HTML-Windows question

[Whitecrest]

I didn't say you can't, I said you shouldn't. Why deny some people
access to your site for no reason?

I am sorry that you can't or don't want to use the things necessary to
view the sites. But I am catering to those that can and do use those
things. Why do you think I should not cater to them? Millions love
this stuff, and are DRAWN to it. They seek it out. If I have a product
that people seek out. Why do you think I would not want to take
advantage of that?

I'm telling you how you should present content, not how you can.

What if my content is flash based? I need to change the content because
you don't want to look at it in that format? I don't think so...

 

[Whitecrest]

You're kidding, right? Your site doesn't work if a link opens in the same
window, instead of a new one?

The site works, the presentation is not as I intended.

 

[lostinspace]

Whitecrest,
Your attempts to communicate what you desire for your
sites visitors will prove just as futile as attempting to justify that there
exists a valid and reasonable use for FP.

Personally, I'm more preferential that you about who visits my sites and it
is not done in the html or CSS, rather with htaccess.
I have entire continents, specific countries, browsers, User-Agents, IP
ranges and an assortment of restrictions NOT imaginable to most webmasters.
All in an effort to make my sites effective towards the markets they were
designed for.

I wouldn't attempt to justify the use of visitor restrictions in this forum
or even to another webmaster. The reason being that in the end, each
webmasters does what he/she deems most beneficial to their own sites and
damn the critics. Besides, the time you spend bickering here over such
nonsense would prove more effective at your websites

 

[Whitecrest]

Your attempts to communicate what you desire for your
sites visitors will prove just as futile as attempting to justify that there
exists a valid and reasonable use for FP.

I understand that, but if I can save just 1 developer, then it was all
worth it.....

I wouldn't attempt to justify the use of visitor restrictions in this forum
or even to another webmaster....

I am not attempting to justify it, only to remind people that there are
valid reasons for doing so.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

I am sorry that you can't or don't want to use the things necessary to
view the sites. But I am catering to those that can and do use those
things. Why do you think I should not cater to them? Millions love
this stuff, and are DRAWN to it. They seek it out. If I have a product
that people seek out. Why do you think I would not want to take
advantage of that?

You're assuming that everyone can choose to install Flash, and
everything will be fine. What about blind people? What about people on a
public terminal without Flash? What about people with an OS that isn't
supported by Flash?

What if my content is flash based? I need to change the content because
you don't want to look at it in that format? I don't think so...

Content is never Flash-based, *presentation* of that content may be
Flash-based. I'm not saying you shouldn't use Flash, I'm saying you
should use it with care.

 

[Whitecrest]

You're assuming that everyone can choose to install Flash, and
everything will be fine What about blind people? What about people on a
public terminal without Flash? What about people with an OS that isn't
supported by Flash?

Why do you think I assume everyone can open Flash? Read my posts I say
I don't care if you can not see it because you choose not to (just don't
want to use it) or can not (you are blind).

But regardless of why you can not view it, just because you can not,
does not give you the right to tell me that others can not enjoy it
either. I cater to the flash crowd. People who can not, or choose not
to use Flash are not in that crowd.

Content is never Flash-based, *presentation* of that content may be
Flash-based. I'm not saying you shouldn't use Flash, I'm saying you
should use it with care.

Sorry, Flash is content. Just like a picture is or text is.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Sorry, Flash is content. Just like a picture is or text is.

No, it isn't. Can you show me *any* type of information which can olny
be represented using Flash?

 

[Whitecrest]

No, it isn't. Can you show me *any* type of information which can olny
be represented using Flash?

Yes, a flash movie

 

[Toby A Inkster]

No, it isn't. Can you show me *any* type of information which can olny
be represented using Flash?

Don't bother. I've tried to convince him that anything that can be done
with Flash can be done without it before. It's like banging your head
against a brick wall.

 

[Whitecrest]

Don't bother. I've tried to convince him that anything that can be done
with Flash can be done without it before. It's like banging your head
against a brick wall.

And I have tried to convince you that sometimes presentation matters.
And yes, it is like banging your head against the wall....

It is called "different points of view" it is a good thing really you
should embrace it.

 

[DU]

ofcourse everyone have own view. But point is that why do you want PREVENT
user having own view if they want or want not open new window, by making
that choice for them?

In simple words.

BEFORE you make choice for user, they have TWO options, open in new window
or not.

Or in a new tab. Or in a new tab in background. Or in a new window in
background. Etc...
I think it would be proper to position the context of all this. Coding
to open a link in the same window is also proposing a preferred scenario
for the user. The real problem happens when the author's proposed
scenario (mode of opening a referenced resource) becomes the only
possible scenario for the visitor: this is where problems and real ones
occur.

But after you in your infinite wisdom think just because YOU feel

like popping up new window, they do not have two options only one. Why do
you want take that option away from user?

It all depends on the way the link was coded. If well coded, then a
proposed scenario will not prevent other ways of loading the referenced
resource. Here's an example of limiting choices for the user (or
imposing a scenario):

<a href="javascript:window.open(strUrl, 'WindowName',
'top=50,left=100');">My garden</a>

Because of the "javascript:" pseudo-protocol, it becomes impossible to
see my garden in the same window: the browser is confused and the
contextmenu right-click will not offer or execute other modes of opening
the reference resource (while another way of coding the link would have
achieved a big difference of usability and accessibility).

Right-clicking on such link in NS 7.0 to see the link properties will
even show that the referenced resource is supposed to open in the same
window when it is not the case. Again, the "javascript:" pseudo-protocol
fools the browser. That is what Nielsen was precisely referring to when
he said:

"(...) When they [users] want the destination to appear in a new page,
they can use their browser's 'open in new window' command -- assuming,
of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the
browser’s standard behavior."
6. JavaScript in Links
Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes of 2002
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html

DU

 

[DU]

No the point is, no matter WHAT the reason I want to open a new window,
I can do it. REGARDLESS if you can se it or not. Wake up, every web
page does not have to work on every browser. That is OK.




Everything you do on the web makes a choice for the user. and you know
what. I think it is ok for me to choose for the user.

I agree on the above. I don't agree on limiting choices for the user
though. If your spirit of coding is to propose a scenario (a mode of
opening the referenced resource) without constraining the users' other
possible choices of opening the referenced resource, then you and I agree.
The issue in my mind is when you try to impose or force a way by
actively, deliberately (or even unwittingly) eliminating other choices
for the user.

REMEMBER they are

too stupid to know any better. Thats what you say.




doesn't scare me, it is my page, I can present it any way I want.

Words are important here. You can propose a mode of opening the
referenced resource.

It

scare you top think that someone is not following your stupid made up
rules.

I too hate dogmatic approaches, rigid thinking. Requested popups can be
a defendable, responsible web design decision: I've said so before in
this newsgroup or in comp.lang.javascript. But often, very often, at
least 90% of the time, web designers write
- incorrect, invalid code
- code which won't work in several popular browsers
- create crippled windows (unresizable, no statusbar, no scrollbars even
if they are needed): they are the ones compromising accessibility and
usability of their windows and content
- code which ignore lots of usability issues (like enlarged font size
which will make the content overflow their requested window dimensions)
- code which won't bring back the popup in case the user clicks again on
the link in the opener: this is a very frequent error in programming
popups and an usability burden rarely addressed
- etc...

DU

 

[Whitecrest]

I agree on the above. I don't agree on limiting choices for the user
though....

Catering to one specific group or another is not limiting choice. The
two are completely different. And catering to a specific group of
people happens all the time, in everything we do.

There is a group of people out there (millions) that WANT all flash
sites, or WANT embedded media, or WANT dhtml menus. Why is it wrong to
fill that need? If there is a market for the same content for blind
people someone will fill that void. If there is a market for this
content with out embedded media then someone will fill that void too.

It is called capitalism. And it pays most of our checks.

 

[Spartanicus]

Coding
to open a link in the same window is also proposing a preferred scenario
for the user.

No, what happens depends entirely on the UA, but opening in the same
window is probably the default for left mouse clicks with most UA's.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

And I have tried to convince you that sometimes presentation matters.

Presentation does matter. Generally not as much as getting the message
across, but presentation is often high priority.

But that is not the point here.

You seem to think that there's some magical thing that can be done with
Flash that can't be done without Flash. Yet you seem unable to tell us
what it is.

 

[DU]

DU wrote:




No,

? Coding to open a link in the same window is not proposing a preferred
scenario (opening mode) for the user?

what happens depends entirely on the UA, but opening in the same

window is probably the default for left mouse clicks with most UA's.

A left click on a link will open in the same window: that's a default
with most browsers. But it can not be the only possible option available
to the user. In some cases, it's kinda silly to open in the same window.
E.g.: an enlarged image (after clicking on a thumbnail).
The thing is as long as you allow 100% flexibility to the user, for the
user regarding his options when clicking that thumbnail (and also cover
usability and accessibility matters), then I think you're ok with
proposing to open that link in another window (just 1; I'm against
opening multiple _blank windows, multiple unnamed windows) which can be
reused to load all other enlarged images in a picture gallery for example.
Again, there are cases where opening in a new separate window is a
defendable and responsible webdesign decision.
99% of the time, the problems are with poor coding, incorrect coding,
incompatible, counter-usability, anti-accessibility coding.

DU

 

[Spartanicus]

? Coding to open a link in the same window is not proposing a preferred
scenario (opening mode) for the user?

Of course not, what happens has nothing to do with the code and
everything with whatever is the default action for the selected way of
invoking, this is particular to one user and his UA.

In some cases, it's kinda silly to open in the same window.
E.g.: an enlarged image (after clicking on a thumbnail).

Your preference, not mine. Don't tell users what they should like.

 

[Whitecrest]

Presentation does matter. Generally not as much as getting the message
across, but presentation is often high priority.
But that is not the point here.

No, that is precisely the point.

You seem to think that there's some magical thing that can be done with
Flash that can't be done without Flash. Yet you seem unable to tell us
what it is.

No, I have never said that. At the basic level, there is no content
that I can display in Flash that you could not display using HTML and
CSS. (With the exception of the advanced animation features, and the
ability to share memory across components on a clients machine, allowing
for some awesome interaction with the Flash component).

The difference is, I can present it in what is considered by millions to
be a much more entertaining fashion. And it is the preferred way to
present it for these people. Go look at just abut any site that caters
to skateboarding. What do you find? Flash, javascript and all sorts of
other nasty things that won't run on a whole bunch of browsers. Why do
you think that, it is that way? Why would almost every single site that
deals with Skateboarding use it? (you can probably make that statement
every site that caters to boys and girls 12-25) Lets try one.
www.gap.com Yep, requires Javascript. Better get on the horn and tell
them they are loosing all the blind customers and the customers that
don't use Javascript or flash, or those customers looking at the page on
their cell phone...

Sorry, Too many people like it. There is a market for both kinds of
sites you know. And both are right for the web.

So tell me why can't I present it that way if I want to cater to
these people that like it?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

The difference is, I can present it in what is considered by millions to
be a much more entertaining fashion.

You *still* don't get it. You can present it in exactly the same way
*without* Flash. For example, using an embedded MPEG, or custom ActiveX
control, or Java applet, or HTML with lots of ECMAScript manipulation of
the DOM, etc...

Whizzy effects are not confined to one particular product produced by
Macromedia. You can produce exactly the same effects without Flash.

This is my point -- anything that can be done with Flash can be done
without it.

 

[Whitecrest]

You *still* don't get it. You can present it in exactly the same way
*without* Flash. For example, using an embedded MPEG, or custom ActiveX
control, or Java applet, or HTML with lots of ECMAScript manipulation of
the DOM, etc...

Now you are being silly, We are talking about HTML CSS compared to ANY
"non accessible" method. Flash is used for reference. Thats why if you
read you see me say Flash, embedded media DHTML navigation and other.

Whizzy effects are not confined to one particular product produced by
Macromedia. You can produce exactly the same effects without Flash.

And you knew thats not what we were talking about.