Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I strongly recommend you disable this feature of windows on any systems you set up for the less computer literate because I can tell you form experience with novice users that its a very bad feature. David Dorward wrote: On 28 Mar 2008, at 05:48, Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Yes but you choose to do so rather than being forced to do so. Usability tests still show that opening a new window confuses people. They can't work out whey they can't go back and don't seem to be aware of the task bar. I'm not sure how users react to tabbed browsers but in my own limited experience its very much the same, they seem totally unaware of the tab bar. The problem is compounded by systems which show only one item in the taskbar for all the windows for a given application. This saves space on the taskbar, but makes it less obvious when a new window is opened. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
What I'm getting from the discussion to this point: web *site* - new window bad; web *app* - new window sometimes necessary target=_blank - deprecated* and probably bad in any circumstance Thats my position. the only difference being that if possible webapps should try to pop divs inside their current browser window/tab. Target= does still have a use, but its only for framesets in the older specs, and unless your managing legacy code, most designers on this list should be way past making frame based web sites/apps. Kind Regards, Kane Tapping Web Standards Developer Web and Content Management Services Griffith University. 4111. Australia. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630 Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29/03/2008 12:58 AM Please respond to wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc Subject Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Perhaps if you've never seen or used one, it's hard to conceptualize, but they exist. Ouch... However if the subject is still opening new windows vis a vis the target attribute, it seems to me hard to conceptualize a web app that doesn't rely on both client- and server-side scripting. And returning to the original question: Why not. I can't imagine it's better practice to replace it with javascript. I'd think that in a web app it certainly is better practice to use javascript? What I'm getting from the discussion to this point: web *site* - new window bad; web *app* - new window sometimes necessary target=_blank - deprecated* and probably bad in any circumstance No doubt people will continue to hold different opinions as to how to deal with links to non-HTML documents. For myself I've decided the best course is to offer a direct link and leave it to the user to decide whether to open a new window/tab, and I think this is coming to be the majority and standard position. Those who hold a different view are free to do so, and act accordingly. Andrew *a little bee in my bonnet: deprecated: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprecated depreciated: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depreciated *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target= ” blank” not part of xhtml
Hi , Just wanted to join the chorus and say that poping windows is behaviour and should not be a part of the HTML spec. It really is akin to manipulating browser chrome and other designer land grabs (i.e. forgetting its the users broswer, not yours). Somethings i have found is that the original issue can usually be addressed by using styling to indicate external or document links (and leaving it up to the user to handle that in their prefered way (personaly i like to middle click for a pop under tab)) or for legitimate needs (usually web apps) a JS (behaviour) solution is appropriate. Some of the best include lighbox style popups for 'wizard prompts' or help. Kind Regards, Kane Tapping Web Standards Developer Web and Content Management Services Griffith University. 4111. Australia. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630 Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 28/03/2008 02:00 AM Please respond to wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc Subject Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
Another solution is http://wili.diegolamonica.info that allow you to open discretional popup windows. That page is in Italian only but in few days it will be translated in more other languages. It doesn't require that you are skilled in javascript, but requires to follow only the instruction that are on the above link and it doesn't ask to add extra markup and if you need you are able to manage popup window with it's settings (toolbar, scrollbars, width, height, etc. etc.). There are some examples on the page in the examples area that will help you to understand how it works. Cheers. Diego On 28/03/2008, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:45 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10- strict-conversion/ If you really need to open a new window, this JS solution may help as it does not require extra markup: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- -- Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG) Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 W3C Protocols and Format Working Group member for IWA/HWG Web Skill Profiles WG Member (http://skillprofiles.eu ) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Skype: diego.la.monica mobile +393337235382 - Web: http://diegolamonica.info - http://jastegg.it [ Le uova si sono schiuse! ] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target= ” blank” not part of xhtml
Nancy Gill wrote: Actually, this link from the W3C suggests the use of both target and title .. target to open the window and title to tell the user that a new window will open. Example 2: A link that opens in a new window In HTML 4.01 the |target=_blank| attribute can be used on an anchor element to indicate that the URI specified by the href attribute will be opened in a new window. This example shows using the |title| attribute of the anchor element to provide information that the link will be opened in a new window. a href=http://example.com/subscribe.html; target=_blank title=link opens in new window Subscribe to email notifications about breaking news /a from this article: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H33.html Nancy That WCAG2 technique does not suggest the use of target. It merely says that if people *do* use target that way, *then* that link can be complemented with a title, i.e. that page is about the title attribute, not the use of target per se, and it neither approves or disapproves of its use. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 28 Mar 2008, at 05:48, Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Yes but you choose to do so rather than being forced to do so. Usability tests still show that opening a new window confuses people. They can't work out whey they can't go back and don't seem to be aware of the task bar. I'm not sure how users react to tabbed browsers but in my own limited experience its very much the same, they seem totally unaware of the tab bar. The problem is compounded by systems which show only one item in the taskbar for all the windows for a given application. This saves space on the taskbar, but makes it less obvious when a new window is opened. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Joe Ortenzi wrote: ... The help application opens a new window because it is designed to help you interact with the application you requested help with. It would be pretty dumb to delete the thing that you requested help with to be replaced with the help modal.!! Exactly my point. And exactly the situation with a complex web app. And of course there are other interactions where a separate window is appropriate, as with desktop apps. But web pages rarely And once more, I'm *not* talking about web pages, but about web applications. Perhaps if you've never seen or used one, it's hard to conceptualize, but they exist. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Perhaps if you've never seen or used one, it's hard to conceptualize, but they exist. Ouch... However if the subject is still opening new windows vis a vis the target attribute, it seems to me hard to conceptualize a web app that doesn't rely on both client- and server-side scripting. And returning to the original question: Why not. I can't imagine it's better practice to replace it with javascript. I'd think that in a web app it certainly is better practice to use javascript? What I'm getting from the discussion to this point: web *site* - new window bad; web *app* - new window sometimes necessary target=_blank - deprecated* and probably bad in any circumstance No doubt people will continue to hold different opinions as to how to deal with links to non-HTML documents. For myself I've decided the best course is to offer a direct link and leave it to the user to decide whether to open a new window/tab, and I think this is coming to be the majority and standard position. Those who hold a different view are free to do so, and act accordingly. Andrew *a little bee in my bonnet: deprecated: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprecated depreciated: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depreciated *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Because it's against accessibility of a webpage. On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- -- Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG) Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 W3C Protocols and Format Working Group member for IWA/HWG Web Skill Profiles WG Member (http://skillprofiles.eu ) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Skype: diego.la.monica mobile +393337235382 - Web: http://diegolamonica.info - http://jastegg.it [ Le uova si sono schiuse! ] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
For acessibility and usabilitty issues i think we shouldn't use this. http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam77-0.htm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html []'s 2008/3/27, Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Andrew of course you are right there, however if the brief says so -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, Andrew Maben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of x html
Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml. Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new browser or tab? Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Rob Kirton wrote: Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional -- it's part of XHTML 1.0 Frameset. Choose the doctype you want to validate to. Or use the JavaScript approach. Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choices :-) FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
Hi Michael, If I recall / understood correctly, the opening of a new browser window was seen by the W3C as functionality and therefore consigned to scripting. As for web standards prohibiting opening of new windows, this AA requirement is a little ambiguous for my taste: 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. The WCAG Samuari Errata states: Do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. * Plain text is the strongly preferred method of informing the user. Use of any other method must be reserved for cases where plain text is unreasonably difficult or impossible. * The title attribute on a hyperlink a element can suffice in the unique case of legacy pages that are unreasonably difficult to update. It is not sufficient in newly-created pages or other circumstances. This shows more clearly shows that opening new windows is not deemed illegal. However, it gives little indication as to when it is acceptable to open a new window. Jackob Neilsen rates it in his top 10 design mistakes http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html This one talks about opening non html docs in a new window: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/open_new_windows.html Ant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz Sent: 27 March 2008 16:36 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml Has the same problem. Target is not xhtml. Are people arguing web standards prohibit opening a new page in a new browser or tab? Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Rob Kirton wrote: Michael I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 27/03/2008, *Michael Horowitz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-1 0-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best possible decisions. :-) Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one). As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if the help screen takes over your entire application window space, or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*. Horses for courses... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 15:44, Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml You read wrong. It is not part of Strict (HTML or XHTML), it is part of Transitional. Why not. Opening new windows is behaviour and thus out of scope for a markup language that describes document structure and semantics. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank- xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ Not really - that makes it harder to filter out target=_blank with a proxy. Sticking to a single window is usually a better idea. http:// diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:31, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Michael Horowitz wrote: I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml It's not part of XHTML 1.0 Strict or Transitional It is part of Transitional. -- it's part of XHTML 1.0 Frameset. Frameset is for frameSET documents, i.e. those with a frameset instead of a body. They aren't suitable for most pages on the web. They include the target attribute because the alternative content section lets you use anything in Transitional. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:09, Rob Kirton wrote: I would recommend that you use target=_new and then use XHTML transitional DTD Don't do that. _new is not (X)HTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#h-6.16 Paraphrasing: Except for the reserved names (_blank, _self, _parent, _top), frame target names must begin with an alphabetic character -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Sure, there are cases where you would wish to open a new window. But I wouldn't compare a website and a web application, or desktop application. For websites I don't see the need to pop up windows left and right because the links lead off-site. This is something that's often done with the intent of keeping the user on the site. However, that won't help if the user is really done at that site, just creates extra steps for the user to do so. Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based applications. I'll agree to that. I've used it when making some HTA applications myself. But as I said, it's a different fish from websites. -Thom - Original Message - From: Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Thomas Thomassen wrote: Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. Making assumptions about users' needs and behavior is your job as a designer/developer. Which is not to say everyone makes the best possible decisions. :-) Not everything built with (X)HTML is a brochureware site; people build browser-based applications, and sometimes even full-fledged frame use makes sense (e.g. JavaDoc, for one). As far as opening windows -- click on the Help menu item in your browser or another desktop application right now, and tell me if the help screen takes over your entire application window space, or, just possibly, *opens a new window*. Wow. Maybe this *is* an acceptable behavior *for some circumstances*. Horses for courses... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Frames and popup windows is fine features to use in web based applications. I'll agree to that. Which is exactly my point -- why remove (or even deprecate) a useful capability because it's been abused by some? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Rob Kirton wrote: of course you are right there, however if the brief says so I know, I know... sigh / I'm in the middle of half a dozen conversations in which which I'm being commanded to make hideous assaults on usability - but I do feel duty-bound in every case to point out that it is a usability issue, and the possible repercussions. But, heck, what do any of us know, right? Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal preferance. But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window as they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When they want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back button suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way back. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
I have seen that too Thom .. and you have a good point. I have also had clients specifically request that while they want to link to other sites, they don't want the user to be off their site either. And even I don't do frames. ;) Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml As for PDFs I find it ok that they open in a new window. As a personal preferance. But for regular links I feel that it's best leaving them alone. I've seen many novice computer users get confused when a link opens in a new window as they don't allways realise they're now navigating in a new window. When they want to navigate back to where they where they find that the back button suddenly doesn't work and they fumble trying to find their way back. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I see your point, Thom. The exception, IMO, is when you link to a PDF .. the Acrobat Reader takes over the window and the only way to go back in the same window is to use the back button in the browser .. not very good practice, IMO. Most people would just close the reader thinking they would be back on the page they left .. and they're not. I have seen many questions from people who have done just this and lost the place they wanted to be. In other cases, I do see your point that users want to control those things .. although I wonder how many people would know how to do that. Not everyone who uses the internet is all that websavvy. Nancy - Original Message - From: Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I for one find it very annoying when sites force open a new window. If I want to navigate a link I open the link up in a new tab. Forcing the link to open up in a new window doesn't make me stay on the site, it just makes me click extra to close the page that I navigated from. If a site constantly pops open windows I often just leave it. I argue that it's best to leave the user to control these things as people have very different habbits. -Thom - Original Message - From: Nancy Gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
I agree, where possible, you shouldnt make decisions for your visitors. Users will return to a website using the back button if they want to. Darren Lovelock Munky Online Web Design http://www.munkyonline.co.uk/ http://www.munkyonline.co.uk T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893 _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Maben Sent: 27 March 2008 16:01 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael Horowitz wrote: I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. No, better practice is to avoid foisting new windows on users altogether. (IMHO - but I don't think I'm alone...) Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Horowitz Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:45 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml I just read how a target=_blank is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10- strict-conversion/ If you really need to open a new window, this JS solution may help as it does not require extra markup: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] a target= blank not part of xhtml
Poping up windows makes assumtion of the user's behaviour. I second that. Originally I had the target solution, then (to make it XHTML-compliant) an inline JS solution. With the next redesign I will throw it out altogether and just indicate external links through CSS, but leave it to the user to decide on new windows. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml
Yes but you choose to do so rather than being forced to do so. Usability tests still show that opening a new window confuses people. They can't work out whey they can't go back and don't seem to be aware of the task bar. I'm not sure how users react to tabbed browsers but in my own limited experience its very much the same, they seem totally unaware of the tab bar. Nancy Gill wrote: I totally agree .. in fact just having this conversation elsewhere. How can javascript be more accessible when those most concerned with accessibility will probably turn it off anyway? Makes no sense to have this removed .. I open new windows all the time .. for PDFs .. for links that go offsite, etc. Nancy - Original Message - From: Michael Horowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [WSG] a target=” blank” not part of xhtml I just read how a target=”_blank” is not part of xhtml Why not. I can't imagine its better practice to replace it with javascript. http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2004/01/02/targetblank-xhtml-10-strict-conversion/ -- Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 6:50 PM *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Although late to this discussion I too am enjoying it. I work for a NZ Govt Agency and just recently our request for an additional person has been granted and we now have a person who will work with the publishers of all legislative documents and magazines that our organisation produces to convert them into standards compliant HTML. [you could have knocked me over with a feather when we got the go ahead!] It has taken some time and a number of knock backs but we got there. ALL PDF documents made available to the public will be marked up into HTML and offered as the primary document with a link to the pdf for printing. We are in the early stages of this and it's a big job as we have heaps of documents but in the end I think it is important to be a good net citizen. Presentations from people with disabilities have been real eye-openers and I try to take as many of our team along as I can so that they can learn. Right now I mark up links to pdf files as an unordered list and style it with a class that uses a pdf icon in place of the bullet. - document name [pdf - file size and number of pages] We also offer to mail the document out in hard copy on request and provide a telephone number for any requests for information. Someone last year coined the term 'creatures from the black lagoon' when refering to pdf files. They were partially sighted and the pdf file was incomprehensible as they tried to navigate through it on zoom. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael MD Sent: Friday, 20 July 2007 12:58 p.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? This one still bothers me ... The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors) I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript. I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning! - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! (or better don't use pdf - use html! ) Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have almost everything as pdf Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 -- Regards, Steve *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Steve, The other aspect of XHTML Strict DTD, the client won't even know unless I take my time to explain everything but this target stuff is something they will notice if they ask me to open certain links in new window. That's why I need arguments against this. :) XHTML Strict and 1.1 has no target attribute, I do not know why the HTML 5 is keeping it? Steve Olive wrote: On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Using target=_blank
That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Sparber Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:45 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank From: David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. What's easy to use when you wind up with a bunch of spawned windows that must be closed one by one? I'm not advocating popup windows, but with a simple script is very easy to open popup windows while reusing the same window. That is, maximum number of windows possible (not counting the main site window) = 1. -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Extending Dreamweaver - Nav Systems | Galleries | Widgets Authors: 42nd Street: Mastering the Art of CSS Design *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike As someone said last week, the original idea of target was for use in framesets. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
frames for simplicity, ease of navigation ?! for u i think!! u cant just think that's right just because u do it's easy for u... On 25/07/07, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That has to be just about the nastiest version of all - I click a link and get a new window. Fine, not what I wanted, but there was that other link that looked interesting, I'll just go back to the first window and open a few more links before I read that page. Hey! Where did they all go! Number one rule of interface design - be consistent. In this business that means being consistent with what others are doing === follow web standards === no new windows. Mike As someone said last week, the original idea of target was for use in framesets. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [Spam] Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
I'm not sure who wrote the below, but I'm hoping it was a sarcastic comment and not someone's real impression of real users. I've never met a user who even liked frames, and that includes me. Also, perhaps I missed a thread, but I've wondering if the increasing use of tabs has overcome any new window reluctance. I have FF set to open new windows in tabs and it looks like IE 7 does the same. Is that correct? Christie Mason .. SACRILEGE ALERT! If you have a complex site which involves lots of page swapping, there is still nothing to beat frames for simplicity, ease of navigation etc. Users simply love them! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
hey steve, without going into pros and cons on the target attribute, roger johansson has an interesting article on the subject with a javascript solution the degrades to opening in the same window if java is turned off or pop ups blocked. some clients want what they want and won't be dissuaded. hope this helps http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200610/ opening_new_windows_with_javascript_version_12/ sorry about the top posting rgds, ron On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Ryan Lin wrote: Steve, The other aspect of XHTML Strict DTD, the client won't even know unless I take my time to explain everything but this target stuff is something they will notice if they ask me to open certain links in new window. That's why I need arguments against this. :) XHTML Strict and 1.1 has no target attribute, I do not know why the HTML 5 is keeping it? Steve Olive wrote: On Tuesday 24 July 2007 23:49, Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The argument must be why you are using the XHTML Strict DTD, not about one small component of XHTML Strict. What is interesting though is that HTML 5 is keeping the target attribute: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan The best non-technical argument I can think of is that this approach breaks the back button. Jakob Nielson argues against doing this over and over again. Opening a new window, particularly if the look and feel are similar, can be very confusing to your site visitors. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Ryan Lin wrote: With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. Why? If you have logical arguments about this, beyond believing, why can't you use them to convince your clients? Just askin' :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Well, I am just gathering more argument points so that the clients have nothing to say but to agree and accept the concept. :) Hassan Schroeder wrote: Ryan Lin wrote: With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. Why? If you have logical arguments about this, beyond believing, why can't you use them to convince your clients? Just askin' :-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Users can choose to open a new window or tab if they want to (though many will need to be taught this). If the choice is made for them by implementing the target attribute, the power of choice and preference is taken from them and it's irretrievable. Personally I prefer links to open in the same Window. But that's me. And I don't want to force my preference on anyone. That's why it's nicer to leave it to the user to decide. The only way to let users decide is to open links in the same window by default and teach said users a function of their browser they may not be aware of. Or to provide some preference control widget. My two cents. Cheers. Mike Cherim - Original Message - From: Ryan Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank Well, I am just gathering more argument points so that the clients have nothing to say but to agree and accept the concept. :) Hassan Schroeder wrote: Ryan Lin wrote: With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. Why? If you have logical arguments about this, beyond believing, why can't you use them to convince your clients? Just askin' :-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Using target=_blank
How about asking the client if they want a 'modern' web site or an old-fashioned one? Assuming they ask for the former, then inform them that it is not possible to have pop-up windows of any kind. Also mention pop-up blockers and ask if they want to be 'that kind of site' Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Lin Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank Well, I am just gathering more argument points so that the clients have nothing to say but to agree and accept the concept. :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Personally I prefer links to open in the same Window. But that's me. And I don't want to force my preference on anyone. That's why it's nicer to leave it to the user to decide. The only way to let users decide is to open links in the same window by default and teach said users a function of their browser they may not be aware of. Or to provide some preference control widget. Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). Now if the link is in my own website, then of course I prefer them to be in the same window. I co not believe you have to TEACH a potential consumer/buyer to use your site. It should have a natural flow and be easy to use. Thanks best, Jim Barricks * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Barricks Insurance Services 13900 NW Passage #302, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (310) 827-7286 | Fax: (310) 827-0256 Toll-Free 1-877-Look4Life (1-877-566-5454) http://www.barricksinsurance.com | CA License 0383850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming WOW -- What a Ride! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). That's why you have the option to shift + click to open in a new window :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Using target=_blank
I agree with you completely, but we are definitely in the minority here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:19 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank Personally I prefer links to open in the same Window. But that's me. And I don't want to force my preference on anyone. That's why it's nicer to leave it to the user to decide. The only way to let users decide is to open links in the same window by default and teach said users a function of their browser they may not be aware of. Or to provide some preference control widget. Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). Now if the link is in my own website, then of course I prefer them to be in the same window. I co not believe you have to TEACH a potential consumer/buyer to use your site. It should have a natural flow and be easy to use. Thanks best, Jim Barricks * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Barricks Insurance Services 13900 NW Passage #302, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (310) 827-7286 | Fax: (310) 827-0256 Toll-Free 1-877-Look4Life (1-877-566-5454) http://www.barricksinsurance.com | CA License 0383850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming WOW -- What a Ride! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). That makes no sense to me. I have many sites that have links which open new windows but they all refer to pages on the same website. Without javascript they open in the same window and with javascript they open in a pop-up window. Just about everyone I deal with (except folks into web standards) expect to have pop-up windows but even then one of my clients was double clicking the links on his own website and wondering why they weren't working. Of course, he'd brought the main window back into focus. That threw me for a little while. My pop-up windows are designed to be viewed then closed so I don't expect anyone to wonder why the back button doesn't work. But if I send a visitor to another website and selfishly keep mine open in the parent window I've instantly dismissed the back button as a useful tool. I am aware of many users (who are fairly ignorant of the ins and outs of web browsers and think the Google toolbar is the address bar) who find the back button just about the most useful and intuitive tool on their browser. What you're suggesting is contrary to the spirit of the WWW. Kind Regards -- Chris Price Choctaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.choctaw.co.uk Tel. 01524 825 245 Mob. 0777 451 4488 Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder while Excellence is in the Hand of the Professional ~~~ -+- Sent on behalf of Choctaw Media Ltd -+- ~~~ Choctaw Media Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 04627649 Registered Office: Lonsdale Partners, Priory Close, St Mary's Gate, Lancaster LA1 1XB United Kingdom *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. If you go to the mall, would you be happier if every store you entered assigned a staff member to accompany you so you don't forget to come back? I don't think so. If you're looking for a specific item, you're likely to be comparison shopping and perfectly capable of remembering which store has what you want and finding your own way back. If you're just browsing, then you'll remember stores that offer a pleasant experience - friendly and helpful staff, selection and quality of merchandise and ambiance - and will probably go back, even eventually mke a purchse, perhaps become a regular customer. If the experience is unpleasant - heavy handed sales techniques, poor quality, dingy premeises - you're equally likely to remember, never to return... Probably the two most insulting customer relations postures are coercion and insulting the customer's intelligence. Further, it's a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the relationship to speak of users visiting your site. On the contrary, the user is extending an invitation to your site to visit HER browser, on HER computer, in HER home or workplace, so you (we) are beholden to the highest standards of courtesy and respect, if you hope to be invited back. Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:19:21 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I prefer links to open in the same Window. But that's me. And I don't want to force my preference on anyone. That's why it's nicer to leave it to the user to decide. The only way to let users decide is to open links in the same window by default and teach said users a function of their browser they may not be aware of. Or to provide some preference control widget. Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). Now if the link is in my own website, then of course I prefer them to be in the same window. I co not believe you have to TEACH a potential consumer/buyer to use your site. It should have a natural flow and be easy to use. Hmm. What's easy to use when you wind up with a bunch of spawned windows that must be closed one by one? What's easy about watching out for warnings from my pop-up blocker that I'm trying to open a new window? What's easy about new windows compared to the convenience of tabbed browsing? What's wrong with indicating external links in some way? Why not add a short note to your page: right-click on a link to open a new tab or window? Just asking. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Further, it's a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the relationship to speak of users visiting your site. On the contrary, the user is extending an invitation to your site to visit HER browser, on HER computer, in HER home or workplace, so you (we) are beholden to the highest standards of courtesy and respect, if you hope to be invited back. AndrewAndrew...if I thought that way I would have to go out of business next week. Those are high sounding ideals but in the real world you only have their attention for a short while. As a business who receives over 5000 online visitors per day, I try to hold their attention and draw them back to purchase my products. I offer them some outside links for fun but I never forget I have that site up for business purposes. I do have respect for my visitors or I could not have been in business for over 40 years. Of course here I am speaking as a businessman 1st and web designer 2nd. I do believe we are, and probably will continue, to look at this from different viewpoints. That is why we ask for opinions in this forum. Thanks & best, Jim Barricks * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Barricks Insurance Services 13900 NW Passage #302, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (310) 827-7286 | Fax: (310) 827-0256 Toll-Free 1-877-Look4Life (1-877-566-5454) http://www.barricksinsurance.com | CA License 0383850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "WOW -- What a Ride!" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Firstly I have no argument for you to give your customer. Having a new window is not like having windows pop up automatically. If there is a requirement for the content to be displayed in a new window then why use a different doc type for that one page? Now when I mention requirement' I mean for a legitimate reason other than advertisements and the like. Say for example the new window when banking or a tutorial movie that does not need to take up the entire browser real estate.. I don't believe they should be used to own or contain the visitor. Your content should be enough to keep them there as long as they feel they need to be there. If your stats are showing that they are leaving soon after arriving then either your content is not what they were expecting or needed or it is not up to the standard your peers are offering. And as for the Jakob Nielson argument I, for one, have never subscribed to that point of view. AF Ryan Lin wrote: Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Links to other websites that are opened in a separate window from my websites using target=_blank don't go to competitors' websites. They are simply informational. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Maben Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:16 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Andrew Maben Subject: Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. If you go to the mall, would you be happier if every store you entered assigned a staff member to accompany you so you don't forget to come back? I don't think so. If you're looking for a specific item, you're likely to be comparison shopping and perfectly capable of remembering which store has what you want and finding your own way back. If you're just browsing, then you'll remember stores that offer a pleasant experience - friendly and helpful staff, selection and quality of merchandise and ambiance - and will probably go back, even eventually mke a purchse, perhaps become a regular customer. If the experience is unpleasant - heavy handed sales techniques, poor quality, dingy premeises - you're equally likely to remember, never to return... Probably the two most insulting customer relations postures are coercion and insulting the customer's intelligence. Further, it's a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the relationship to speak of users visiting your site. On the contrary, the user is extending an invitation to your site to visit HER browser, on HER computer, in HER home or workplace, so you (we) are beholden to the highest standards of courtesy and respect, if you hope to be invited back. Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.com/ http://www.andrewmaben.net mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
On Tue, July 24, 2007 6:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry but I don't agree...to a point. As a web designer and user myself, I prefer opening another window IF it is to a different website that I am referring them to. That way the customer doesn't go wondering thru the other website and forget to come back to mine. Mine will always be open in the background to remind them (kind of like I'm the one they came to the dance with). If yours is the site they want, they will come back by using the back button. If they are going somewhere else never to return, there's every likelihood it is because your site was not precisely what they were looking for. Be glad you were able to help by offering them a useful link, and leave them to go their own way. There has never been one scrap of research published demonstrating any usability or business benefit from opening links in a new window to stop users wandering away from our site. However there has been plenty of uasability research showing that many people find it irritating and/or confusing, and that it is a hindrance for those using assistive technologies such as screen readers, or those who have mild cognitive impairment (such as an absent-minded elderly person). If there is any published research demonstrating a justifiable business case for irritating, confusing and hindering your customers as they go about their day, I would be fascinated to see it. But consider how annoying it is to be followed about by a pushy salesperson, and ask yourself if you are right to believe that acting in such a manner towards your visitors is an acceptable thing to do. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
I used to work for a web development company who designed a website for a large homebuilder. At the bottom of the home page, we had a link to our website, i.e. Site designed by ourCompany. We did not use target=_blank. When our homebuilder customer clicked on our link and found themselves in our website development website, and then exited our website with the X and found they were no longer in their website, they immediately told us to change that. I think it makes sense to ask customers first and foremost, who are they building website for: themselves or their customers. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Wow, that's very well said, especially your clarification of the relationship dynamics between the website and the visitor. Thanks, Dave Andrew Maben wrote: If you go to the mall, would you be happier if every store you entered assigned a staff member to accompany you so you don't forget to come back? I don't think so. If you're looking for a specific item, you're likely to be comparison shopping and perfectly capable of remembering which store has what you want and finding your own way back. If you're just browsing, then you'll remember stores that offer a pleasant experience - friendly and helpful staff, selection and quality of merchandise and ambiance - and will probably go back, even eventually mke a purchse, perhaps become a regular customer. If the experience is unpleasant - heavy handed sales techniques, poor quality, dingy premeises - you're equally likely to remember, never to return... Probably the two most insulting customer relations postures are coercion and insulting the customer's intelligence. Further, it's a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the relationship to speak of users visiting your site. On the contrary, the user is extending an invitation to your site to visit HER browser, on HER computer, in HER home or workplace, so you (we) are beholden to the highest standards of courtesy and respect, if you hope to be invited back. Andrew http://www.andrewmaben. http://www.andrewmaben.com/net [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /In a well designed user interface, the user should not need //instructions./ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147 +64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
From: David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. What's easy to use when you wind up with a bunch of spawned windows that must be closed one by one? I'm not advocating popup windows, but with a simple script is very easy to open popup windows while reusing the same window. That is, maximum number of windows possible (not counting the main site window) = 1. -- Al Sparber - PVII http://www.projectseven.com Extending Dreamweaver - Nav Systems | Galleries | Widgets Authors: 42nd Street: Mastering the Art of CSS Design *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Unless im mistaken the original question was asking about some ideas to sell strict DTD to the client (which means no target=blank code) and not whether users/ designers prefer to have windows open in seperate windows. That discussion was last week, so discuss in that. about the original question, this is a good question. We as designers know why you do it like that but the clients dont and it is our job to explain the technical jargon into simple language for the client, this is usually the hardest thing about our job. The best two ways I describe this 'problem', is one: the back button is one of the most used buttons and you will confuse the user and they wont come back. two: let the user decide how they browse and use your website, its about them. I know these have already been discussed :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24/07/2007 9:49:12 pm Hi all, With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? Ryan *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Using target=_blank
Ryan Lin wrote: With the XHTML Strict DTD, forcing a new window to open for a link via target=_blank is not a valid semantic method anymore. I myself believe that whether to open in a new or current window should be user decision, not wed designer/developer. If I am using Strict DTD, the only way to achieve opening the new window is through JavaScripts. So what argument should I give to my clients not to use target=_blank ? If I say that won't validate your page, they won't care. So any non-technical argument that I can give to them? That depends on the point you're trying to argue. Are you trying to argue in favour of using javascript instead of target= to get a new window, or against the use of new windows in general? For the latter, there are plenty of arguments against using popups and I suggest you search the archives. In particular, I know I have personally refuted ever single argument for popups in the past and don't particularly feel like repeating that again. If, however, you just want to use JS to sneak the popup past the validator, then I think you're wasting your time. If you're using popups, then getting approval from the validator is the least of your worries. There are a wide variety of JS methods you can use to create popups, including these and their variations: 1. Using JS to add target attributes to links 2. a href=... onclick=window.open(this.href);return false; 3. Using unobtrusive JS to attach event handlers to links, which call window.open() when activated. Depending on the specific method used, using JS to create popups can cause numerous problems. Of those, #1 is just hiding the target attribute from the validator and basically misses the whole point of why the target attribute was forbidden in the Strict DTD. However, compared with the other 2 alternatives, it is the lesser evil. Using the target attribute (either directly in the markup or adding it with script) is a lot more user friendly than window.open(). Firstly, it is significantly easier for a user to configure their browser to ignore target attributes, than it is to override window.open(). (Personally, I do both, but disabling window.open() has some unfortunate side effects on some sites). The target attribute also allows the browser to notify the user that it will open a new window. Safari, for example, tells the user in the status bar when they hover over the link, and there are various other methods available for other browsers. So the question really comes down to how important validation is to you and how much effort you're willing to put in to get the tick of approval. Although I don't recommend popups if you can avoid them, if you must use them, I recommend just using the target attribute in the markup or, if the validator's tick of approval is really that important, you can accept the fact that you're just lying to it, and if you want to put in the extra effort, then add the target attributes using script. I oppose any method that makes use of window.open(). -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:44AM +1000, Webb, KerryA wrote: If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up. Is there an organisation that systematically produces well marked up accessible PDFs? I train people in how to do accessible PDFs, and I've yet to come across an organisation willing to do it properly. (And to be fair, it tends to take a shift in how the organisation publishes in general.) On a side note, now that Adobe is putting the PDF format through the standards process, should we now consider it a 'web' standard? Kind regards, -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Can we just step back a moment, and consider what we are doing. As I write this reply, I am typing the content of this mail IN A NEW WINDOW. When I send the mail, the window disappears and I'm left with a large window, with folders in a FRAME down the left. As I read the new mails, I move from one window to another, automatically. It would drive me daft if there was only one window which changed content between my folders, my address book, my mails etc etc. The point being, of course, that this is typical of most of my computing experience. Most (web) users expectations are founded on their experiences, and those experiences are based upon their computing. Frames? New windows? Most of us couldn't work without them. Do those who proclaim annoyance at having 'new windows forced on them' apply the same thinking to mail, Dreamweaver (and all the other programs). Are they therefore doomed to a dreadful experience whilst computing? I doubt it. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
On Friday 20 July 2007 07:44, Dave Lane wrote: If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, because that's not how I work. I see that approach as indicating a designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive. Sites that try to manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, needless to say, I don't go back). Dave There are valid cases for opening content from the same site in a new window. The most obvious is when logging into secure sections of web sites, like online banking. By forcing a new window that then generates the secure session and closing the window at the end of the session you prevent people from using the back button to re-access the secure content. The new window should also have all elements other than a scrollbar hidden so the window can't easily be used to continue surfing the Internet. IMHO this should become a web convention in the way the Internet has been commercialised. All online transactions should be conducted in their own window that is killed once the transaction is complete. -- 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 * If you read the same things as others and say the same things they say, then you're perceived as intelligent. I'm a bit more independent and radical and consider intelligence the ability to think about matters on your own and ask a lot of skeptical questions to get at the real truth, not just what you're told it is. Apple's Inventor - Steve Wozniak 2006 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
If your banking site relies on a new window for its security, then it is time to get a new bank! In this day and age when every major browser has tabbed browsing, there is little that is more infuriating than have a new browser window spawned for no reason - worst of all is when I 'middle-click' to open a link in a new tab, and get both that AND a new window with the same content. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Olive There are valid cases for opening content from the same site in a new window. The most obvious is when logging into secure sections of web sites, like online banking. By forcing a new window that then generates the secure session and closing the window at the end of the session you prevent people from using the back button to re-access the secure content. The new window should also have all elements other than a scrollbar hidden so the window can't easily be used to continue surfing the Internet. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
On 2007/07/20 20:14 (GMT+1000) Steve Olive apparently typed: There are valid cases for opening content from the same site in a new window. The most obvious is when logging into secure sections of web sites, like online banking. By forcing a new window that then generates the secure session and closing the window at the end of the session you prevent people from using the back button to re-access the secure content. The new window should also have all elements other than a scrollbar hidden so the window can't easily be used to continue surfing the Internet. IMHO this should become a web convention in the way the Internet has been commercialised. All online transactions should be conducted in their own window that is killed once the transaction is complete. If my bank did as you describe I'd switch banks. It's my computer. I get to decide when opening another window is appropriate. It's up to the page design to prevent me from wrongly accessing its content, which it can easily enough do without forcing any new windows. -- All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteoousness. 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
Designer wrote: Can we just step back a moment, and consider what we are doing. As I write this reply, I am typing the content of this mail IN A NEW WINDOW.[] Do those who proclaim annoyance at having 'new windows forced on them' apply the same thinking to mail, Dreamweaver (and all the other programs). Okay, stepping back for a moment, I would first of all admit that I quoted somewhat selectively from the WCAG in order to make it seem like it was absolutely wrong to open up a new window when a person clicks on a link. In a more even-handed moment, I might have pointed out that the issue is not necessarily the opening up of a new window, but rather the *method* one uses for opening up a new window and whether one can make a user aware of what behaviour to expect when they click on a particular link. So although I would advise against it, it is nevertheless technically possible and within accepted web standards to code a link in such a way that it will open up a new window, provided that you notify your users that such behaviour will occur. Since we're looking at this from a web standards perspective, there are other web standards that come into play. For instance, although target=_blank is regularly used to open a new window, I would argue that this code is actually part of the HTML code intended for use with FRAMES, and therefore, the use of this code to create pop-up windows in a non-frame environment is an abuse of the HTML code. In XHTML 1.1 Strict, of course, target=_blank has been removed entirely in order to make such use impossible if one wants to write valid XHTML code -- and I would suggest that part of the reason it has been removed is precisely because of the abuse of its intended use within a frames environment. There remains, however, the possibility of using JavaScript to create new windows. And I would admit that there are certain contexts when such usages are valuable for a user -- especially in those instances where a website is attempting to serve more like a web application than a static, information-only site. But whenever you use JavaScript to code some behaviour, you should from the very beginning be thinking about how you can emulate that behaviour in a non-JavaScript environment -- if only because a certain percentage of users will have JavaScript disabled. With the wildly popular use of AJAX and other scripting technologies to make web sites behave more like standalone programs, there is a temptation to compare the two and draw similarities between them. I would note however that there remain deep, structural and perceived differences between web-based applications and stand-alone programs that run on one or two operating systems. For instance, assistive technology like screen readers can tap directly into an operating system's API or interface so that when a modal/dialog box pops up it can always, without fail notify a user in the exact same way every time. By contrast, on the web, there are many different methods of simulating the opening up of such modal windows, and despite a decade of development, screen readers still cannot reliably communicate to their users when such pop-ups occur and how to navigate through them. If there were a web standard that required that all pop-up windows be created using the exact same specific coding method, then I am sure that screen reader software could be written to predict and communicate such activity. The challenge for those who create AJAX/dynamic-scripting web applications, then, is to find ways of ensuring that those sites are usable by ALL users with CURRENT, or even somewhat-out-of-date, user agents (since users with disabilities in particular are often financially disadvantaged as well, and so are unable to purchase the latest versions of their preferred assistive technologies). With respect to the use of multiple windows and learned web behaviour generally, I think there is some confusion. Like you, I also use multiple windows when browsing the web, and they are an integral part of my web experience. My annoyance with links that are coded to always open up in a new window is that such coding actually gets in the way of my experience. My web browser allows me to choose whether I want to open a link in a new window or not. When someone codes a site so that those links are forced to open up in a new window, then it *breaks* my browsing experience. Some less experienced users may also get frustrated because such links *break* their back button: there is no way back when you open a new window -- you have to close the window in order to get back. In general, this makes my browsing experience less predictable, and it discourages a user who knows exactly what they want and what the fastest way is for them to get it. The problem is not then with the use of multiple windows, but with the lack of predictability and control over those windows. In an operating system environment, I only have to learn about a
Re: [WSG] To target or not
But all this examples doesnt still force the users to open a new window!?! So i not use target=blank, it's the somethink, or i have turn off javascript to be forced to open in a new Window!? I many times think in this, and think in a way of using a class= or rel= to a , this activate a javascript function that take the href= in question and creat after that element another a elemente but with target=_blank and just a image that everyone use for new window. I know that this will duplicate the code, but just on fly, and the user will not be forced to open in new window, he have the possibility to choose. Or anything of this is wrong? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Hi, Gaspar: But all this examples doesnt still force the users to open a new window!?! Not all, WindowedLinks doesn't force user, but let the user to choose by a common function on the page. So i not use target=blank, it's the somethink, or i have turn off javascript to be forced to open in a new Window!? No, you have to turn on javascript to allow the script to open the desired links in a new window I many times think in this, and think in a way of using a class= or rel= to a , this activate a javascript function that take the href= in question and creat after that element another a elemente but with target=_blank and just a image that everyone use for new window. It isn't wrong but (IMHO) it's too complex less usable. I know that this will duplicate the code, but just on fly, and the user will not be forced to open in new window, he have the possibility to choose. Or anything of this is wrong? The only thing that results not correct (nothing is wrong ;-) ) to me is that a user whit disabilities that uses Screen Reader to browse the site, finds the first link and could loose the second one or could be bored for the duplicated information. But could be a good idea. See you! -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550) W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Hi Joyce Evans: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Diego La Monica: I wonder: who should decide where open new links you or the visitors of your site? I think they should be the last ones. -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550) W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that keeps people on your site, not gimmickry. Most smart web surfers use Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed. If I want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background tabs while I continue to read the page. I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people think long and hard before they break them). If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, because that's not how I work. I see that approach as indicating a designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive. Sites that try to manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, needless to say, I don't go back). Dave Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147 +64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
I think adding a css class that displays an icon that quite obviously denotes that the link will open a new window has been banded around for awhile now. I know that I have used it in the past, but must admit on this particular subject to, depending on the project's needs, use transitional doctype and target blank anyway or utilize a javascript. Interesting to see what this brings out from others! Paul Tutty http://www.codethirteen.com Part-time Freelancer, full time helicopter pilot. On 19/07/07, Joyce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Dave Lane wrote: I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my browsing should work, breaking web conventions Opening new windows *is* a web convention, of long standing, your lack of approval notwithstanding. :-) ... if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, because that's not how I work. But that's /you/ -- *not* everyone. I've done usability tests where users *preferred* off-site links to open in another window. There are other circumstances where opening new windows -- help, typically -- is desirable, even necessary. It's all about context. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. [...] I think that the weight of public opinion has been steadily turning against this view over the past 10 years or so. I would be interested in knowing if there is any current research that supports the theory that opening links in new windows will somehow keep visitors interested in your site longer. Sure it may keep them *stuck* there longer, but does that keep them *interested*? My impression is that in 2007 the reverse is true. There is certainly a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests that for a certain percentage of web users, nothing infuriates them more than forcing causing a new window to pop-up unexpectedly when you click on a link. I personally now use a JavaScript snippet to strip all target=_blank entries from the DOM before rendering pages are rendered in my browser. From a web standards perspective, the argument against opening links in new windows dates back to the very first W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999), if not before: Guideline 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. [Priority 2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility See also, the WCAG Techniques document notes for 10.5: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#no-new-windows Lastly, if one really must spawn new windows with certain links, then I quite like the method suggested by Bill Posters (note that this is apparently still a Work In Progress): http://test.newplasticarts.co.uk/dom-js/flag-toggle-external-links/ Phil. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
Hassan Schroeder wrote: I've done usability tests where users *preferred* off-site links to open in another window. I find that surprising. I am sure you are right, however, that it is all about context. Certainly if you sat down in a room full of 20- to 25-year-olds today you would not find that the majority of those users *preferred* off-site links spawning new windows. My impression is that the more a user knows about how to use their web browser, the less they like windows or tabs opening up without their consent. As more and more people become better and better with their web browsers, fewer and fewer will want off-site links to open up in new windows or tabs. This almost seems like common sense to me now. Should I be rethinking this? Aren't there any current studies that demonstrate this? Phil. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? Joyce Evans -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Lane Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:45 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] To target or not My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that keeps people on your site, not gimmickry. Most smart web surfers use Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed. If I want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background tabs while I continue to read the page. I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people think long and hard before they break them). If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, because that's not how I work. I see that approach as indicating a designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive. Sites that try to manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, needless to say, I don't go back). Dave Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147 +64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
-Original Message- Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. Just to chime in, albeit a bit late... I for one **prefer** working with multiple windows/tabswith the way I work, it helps me to not lose my place when browsing around 5-7 sites at a time (and usually bouncing back and forth waiting for them to finish loading) - yeah, I'm one of those hyper-browsers - one site/page at a time drives me insane. However, I absolutely agree it depends on the target audience and the context that the window is opened in. Some places it will work, and others it will not. Leave it to your user research and testing to figure out what works best for you. Cheers, Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
Leaving aside that the user wouldn't need to click the back button 20 times to return to your site, as you suggest. Presuming you do not link to your competitors, I would think you provide external links to things which are not present on your site. If users are looking for something not on your site and follow an external link they will not return to your site either way. If what the user is looking for is not on your site or on that of the external link, their most likely action is to go somewhere else. If, when users find what they are looking for, and later find your browser window still open, they will be annoyed and will remember your site - but for the wrong reasons. On Thu, July 19, 2007 10:16 pm, Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
Oops. My response was posted after Philip Kiff gave some web standards links. Thanks. Joyce Evans -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joyce Evans Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:44 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] To target or not I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? Joyce Evans -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Lane Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:45 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] To target or not My suggestion is simple: let it be the content and presentation that keeps people on your site, not gimmickry. Most smart web surfers use Firefox or Opera or a lesser browser that is nonetheless tabbed. If I want to stay on a page, I open links from that page in new background tabs while I continue to read the page. I find it oh-so-frustrating to have a site designer decide how my browsing should work, breaking web conventions (note, web conventions exist for a reason... they're what people expect - I recommend people think long and hard before they break them). If I click on a link on their site I expect it to open in my current window - if it insists on opening a new window, it pisses me off, because that's not how I work. I see that approach as indicating a designer still in a very IE5.5-6 mindset: primitive. Sites that try to manipulate me don't pique my interest, they put me right off (and, needless to say, I don't go back). Dave Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. Joyce Evans Niche Marketing www.nichemktghouston.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Ohlman Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:21 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] To target or not Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Dave Lane == Egressive Ltd == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == +64 21 229 8147 +64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = no software patents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
IN wcag 2, a draft of 17th May of 2007 you can see: » http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#consistent-behavior Guideline 3.2 Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways 3.2.1 On Focus: When any component receives focus, it does not initiate a change of context. (Level A) #changes of context change of: 1.user agent; 2.viewport; 3.focus; 4.content that changes the meaning of the Web page. Note: A change of content is not always a change of context. Small changes in content, such as an expanding outline or dynamic menu, do not change the context. #viewport object in which the user agent presents content Note 1: The user agent presents content through one or more viewports. Viewports include windows, frames, loudspeakers, and virtual magnifying glasses. A viewport may contain another viewport (e.g., nested frames). User agent user interface controls such as prompts, menus, and alerts are not viewports. Note 2: This definition is based on User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Glossary. I believe that force user to open in new window is force to change the context. I think is more wise give to the user the chanse to choose open or not open in new window. And what we could do is get a way of make that job easier, and not choose for the user. On 19/07/07, Philip Kiff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joyce Evans wrote: I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. [...] I think that the weight of public opinion has been steadily turning against this view over the past 10 years or so. I would be interested in knowing if there is any current research that supports the theory that opening links in new windows will somehow keep visitors interested in your site longer. Sure it may keep them *stuck* there longer, but does that keep them *interested*? My impression is that in 2007 the reverse is true. There is certainly a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests that for a certain percentage of web users, nothing infuriates them more than forcing causing a new window to pop-up unexpectedly when you click on a link. I personally now use a JavaScript snippet to strip all target=_blank entries from the DOM before rendering pages are rendered in my browser. From a web standards perspective, the argument against opening links in new windows dates back to the very first W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999), if not before: Guideline 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. [Priority 2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-interim-accessibility See also, the WCAG Techniques document notes for 10.5: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#no-new-windows Lastly, if one really must spawn new windows with certain links, then I quite like the method suggested by Bill Posters (note that this is apparently still a Work In Progress): http://test.newplasticarts.co.uk/dom-js/flag-toggle-external-links/ Phil. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
We as web designers provide a service to our customers and clients of the website etc so in doing that we need to provide a service that allows the user to browse the website the way *he/ she* prefers and we cannot force the user to browse the way 'we' like it. This means that you do not open a new window (of external links) and you let the user do what they want. Most people use the BACK button and others open in new window. I once heard a saying which I think everyone needs to follow as designers Your website is built and exists to solve the users problem so do not create more problems for them [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 5:16:13 am I always thought it was a good idea to open links to other websites in a separate window, so you don't lose the visitor. If the visitor clicks on a link on your website and it does not open into a separate window, the visitor may stay in the other website for awhile, going to, say, 20 different pages. Most likely, he's not going to click on the back button 20 times to get back to your website, so you've lost the visitor or potential customer. If the link opens up into a separate window, the visitor cannot click on the back button, so he'll need to click on the exit (X) button, and voila, he's back in your website, where you want him to be. The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? This one still bothers me ... The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors) I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript. I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning! - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! (or better don't use pdf - use html! ) Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have almost everything as pdf Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Personally and from a usability I feel pdf's belong in the office, not on the web. As a definite download link and have a choice between viewing it as html or a pdf download. I hate seeing pdf becoming more popular. Bruce P bkdesign - Original Message - From: Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:57 PM Subject: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? This one still bothers me ... The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors) I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript. I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning! - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! (or better don't use pdf - use html! ) Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have almost everything as pdf Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree more. I used to believe that you only open in new window for pdfs but now only just realise that maybe its not best practise and could be thought about more. how would you create a html page for a 60 page pdf?? it is not a theasable option. I would probably suggest a pdf icon/ img next to the link so people know it is a pdf and then can save it or open it. others?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 8:57:45 am I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? This one still bothers me ... The alternatives I've seen invariably require javascript and some of those javascript methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors) I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with javascript. I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning! - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! (or better don't use pdf - use html! ) Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have almost everything as pdf Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Jermayn wrote: I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree more. And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a problem with PDFs per se. If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Michael MD wrote: I'm all about web conventions. I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! the option is already there if you know about it. how do you propose to let the user know they can right-click the link and download it? just curious about your solution to this. dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Bruce wrote: Personally and from a usability I feel pdf's belong in the office, not on the web. As a definite download link and have a choice between viewing it as html or a pdf download. I hate seeing pdf becoming more popular. i think that offering a substantial amount of information, like a manual or book, in pdf format is a good way to provide information to users who want it. html has the limitation of not being able to download all of the information, especially if it's on more than one page and not packaged to be completely downloaded in one fell swoop. the gutenberg project offers books in text and html formats. i think that some of the books are offered in pdf, but don't quote me on that. the pdf format is not sinister and as web designers and developers, we might as well get used to the fact that pdf is going to be on the web in increasing numbers. dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alforddesigngroup.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
I think the problem is that the links are not easily reconised that it is a pdf document you are opening [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/07/2007 9:23:44 am Jermayn wrote: I work at one of the those government places that has those horrible pdfs scattered through out all their horrible pages. I couldnt agree more. And I work with people who build such sites, and I don't have a problem with PDFs per se. If that's an efficient and effective way to publish a document, let them do it - providing the PDF is properly marked up. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: please avoid forcing people to open pdf in browser! was Re: [WSG] To target or not
Maybe you should try Foxit Reader 2.0 http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php PDF's won't be going away anytime soon, particularly from Government websites. There is also zero chance of having all PDF's done as HTML due to staffing and time constraints. The best you'll get is a link to an RTF/DOC and PDF version with some as HTML. What really bugs me are the people who supply the content with large hi res pictures in the PDF and get annoyed when we send it back saying shrink it. We manage to keep the majority of them under 3 MB (preferably 1MB or less) but that is a losing battle for some PDF's. Brett. On Fri Jul 20 10:57 , 'Michael MD' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: I'm all about "web conventions." I didn't realize having a blank target didn't follow web standards. Is that documented somewhere? This one still bothers me ... The alternatives I've seen invariably require _javascript_ and some of those _javascript_ methods give the user less choice and are also not well suited for user-generated content (often created with wysiwyg editors) I'm seeing a very annoying trend lately where quite a few sites are forcing pdf's to open in a new browser window with _javascript_. I do not think it is acceptable to force people to wait over a minute with a locked up browser for a slow plugin to start without warning! - at least give them the option to right-click and download it for offline viewing! (or better don't use pdf - use html! ) Government-related sites seem to be the worst offenders - They seem to have almost everything as pdf Until they fix browsers to not lock up while loading slow plugins or they fix acrobat reader to start more quickly I'll continue to regard sites that force people to view pdfs in a browser as being about on about the same level as those nasty porn sites with endless chains of popup windows. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ) ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
On 15/07/07, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Behalf Of Diego La Monica What i've said is: to use windowed Links in it's base configuration you need only to insert into the head block of your page the script element and any element in your html structure identified (id) as windowedLinks. That's all. But applying this ID to some element in the document means you're adding extra markup, isn't? ;-) Yes is the only extramarkup, but you don't need really to add it: in the head of the script there is a configuration block that allow you to choose in which element (identified by its id) you would put the control for the user to open in same/new window the links. In the last case you don't need to add extra markup to your web page isn't? :-) See you! D. --- Regards, Thierry | http://www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550) W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
On Behalf Of Diego La Monica Yes is the only extramarkup, but you don't need really to add it: in the head of the script there is a configuration block that allow you to choose in which element (identified by its id) you would put the control for the user to open in same/new window the links. In the last case you don't need to add extra markup to your web page isn't? :-) Yes, that last case is much better, it is the previously suggested markup that worried me ;) span id=windowedLinks/span div id=windowedLinksnbsp;/div --- Regards, Thierry | http://www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
That's a good point. In an age where we have windows, tabs, screen readers, kiosks, and who knows how many different client configurations, it's probably easier to let the user decide what they want to do with the link. Of course, it depends who your audience is. I'd imagine there would be a few occasions it'd be reasonable to open a window with Javascript, but to be honest, I know anyone who's upset over the demise of the target attribute. Ashley Kyd On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:32 +0100, James Jeffery wrote: Id say dont use pop-ups, nobody likes them w! :P On 7/13/07, Maria Solange Siebra Borges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tomorrow see you!! bye solange 2007/7/12, Matthew Ohlman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
On Behalf Of tales.ebner i think there is a good way to do this, and is still accessible. ian lloyd teaches how to do it. if js is enable. it opens in a new window, if it's disabled it opens in same window. http://www.accessify.com/features/tutorials/the-perfect-popup/ I wrote an article about this, this solution does not require extra markup. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp As a side note, I believe it is better to apply a simple class name to the links rather than using the script to style them using a bunch of properties. --- Regards, Thierry | htt://wwwtjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
http://www.accessify.com/features/tutorials/the-perfect-popup/ I wrote an article about this, this solution does not require extra markup. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp As a side note, I believe it is better to apply a simple class name to the links rather than using the script to style them using a bunch of properties. Exactly, i wrote the mentioned script in this thread that identify by itself the external links and leave to the user the choice (remembering it in the future) try it... It's totally degradable: - it is not required to add new markup - it is ready to use - it allow more extended behavior - if you want to force to open a link in a new window just add a class name wili-forced. What should you do to configure it? Simply add a tag between body and /body with id=windowedLinks (eg. span id=windowedLinks/span). End :-) For any support you could contact me in private. --- Regards, Thierry | htt://wwwtjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550) W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
On Behalf Of Diego La Monica I wrote an article about this, this solution does not require extra markup. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp Exactly, i wrote the mentioned script in this thread that identify by itself the external links and leave to the user the choice (remembering it in the future) try it... It's totally degradable: - it is not required to add new markup - it is ready to use - it allow more extended behavior - if you want to force to open a link in a new window just add a class name wili-forced. What should you do to configure it? Simply add a tag between body and /body with id=windowedLinks (eg. span id=windowedLinks/span). Diego, I'm confused, you say: it is not required to add new markup, but then mention class name and span. Is the windowedLinks ID *necessary* for your solution to work? I didn't read your article (my Italian is not good enough), so it's possible I'm just missing something... --- Regards, Thierry | http://www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Thierry, i'm sorry because i haven't jet translated the tutorial and the presentation page, but sure! It is on my ToDo list. :-) What i've said is: to use windowed Links in it's base configuration you need only to insert into the head block of your page the script element and any element in your html structure identified (id) as windowedLinks. That's all. All other thinks are made by the script. If you need to have any other extended (i'd like to remark extended) functionality, you have to take hand to the class attribute of the desidred link item. You don't miss anything,,, it is my english too poor. :-) Best regards. Diego On 14/07/07, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Behalf Of Diego La Monica I wrote an article about this, this solution does not require extra markup. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popup_window_with_no_extra_markup.asp Exactly, i wrote the mentioned script in this thread that identify by itself the external links and leave to the user the choice (remembering it in the future) try it... It's totally degradable: - it is not required to add new markup - it is ready to use - it allow more extended behavior - if you want to force to open a link in a new window just add a class name wili-forced. What should you do to configure it? Simply add a tag between body and /body with id=windowedLinks (eg. span id=windowedLinks/span). Diego, I'm confused, you say: it is not required to add new markup, but then mention class name and span. Is the windowedLinks ID *necessary* for your solution to work? I didn't read your article (my Italian is not good enough), so it's possible I'm just missing something... --- Regards, Thierry | http://www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Diego La Monica Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0 Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550) W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member Responsabile liste IWA Italy ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu ) phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382 MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264 Web: http://diegolamonica.info *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] To target or not
On Behalf Of Diego La Monica What i've said is: to use windowed Links in it's base configuration you need only to insert into the head block of your page the script element and any element in your html structure identified (id) as windowedLinks. That's all. But applying this ID to some element in the document means you're adding extra markup, isn't? ;-) --- Regards, Thierry | http://www.tjkdesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
tomorrow see you!! bye solange 2007/7/12, Matthew Ohlman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
Id say dont use pop-ups, nobody likes them w! :P On 7/13/07, Maria Solange Siebra Borges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tomorrow see you!! bye solange 2007/7/12, Matthew Ohlman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello List, I was curious what others opinions were on this issue... Since W3C doesn't allow the target attribute in XHTML Strict, which do you think is better? Having the window opening up with JavaScript or just keeping the page in the same window like W3C wants. I assume the reason for not allowing the target attribute is for accessibility--because screen readers can not control pop-ups. Therefore it seems logical to me to keep it in the same window--even if it is an external site, etc. What does everyone think? Matthew -- Matthew Ohlman www.ohlman.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] To target or not
I would argue the case that it may be sensible to open a new window for PDF's. There was sufficient evidence for a UK government department I have worked extensively with, to include this as a standard. The rationale behind this is simply that once presented with a PDF the user has the experience of being in a different application, and may be inclined to beleive that the web site had been left behind / shut down. This is not a case of a floating pop up, but of course is a new tab opened in the browser, indicating that the page launching the app is still present and available for use In such circumstances It is best to use transitional doc type than to get too anally retentive about having to have a strict doc type. The user doesn't care a hoot about doctype, though they are very interested in the experience and usability of a site -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 13/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *James Jeffery *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2007 8:32 AM *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] To target or not Id say dont use pop-ups, nobody likes them w! :P I agree - in this day and age it makes far more sense to show and hide a div (or whatever) on your page than to throw a whole new page unless you have reams of info to display. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
