no target="_blank"

[Els]

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.)

I am "restricted" though to use 2 clicks for every link, which I
normally don't. If you'd add a "don't ask me this again (ever)"
option, I'd be happy

 

[Els]

I am "restricted" though to use 2 clicks for every link, which I
normally don't. If you'd add a "don't ask me this again (ever)"
option, I'd be happy

Uh.. no - almost happy.
I'd also like it to work with just tabbing, no mouse :\

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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


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.

That is the point you are missing, a webpage is *not* a printed page.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.)

Isn't that what the left-click is for?

BTW you can also drag link to address bar to override 'target' on link...

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Isn't that what the left-click is for?

I think you already know the answer to that!

BTW you can also drag link to address bar to override 'target' on
link...

Hmmm, that's neat, I hadn't thought of that possibility. Thanks.


Anybody for mouse gestures? ;-))

 

[Jake]

That is the point you are missing, a webpage is *not* a printed page.

Nor is a radio or TV broadcast. Your point?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Nor is a radio or TV broadcast. Your point?

But more like broadcast TV then publish book, because as author you DO
NOT have absolute control over how the content is displayed anymore that
the broadcaster cant force color TV to display color over a B&W TV.
Neither can you *force* a font on a webpage where the user does not have
installed on his system, nor 1200px width on a 600px set monitor, nor
*force* javascript effects when javascript is disabled, nor even *force*
image or colors if user's browser is like Lynx, nor *force* the printed
margin on the page to exactly 1/2 inch (a question repeated without
end), nor *force* to be printed on tablet or legal size paper!

That's my point. You don't, and shouldn't *force* control over a web
browser. If you try with your webpage you are doom to failure.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster

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

Yes, but it should be available without javascript as well. This is not to
deny that a defeat-mechanism should be available to the user.

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

So was location.href="xxx" and location.replace('xxx'). Ought we to
eliminate html links also?

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.

Phew, it's a relief to know that you weren't suggesting I had a hankering
for dust balls.

 

[dorayme]

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)?

Don't be like that Jake! I have a soft spot for you because you
are the lone voice defending frames (which I am sentimentally
attached to... I have no such sites anymore, but I wheel the
copies out now and again from my archives to take a peek and have
a play when I feel depressed, wipe a tear away and a smile comes
on...)

 

[Toby Inkster]

Toby Inkster vouchsafed:

Yes, but it should be available without javascript as well.

Why should it be available without Javascript? If it's possible to alter
behaviour without Javascript, shouldn't it also be possible to alter font
colours without CSS?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

If it's possible to alter behaviour without Javascript, shouldn't it
also be possible to alter font colours without CSS?

<p><font color="red">Yes.</font> </p>

 

[Neredbojias]

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

Why should it be available without Javascript? If it's possible to alter
behaviour without Javascript, shouldn't it also be possible to alter font
colours without CSS?

Font colour (haha, "colour" - cracks me up everytime I see it) is styling.
I would say that there is at least a strong suggestion that the frame of a
page, or "housing" if you prefer, falls under the scope of structure. I
suspect (but can't prove) the w3c only removed "target" in a misguided
attempt to "whip those clueless new-window-opening pagemakers into line."
The proper way, of course, is for the user to manifest his preferences via
the browser.

 

[Nije Nego]

Nor is a radio or TV broadcast. Your point?

You provided good comparation:

when I change channel on my tv, I want new channel to appear in same
window, if I want having more, I would use Picture in Picture option.

I would hate channels that force themselves.

 

[Toby Inkster]

<p><font color="red">Yes.</font> </p>

In which case, as I said earlier, Transitional exists and it's not going
to go away any time soon.

 

[Jaxtraw]

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.

....so they close the window, and find the original one beneath.

"Target" is a valid design choice and it's ludicrous that the w3C would just
decide to remove this useful feature that has been around for donkey's
years.

I understand that many people feel "the user is king" but that isn't true.
The user's desires are one aspect of web design- but so are the desires of
the author. A website has a purpose and the designer must have the freedom
to design their site in such a way as to facilitate that purpose. For
instance- somebody running a link list or toplist has a singular purpose in
mind- that the surfer should click as many links as possible of the list,
and preferably the sponsor's link. To do that, you want to hang onto them as
long as possible, which is why all such lists use target="_blank". The user
clicks a link, takes a look, then they don't like that site. If they have to
back into the list again, they may well not bother backing through 20 pages,
but if the site they chose is in a seperate window, they'll close that
window and find your toplist/link list beneath it again and may well click
another link... It's simply better for the list owner.

Now, many people will say "I find that irritating. I don't want that. I am
the USER and my desires are paramount". Well, tough. I'd prefer TV without
adverts too, but I recognise that if my wishes as a TV user are carried out,
the TV company won't make any money, go bankrupt, and then I won't get the
primary thing I want (free TV programmes) either.

Effectively, all services are a balance between what the provider wants and
want the user wants. I know that my local supermarket are trying to
manipulate me using advertising and store layout to spend more money than
I'd initially intended and make my shopping less efficient. It's just the
way of things.

With this, the w3c seems to have taken a specific philosophical position,
imposing on the web how they think it should be. It's none of their
business. Their job is to harmonise and set standards, not to decide what
sort of websites, with what applications, should be provided by website
owners. Who the hell do they think they are?!

Ian

 

[Arne]

instance- somebody running a link list or toplist has a singular purpose in
mind- that the surfer should click as many links as possible of the list,
and preferably the sponsor's link. To do that, you want to hang onto them as
long as possible, which is why all such lists use target="_blank". The user
clicks a link, takes a look, then they don't like that site. If they have to
back into the list again, they may well not bother backing through 20 pages,
but if the site they chose is in a seperate window, they'll close that
window and find your toplist/link list beneath it again and may well click
another link... It's simply better for the list owner.

You may have not notice that the *user* have several options in the case
you describe.

1. Right click and choose "Open in new window" or "Open in new tab"
(even IE7 will support the tabbing?)

2. If the link is opened in the same window, you can go back by using
the sessions history button, or if it's deeper down you find it in the
History ("Recently visited" in IE?).

Now you may say that the avarage users don't use those options and some
not even know about them. But with developers that always are "serving
everything on a silver plate" they will never learn to use them, and not
discover the pro's with them.

 

[William Hughes]

Since I am in the process of building a personal website (
http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm ) that will contain
numerous links to other sites, I have been following this discussion
with some interest.

What if the links are explicitly marked, indicating that they will
open a new window? Would this be acceptable?

 

[Toby Inkster]

"Target" is a valid design choice and it's ludicrous that the w3C would just
decide to remove this useful feature that has been around for donkey's
years.

Target has not been "removed". It still works in virtually all graphical
browsers, and validates in HTML 4.01 Transitional and XHTML 1.0
Transitional amongst other doctypes; and none of that is going to change
any time soon.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Since I am in the process of building a personal website (
http://home.grandecom.net/~cvproj/carrier.htm ) that will contain
numerous links to other sites, I have been following this discussion
with some interest.

What if the links are explicitly marked, indicating that they will
open a new window? Would this be acceptable?

I would say better, but why bother. If you site is interesting enough
the user will stay. Also I am a SeaMonkey user and your 'new window'
approach may interfere my desire to open the off link in another tab not
another window. I like to keep new windows for different lines of
inquiry...

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

...so they close the window, and find the original one beneath.

I meant just what I said - and not what you wanted me to have said.

"Target" is a valid design choice

There are lots of things which authors deem to be a "valid design
choice" - without apparently caring what the consequences could be for
their readers.

and it's ludicrous that the w3C would just decide to remove this
useful feature

If you understood the point of "strict", you would not waste your time
saying that.

that has been around for donkey's years.

And still -is- doing almost as much harm as it's ever done.
Especially for the naive users at whom it's targetted. (We more-
experienced users have learned how to tame it in some modern browsers,
thus regaining some of the control that we're supposed to get over
our browsing situation, according to the web's original aims.)

I understand that many people feel "the user is king" but that isn't
true.

I'm sure they're duly humbled in your presence. :-(

Now, many people will say "I find that irritating. I don't want
that. I am the USER and my desires are paramount". Well, tough.

I'm glad you made that clear! Let's hope other authors can learn from
your mistakes.

I'd prefer TV without adverts too, but I recognise that if my wishes
as a TV user are carried out, the TV company won't make any money,
go bankrupt, and then I won't get the primary thing I want (free TV
programmes) either.

Hang on, what *is* this? You might have decided that the web is just
another form of commercial TV, but some of us use it for very
different reasons.

With this, the w3c seems to have taken a specific philosophical
position, imposing on the web how they think it should be.

On the contrary: they codify the interworking specifications
for different mechanisms, which include a range of very different
technologies. It's *you* who is trying to "impose" your personal
view of what the web ought to be (commercial TV, apparently).