link Target attribute enhanced with some
    way of controlling the Target window so that "when opened"
    it cannot be Full Screen Size nor a Partial Screen Window
    that virtually covers the whole screen. What the user does
    with the size after it's opened is their prerogative.

    Also, reuse of open Target windows should load the newly
    linked web page in Foreground instead of Background which
    now makes it appear as though nothing's happened. There
    ought to be some option for bringing it to the Foreground
    when loaded with a new web page.

    --
    randau
    Oregon, USA

    I read and post from the Google Groups web site using a Spam
    collecting email address that I don't use for anything else.
    So if someone wants to contact me, go to the bottom of my
    Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~randau2/home.htm
     
    randau, May 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    "randau" <> wrote:
    > Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    > are: I like having separate browser windows opened when
    > linking to a different web site ...


    And what do your _visitors_ like?

    Hint: if _you_ like having a separate window open, you can do that using
    the browser of your choice. Check the documentation if you're not sure
    how.

    Your visitors who like having a separate window open can do the same, if
    they like.

    And your visitors who _don't_ want a separate window open can continue
    using their browser just as they like ... as long as you don't use the
    Target attribute at all.

    Simple, isn't it?

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, May 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. randau

    Adrienne Guest

    Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Joel Shepherd
    <> writing in news:joelshep-E1B1A2.18531813052005
    @news1.west.earthlink.net:

    > In article <>,
    > "randau" <> wrote:
    >> Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    >> are: I like having separate browser windows opened when linking to a
    >> different web site ...

    >
    > And what do your _visitors_ like?
    >
    > Hint: if _you_ like having a separate window open, you can do that using
    > the browser of your choice. Check the documentation if you're not sure
    > how.
    >
    > Your visitors who like having a separate window open can do the same, if
    > they like.
    >
    > And your visitors who _don't_ want a separate window open can continue
    > using their browser just as they like ... as long as you don't use the
    > Target attribute at all.
    >
    > Simple, isn't it?
    >


    I, for one, do not like links opened up in a separate window or tab. I use
    mousegestures a lot, and so I rarely look up to see the state of the back
    button. There I am, happily gesturing, and nothing happens. Then I look
    up and <voice family="Homer Simpson">Doh!</voice> the back button is
    disabled.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne, May 14, 2005
    #3
  4. randau

    Toby Inkster Guest

    randau wrote:

    > I'd like to see the link Target attribute enhanced with some
    > way of controlling the Target window so that "when opened"
    > it cannot be Full Screen Size nor a Partial Screen Window
    > that virtually covers the whole screen.


    Err... it can be:

    <script type="text/javascript">
    var h = screen.height * 3 / 5;
    var w = screen.width * 3 / 5;
    var winsettings = "height=" + h + ",width=" + w +
    ",scrolling,resizable,location,menubar,toolbar,status";
    </script>

    <a href="foo" target="_blank"
    onclick="return !window.open(this.href,this.target,winsettings);">link</a>

    Though I still don't recommend opening links in new windows on a normal
    web page. I'll make an exception for "web applications", where sometimes
    they can be handy, and you can expect the user to have a certain degree of
    experience and training in using the application.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, May 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Joel Shepherd wrote:
    >>Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    >>are: I like having separate browser windows opened when
    >>linking to a different web site ...

    > And what do your _visitors_ like?


    What if they liked it too? Would it be ok then?


    > Simple, isn't it?


    Yea it actually is

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 14, 2005
    #5
  6. randau

    Arne Guest

    Once upon a time *Travis Newbury* wrote:

    > Joel Shepherd wrote:
    >>>Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    >>>are: I like having separate browser windows opened when
    >>>linking to a different web site ...

    > > And what do your _visitors_ like?

    >
    > What if they liked it too? Would it be ok then?


    You droppet the answer to that, when you cited the abowe:
    "Your visitors who like having a separate window open can do the same,
    if they like".

    Going from site to thruu links I find, gets me ending up with a lot of
    windows to close when I like to end my surfing. Opening in tabs or
    just the same window for eatch site is just more simple.

    Heck, don't people ever learn to use the "History" feature in the
    browsers? No, because clueless "webbmasters" started to use "target"
    even of they don't have a site with frameset.

    --
    /Arne

    Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
    are replying to, no more and no less! And don't
    quote signatures, thank you.
     
    Arne, May 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Arne wrote:
    > Going from site to thruu links I find, gets me ending up with a lot of
    > windows to close when I like to end my surfing. Opening in tabs or
    > just the same window for eatch site is just more simple.
    >
    > Heck, don't people ever learn to use the "History" feature in the
    > browsers? No, because clueless "webbmasters" started to use "target"
    > even of they don't have a site with frameset.


    You know, I never seem to have an issue with this no matter how much I
    browse. Must be the sites i visit.


    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Joel Shepherd wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "randau" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Some reasons that I would like to use the Target attribute
    >>are: I like having separate browser windows opened when
    >>linking to a different web site ...

    >
    >
    > And what do your _visitors_ like?
    >
    > Hint: if _you_ like having a separate window open, you can do that using
    > the browser of your choice. Check the documentation if you're not sure
    > how.
    >
    > Your visitors who like having a separate window open can do the same, if
    > they like.
    >
    > And your visitors who _don't_ want a separate window open can continue
    > using their browser just as they like ... as long as you don't use the
    > Target attribute at all.
    >
    > Simple, isn't it?
    >


    Just to re-iterate as well.

    The Target attribute in HTML is deprecated, as is Frames entirely.

    The only "legitimate" use of target (though not technically documented
    as legitimate) is when using with an IFRAME, though imho IFRAME's should
    not exist either as they defeat the purpose of "allowing a user to find
    where they are" (which was why FRAMEs are deprecated).

    unless you are creating a web-app leave window.open and target to no-one.

    If you want all external links (at least on your own site) to open in a
    new window [for yourself, _you_ cannot claim to know what _every_
    visitor to your site wants at any given time] simple right-click on the
    link and click "Open in new window".

    To also add more information, with IE my |target="_blank"| pages open
    fullscreen, it is a windows/[IE] setting to toggle this...do not ask me
    where it is, been a long while since I had any use for IE outside of
    windows update. [and occasional required activeX pages for my use].

    Any further questions I would be glad to answer for you.

    ~Justin Wood (Callek)
     
    Justin Wood (Callek), May 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
    > If you want all external links (at least on your own site) to open in a
    > new window [for yourself, _you_ cannot claim to know what _every_
    > visitor to your site wants at any given time] simple right-click on the
    > link and click "Open in new window".


    I agree you can not know what all your visitors preferences are. But
    what I disagree with is the fact that you think you need to. Opening a
    new window, or targeting/reusing a window you have opened is an
    essential part of web applications so it should never go away. But it
    can also be useful in a website.

    Personal opinion, no argument intended.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 15, 2005
    #9
  10. On Sun, 15 May 2005, Travis Newbury, seen in
    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, wrote:

    > disagree with is the fact that you think you need to. Opening a new
    > window, or targeting/reusing a window you have opened is an
    > essential part of web applications


    "Essential"? It's going to have a hard time of it with the browser
    settings that I use, then.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, May 15, 2005
    #10
  11. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > I agree you can not know what all your visitors preferences are. But
    > what I disagree with is the fact that you think you need to. Opening a
    > new window, or targeting/reusing a window you have opened is an
    > essential part of web applications so it should never go away. But it
    > can also be useful in a website.


    The question then is, "are you a web application"? if so, what makes
    your piece of code "need to be new window".

    If nothing other than "convienence" _please_ keep the href the same, and
    simply do an |onclick="window.open(...);"| or some such, so that when
    *I* want to open such a link in a new tab, it will let me, or if I want
    to open it in a new window with my settings it will not break anything, etc.

    As in I have found in some so-called professional web-apps, I see a link
    I _know_ I want in a new window, I right-click, "Open in new window", it
    does not work (due to some scripting policy with the page, usually
    href="javascript:" type stuff) then I get frustrated, and normal-click
    the link, and sigh when it actually opens in a new window, _that_ is
    counter intuitive.

    Not to mention the frustration if I wanted teh link in a new tab.

    You do not need to know what your visitors preferences are is my point,
    DO NOT PRETEND TO, simply leave the settings "normal" (as in, a click on
    a link opens "local" to the page, same window, same frame if they are in
    frames) if you are a web-app provide settings of some sort to allow a
    _user_ to specifically change this if you feel you must, but do not do
    it by default.

    default should make all users able to do all things they want, open in
    same page, or use their browsers mechanics to open in other means.

    Personal Opinion, and one I do take personally,
    ~Justin Wood (Callek)
     
    Justin Wood (Callek), May 16, 2005
    #11
  12. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
    > The question then is, "are you a web application"? if so, what makes your piece of code "need to be new window".


    Completely depends on the application. One example we use all the time
    is a web conference application with pop up features like a white board,
    or slide annotation.

    Remember, web applications don't have visitors, they have users.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 16, 2005
    #12
  13. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
    >
    >> The question then is, "are you a web application"? if so, what makes
    >> your piece of code "need to be new window".

    >

    ....

    > Remember, web applications don't have visitors, they have users.
    >


    Well then let me prose this to you, are you following the recomendations
    I put forth about keeping href="" to an actual page "which works" for
    your pop-ups, *or* are you depriving your USERS from simple features
    such as self-chosen "open in new tab" etc.

    And as such, you should provide these users an option to turn off all
    "new window" loads, [that your app does] (imho).

    Though I feel we have gone waay off topic at least for the Mozilla
    Newsgroup, and as such this is all I will post there. [I do not
    subscribe to any of the other ones this message seems to go to, if it
    does actually get passed through is beyond my comprehension]

    ~Justin Wood (Callek)
     
    Justin Wood (Callek), May 17, 2005
    #13
  14. Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
    > And as such, you should provide these users an option to turn off all
    > "new window" loads, [that your app does] (imho).


    You haven't a clue what a web based application is. It's not a web site.
    It has nothing to do with accessibility, javascript, pop up windows,
    using flash or any other personal preference you might have.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 17, 2005
    #14
  15. randau

    Chris Morris Guest

    Travis Newbury <> writes:
    > Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
    > > And as such, you should provide these users an option to turn off
    > > all "new window" loads, [that your app does] (imho).

    >
    > You haven't a clue what a web based application is. It's not a web
    > site. It has nothing to do with accessibility, javascript, pop up
    > windows, using flash or any other personal preference you might have.


    Really? Certainly in the UK, legislation would require a web based
    application to be accessible in a large number of cases. As I
    understand it US and European legislation is similar.

    As someone who both writes and uses web based applications, I find it
    very useful (as do the users) to be able to use the application in
    various browsers+settings.

    Conversely we've had numerous complaints about a bought in web
    application that only works in a narrow range of browsers+settings.

    Possibly working for an organisation that has five officially
    installed browsers (one of which is officially supported) and who
    knows how many different user-installed ones, on at least four
    different operating systems (three officially supported to some
    extent), gives me a different idea of the importance of making web
    applications browser-independent.

    --
    Chris
     
    Chris Morris, May 17, 2005
    #15
  16. Chris Morris wrote:
    > > You haven't a clue what a web based application is. It's not a web
    > > site. It has nothing to do with accessibility, javascript, pop up
    > > windows, using flash or any other personal preference you might

    have.
    > Really? Certainly in the UK, legislation would require a web based
    > application to be accessible in a large number of cases. As I
    > understand it US and European legislation is similar.


    I believe you are mistaken. A web based application does not have the
    same accesibility restrictions as a website. Read the regs again and
    you will see.

    Web applications are not generally open to the public, and you are
    given a set of requirements to run them. For Fidelity investments
    asset management web application (and most banks for that matter)
    require javascript to be turned on. Webex, Live meeting, and Centra
    all have browser restrictions and you also need to downlaod specialized
    plugins and activeX Hardly what you would call accesibility.

    Yet they all enjoy a huge following even in the UK. (with no lawsuits)

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 17, 2005
    #16
  17. randau

    Chris Morris Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> writes:
    > Chris Morris wrote:
    > > > You haven't a clue what a web based application is. It's not a web
    > > > site. It has nothing to do with accessibility, javascript, pop up
    > > > windows, using flash or any other personal preference you might have.

    >
    > > Really? Certainly in the UK, legislation would require a web based
    > > application to be accessible in a large number of cases. As I
    > > understand it US and European legislation is similar.

    >
    > I believe you are mistaken. A web based application does not have the
    > same accesibility restrictions as a website. Read the regs again and
    > you will see.


    The audience is much smaller, yes. That doesn't absolve people of the
    responsibility to cater for people with disabilities within that
    audience.

    I'm only really familiar with UK legislation (and I'm a web developer,
    not a lawyer) but I can't think of any part of the UK legislation that
    would give the exception you describe. If I've missed something please
    tell me what.

    > Web applications are not generally open to the public,


    Irrelevant, at least in the UK. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
    protects:
    (Part II) Employees
    (Part III) People to whom you provide a service
    (Part IV) Applicants to educational establishments and students

    Part III does not require you to provide the service to everyone for
    it to be a service you provide. A bank could not use as its defence
    that disabled people could bank with someone else, for example.

    Likewise Part II covers one of the most common uses of web
    applications.

    > and you are given a set of requirements to run them. For Fidelity
    > investments asset management web application (and most banks for
    > that matter) require javascript to be turned on. Webex, Live
    > meeting, and Centra all have browser restrictions and you also need
    > to downlaod specialized plugins and activeX Hardly what you would
    > call accesibility.


    Indeed not.

    One of the reasons I don't bank online is because all the banking
    sites I've seen *require* javascript, often Internet Explorer,
    etc. for their online banking interfaces, despite none of the key
    functionality (seeing how much money my account has, transferring
    money between accounts, log in, statements) requiring [1] Javascript
    to implement. I therefore - probably unfairly - trust their security
    measures to have been installed and coded competently about as much as
    I can see evidence of competence in the front-end design.

    [1] I can see how careful use of Javascript, etc. could make doing
    some of this faster, more efficient, less error-prone, whatever. I
    have no problem with Javascript being used to do that. That's not the
    same thing.

    > Yet they all enjoy a huge following even in the UK. (with no lawsuits)


    No lawsuits *yet* - though there have been several threatened that
    were settled out of court. Anyone who could show that they were - as a
    result of their disability - substantially disadvantaged in the
    provision of service (or denied service) by the requirements of a web
    application would be entitled to be provided with a "reasonable
    alternative".

    The reasonable alternative needn't be web-based, but a court might
    decide that it should be to avoid 'substantial' disadvantage (so
    requiring someone to travel several miles to the local branch of the
    bank to do something someone without that disability could do over the
    internet might be regarded as substantial disadvantage).

    --
    Chris
     
    Chris Morris, May 17, 2005
    #17
  18. Chris Morris wrote:
    > One of the reasons I don't bank online is because all the banking
    > sites I've seen *require* javascript, often Internet Explorer,
    > etc....


    Thank you. When you purchase or use a web application, you are
    agreeing to follow the rules needed to run that application. It is no
    more discriminating for a web based application to require popup
    windows (javascript, flash, etc...) than it is for Yahoo radio to
    require something that will play sound in order to use it. It is just
    a requirement of the software.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 17, 2005
    #18
  19. randau

    Chris Morris Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> writes:
    > Chris Morris wrote:
    > > One of the reasons I don't bank online is because all the banking
    > > sites I've seen *require* javascript, often Internet Explorer,
    > > etc....

    >
    > Thank you. When you purchase or use a web application, you are
    > agreeing to follow the rules needed to run that application. It is no
    > more discriminating for a web based application to require popup
    > windows (javascript, flash, etc...) than it is for Yahoo radio to
    > require something that will play sound in order to use it. It is just
    > a requirement of the software.


    Firstly: That's my _personal_ reason for not using certain web
    applications. That's not the reason that someone with particular
    disabilities would have. I have a choice to use or not to use that
    application. Someone else may not have that choice.

    It's reasonable to ask someone to have particular hardware/software to
    use something *up to the point* where they can't do that because of a
    disability. At that point - under UK law, at least - it becomes the
    responsibility of the _service provider_ to provide a reasonable
    alternative.

    Secondly:
    Yahoo radio needs sound because radio is a sound-based medium. There
    is no other practical [1] way to implement radio.

    Web applications that use Javascript (flash, pop-ups, etc) fall into
    two categories:

    1. those where it's genuinely necessary to use that to get the
    required functionality and it's just not practical to provide the
    same functionality otherwise.

    2. those where it could quite easily be done without using any of
    those, but it requires (*not* 'works better with' - *requires*)
    them anyway.

    Case 2 is the problematic one, and the reason that I personally don't
    trust some banking sites and why some people may be _unable_ to use
    those sites.

    Case 1 is fine - the main web application I've written unavoidably
    uses Javascript (and recent Mozilla/IE only Javascript, at that) for
    one of the main pieces of functionality. However, it doesn't require
    Javascript to do any of the other functions, and if you don't have
    Javascript there is a substitute - though inevitably with less
    functionality - that lets you in theory do the same thing.

    I've no objection to web applications that use Javascript (or
    whatever) because that's the *only* way to do something, and it has to
    be done that way. I use some myself.

    Likewise I've no objection to web applications that will work without
    Javascript but are easier to use with Javascript because of (e.g.)
    additional client-side input validation, dynamic auto-completion of
    forms, etc. Again, I use some myself.

    What I object to is web applications that require Javascript, not
    because there's no sensible way to do it without it, but because the
    developer of the web application didn't implement that sensible way. I
    tend to avoid these because I'm not sure what else (like security,
    data integrity, etc) they didn't implement sensibly. Other people will
    avoid them because it is literally impossible for them to use them.

    [1] Actually, if voice recognition software improved enough, it might
    be possible to make a sound driver that converted (either client or
    server side) from sound to a transcript. But for now, not practical.

    --
    Chris
     
    Chris Morris, May 17, 2005
    #19
  20. randau

    JT Guest

    Chris Morris wrote:
    :No lawsuits *yet* - though there have been several threatened that were
    settled out of court.:

    Names and details?
     
    JT, May 17, 2005
    #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. Marlene

    Re: asp.net calendar enhancement

    Marlene, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    966
    Marlene
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. Fred.

    Re: asp.net calendar enhancement

    Fred., Jun 25, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,798
  3. Kevin Spencer

    Re: Link Link Link DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

    Kevin Spencer, May 17, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    891
    Kevin Spencer
    May 17, 2005
  4. Stephen

    nested if enhancement?

    Stephen, Mar 1, 2004, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    419
    Dimitre Novatchev [MVP XML]
    Mar 1, 2004
  5. mohit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    580
    mohit
    Jan 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page