K
R
rf
kayodeok said:
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.
K
kayodeok
Thanks for the commentary, I missed that one!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
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!
N
Nicolai P. Zwar
kayodeok said:
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.
R
rf
Nicolai P. Zwar said:
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.
N
Nicolai P. Zwar
rf said:
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.
R
Richard Cornford
<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.
J
Jukka K. Korpela
kayodeok said:
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. Thank you.
K
kayodeok
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.
I
Isofarro
kayodeok said:
Peter Paul Koch. He's a regular author of articles over on evolt.org
K
kayodeok
Thanks for the information
E
Eric B. Bednarz
Jukka K. Korpela said:
Well, yes. Know your hobby-horses. Peter Paul Koch is, as a matter of
fact, very competent within the client-side stuff.
More appropriate, BTW, would be: 'Opt Out'.
Spares you framesets all over the place. It's the nineties.
Enfin, I'm certain I can make your day:
In the Dutch language 'dom' means 'stupid'.
M
Matthias Gutfeldt
rf said:
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
N
Nicolai P. Zwar
Richard said:
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.
R
rf
Matthias Gutfeldt said:
Er, "idealogical"?
I really don't think so. I think more "realistic"
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?
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.
N
Nicolai P. Zwar
Richard said:
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.
That should be mentioned, Richard, I agree with you absolutely.
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.
I can live with pages that give me JavaScript information without any
ideological moralizing. In fact, I prefer them.
T
Toby A Inkster
Jukka said:
Not neccessarily true anyway.
What if my browser supported the W3C DOM, but not JavaScript?
I
Isofarro
rf said:
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.
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?
Is that bad? Were you aiming for it? ;-)
As Art would say: HAGO.
I
Isofarro
Toby said:
Curiosity's sake: Any examples of the above combination?
R
Richard Cornford
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.
Fair enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.