K
kayodeok said:
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
kayodeok said: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!
Nicolai P. Zwar 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.
rf 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.
<snip>But it's better to mention these things accurately than not
to mention them at all.
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.
kayodeok said:(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
Jukka K. Korpela said:Yours? Anyway, when I get
"Your browser does not support the W3C DOM.
Enter here."
I decide to do something else.
rf 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.
Richard said:<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.
Matthias Gutfeldt 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?
Richard said:<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.
Jukka said:"Your browser does not support the W3C DOM. Enter here."
rf said:Er, "idealogical"?
I really don't think so. I think more "realistic"
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.
I hit four (yes 4) golf balls into the damn dam.
Toby said:What if my browser supported the W3C DOM, but not JavaScript?
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 can live with pages that give me JavaScript information without
any ideological moralizing. In fact, I prefer them.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.