No doubt this will change over time, but IMHO I feel it is too early to
assume that everyone who can uses tabbed browsing. And I guess there will be
some people who will always prefer not to.
I think you've hit a key point there - it's about user preference. We
can't assume that people will use
I think you've hit a key point there - it's about user preference. We
can't assume that people will use the same thing as we do, nor can we
even assume that everyone does something or design just for the
majority.
And it works both ways. If we keep using _blank new users will never
discover
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.
--- 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites
open in new windows.
I would say that was just 'a' common practice rather than any sort of
standard.
The concept of 'Web Standards' and the role of WaSP is about
standardising in some sort of quantifiable way, just as in the
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
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
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.
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
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
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
On 8/15/06 3:11 AM Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this
out:
So the message is that it's still OK to use frames in certain
circumstances, but under no circumstances is it OK to target them
(strict). No-one has ever explained the logic of this to me in any
convincing way. . .
--
Best
Are we done with this now or do I have to stop it before it descends to I
know you are, but what am I?
Feel free to take it off list to squabble... Please!
P
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
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
Designer wrote:
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
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
**
I don't think it's such a good idea. For one thing you're relying on the
network connections being good enough to the repository that holds the
JS files to make the site respond quickly. If the JS repository doesn't
respond, or is slow, that could be your entire web application screwed.
In the
I don't think it's such a good idea. For one thing you're relying on the
network connections being good enough to the repository that holds the
JS files to make the site respond quickly. If the JS repository doesn't
respond, or is slow, that could be your entire web application screwed.
In the
Tony Crockford wrote:
Eh?
if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid.
you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what
are you talking about?
time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration.
;o)
Hi Tony,
AFAIK, the files that are used to make up the
It is in the component files that one would use the
target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no.
Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has
nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on
one of my sites and I want to get this
Designer wrote:
Tony Crockford wrote:
Eh?
if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid.
you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what
are you talking about?
time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration.
;o)
Hi Tony,
AFAIK, the files that are
On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AIUI the frameset page has the doctype (using the frameset DTD) and
the framed pages have no doctype at all and are included in the
frameset by using frame src=leftside.html
so why can't you use target_ in the framed pages?
I think the point
Matthew Pennell wrote:
The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets.
well yes, I thought that was obvious?
but I'm struggling to understand the problem.
the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them strict?
and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and
I am out of the office until Monday 21st August
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Tony Crockford wrote:
the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them strict?
and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate
them against a strict DTD?
Why do the framed pages not have a doctype Tony? I can't see anywhere in the article you reference where
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Thank you for your email.
I am currently on a training course and will be out of the office until Tuesday 22 August 2006.
If you need any assistance with web publishing requests please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
I will be out of the office Wednesday 16 Aug.
Issues regarding complaints or food safety can be forwarded either directly to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] OR by calling 1300 552 406.
For urgent issues, please contact Greg Irwin, Executive Director on 02-9741
4744.
Other issues I'll attend to on my
Designer wrote:
No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.
what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for
pages that are included in a frameset?
if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional
one and all will be valid and good...
Designer wrote:
The 'problem' is that you can use a strict xhtml frameset AND xhtml
files and that's OK with the W3C recommendations - so why on earth
have they done away with one of frames main uses/advantages, i.e.,
targetting one or more of the frames. No matter which way you look
at it,
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?
Hi,
Would it be possible to block [EMAIL PROTECTED] that keeps
posting virus to the list?
Kim
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to
The viruses.
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Tony Crockford wrote:
Designer wrote:
No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.
what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for
pages that are included in a frameset?
I'm just banging my head against the wall here! The reason I'd use a
strict doctype in a
Designer wrote:
XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural
mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together
with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color,
and layout effects you want.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Designer wrote:
I'm getting fed up with this. You still haven't told me WHY it makes
perfect sense! Why, that is, the W3C have decided that using a target
is undesirable, ultimately.
I have no idea why W3C decide anything, but they have made some
decisions and written the standards
I always get a virus message, when you email to the group!
The last one was
Email-Worm.Win32.Nyxem.e
Check your computer for viruses and worms with an actual scanner!
Greets
Arne
nitinaggarwal12 schrieb:
hi
i send the details
bye
**
The
WSG members,
Apologies for nitinaggarwal12.The user has been unsubscribed with extreme
prejudice.
If you experience further issues, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than
the list.
Thanks for your patience!
Russ
**
The discussion list
Just an observation: While I'll agree that in certain situations
frames are very inaccessible, their behavior cannot always be replaced
with CSS. Why use frames, you ask??? Consider a web application
(not a content site). My menu bar is fixed, maintains state, and I
don't want it to reload
Michael Yeaney wrote:
...I will admit that they have been wrongly used in the past,
but is that any reason to get rid of them
If the user base no longer trusts the method, to the extent that pop-up
blockers are marketed or given freely away, because of the misuse, does
it make sense to
Sorry folks, unfortunately, this all happened in early morning our time,
otherwise it would have been stopped earlier.
P
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for
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
Tony Crockford wrote:
you're using an inaccessible frameset when the same purely visual
effect can be done in a more accessible way using CSS.
if you want strict and a framed effect do it with CSS instead of
frames and then all users can access all your content.
instead of asking for target
To what parent tags can the lh/lh tag be applied? I googled,
but did not find anything useful.
I have seen it mentioned in relation to HTML 3 but it isn't apparent in the
HTML 2, 3.2, 4.01 specs, even as a deprecated element.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/listheader.html
I would advise that
If you need to use the target feature, use an apropriate doctype for that .
To legate systems, sometimes you must use a transitional or even a
loose doctype
The feature (for some :) is still there
I guess this is my point - what about frames makes them 'unsuitable'
(???) for XHTML If
Just for a laugh, I tried to validate the W3 page I mentioned and it failed
dramatically (look at the source)... Guess they are 'human' too.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/listheader.
html
P
**
The
There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our
web site: http://www.webnauts.net.
If I click on blog, directory or forum, and then use the back
button in my browser to go back to Home,
it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there.
Can someone help me
There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on
our web site: http://www.webnauts.net.
If I click on blog, directory or forum, and then use the
back button in my browser to go back to Home,
it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there.
Can someone help me
John S. Britsios wrote:
There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our
web site: http://www.webnauts.net.
If I click on blog, directory or forum, and then use the back
button in my browser to go back to Home,
it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get
Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design
where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height.
I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I want
them to reach the footer no matter
Hi
I believe what you after is called faux columns, I did this on a
website and your more then welcome to jump in and see how I did it.
A search for faux columns should get you sorted.
http://www.tinkahill.com/pdt/voila
Dave
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
At 09:41 PM 8/15/2006, TuteC wrote:
Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design
where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height.
I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I
On 8/16/06, TuteC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design
where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height.
You can also do this using Javascript:
70 matches
Mail list logo
