Re: [WSG] target=_blank
In general though, I find the popups=evil argument a bit flawed. Take as an example a page which has a list of 25 cars for sale. It makes sense not to have to load all images just so you don't have popups because most users will not want to look at all 25, or wait/pay for the download of them. Erm... I am not sure about lightbox, but whenever I do a script like that it loads the image AFTER you click the image. CSS-only solutions will have all the images in the document, and are - agreed - pointless. My version is 4K: http://onlinetools.org/tools/dominclude/ The whole gallery example from the book is 3.7K: http://www.beginningjavascript.com/Chapter10/exampleFakeDynamicAlt.html Funnily enough the argument about JavaScript being too large and slow to load is a lot of times used by the same people who upload 800k JPGs or resize images with HTML. You touched a good argument for another discussion though. People do tend to rely on massive libraries though. The solution would be to centralise the libraries on one server and ask people to use these URLs instead, then they'd be cached on the first page they are used and subsequently cached. We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
--- Original Post --- Now that websites are moving more towards application style, they should really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And a fact is that applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when information is provided that falls outside of a linear process. The typical example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms and Conditions. Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. [...] In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any different on the web? Making target an invalid attribute for links is plain stupid. It forces developers to revert to some javascript ways of opening a new window which potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with javascript disabled. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:57 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] target=_blank If the website is not user friendly for those with JavaScript disabled then it is a poorly designed website. Allowing target=_blank does not fix this. For instance, how would a cell phone browser handle target=_blank? You can't rely on it. Well, let's take the scenario of a form that people have to fill out on a website. Before submitting the form, the users need to agree to certain Terms Conditions. If we imagine the Terms Conditions are way too long to display as part of the form, the obvious solution is to display them on a separate page that users can open if they wish. What other reasonable solution is there than using target=_blank for that link? Opening in the same page will loose all the information the user entered into the form, which is one of the most frustrating things in the world. You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the TC in a new window. If you rely on Javascript to open the page in a new browser window than those with Javascript disabled will again loose whatever they entered into the form. Of course the best solution would be to use Javascript to open the window in a user-friendly format (e.g. foreground, focus, smaller than the main window, blah, blah) and use the target=_blank as the alternative for browsers without Javascript. But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 15/08/2006, at 4:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the TC in a new window Why not? This is one huge assumption that your users are silly and cannot shift click or right click. Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:15 AM Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Sigh... Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
[the classic terms and conditions] But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it when the user comes back 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it when the user hits the TC link (not that accessible, but does work) 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Why do you ask then? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
What you feel is irrelevant to your user's experience You are making a huge assumption, committed to a position you could reconsider. Change your feelings, fall out of love with this position it is demeaning to many users. I hate sites that open new windows. I feel that you are wrong. On 15/08/2006, at 5:22 PM, Rick Faaberg wrote: On 8/15/06 12:15 AM Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Sigh... Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
You touched a good argument for another discussion though. People do tend to rely on massive libraries though. The solution would be to centralise the libraries on one server and ask people to use these URLs instead, then they'd be cached on the first page they are used and subsequently cached. We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. I think that would be an AWESOME idea Christain! I do the same with my core CSS files were I work and can now change site wide colour palettes in seconds on a very global basis - for YUI the term global would actually be properly global! I am sure there are practical reasons why this may not work but from my point of view I would really be for that! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? The Web Standards Group is for web designers developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote web standards within the development community perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 10:21, Christian Heilmann wrote: I know what is wrong with popups - they are unreliable, mean a new instance of the browser rather than taking resources for only one, they are insecure (until browsers always show the location bar - which MSIE will do in the 7th version you can simulate a popup appearing to be from the originating page while it isn't - and ask people for their credit card details) and they simply give me a 1999 feel. Generally: What is useful to you is not useful to everybody. You can easily offer these things when and after you tested if the user's browser can support it - or even better if the user wants it (a checkbox with open links in new windows for example). But assuming users can and want to deal with several windows is just arrogance. There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. Opening a new window, secured with SSL encryption and breaking this connection by closing the window when logging off. Usually all browser buttons, address bars, menus are turned off on these windows so there is no way a user can change to normal surfing of the Internet thus preventing any history security issues. By removing target=_blank you are forcing the use of JavaScript to open the window. This usually isn't an issue because JavaScripts are used for other features, but it should not be necessary just to generate secure sessions. I'm sure there are other secure online transactions that need this feature and are stopped from using strict doctypes (XHTML or HTML) because of this feature is removed. Opening new windows for secure sessions makes me feel very 21st Century - the developers are understanding the security risks presented by the wide spread adoption of online life. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 _ ... (0) ... / / \ .. / / . ) .. V_/_ Linux Powered! Registered Linux User #355382 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:30 AM Christian Heilmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Why do you ask then? I didn't ask a thing. Just saying that if the best way to present a smaller morsel of info is, say, a small new window, then I want that control and I don't need a bunch of wsg folks (or maybe even w3c folks) saying it's so (ahem) evil that I dare not do it. As someone else said, lots of us are headed toward webpages-as-apps and much of this new window is evil stuff becomes pretty stupid in itself when a new window perfectly presents some info in the most useful way and a simple close window or accept puts you right back where you were in the prior window. But you do your thing! You have my permission! :-) Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:43 AM Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. You've missed the point. There are many secure transaction et al scenarios that pretty much require new windows. See Steve Olive's follow-on post. I've quoted it below for your viewing pleasure. :-) Whatever... my feelings are not hurt! ;-) Rick Steve Olive's response There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. Opening a new window, secured with SSL encryption and breaking this connection by closing the window when logging off. Usually all browser buttons, address bars, menus are turned off on these windows so there is no way a user can change to normal surfing of the Internet thus preventing any history security issues. By removing target=_blank you are forcing the use of JavaScript to open the window. This usually isn't an issue because JavaScripts are used for other features, but it should not be necessary just to generate secure sessions. I'm sure there are other secure online transactions that need this feature and are stopped from using strict doctypes (XHTML or HTML) because of this feature is removed. Opening new windows for secure sessions makes me feel very 21st Century - the developers are understanding the security risks presented by the wide spread adoption of online life. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank [the classic terms and conditions] But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. This solution is quite user-unfriendly. In most cases people do not want to read the TC as they are standard legal talk that hardly anybody understands anyway. They have to be accessible, people have to agree to them, but we all know that 90% of the people do not want to read it. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. Pretty much the same user-unfriendlyness: you present the user with a very long page of content that they do not understand. TC are intimidating to the users and people do not want to read them. 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it when the user comes back Only works with JS 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it when the user hits the TC link (not that accessible, but does work) Only works with JS 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. This assumes that users know what they want. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many users might not understand the importance of opening this page in a separate window. They click on the link without pressing Shift and then realise that they just lost all their data. ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. Users do not know that their data was just stored in a POST argument. Firstly, most users will get a shock, assuming they just lost all their data. Then they will press the Back button and be presented with the shocking Refresh your browser message that most people do not understand. I am sorry, but in the long run the popup window is the best solution for TC. The reason for this is that users expect this behaviour when requesting information while in the middle of a linear process. Experience with other applications (be it Word, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, whatever) taught us that this is how computers behave. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? We-ell, Windows does it too, you know. And a Linux GUI is liable to open new windows as well, depending on your configuration. But in those circumstances, it's a known behaviour pattern and you actively invite a new window as an informed user. The issue on the web, IMHO, stems from the misuse of pop-ups for advertising and porn, especially the verdammt on_close spawuning of new windows. As an experiment once I ran through a cycle of popups to see how many I would get from one source. I stopped with 29 open windows due to resource constraints on the PC (it was only a pentium, after all). So, in order to ensure users don't get snared in a mass spawning, collective wisdom has decreed that new windows are bad. As with most things in life, I don't think it's that black and white. There are times when a new window might be useful. I, myself, have been known to right-click a new window into being when I want to keep something separate. The KEY thing here (and pardon me, Rick Faarberg, but I don't think you're getting it) is that it is MY choice to fire off a new window. It's not up to the developer's judgment - it's up to the USER's judgment. Christian came up with a bunch of ways to achieve a business need without opening a new window - we need to think more creatively about the workflow we're creating so we don't put users in bad positions. cheers Mark Harris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:43 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. That is why they are not laws. Anything on the w3c site is a recommendation or guideline. The implementation of it and the consensus that it is a best practice makes it a standard. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. This solution is quite user-unfriendly. In most cases people do not want to read the TC as they are standard legal talk that hardly anybody understands anyway. They have to be accessible, people have to agree to them, but we all know that 90% of the people do not want to read it. Yes, but at least it is honest. If you HAVE to comply with terms and conditions, then tell the user about that and don't hide it. It works for ANY software installation or sign up process for webmails for example. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. Pretty much the same user-unfriendlyness: you present the user with a very long page of content that they do not understand. TC are intimidating to the users and people do not want to read them. How so? The idea is to have the Terms and Conditions below the form. If I want to read them, all I need is to click the link and you even stay on the same page. No surprises or dangers of losing data. You could even do a fancy lightbox effect. 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. This assumes that users know what they want. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many users might not understand the importance of opening this page in a separate window. They click on the link without pressing Shift and then realise that they just lost all their data. There is fallbacks for that, see next point. A counterargument for that is that people without popup blockers are so conditioned not to consider data in any popup worth while that they close it without seeing it. I encountered both when conducting user testing. Have you? ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. Users do not know that their data was just stored in a POST argument. They don't need to know, it just happens. Firstly, most users will get a shock, assuming they just lost all their data. Then they will press the Back button and be presented with the shocking Refresh your browser message that most people do not understand. They don't get a shock when there is a big heading explaining that they can go back to the form. Sorry, bad IA and UI is not the fault of technology, it is yours. I am sorry, but in the long run the popup window is the best solution for TC. The reason for this is that users expect this behaviour when requesting information while in the middle of a linear process. Experience with other applications (be it Word, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, whatever) taught us that this is how computers behave. Did it? I learnt a lot by doing real user testing rather than relying on my assumptions or comparing my product with something different. The same analogy would make dropdown navigation on the top the best web site or web application navigation. What it forgets to take into account is that your application already resides in another application that does follow all these rules. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Now that websites are moving more towards application style, they should really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And a fact is that applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when information is provided that falls outside of a linear process. The typical example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms and Conditions. Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. Never do those applications provide the user with the option of opening the supplementary information in the same window. For a good reason: the users would get taken out of the linear process they are in and potentially loose whatever they were working on. Just imagine you would loose your 200-page thesis in MS Word just because you didn't specifically request the HELP information to open in a new window. So if websites are becoming applications, why shouldn't they behave in the same fashion that we are accustomed to from other applications? In Word, if I decide to go to a new document, I expect it to open in the main window. Ergo: On the web, if the user decides to go to a different website, it should open in the main window. In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any different on the web? Making target an invalid attribute for links is plain stupid. It forces developers to revert to some javascript ways of opening a new window which potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with javascript disabled. Developers should be educated in the correct use of the target attribute, eliminating it just creates a whole new problem. At last, some fresh air, unblinkered thinking! About 18 months ago, I vented my feelings about this: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/scribbles/windows.html It won't hurt to say it again, as nothing has changed! :-) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? It's mad, is what it is. target_blank is allowed under transitional standards. if you adopt strict standards then adhere to them. forcing a new window on a mobile phone or the forthcoming UA that integrates with your optic nerve and projects the web on a virtual screen is not sensible. arguing about target_blank has been done, a decision reached and standards set. IIRC the original argument started when someone wanted to force a new window *and* have code valid to xhtml strict standards. I firmly believe that new windows should be the users choice and there are no business cases for new windows that can't be done a different way. I think they *should* be done differently if you want widest use of your business application on the web. However, if you're creating a desktop application for a closed usage on an intranet? well why not have multiple windows spawning? - that's what we expect windowed applications to do, but code to a transitional standard, that allows for it. I'm a pragmatic coder though and if the time and effort or commercial budget are an issue and the client can't be persuaded that new windows are a bad idea then I just change to a less strict standard and code to that. let's not argue for a change to the standards because we don't like them, just choose one that allows the behaviour you want and *understand* and *educate* clients on the why and wherefore... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
No there is no more room for discussion here You have had enough advice and not taken any notice of it. Please desist from your hobby horse and consider the thousands who do comply? As Tony said Strict or Transitional are your current choices. Please consider you have had a good run please stop. On 15/08/2006, at 5:51 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:43 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Well said Tony I was aghast as well about so many emails about avoiding the standards Call it a personal preference but it is not about standards. This attidude that I feel is wasting a lot of time on this group. If you feel otherwise than using standards join a net hacking group. It is not my personal judgment, but my committmernt to W3C standards and consideration for my users that I regard new windows as verboten so does W3C Strict validation probably for very good reasons. Please no more personal preference to avoid standards. On 15/08/2006, at 5:43 PM, Tony Crockford wrote: Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? The Web Standards Group is for web designers developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote web standards within the development community perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. There seems to be some misinformation floating about this list. I have accounts in both Commonwealth and Bankwest, who both seem to think that popups are a fantastic idea. Bankwest are more evil though because when you logout they resize your window which shits me to tears. Anyway, the point I am making is that I am not forced to use their crappy pop-up, as it is a webpage that can be loaded directly into your browser, which I do. Yes, it is easily done. Point one: There is no real way to enforce a pop-up for your user if they don't want one. The other issue I have is that people are under a false impression that a pop-up is more secure. A pop-up adds no more extra security to that which is already present. Do not be fooled!! Point two: No extra security. I honestly think the banking pop-ups are a waste of time and effort and are a pain in the *rse. Kat ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Well said Tony I was aghast as well about so many emails about avoiding the standards Call it a personal preference but it is not about standards. This attidude that I feel is wasting a lot of time on this group. If you feel otherwise than using standards join a net hacking group. It is not my personal judgment, but my committmernt to W3C standards and consideration for my users that I regard new windows as verboten so does W3C Strict validation probably for very good reasons. On 15/08/2006, at 5:43 PM, Tony Crockford wrote: Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? The Web Standards Group is for web designers developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote web standards within the development community perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Adreaus, please listen mate you are really getting into a fantasy that is getting unreal! I am on my G3 OSX Mac now, Macs do not do that at all, you can hold the mouse down and then you get a choice to open in a new tab or window. Some of your arguments are personal opinion, other like this Mac reason to flaunt standards is not just weak, it is wrong. You equate webpages with applications, they are not the same thing. I am part of the Mac community and I state that your new window assumption about Mac is incorrect. On 15/08/2006, at 5:03 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Focas, Grant wrote: In general though, I find the popups=evil argument a bit flawed. Take as an example a page which has a list of 25 cars for sale. YES LETS DO! Lets take carsguide.com.au as an example, though admittedly they have more than 25 cars for sale listed. So I load up a car page and search for cars. There is a list of 25 (or so) cars that have fit my criteria on the first page and at least a few more pages with a continuation of the listing. As I run through the first page, I'll see a car I want and middle click it to get more information. As this page is still loading in it's own tab in the background, I will continue to run through the list and middle click each car that I think is interesting. At the end of the list on the first page, I will click on the link to go to the second page of cars that meet my criteria. While this new page loads, I turn to the other tabs I have been loading in the background. With the crazy javascript pop-up crap, absolutely nothing appears in those windows. *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING -- as in white screen of death* This goes against my natural way of surfing. It means I have to close quite a few empty pages, and click the back button on the tab with the list, and hope it re-loads properly. Sometimes, I have to re-start my search. This is entirely frustrating. Guess how often I return to those sites? Its built by people expecting users who are stuck in MIE 5.0-6.0 that doesn't have tabs. With MIE 7b2 on the way, with a tabbed-browsing environment, more and more users will follow this sort of path. Kat Most pop-ups really are evil. As far as I am aware, most screen-readers still have difficulty dealing with pop-ups, though others on this list would know more about that than I. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 3:34 AM Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: I'm waiting to see if target=_blank reaches 100 postslol I wore out my delete button Bruce Prochnau bkdesign Abolutely HOT thread indeed. Are you keeping count? Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
That´s really understandable, but transitional is meant to be a 'transition' before all web sites turn into strict web standards. So it is also understandable for developers to start digging in how to translate our sites to those, let´s say, definitive, or totally usable, standards. Am I wrong? Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's mad, is what it is. target_blank is allowed under transitional standards. if you adopt strict standards then adhere to them. forcing a new window on a mobile phone or the forthcoming UA that integrates with your optic nerve and projects the web on a virtual screen is not sensible. arguing about target_blank has been done, a decision reached and standards set. IIRC the original argument started when someone wanted to force a new window *and* have code valid to xhtml strict standards. I firmly believe that new windows should be the users choice and there are no business cases for new windows that can't be done a different way. I think they *should* be done differently if you want widest use of your business application on the web. However, if you're creating a desktop application for a closed usage on an intranet? well why not have multiple windows spawning? - that's what we expect windowed applications to do, but code to a transitional standard, that allows for it. I'm a pragmatic coder though and if the time and effort or commercial budget are an issue and the client can't be persuaded that new windows are a bad idea then I just change to a less strict standard and code to that. let's not argue for a change to the standards because we don't like them, just choose one that allows the behaviour you want and *understand* and *educate* clients on the why and wherefore... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 15/8/06 5:15 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/08/2006, at 4:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the TC in a new window Why not? This is one huge assumption that your users are silly and cannot shift click or right click. Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. You know, I'm as computer-savvy as anybody, but I've only just learned that you can shift-click to open new windows by reading this thread (mainly because I use tabs in preference to new windows). Forgive me if that makes me stupid. I think perhaps you shouldn't assume *anything* about your users, period. You probably shouldn't equate a particular skill- or knowledge-set with intelligence either. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ -- This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Reading a bit more I saw validating as transitional was a bit senseless. As my brother really wanted the target blank in his links, I used a simple javascript, it is in http://www.ramirocosta.com.ar/external.js. And now I can validate (despite this important detail) as strict. Just to let you know! Thank you all; Eugenio. Yes, but validation is only a part of embracing a standard. Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. How can ask browser vendors to support XHTML if noboby uses it as it is intended? In the case of popup windows, adding a click handler that opens the window only when JS is available makes sense, as you can test for blocking of popups and also change the window with JS. This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
... If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. ... This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. What am I missing here? XHTML is reformulation of HTML in XML that's it. Target in HTML4.01 Strict is as invalid as in XHTML Strict. It is allowed by transitional and frameset DTD in both too. -- Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. Richard. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/2006 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Richard Conyard wrote: It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. but you can have target_blank without a hack, just not with a strict doctype. The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
This hack (despite the fact that it also would add a target to internal links links like a href=#content) means you force XHTML strict to be HTML. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. If you don't use strict and HTML you don't need to hack. The client doesn't care, really. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? Dave -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: Monday, 14 August 2006 4:12 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Richard Conyard wrote: It is a hack, but at the end of the day clients are clients and most of us aren't in the position to simply refuse to do something because it doesn't sit well with how we'd like to do things. but you can have target_blank without a hack, just not with a strict doctype. The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? How so? It is the user's choice if she wants to stay on your page (and shift click the link) or not, it is not yours to demand. You cannot expect the user agent to support several windows or the user to be able to deal with them, not all people see pages or use a mouse. XHTML strict is not only enforcing strict XML syntax, it is also taking HTML to an application level. For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 14/08/2006, at 6:39 PM, Christian Heilmann wrote: Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. I always thought it was because the target attribute is supposed to be used with frames: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/ frames.html#adef-target and frames are bad because (amongst other things) they cannot be loaded from a single uri. Which brings me to a point: if your document is not within a frameset is it even legal to use target in HTML 4.0? Later he said: If you don't use strict and HTML you don't need to hack. The client doesn't care, really. And Tony Crockford wrote: The whole point is to use standards in a valid way, not find a sneaky way to get round the validator... I completely agree with this. If you want to open new windows use a doctype that allows it - it's a heck of a lot quicker than messing around with javascript - although I advocate against opening new windows, it's annoying. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I think we can discuss a long time about this subject :) I'm renewing the code of my website and I removed the script I used : http://domscripting.com/book/sample/ Today more and more people are using tabs. And default more and more browsers switch from opening the window to open it in a new tab. So with the other reasons the members said, I think you can skip this hack. Try to explain it to your client. Anyway if you really have to use it, I will ask you to not forget about accessibility. Please use alternative text like this : title=Description (Launches a new window) Cheers PS: Any suggestions about your studies / diploma / advises to work for the web ? I apologize to add ps to my messages but the Web Standards Group IRC seems to be empty most of time -- Pierre-Henri Lavigne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +33 (0)6.18.75.32.67 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Anyway if you really have to use it, I will ask you to not forget about accessibility. Please use alternative text like this : title=Description (Launches a new window) Misconception really, as not many screen reader users have title readout enabled (it is disabled by default) which is why you should give crucial information like this in the link text and not in a title attribute [1]. My chapter Accessible JavaScript in Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance (http://www.friendsofed.com/book.html?isbn=1590596382) dealt with that and you can download the code for it at http://www.friendsofed.com/download.html?isbn=1590596382 That one uses the rel attribute and changes the text content only when JS is available. [1] http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/01/10/13-browsing-habits ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. ?? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/14/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. This is where the modularity of XHTML strict comes in: With XHTML 1.1, the concept of separation of structure and presentation is complete. XHTML 1.1 has only one public DTD, based on the Strict DTD found in XHTML 1.0. Web authors also have the option to work with modularization. Modularization breaks HTML down into discrete modules such as text, images, tables, frames, forms, and so forth. The author can choose which modules he or she wants to use and then write a DTD combining those modules into a unique application. This is the first time we really see the extensibility introduced by XML at work, because instead of having only the public DTDs to choose from, authors can now create their own applications. http://www.webstandards.org/learn/tutorials/common_ideas/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I agree with this. But that way of doing it is just how he wants it. Any way, how can I do a really accesible solution? Because: new windows open only if JS is enabled. But that doesn´t mean it is a windowed enviroment. I think talking about tabs, and more freedom to do the same thing if it weren´t required to do it one way, would be the best. Thank you all for your feedback! Eugenio. On 8/14/06, Christian Heilmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but validation is only a part of embracing a standard. Target was not deprecated for laughs and giggles, but to promote the idea that XHTML strict is user agent agnostic and simply does not consider different windows to be an option. If you want to use target for popups or frames you create HTML, so a HTML 4.01 doctype would do the same. You might as well create a massive nested table with JavaScript and the DOM and claim to have a table-less layout. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Christian Heilmann wrote: On 8/14/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Heilmann wrote: For framesets, where it is a necessity you have XHTML Frameset as the Doctype. Is there something I'm missing here? If you make a frameset, the pages which constitute the actual frames are not using a frameset doctype, so the problem of validity is the same as any other (non-frame) page(s). Isn't it? What I mean is that, as an example, your left frame may have navigation links and your right frame is where the pages will be displayed. Since framesets are still included in the W3C specs, it does seem silly to me that one can't use them in a strict environment. This is where the modularity of XHTML strict comes in: With XHTML 1.1, the concept of separation of structure and presentation is complete. XHTML 1.1 has only one public DTD, based on the Strict DTD found in XHTML 1.0. Web authors also have the option to work with modularization. Modularization breaks HTML down into discrete modules such as text, images, tables, frames, forms, and so forth. The author can choose which modules he or she wants to use and then write a DTD combining those modules into a unique application. This is the first time we really see the extensibility introduced by XML at work, because instead of having only the public DTDs to choose from, authors can now create their own applications. http://www.webstandards.org/learn/tutorials/common_ideas/ I'll take that as a 'yes', then! :-) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... Short and hefty: http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html :-) It's not that it's supposed to be, it's allready reality. (hey this is a rime) Ciao Niels ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... Short and hefty: http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html :-) It's not that it's supposed to be, it's allready reality. (hey this is a rime) Not really, however you are right that some class names can be a lot more than originally meets the eye. Enter Microformats: http://microformats.org/ footer being the most used class on the google stats shows that when it comes to semantics a lot has to be learnt still. A class, by definition is something that can appear more than once on the page, while an ID defines a unique element. How many footers would you use on a page? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank If people are reasonably proficient with a browser then they can choose if they want your links to open in a new window (shift-click) or a new tab (middle click - Firefox). By including _blank youre forcing people to accept the link opening in a new window. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I don't know why this isn't allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as it's LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I don't put in 'target=blank' when there's a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And if you use HTML 4.01 transitional then there is no problem with that whatsoever. If you try to shoehorn future-driven standards into past practices you'll run into issues. Frames can be helpful, but they also mean - the page is not bookmarkable - the page is badly scanned in search engines (you'll end up on pages without the rest of the navigation as they are meant to be in a frameset) - the site is a lot tougher to navigate with assistive technology. And in general, I'd much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that it's not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. If you can see several windows or have several windows that makes sense, which is why you can shift-click those links and open them in a new window. Being a trackpointer and firefox user I am thoroughly annoyed by links opening new windows - I like tabs, as I can switch between them with crtl+tab (I know, I could set open new windows in tabs) And what's wrong with popups? No – I guess I shouldn't go there. But there are times when popups are really useful – like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) What's wrong with lightbox? http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/ I know what is wrong with popups - they are unreliable, mean a new instance of the browser rather than taking resources for only one, they are insecure (until browsers always show the location bar - which MSIE will do in the 7th version you can simulate a popup appearing to be from the originating page while it isn't - and ask people for their credit card details) and they simply give me a 1999 feel. Generally: What is useful to you is not useful to everybody. You can easily offer these things when and after you tested if the user's browser can support it - or even better if the user wants it (a checkbox with open links in new windows for example). But assuming users can and want to deal with several windows is just arrogance. http://hesketh.com/publications/progressive_enhancement_paving_way_for_future.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Yeah, but who knows if people are reasonably proficient with a browser? I think many many people are not! They dont care about things like that ... :) Anyway ... shrugs shoulders / :) - susie On 15/8/06 10:16 AM, Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If people are reasonably proficient with a browser then they can choose if they want your links to open in a new window (shift-click) or a new tab (middle click - Firefox). By including _blank youre forcing people to accept the link opening in a new window. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank I dont know why this isnt allowed. There are some situations where you legally should not open a link in the same browser window. I work at a University that uses Blackboard as its LMS. Blackboard utilises frames. If I dont put in target=blank when theres a link to another website, then that website will open up inside the Blackboard frame ... And in general, Id much rather that a link that takes me away from a site opened in a new window. So I understand that its not part of the original site, and can close that window to go back to the original window. And whats wrong with popups? No I guess I shouldnt go there. But there are times when popups are really useful like seeing a bigger version of a thumbnail graphic ... Just my opinion ... :) - susie ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
If it takes forever to load then that is what is wrong with itA lot of people still use dail up and I am one of them :(On 8/15/06, Focas, Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with lightbox?http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/It looks great but it takes for ever to load unless you have broadband because it requires huge .js files.-- JP2 Designshttp://www.jp2designs.com **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
Big is relative though, Lightbox is around 60 70k of _javascript_ I think. That would be about the size of one of the images it was displaying, and once its loaded its cached. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Germ Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:48 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank If it takes forever to load then that is what is wrong with it A lot of people still use dail up and I am one of them :( On 8/15/06, Focas, Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with lightbox? http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/ It looks great but it takes for ever to load unless you have broadband because it requires huge .js files. -- JP2 Designs http://www.jp2designs.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Title: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Two things: I'd hate to be using Word as an example of what we should be moving towards grin And 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when youve got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! :) ducking away from platform wars etc etc / :) - susie On 15/8/06 11:24 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann Sent: Monday, 14 August 2006 7:17 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Ok.. Why isn't target=_blank a valid tag/attribute in XHTML Strict? It's a necessity really if your going to link so why not.?? How so? It is the user's choice if she wants to stay on your page (and shift click the link) or not, it is not yours to demand. You cannot expect the user agent to support several windows or the user to be able to deal with them, not all people see pages or use a mouse. XHTML strict is not only enforcing strict XML syntax, it is also taking HTML to an application level. Now that websites are moving more towards application style, they should really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And a fact is that applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when information is provided that falls outside of a linear process. The typical example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms and Conditions. Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. Never do those applications provide the user with the option of opening the supplementary information in the same window. For a good reason: the users would get taken out of the linear process they are in and potentially loose whatever they were working on. Just imagine you would loose your 200-page thesis in MS Word just because you didn't specifically request the HELP information to open in a new window. So if websites are becoming applications, why shouldn't they behave in the same fashion that we are accustomed to from other applications? In Word, if I decide to go to a new document, I expect it to open in the main window. Ergo: On the web, if the user decides to go to a different website, it should open in the main window. In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any different on the web? Making target an invalid attribute for links is plain stupid. It forces developers to revert to some _javascript_ ways of opening a new window which potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with _javascript_ disabled. Developers should be educated in the correct use of the target attribute, eliminating it just creates a whole new problem. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
haha, can´t wait for one. Besides, that everyone is accostumed to some thing doesn´t mean we cannot improve it. I don´t know if for this we should use the target attribute in this special case or not; but I also disagree with the reasons you are taking to the matter. Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Susie Gardner-Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two things: x I'd hate to be using Word as an example of what we should be moving towards grin And 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I'm sure its has been said but... If people want to have a site in a new window they will choose to do so. DON'T CONFUSE USERS BY FORCING THEM TO OPEN LINKS IN A NEW WINDOW! Especially now that many people use tabbed browsers its just a pain in the arse for them. Cheers, Steve. TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Do you know a way of doing it in a tidy way? Thanks in advance; Eugenio. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Reading a bit more I saw validating as transitional was a bit senseless. As my brother really wanted the target blank in his links, I used a simple javascript, it is in http://www.ramirocosta.com.ar/external.js. And now I can validate (despite this important detail) as strict. Just to let you know! Thank you all; Eugenio. On 7/25/06, TuteC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was it: base target=_blank in the head of the document. It saved 6kb of the document, and it validates as transitional. Thank you all! Eugenio. On 7/25/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't forget the base tag, input into your header section: base target=_blank It still won't validate as xhtml strict, but if you want a simple way to make all 'targets' be the same on that page, this is it! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Do you know a way of doing it in a tidy way? Thanks in advance; Eugenio. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Hi Eugenio, Don't forget the base tag, input into your header section: base target=_blank It still won't validate as xhtml strict, but if you want a simple way to make all 'targets' be the same on that page, this is it! -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Do you know a way of doing it in a tidy way?Thierry Koblentz wrote: No hook needed: http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp This is the same idea as the PPK code, as there is still a hook required - the wrapper element. Obviously this saves markup, especially as the wrapper is probably already in place but I think there is a case for giving each 'a' element a class or rel attribute. Think of it as metadata in your html saying that this anchor does not link to a page on the same site. This is valuable information, and I don't see it as cluttering up markup because it has a semantic purpose beyond what html elements without such attributes allow. The counter argument might be that external links will start with 'http' or other protocol, but I still think it has value. With a long list of links I would go with Thierry's solution, but maybe modified slightly. Instead of hooking on to the wrapper id add a class to represent a list of external links. For smaller lists of links (maybe 5 items) I would mark each one up separately. In cases were some links are external and some are not then you don't have a choice - each external link needs a separate hook. As said before though, triple check before you decide that a new window is the best option. Ian Pouncey wrote: As a general rule, if you are opening a new window or loading anything other than another HTML document (such as PDFs) make it as clear as possible.Lachlan Hunt wrote: As a general rule, *never* attempt to open PDFs, Word documents, etc. in new windows. Depending on the user's software or settings, this can result in useless and annoying blank windows while the file is opened by an external application, rather than embedded in the browser as it may be on yours.I wasn't clear enough here - I am talking about new windows and PDFs as separate cases. I agree entirely with Lachlan that PDFs, Word documents, etc. shouldn't be opened in a new window, but I think they are another case were you should try and inform the user that something other than another html document loading in the same window is going to happen when they click on a link. Good ways to do this are with icons and title attributes on anchors. There has just been a good discussion on whether PDFs should be opened in a new window. I think it would have to be a very special case for justifying it, but I can understand why people take the other approach in some situations. Although I use _javascript_ on an almost daily basis I generally don't agree with using it to change basic browser functionality. There are reasons why browsers behave the way they do and in most cases they are good reasons. There are exceptions to every rule though and that is a topic on its own. **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Ian Pouncey wrote: Thierry Koblentz wrote: No hook needed: http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp This is the same idea as the PPK code, as there is still a hook required - the wrapper element. No, it is not required. Using a DIV as a hook is not for making the script work but to make sure we do not parse *every single link* in the document (i.e., there is a slight chance to find external URIs in the site navigation). The idea is to use the closer parent element that contains all of them (one that exists already)... I think there is a case for giving each 'a' element a class or rel attribute. I see what you mean and I'd agree with rel if external was a link-type [0] Using a class is a totally different story as it belongs to the presenational layer and I'd say not supposed to convey any information. In any case, I'm glad I wrote: This article does not discuss what designers should do regarding popup windows, markup and such. It is just about adding a tool to the box. It's up to you whether or not you find it useful. ;) [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-links --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Ian Pouncey wrote: This is the same idea as the PPK code, as there is still a hook required - the wrapper element.Thierry Koblentz wrote: No, it is not required. Using a DIV as a hook is not for making the script work but to make sure we do not parse *every single link* in the document (i.e., there is a slight chance to find external URIs in the site navigation). The idea is to use the closer parent element that contains all of them (one that exists already)...The point is the scripts are basically the same - if you remove the class check from PPK's code it is the same as removing the check from the wrapper from your code. As I said I think which way around you make the check depends on the structure of your page. For Eugenio's original scenario which is a page just containing external links I totally agree that your code is cleaner. Thierry Koblentz wrote: Using a class is a totally different story as it belongs to the presenational layer and I'd say not supposed to convey any information.Class isn't really presentational. It is to do with the structure of the document. In a crude way I see id as saying what an element is, and class saying what general purpose an element has i.e. classifying it. The DOM uses classes for _javascript_ just as legitimately as CSS. For this case rel might be more appropriate, and as Mike says you can define your own values for that attribute - though you should try and make them make sense when read by someone who hasn't seen your markup before. I'm having a great time discussing this topic, this is the wonderful thing about the web standards community. I think most people have an opinion on how things should be done, yet the majority are willing to hear what other people have to say. Sometimes they agree, sometimes not, but I think everyone learns something. Ian. **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thierry, To quote from the resource you linked to: Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details. Therefore the use of 'made-up' rel values is perfectly legal. Hi Michael, I agree that made-up rel values should not be considered hacks when the author has used the profile attribute ;) But IMO, going this route makes sense only if UAs are able to take advantage of it. As a globally unique name. User agents may be able to recognize the name (without actually retrieving the profile) and perform some activity based on known conventions for that profile... [0] We could wait for something like: head profile=http://www.acme.com/profiles/external [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#profiles --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
One last email at the risk of boring the rest of the list! I think it's just down to you and I now Thierry. Thierry Koblentz wrote: Ian, I'm not saying my approach is better or cleaner I'm just saying that it does not work the way you describe it. AFAIK, PPK is "tagging" the external links, isn't? He's looking for an attribute (not a class BTW), but I'm only parsing the href value. As I explained in my previous post, the use of "wrapper" is *irrelevant*. Hey Thierry, I'm agreeing with you here. I can see how it works (including the check for '://') and have used similar code myself. I actually think your way is cleaner - and better in a lot of circumstances. I'm not really talking about the details of the code, my point here is that there is a benefit to adding extra markup (class, rel, type, whatever) beyond it being a _javascript_ hook. PPK is a nice guy but I'm not here to defend his code! Both methods have their place. Class isn't really presentational. It is to do with the structure of the document. In a crude way I see id as saying what an element is, and class saying what general purpose an element has i.e. classifying it. I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree on that one ;) According to http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 The class attribute has several roles in HTML: * As a style sheet selector (when an author wishes to assign style information to a set of elements). * For general purpose processing by user agents. The first is presentational, the second if for describing elements beyond what information HTML alone can impart. That's the way I see it anyway. **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Ian Pouncey wrote: According to http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 The class attribute has several roles in HTML: * As a style sheet selector (when an author wishes to assign style information to a set of elements). * For general purpose processing by user agents. The first is presentational, the second if for describing elements beyond what information HTML alone can impart. That's the way I see it anyway. I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
microformats: was - RE: [WSG] target=_blank
Hi Thierry Microformats use classes to define objects. Granted, this is adding another layer of complexity as the classes tell the parser that the content within the container is x. In General, class names should be given thoughtful names to make them easier to understand and more semantic, but shouldn't be depended on as a descriptor. Except for the particular patterns established in microformatting. (Blantant Plug) http://www.last-child.com/ Speaking of which, I just posted something about how we are using the object pattern for the hReview microformat on Yahoo! Tech and will post another this week on other microformat elements that we're adding this week. I'll also post something soon about how you can add the OpenSearch protocol to your pages to work with IE7 and A9 based search engines. Ted Drake Yahoo! Tech Ian Pouncey wrote: According to http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2 The class attribute has several roles in HTML: * As a style sheet selector (when an author wishes to assign style information to a set of elements). * For general purpose processing by user agents. The first is presentational, the second if for describing elements beyond what information HTML alone can impart. That's the way I see it anyway. I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I don't see how a class could describe an element (for UAs, not authors). If there was a known convention on possible values, then I'd agree to say that it could convey information (other than style), but AFAIK this is not the case. I may be missing something though, so I'd be happy to hear what others think about this... http://microformats.org/ Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
This was it: base target=_blank in the head of the document. I didn´t use the JS solution, I thought it did this same job but I think it doesn´t. Any way, if it does, this is simpler and lighter! :) It saved 6kb of the document, and it validates as transitional. Thank you all! Eugenio. On 7/25/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Do you know a way of doing it in a tidy way? Thanks in advance; Eugenio. Hi Eugenio, Don't forget the base tag, input into your header section: base target=_blank It still won't validate as xhtml strict, but if you want a simple way to make all 'targets' be the same on that page, this is it! -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Ian Pouncey wrote: TuteC wrote: Hello everyone. I have a web page that I use as a public favorites. I have around a hundred different links to outside sites, and I use the target=blank for each one. I searched at W3schools for a way to making all the links in the page target=blank with CSS but couldn´t find one. Is just that in a line of code I would save around 100s ' target=_blank '. Don't do that. This is not a valid use case for opening new windows. Let the user control whether or not links open in a new window, tab or just replace the current page. You'll do more to improve usability by making it clear that the links are to external sites to help the user make an informed decision, than you will by taking the user-hostile approach of opening new windows without the user's consent. As a general rule, if you are opening a new window or loading anything other than another HTML document (such as PDFs) make it as clear as possible. As a general rule, *never* attempt to open PDFs, Word documents, etc. in new windows. Depending on the user's software or settings, this can result in useless and annoying blank windows while the file is opened by an external application, rather than embedded in the browser as it may be on yours. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 7/25/06, TuteC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent, I think this is what I was searching... TuteC, what is the advantge of this approuch? it only helps when u open a new window for a known page, so u dont have to write the url over and over. but if u change the URL that u wish to open, u will have to edit the fanction call's, and there will be no atvantge between this approuch or the other. **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
