no target="_blank"

[Toby Inkster]

Exactly. Author's page -- so author gets to choose.

User's browser -- so user gets to choose.

Should a newspaper publisher be able to choose to make sure all readers
hold the paper in their left hand, hold it a specific distance from their
face, fold it in a particular way, and so forth? If I've bought a
newspaper, I'll read it any way I bloody like.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Just had this idea:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/external-links2

What do people think?

Valiant effort. As one who use to believe in new window links I now
think a pain link is best and let the user decide if he wants to open
the link in
a) same window
b) new window
c) new tab
e) another browser!

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kim_Andr=E9_Aker=F8?=]

Exactly. Author's page -- so author gets to choose.

Once again, author's page, but user's browser; author can suggest how
the browser should display the page, user can override the usage of
JavaScript, colors, stylesheets, etc.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, (e-mail address removed) (Rob Stampfli)
vouchsafed:

Precisely. Today, "target=_blank" is at best suggestive.
Modern browsers allow the user the option of determining
what really happens when they encounter it. I fail to
see why this attribute drives some people (including those
who write the HTML specs) bonkers. It it is the primary
reason I find myself falling back from HTML 4.01 "strict"
to "transitional".

I agree. The w3c should definitely _not_ have removed the target attribute
from strict. It demonstrations a basic lack of conceptual understanding
and/or ego and/or possibly trying to mollify the browser makers.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster <usenet200605
@tobyinkster.co.uk> vouchsafed:

Just had this idea:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/external-links2

What do people think?

Hey, I like that! Could you spruce it up to make the "context menu"
disappear after a second or so off-target?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Toby Inkster vouchsafed:


Hey, I like that! Could you spruce it up to make the "context menu"
disappear after a second or so off-target?

I'm sure there are tonnes of improvements that could be made -- this is
just a quick mock-up. Do feel free to modify and re-use the stuff on that
page -- if you come up with anything good, please share.

Note: the stuff in "jslib.js" is not mine, but a collection of functions
I've found around the Internet that often prove useful. The icons are from
KDE so probably subject to the GPL -- treat them as such.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I agree. The w3c should definitely _not_ have removed the target
attribute from strict.

Why pollute Strict with everyone's pet elements and attributes? Strict is
supposed to be vehicle for complete separation of markup and styling/
behaviour.

If you want the other cruft, then Transitional exists and it's not going
to go away any time soon.

 

[dorayme]

<a href="page.html" title="please right-click and choose open in new
tab or page, unless you have a Mac, then you'll need to do something
else, but I don't know what exactly">link to page</a> ;-)

title="please right-click and choose open in new
tab or page, or, with a Mac one button mouse, hold the button
down for a little or control-click and select option from context
window or, if you have a tabbing browser, simply command-click"

 

[dorayme]

Exactly. Author's page -- so author gets to choose.

You can see how an argument like this cannot be conducted with
slogans. Jake slogans that it is the authors page. Yes? So what?
Others say it is the browser's browser. Yeah? So what?

Truth is - how you must all thank the Good Lord I am here -
modern browsers and OSs are so packed with facilities as to make
it best to leave it up to the user. You have at some stage to
trust the masses looking at webpages for information and
amusement.

There is quite enough to do in making a website without meddling
in stuff that is the business of the OS and software help files.

 

[dorayme]

Where has it gone?

Safari can’t open the page
“http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/external-links2†because it
can’t find the server “examples.tobyinkster.co.ukâ€.

 

[Els]

title="please right-click and choose open in new
tab or page, or, with a Mac one button mouse, hold the button
down for a little or control-click and select option from context
window or, if you have a tabbing browser, simply command-click"

 

[Jake]

Actually *not* any more with a real web browser.

So -- not a problem then?

 

[Jake]

User's browser -- so user gets to choose.

If you can override the author's design decision, well -- good for you.

Should a newspaper publisher be able to choose to make sure all readers
hold the paper in their left hand, hold it a specific distance from their
face, fold it in a particular way, and so forth? If I've bought a
newspaper, I'll read it any way I bloody like.

And do you walk into the publisher's office and tell him he can't
produce his newspaper in a certain size, with a specific typestyle, etc.
No? I thought not.

 

[Jake]

In message
<[email protected]>, dorayme

Truth is - how you must all thank the Good Lord I am here -

[Snip]

Have you ever considered working for the United Nations (assuming you
don't already, of course)?

 

[usenet+2004]

Toby Inkster:

Just had this idea:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/external-links2

Concerns:

1. Duplication of browser features. I already have
an option of opening a URL in a new window. With
that menu, I'm restricted to current or new
window, without the choice of new tab, or any
other option the author hadn't considered.

2. Consistency, both appearance- and function-wise.
First, the menu *looks* different to mine, and the
instructions need not be so worded universally.
Second, it works differently: clicking outwith the
menu does not collapse it. Only "cancelling" or
opening another menu seems to collapse it.
'Cancel' on a menu sounds odd to me.

3. Unexpected behaviour. If users are used to clicking
on a link and being taken to a new destination, any
departure from that norm may disorientate them. I,
for one, associate right button with menu and left
button with following link.

(One of my gripes with Firefox is that the menu brought up by right
clicking doesn't have an option for following the link in the current
tab/window.)

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster <usenet200605
@tobyinkster.co.uk> vouchsafed:

Why pollute Strict with everyone's pet elements and attributes? Strict is
supposed to be vehicle for complete separation of markup and styling/
behaviour.

I agree with that, but determining a window is markup to me, not styling.
And even if it were styling, there should have been an attribute in css
_before_ they axed the html "target". The new standards are supposed to
facilitate making viable pages, not inhibit their creation which is what
seems to be happening more and more the more I see.

If you want the other cruft, then Transitional exists and it's not going
to go away any time soon.

What's a "cruft"?

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster

I'm sure there are tonnes of improvements that could be made -- this
is just a quick mock-up. Do feel free to modify and re-use the stuff
on that page -- if you come up with anything good, please share.
Okay.

Note: the stuff in "jslib.js" is not mine, but a collection of
functions I've found around the Internet that often prove useful. The
icons are from KDE so probably subject to the GPL -- treat them as
such.

Okay.

(But don't expect me to be always so agreeable.)

 

[Toby Inkster]

Toby Inkster:


1. Duplication of browser features. I already have
an option of opening a URL in a new window.

Yes there is a duplication there, but one of the most common arguments
that people use to defend target="_blank" is that "not all visitors know
they can right click and open a new window".

With that menu, I'm restricted to current or new
window, without the choice of new tab, or any
other option the author hadn't considered.

You're not really restricted though -- the right-click menu should still
work fine. (Tested in Opera 9 beta; Mozilla 1.7.2; IE 6.)

2. Consistency, both appearance- and function-wise.
First, the menu *looks* different to mine,

One could use CSS system colours to style it in a way that blends in more
with the user's system.

Second, it works differently: clicking outwith the
menu does not collapse it.

Yep -- that's certainly a place where it could be improved. I'm sure that
would be possible to implement, but perhaps a little tricky -- as I said,
it's just a quick mock-up.

Only "cancelling" or
opening another menu seems to collapse it.
'Cancel' on a menu sounds odd to me.

You've clicked a link; the browser would normally now follow the link.
Cancel allows you to cancel that.

(One of my gripes with Firefox is that the menu brought up by right
clicking doesn't have an option for following the link in the current
tab/window.)

Try Opera.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I agree with that, but determining a window is markup to me, not styling.

I never said it was styling -- it's controlling behaviour, which can be
done with Javascript.

And even if it were styling, there should have been an attribute in css
_before_ they axed the html "target".

The facility to target particular windows was added to Javascript long
before target was deprecated (not "axed") in HTML.

What's a "cruft"?

From Jargon File (4.3.1, 29 Jun 2001) [jargon]:

cruft /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from {crufty}] 1. n. An
unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the
TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only
produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction. 3. vt. [from
`hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something
normally (and better) done by a compiler (see {hand-hacking}). 4. n.
Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5.
[University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese;
that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".

I was referring to definition 4.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

... but one of the most common arguments that people use to defend
target="_blank" is that "not all visitors know they can right click
and open a new window".

Right, and you best assume that those type of user have no idea how to
manage an extra window either, so it's doubly rude to force one on
them.

Many a time I've been told of naive users who couldn't understand why
their Back button no longer worked, so the only way out that they knew
was to exit the whole browser and start again. They had no idea that
the original browser window was hidden underneath the new one that the
misguided author had forced on them.