QuirksMode: For all your browser quirks

Discussion in 'HTML' started by kayodeok, Oct 29, 2003.

  1. kayodeok

    kayodeok Guest

    kayodeok, Oct 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kayodeok

    rf Guest

    "kayodeok" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9423E90CEB477news4kayode@130.133.1.4...
    > This new website seems to be doing the rounds in the blogs today...
    >
    > http://www.quirksmode.org/
    >


    From the miscelllaneous scripts page:

    <quote>
    On this page I explain how you can partially protect your images from being
    copied
    </quote>

    Once I saw that I stopped looking :)

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Oct 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kayodeok

    kayodeok Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in
    news:1NXnb.170306$:

    >
    > "kayodeok" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9423E90CEB477news4kayode@130.133.1.4...
    >> This new website seems to be doing the rounds in the blogs
    >> today...
    >>
    >> http://www.quirksmode.org/
    >>

    >
    > From the miscelllaneous scripts page:
    >
    > <quote>
    > On this page I explain how you can partially protect your images
    > from being copied
    > </quote>
    >
    > Once I saw that I stopped looking :)
    >

    Thanks for the commentary, I missed that one!

    However, the focus on the blogs was on the CSS Browser Bugs,
    unfortunately, I am too tired tonight to see if he says anything
    new... anyway, you've done half of my job for me as I will be
    thumbing through the pages with a critical eye!

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    kayodeok, Oct 29, 2003
    #3
  4. kayodeok wrote:

    > "rf" <> wrote in
    > news:1NXnb.170306$:
    >
    >
    >>"kayodeok" <> wrote in message
    >>news:Xns9423E90CEB477news4kayode@130.133.1.4...
    >>
    >>>This new website seems to be doing the rounds in the blogs
    >>>today...
    >>>
    >>>http://www.quirksmode.org/
    >>>

    >>
    >>From the miscelllaneous scripts page:
    >>
    >><quote>
    >>On this page I explain how you can partially protect your images
    >>from being copied
    >></quote>
    >>
    >>Once I saw that I stopped looking :)
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for the commentary, I missed that one!
    >
    > However, the focus on the blogs was on the CSS Browser Bugs,
    > unfortunately, I am too tired tonight to see if he says anything
    > new... anyway, you've done half of my job for me as I will be
    > thumbing through the pages with a critical eye!



    It says there:

    "First of all, please note that this is in no way a true protection of
    your images. It will only stop newbies, more advanced surfers may turn
    of JavaScript and copy the image anyway. Besides, when the image is also
    a link the script becomes much less reliable."

    That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation. It's not
    as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.


    --
    Nicolai Zwar
    http://www.nicolaizwar.com
    Nicolai P. Zwar, Oct 30, 2003
    #4
  5. kayodeok

    rf Guest

    "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    news:bnqq0g$qe7$...
    > kayodeok wrote:
    >
    > > "rf" <> wrote in
    > > news:1NXnb.170306$:
    > >
    > >
    > >>"kayodeok" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:Xns9423E90CEB477news4kayode@130.133.1.4...
    > >>
    > >>>This new website seems to be doing the rounds in the blogs
    > >>>today...
    > >>>
    > >>>http://www.quirksmode.org/
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>From the miscelllaneous scripts page:
    > >>
    > >><quote>
    > >>On this page I explain how you can partially protect your images
    > >>from being copied
    > >></quote>
    > >>
    > >>Once I saw that I stopped looking :)
    > >>

    > >
    > > Thanks for the commentary, I missed that one!
    > >
    > > However, the focus on the blogs was on the CSS Browser Bugs,
    > > unfortunately, I am too tired tonight to see if he says anything
    > > new... anyway, you've done half of my job for me as I will be
    > > thumbing through the pages with a critical eye!

    >
    >
    > It says there:
    >
    > "First of all, please note that this is in no way a true protection of
    > your images. It will only stop newbies, more advanced surfers may turn
    > of JavaScript and copy the image anyway. Besides, when the image is also
    > a link the script becomes much less reliable."
    >
    > That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation. It's not
    > as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.


    The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to consider such
    things casts doubt on the the validity of the rest of the information in
    said site.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Oct 30, 2003
    #5
  6. rf wrote:
    > "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    > news:bnqq0g$qe7$...
    >
    >>kayodeok wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"rf" <> wrote in
    >>>news:1NXnb.170306$:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"kayodeok" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:Xns9423E90CEB477news4kayode@130.133.1.4...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>This new website seems to be doing the rounds in the blogs
    >>>>>today...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.quirksmode.org/
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>From the miscelllaneous scripts page:
    >>>
    >>>><quote>
    >>>>On this page I explain how you can partially protect your images
    >>>
    >>>>from being copied
    >>>
    >>>></quote>
    >>>>
    >>>>Once I saw that I stopped looking :)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for the commentary, I missed that one!
    >>>
    >>>However, the focus on the blogs was on the CSS Browser Bugs,
    >>>unfortunately, I am too tired tonight to see if he says anything
    >>>new... anyway, you've done half of my job for me as I will be
    >>>thumbing through the pages with a critical eye!

    >>
    >>
    >>It says there:
    >>
    >>"First of all, please note that this is in no way a true protection of
    >>your images. It will only stop newbies, more advanced surfers may turn
    >>of JavaScript and copy the image anyway. Besides, when the image is also
    >>a link the script becomes much less reliable."
    >>
    >>That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation. It's not
    >>as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.

    >
    >
    > The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to consider such
    > things casts doubt on the the validity of the rest of the information in
    > said site.


    But it's better to mention these things accurately than not to mention
    them at all. I would, however, disagree with the following:
    "Nonetheless it serves as a polite reminder of the copyright to the
    users of your site and as a token to the holder of the copyright that
    you are taking some steps to protect his intellectual property."

    In my opinion, these no-right-click scripts are not polite at all, they
    are rather rude.


    --
    Nicolai Zwar
    http://www.nicolaizwar.com
    Nicolai P. Zwar, Oct 30, 2003
    #6
  7. "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    news:bnqu03$6f9$...
    <snip>
    >>>It says there:
    >>>
    >>>"First of all, please note that this is in no way a true
    >>>protection of your images. It will only stop newbies, more
    >>>advanced surfers may turn of JavaScript and copy the image
    >>>anyway. Besides, when the image is also a link the script
    >>>becomes much less reliable."


    >>>That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation.
    >>>It's not as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.

    >>
    >>
    >>The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to
    >>consider such things casts doubt on the the validity of the
    >>rest of the information in said site.

    >
    >But it's better to mention these things accurately than not
    >to mention them at all.

    <snip>

    But is it accurate? It mentions disabling JavaScript as a method of
    defeating such a script, but there must be at leas a dozen other ways of
    side stepping such a script, many of which require less technical
    knowledge of web browsers than even the minimum required to know how to
    disable JavaScript. The simple coincidence of using a browser that does
    not allow the context menu to be disabled (such as Opera) being just
    one.

    But one of the biggest objections to using a script that attempts to
    disable the context menu is that the menu is used for much more than
    saving images, and people who like (or even maybe need) to use that menu
    for its other facilities would miss the feature.

    So a web page that listed a context menu blocking script, followed it
    with a list of, say, 10 easy ways of defeating/side-stepping such a
    script, mentioned that there are plenty of others and rounded off with a
    discussion contrasting the negligible "protection" offered with the
    likely antagonism induced in some viewers at having their browser
    crippled, might be considered as an accurate representation of the
    situation. But such a page is most likely to induce the impression in a
    considerate reader that including such a script in a web page wasn't
    worth the effort to type (or cut and paste) it, or the bytes to download
    it.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Oct 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela, Oct 30, 2003
    #8
  9. kayodeok

    kayodeok Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9424D1C0CFD0Ajkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31:

    >> http://www.quirksmode.org/

    >
    > Yours? Anyway, when I get
    >
    > "Your browser does not support the W3C DOM. Enter here."
    >
    > I decide to do something else. Please keep concentrating on
    > arguing with visitors unless you have some useful or amusing
    > content.


    Jukka

    The website is not mine.

    Actually, I wanted to add the site to:
    http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.uk/favorites/webdesign.htm

    I posted the link here because I wanted opinions before adding the
    link to my web page.

    As it turns out, there was also some negative comments in the blogs
    where I picked up the link, it seems the webmaster (someone called
    PPK) is known for generating debate on his website but I wasn't
    aware of this when I posted the link here.

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    kayodeok, Oct 30, 2003
    #9
  10. kayodeok

    Isofarro Guest

    Isofarro, Oct 30, 2003
    #10
  11. kayodeok

    kayodeok Guest

    Isofarro <> wrote in
    news::

    > kayodeok wrote:
    >
    >> (someone called
    >> PPK) is known for generating debate on his website

    >
    > Peter Paul Koch. He's a regular author of articles over on
    > evolt.org


    Thanks for the information

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    kayodeok, Oct 30, 2003
    #11
  12. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> writes:

    >> http://www.quirksmode.org/

    >
    > Yours? Anyway, when I get
    >
    > "Your browser does not support the W3C DOM.


    Well, yes. Know your hobby-horses. Peter Paul Koch is, as a matter of
    fact, very competent within the client-side stuff.

    > Enter here."


    More appropriate, BTW, would be: 'Opt Out'.
    Spares you framesets all over the place. It's the nineties.

    > I decide to do something else.


    Enfin, I'm certain I can make your day:
    In the Dutch language 'dom' means 'stupid'.

    :)


    --
    | ) Eric Bednarz
    -(
    | ) http://bednarz.nl/
    Eric B. Bednarz, Oct 31, 2003
    #12
  13. rf wrote:
    > The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to consider such
    > things casts doubt on the the validity of the rest of the information in
    > said site.


    RF, don't let your ideological blinders get in the way of appreciating
    good content. There is more than one way to do things "right". Besides,
    I haven't seen *your* 150 pages of tips and tricks - where are they?


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Oct 31, 2003
    #13
  14. Richard Cornford wrote:
    > "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    > news:bnqu03$6f9$...
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>>It says there:
    >>>>
    >>>>"First of all, please note that this is in no way a true
    >>>>protection of your images. It will only stop newbies, more
    >>>>advanced surfers may turn of JavaScript and copy the image
    >>>>anyway. Besides, when the image is also a link the script
    >>>>becomes much less reliable."

    >
    >
    >>>>That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation.
    >>>>It's not as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to
    >>>consider such things casts doubt on the the validity of the
    >>>rest of the information in said site.

    >>
    >>But it's better to mention these things accurately than not
    >>to mention them at all.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > But is it accurate? It mentions disabling JavaScript as a method of
    > defeating such a script, but there must be at leas a dozen other ways of
    > side stepping such a script, many of which require less technical
    > knowledge of web browsers than even the minimum required to know how to
    > disable JavaScript. The simple coincidence of using a browser that does
    > not allow the context menu to be disabled (such as Opera) being just
    > one.


    True, Richard, but while we are at nitpicking let me point out that it
    is nowhere mentioned that turning off JavaScript is the _only_ way of
    circumventing the "no-right-click" script, so yes, it is accurate. Also,
    while there may be more ways of getting around a "no-right-click script,
    turning off JavaScript is sure among the most fail-safe ways. Most
    importantly, it states honestly that there is no way to really protect
    your image and that the best you can hope for is preventing
    inexperienced users from ripping off your pics. Also, in my experience,
    people who use Opera for websurfing generally know enough about web
    browsers to know how to turn off JavaScript anyway. :)

    --
    Nicolai Zwar
    http://www.nicolaizwar.com
    Nicolai P. Zwar, Oct 31, 2003
    #14
  15. kayodeok

    rf Guest

    "Matthias Gutfeldt" <> wrote in message
    news:bnt1pl$15vj2s$-berlin.de...
    > rf wrote:
    > > The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to consider such
    > > things casts doubt on the the validity of the rest of the information in
    > > said site.

    >
    > RF, don't let your ideological blinders get in the way of appreciating
    > good content.


    Er, "idealogical"?

    I really don't think so. I think more "realistic" :)

    >There is more than one way to do things "right".


    Yes there are, as evidenced by the div war between Toby and I in Adrienne's
    nested table rant thread. Are be both wrong or both right or just different.
    Whatever, we are both doing something that can be done.

    However there is, and you must agree, *no* way do stop people copying your
    images. There is no "right" way to do this because it simply can... not...
    be... done....

    Whatever way one tries to do this is, by definition, wrong. Even worse is a
    "way" that cripples the users browser.

    If I walk into a shop and see a shelf full of "a magical snake oil remedy
    for chronic rheumatoid arthritus" then would you not expect me to be a bit
    suspicious of the quality of the "brand new Nike runners" on the next shelf
    to the right?

    > Besides,
    > I haven't seen *your* 150 pages of tips and tricks - where are they?


    I did actually have such a site running here a few years ago. It is now
    obsolete and is now, I must admit, wrong because of mainly one thing: it
    suggested using tables for layout was a good thing. This is now obsolete
    advice.

    Here it is, as a piece of historical interest:
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/ - carefull, the roo is a little rude :)

    I continuously think of revamping said site and if I did I would *not*
    include image stealing protection schemes, except perhaps as an entry of my
    hypothetical *tricks you most certainly do not want to do" section.

    Sorry for the rant. It's been a slow day and I hit four (yes 4) golf balls
    into the damn dam.

    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Oct 31, 2003
    #15
  16. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    > news:bnqu03$6f9$...
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>>It says there:
    >>>>
    >>>>"First of all, please note that this is in no way a true
    >>>>protection of your images. It will only stop newbies, more
    >>>>advanced surfers may turn of JavaScript and copy the image
    >>>>anyway. Besides, when the image is also a link the script
    >>>>becomes much less reliable."

    >
    >
    >>>>That's perfectly a perfectly true and acceptable explanation.
    >>>>It's not as if websites shouldn't even mention these things.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to
    >>>consider such things casts doubt on the the validity of the
    >>>rest of the information in said site.

    >>
    >>But it's better to mention these things accurately than not
    >>to mention them at all.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > But is it accurate? It mentions disabling JavaScript as a method of
    > defeating such a script, but there must be at leas a dozen other ways of
    > side stepping such a script, many of which require less technical
    > knowledge of web browsers than even the minimum required to know how to
    > disable JavaScript. The simple coincidence of using a browser that does
    > not allow the context menu to be disabled (such as Opera) being just
    > one.


    First of all, Richard, did you actually take a look at the site? It
    explicitly states there that the script won't work in Opera. After all,
    I didn't copy and paste the whole page. It also explicitly states that,
    and I quote: "there are plenty of ways to copy the image despite the
    script". So it is nowhere mentioned that turning off JavaScript is the
    _only_ way of circumventing the "no-right-click" script, so yes, it is
    accurate. Also, while there may be more ways of getting around a
    "no-right-click script", turning off JavaScript is sure among the most
    fail-safe ways. Most importantly, it states honestly that there is no
    way to really protect your image and that the best you can hope for is
    preventing inexperienced users from ripping off your pics. Also, in my
    experience, people who use Opera for websurfing generally know enough
    about web browsers to know how to turn off JavaScript or copy images
    anyway. :)

    > But one of the biggest objections to using a script that attempts to
    > disable the context menu is that the menu is used for much more than
    > saving images, and people who like (or even maybe need) to use that menu
    > for its other facilities would miss the feature.


    That should be mentioned, Richard, I agree with you absolutely.

    > So a web page that listed a context menu blocking script, followed it
    > with a list of, say, 10 easy ways of defeating/side-stepping such a
    > script, mentioned that there are plenty of others and rounded off with a
    > discussion contrasting the negligible "protection" offered with the
    > likely antagonism induced in some viewers at having their browser
    > crippled, might be considered as an accurate representation of the
    > situation.


    I said the description was "accurate", not that it was "comprehensive".
    I point again to the fact that the site mentions that there are "plenty
    of ways" to get around it. That should suffice. If you would spend the
    time and effort to explain every and all possible incompatibilities or
    ways of circumvention on every JavaScript you introduce on your page
    (including discussions of pro and cons, for cryin' out loud), you'll
    never get to go anywhere with you site unless you have a staff. There is
    always room for improvement, but http://www.quirksmode.org has plenty of
    well organized information.

    > But such a page is most likely to induce the impression in a
    > considerate reader that including such a script in a web page wasn't
    > worth the effort to type (or cut and paste) it, or the bytes to download
    > it.


    I can live with pages that give me JavaScript information without any
    ideological moralizing. In fact, I prefer them.

    --
    Nicolai Zwar
    http://www.nicolaizwar.com
    Nicolai P. Zwar, Oct 31, 2003
    #16
  17. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > "Your browser does not support the W3C DOM. Enter here."


    Not neccessarily true anyway.

    What if my browser supported the W3C DOM, but not JavaScript?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
    Toby A Inkster, Oct 31, 2003
    #17
  18. kayodeok

    Isofarro Guest

    rf wrote:

    >
    > "Matthias Gutfeldt" <> wrote in message
    > news:bnt1pl$15vj2s$-berlin.de...
    >> rf wrote:
    >> > The fact that the site in question even loweres itself to consider such
    >> > things casts doubt on the the validity of the rest of the information
    >> > in said site.

    >>
    >> RF, don't let your ideological blinders get in the way of appreciating
    >> good content.

    >
    > Er, "idealogical"?


    It is a bit overboard sometimes. Its extremely difficult to live up to your
    expectations (not that we're not trying to).

    > I really don't think so. I think more "realistic" :)


    Good point about the no-click scripts - totally agree. But to let that
    prevent you from exploring the rest of the site is a bit extreme.

    From what I understand in blogging circles, Peter Paul Koch is known for
    ignoring standards when it suits him. He is a bit contraversial at times,
    but there is some good content in a number of his sites that's worth
    reading and appreciating. He ain't your typical Frontpage drag-and-drop
    operator.

    > I did actually have such a site running here a few years ago. It is now
    > obsolete and is now, I must admit, wrong because of mainly one thing: it
    > suggested using tables for layout was a good thing. This is now obsolete
    > advice.


    Everyone makes mistakes. That does not mean every page they produce is a
    mistake. You are a case in point. Had I come across your page about tables,
    should that mean I must now disregard every valuable contribution you make
    into this group? Fair point that PPK's is a new site - but good information
    is timeless?

    > I hit four (yes 4) golf balls into the damn dam.


    Is that bad? Were you aiming for it? ;-)

    As Art would say: HAGO.


    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
    Isofarro, Oct 31, 2003
    #18
  19. kayodeok

    Isofarro Guest

    Isofarro, Oct 31, 2003
    #19
  20. "Nicolai P. Zwar" <> wrote in message
    news:bnt4sg$87a$...
    <snip>
    >>>>>It says there:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"First of all, please note that this is in no way a true
    >>>>>protection of your images. It will only stop newbies, more
    >>>>>advanced surfers may turn of JavaScript and copy the image
    >>>>>anyway. Besides, when the image is also a link the script
    >>>>>becomes much less reliable."

    <snip>
    >First of all, Richard, did you actually take a look at the
    >site?


    No, in this respect I go along with Richard (rf) and think that any page
    that presents a context menu blocking script without concluding (or at
    least giving the reader the impression) that the negligible protection
    offered by the script is significantly outweighed by negative
    consequences of including it in a web page is not worth my attention.

    >It explicitly states there that the script won't work in
    >Opera. After all, I didn't copy and paste the whole page.


    Fair enough.

    >It also explicitly states that, and I quote: "there are
    >plenty of ways to copy the image despite the script".
    >So it is nowhere mentioned that turning off JavaScript is
    >the _only_ way of circumventing the "no-right-click"
    >script, so yes, it is accurate.


    Accurate in a literal sense but possibly misleading because to state
    that "more advanced surfers may turn of JavaScript and copy the image
    anyway" followed by "there are plenty of ways to copy the image despite
    the script" may leave the reader with the impression that the "plenty of
    other ways" would only be available to users who were also sufficiently
    advance to turn JavaScript off as well. As there seem to be a
    significant number of web authors who do not believe that their viewers
    have the wit to know (or learn) how to turn JavaScript off, they would
    be left with the impression that this script might be sufficiently
    effective.

    However, a page that listed some of the methods to side step the script
    might start of with mentioning Alt+Shift+Print Scr and capturing the
    browser window (and any images it was showing) to the clipboard, drag
    and dropping the image into a graphics program or locating the browser
    cache on the hard disk and copying the files from there. All of which
    are actions that are likely to be achievable by a relatively
    inexperienced computer user. The result would give a much more accurate
    impression of the exact level or "protection" that the script could
    offer, and exactly how "more advanced" the more advanced user has to be.

    >Also, while there may be more ways of getting around a
    >"no-right-click script", turning off JavaScript is sure
    >among the most fail-safe ways.


    Disabling JavaScript is a fail-safe way of preventing a script from
    executing but the "more advanced" might decide to exploit JavaScript to
    automate their task. Locating (say by google searching the
    comp.lang.javascript archives) a JavaScript URL to bookmark that would
    scan through a document (and any contained frames) locating distinct
    images, say above a minimum size, and open them all in new windows/tabs,
    free from any "protecting" scripts.

    >Most importantly, it states honestly that there is no
    >way to really protect your image and that the best you can
    >hope for is preventing inexperienced users from ripping off
    >your pics.


    I find the idea of taking action to "stop newbies" from stealing images
    slightly amusing. Consider someone with no knowledge of computers at all
    who is sat down in front of one and shown how to boot it, connect to the
    Internet and start a web browsers. As they serf around they will
    probably regard the web pages that they see as distinct indivisible
    wholes. Not realising that the images can be isolated and extracted and
    also not knowing what they could possibly do with one if they had it.
    They are the real newbies and to protect images from them you simply
    have to sit back and do nothing, they will not even attempt to steal an
    image.

    Later on they may have learnt enough to appreciate what an image is and
    how it can be used but in the mean while there is a reasonable chance
    that they have also learnt how use a search engine and discovered that,
    if asked the right question, it will provide them with step by step
    instructions on how to do just about anything they can conceive of with
    a computer. And once they achieve that level of experience the context
    menu blocking script is doing nothing but harm.

    So the group that this script is offering "protection" from are not
    newbies, it is eclusively the group transitioning from total ignorance
    towards the ability to get the Internet to tell them what they need to
    know to side step it. That is not necessarily a very big group and it is
    also a group in which nobody will reside for long.

    >Also, in my experience, people who use Opera for
    >websurfing generally know enough about web browsers to know
    >how to turn off JavaScript or copy images anyway. :)


    The chances are good that any computer with Opera as its default browser
    was set-up, maintained or is regularly used by someone with some
    knowledge of browsers, but that doesn't mean that the person holding the
    mouse and staring at the screen on any specific occasion is even aware
    that it is Opera they are looking at.

    >>But one of the biggest objections to using a script that
    >>attempts to disable the context menu is that the menu is
    >>used for much more than saving images, and people who like
    >>(or even maybe need) to use that menu for its other
    >>facilities would miss the feature.


    >That should be mentioned, Richard, I agree with you absolutely.


    As this drawback applies (at least) to every JavaScript enabled user of
    both of the most popular browser types its impact will be significant.
    So not only should it be mentioned but it should also be contrasted with
    an accurate representation the negligible "protection" offered by the
    script.

    <snip>
    >>But such a page is most likely to induce the impression in a
    >>considerate reader that including such a script in a web page
    >>wasn't worth the effort to type (or cut and paste) it, or the
    >>bytes to download it.

    >
    >I can live with pages that give me JavaScript information without
    >any ideological moralizing. In fact, I prefer them.


    You will never find me arguing against people being allowed to make
    informed decisions for themselves. But in this case I don't see an
    accurate appreciation of the minimal gains offered by context menu
    blocking scripts ever outweighing the realisation of the significant
    drawbacks.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Oct 31, 2003
    #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. DaLoverhino

    Some quirks in InputStream.read() ?

    DaLoverhino, Jan 23, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    503
    Rogan Dawes
    Jan 24, 2005
  2. Jeff Thies

    quirks mode and IE5 vs IE6

    Jeff Thies, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    2,454
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Sedano?=
    Feb 14, 2004
  3. Michael Jaeger

    quirks mode

    Michael Jaeger, Apr 28, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    882
    Jeff Thies
    May 5, 2004
  4. chad kline

    piping/reading stdin quirks.

    chad kline, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    440
    Irrwahn Grausewitz
    Oct 11, 2003
  5. cjl
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    123
Loading...

Share This Page