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.
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
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
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
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
.
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
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
:
-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
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
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
**
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?
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
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
... 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
-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
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.
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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.,
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
