Re: [WSG] Equal height divs
On 8/16/06, TuteC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height. You can also do this using Javascript: http://www.thewatchmakerproject.com/journal/308/equal-height-boxes-with-javascript ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Equal height divs
At 09:41 PM 8/15/2006, TuteC wrote: Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height. I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I want them to reach the footer no matter their content. Hi Tute, There's a lot of material on this on the web -- try googling "css equal height columns" and "css faux columns" for example. I also highly recommend the CSS-D wiki at http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ and in particular the two-column layout page: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TwoColumnLayouts If you're only dealing with two columns, consider this: you may not actually need the two column divs to be the same height, you may only need them to look like they're the same height. If both columns are inside a wrapper, the wrapper will stretch to be the height of the longer of the two. You can apply the background to one side of the wrapper and it will lie behind one of the columns, full height, regardless of which is the longer column. That simple solution does work for some graphic treatments but gets tricky with others, as when you want a border around one of the columns and not merely a block of background color or image. Regards, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Equal height divs
I´ll have a time to read Google´s FAUX columns, till I see how you made it work. :) Thank you! Eugenio. On 8/16/06, David Moyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe what you after is called faux columns, I did this on a website and your more then welcome to jump in and see how I did it. A search for faux columns should get you sorted. http://www.tinkahill.com/pdt/voila Dave Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I am trying to implement http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design >where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height. > >I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I want >them to reach the footer no matter their content. > >What do you think about it? How do you do these things? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Equal height divs
Hi I believe what you after is called faux columns, I did this on a website and your more then welcome to jump in and see how I did it. A search for faux columns should get you sorted. http://www.tinkahill.com/pdt/voila Dave Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Equal height divs Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:41:13 -0300 >Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement >http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design >where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height. > >I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I want >them to reach the footer no matter their content. > >What do you think about it? How do you do these things? > >Thanks a lot, in advance; >Eugenio. > > >** >The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help >** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Equal height divs
Again learning from your experience. I am trying to implement http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/ to a design where I need both (navigation and content) have the same height. I try to do it because each div has a background color, and I want them to reach the footer no matter their content. What do you think about it? How do you do these things? Thanks a lot, in advance; Eugenio. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Active link bug
John S. Britsios wrote: There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our web site: http://www.webnauts.net. If I click on "blog", "directory" or "forum", and then use the "back" button in my browser to go back to "Home", it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there. It's not a bug. It's highlighting the link that has focus. Hit the back button, then start tabbing... you'll be tabbing from that point, as it has keyboard focus. Should be the same for all of your links. It's just more noticeable when the focus pseudo-class is styled. It's the same on other pages as well... on any site. Click a link then hit the back button, and you'll see the little dotted line around the link (Firefox for PC anyway - IE if you were tabbing through the links). Mark ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Active link bug
There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our web site: http://www.webnauts.net. If I click on "blog", "directory" or "forum", and then use the "back" button in my browser to go back to "Home", it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there. Can someone help me out? I really cannot see whats wrong there. That's the way the active pseudoclass works in IE Windows. It will retain focus until you move focus elsewhere. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com "Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday". ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Active link bug
It wouldnt be the a: visted preferences by any chance would it???On 8/16/06, John S. Britsios <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our web site: http://www.webnauts.net.If I click on "blog", "directory" or "forum", and then use the "back"button in my browser to go back to "Home", it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there.Can someone help me out? I really cannot see whats wrong there.Thanks a lot for your kind support in advance,John--John S. Britsios Web Architect & Marketing ConsultantWebnauts Net (Main Office)Koblenzer Str. 37AD-33613 BielefeldWebnauts Net (U.S. Office)5 Ivanhoe DriveUrbana IL 61802Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web address: http://www.webnauts.net**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **-- JP2 Designshttp://www.jp2designs.com **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
[WSG] Active link bug
There seems to be a minor bug with the active link highlighting on our web site: http://www.webnauts.net. If I click on "blog", "directory" or "forum", and then use the "back" button in my browser to go back to "Home", it still highlights the link that I clicked on to get there. Can someone help me out? I really cannot see whats wrong there. Thanks a lot for your kind support in advance, John -- John S. Britsios Web Architect & Marketing Consultant Webnauts Net (Main Office) Koblenzer Str. 37A D-33613 Bielefeld Webnauts Net (U.S. Office) 5 Ivanhoe Drive Urbana IL 61802 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: http://www.webnauts.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Long nav list: Access keys: Best practice? Also, tag...
Just for a laugh, I tried to validate the W3 page I mentioned and it failed dramatically (look at the source)... Guess they are 'human' too. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/listheader. html P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Long nav list: Access keys: Best practice? Also, tag...
Hi Peter! Thanks for your quick response, I greatly appreciate the help. Peter Firminger wrote: I have seen it mentioned in relation to HTML 3 but it isn't apparent in the HTML 2, 3.2, 4.01 specs, even as a deprecated element. Ahhh, interesting. Seems like it would be a helpful tag. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/listheader.html I would advise that it not being in the spec, it not be used. If ever in doubt, check the W3 documentation of the markup language you're using or planning to use. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ Great. :D I was not sure where to look for these types of q's... Hehe, my noobiness is shining through. Anyway, thanks so much for you informative response. Thanks for taking the time to help. ;) Cheers, Micky ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
If you need to use the target feature, use an apropriate doctype for that . To legate systems, sometimes you must use a transitional or even a loose doctype The feature (for some :) is still there I guess this is my point - what about frames makes them 'unsuitable' (???) for XHTML If this trend continues, the only tags left will be DIV and SPANwho needs tables??? As for using a loose / transitional doctype, I'd rather not - that sort of defeats the purpose... Very frustrating Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Long nav list: Access keys: Best practice? Also, tag...
> To what parent tags can the tag be applied? I googled, > but did not find anything useful. I have seen it mentioned in relation to HTML 3 but it isn't apparent in the HTML 2, 3.2, 4.01 specs, even as a deprecated element. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/listheader.html I would advise that it not being in the spec, it not be used. If ever in doubt, check the W3 documentation of the markup language you're using or planning to use. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: you're using an inaccessible frameset when the same purely visual effect can be done in a more accessible way using CSS. if you want strict and a framed effect do it with CSS instead of frames and then all users can access all your content. instead of asking for target in strict (an inaccessible frameset attribute) and asking us to justify why you can't have it, why don't you justify the use of frames, when all they are is a visual effect that can be achieved with CSS. My response: I have to use frames at work. The reason is that we produce learning resources which can be used on their own or put into courses which need some navigation for users to get around. Framesets cater to this perfectly. The left frame is used to show the navigation of the resources which appear in the right frame. We have users testing this (including using JAWS and Window Eyes screen readers) and none have ever said it is inaccessible. For us the benefit of using frames is that we do not have to produce multiple versions of the same resource. Downsides include * inability to bookmark a certain page * a frameset bug in IE when using XHTML transitional (see http://www.noscope.com/journal/2004/02/ie-horizontal-scrollbar-bug ) * inability to set frame borders with CSS Grant ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
If you need to use the target feature, use an apropriate doctype for that . To legate systems, sometimes you must use a transitional or even a loose doctype The feature (for some :) is still there spark On 8/15/06, Michael Yeaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok...fair enoughbut consider this (very OT): The C/C++ programming languages have had the ability for many years to cause havoc on a machine when one of it's most powerful features (pointers) is mis-used. In response to this, there have been many libraries developed to wrap this language feature in 'safe' clothing. But, did they remove pointers from the language??? Absolutely notit's there to use, and also to mis-use (at your own risk). I feel the same way about things such as the (loved??) IFRAME/FRAME tags. These are horrible to use on sites where SEO and accessibility are of top concern. However, when developing the web versions of desktop applications (i.e., not necessary or desired to allow linking to every page, and not SEOnor will they hardly ever be - these are typically bought by businesses and deployed internally to solve a business process need), these 'useless' tags turn into gold mines of features without writing the reams of JS necessary for a modern AJAX experience. Again, they are just another (useful) tool in our toolbox - not correct for every situation, but very useful from time to time. Hmmmso what is the NPV of the original $.02?? Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** -- [web] http://synapsisdi.com.br [livesets] http://djspark.com.br ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Long nav list: Access keys: Best practice? Also, tag...
Howdy folks, Long story short, I am setting-up a menu for a newspaper website and they have a ka-zilion links in a left-sidebar navigation list... How should I go about setting-up access keys? Should I be concerned about access keys for all links? Should I only set-up access keys for the very main navigation elements? ... also ... To what parent tags can the tag be applied? I googled, but did not find anything useful. TIA, Cheers, Micky ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Ok...fair enoughbut consider this (very OT): The C/C++ programming languages have had the ability for many years to cause havoc on a machine when one of it's most powerful features (pointers) is mis-used. In response to this, there have been many libraries developed to wrap this language feature in 'safe' clothing. But, did they remove pointers from the language??? Absolutely notit's there to use, and also to mis-use (at your own risk). I feel the same way about things such as the (loved??) IFRAME/FRAME tags. These are horrible to use on sites where SEO and accessibility are of top concern. However, when developing the web versions of desktop applications (i.e., not necessary or desired to allow linking to every page, and not SEOnor will they hardly ever be - these are typically bought by businesses and deployed internally to solve a business process need), these 'useless' tags turn into gold mines of features without writing the reams of JS necessary for a modern AJAX experience. Again, they are just another (useful) tool in our toolbox - not correct for every situation, but very useful from time to time. Hmmmso what is the NPV of the original $.02?? Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
So far I've only seen two arguments to keep using the target="_blank" attribute. 1. Our users are idiots and can't drive there browsers. Web Standards are about catering for the future; it's safe to assume that as more people get onto the Internet then there ability for using the browser will improve. You also have to consider how this attribute will work on say a cell phone, PDA or my favourite mentioned before, direct optic nerve shunt :D. We are not suggesting you remove pop-up windows altogether, just that you use the correct method for opening them, JavaScript. 2. Other applications like Word use pop-ups so I can too. HTML is not an application, if it was then the target="_blank" attribute would come with additional parameters to control the size, placement etc of the window. JavaScript (which is used for building applications on the web) comes with all of these properties so is the perfect choice for opening new windows. I can't believe this argument has progressed so far. XHTML is purely for the presentation of content, that's it. By removing target="_blank" you remove an outdated method for opening new windows (that it was never designed to do I might add!), but you are not removing popup windows all together. -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Futter Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 8:50 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank On 15/8/06 5:15 PM, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/08/2006, at 4:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: > >> You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the T&C >> in a new window > > Why not? This is one huge assumption that your users are silly and > cannot shift click or right click. > Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so > stupid. You know, I'm as computer-savvy as anybody, but I've only just learned that you can shift-click to open new windows by reading this thread (mainly because I use tabs in preference to new windows). Forgive me if that makes me "stupid". I think perhaps you shouldn't assume *anything* about your users, period. You probably shouldn't equate a particular skill- or knowledge-set with intelligence either. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ -- This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 15/8/06 5:30 PM, "Christian Heilmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [the classic terms and conditions] >> >>> But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without >>> target=_blank? >> >> 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the >> form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show >> them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make >> the user lose her data to boot. >> 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them >> with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make >> them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is >> that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in >> server-side. >> 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it >> when the user comes back >> 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it >> when the user hits the T&C link (not that accessible, but does work) >> 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree >> with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) >> and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a >> handler. > > ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions > button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST > arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. No.6 sounds sensible to me. I like No.2 as well. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ -- This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 15/8/06 5:15 PM, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/08/2006, at 4:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: > >> You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the T&C >> in a new window > > Why not? This is one huge assumption that your users are silly and > cannot shift click or right click. > Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so > stupid. You know, I'm as computer-savvy as anybody, but I've only just learned that you can shift-click to open new windows by reading this thread (mainly because I use tabs in preference to new windows). Forgive me if that makes me "stupid". I think perhaps you shouldn't assume *anything* about your users, period. You probably shouldn't equate a particular skill- or knowledge-set with intelligence either. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ -- This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Spammer gone
Sorry folks, unfortunately, this all happened in early morning our time, otherwise it would have been stopped earlier. P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Michael Yeaney wrote: ...I will admit that they have been wrongly used in the past, but is that any reason to get rid of them If the user base no longer trusts the method, to the extent that pop-up blockers are marketed or given freely away, because of the misuse, does it make sense to continue using the method, rather than finding a new way of achieving your aim that respects your users' rights and sensibilities? Just my $0.02 +GST Mark Harris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Just an observation: While I'll agree that in certain situations frames are very inaccessible, their behavior cannot always be replaced with CSS. Why use frames, you ask??? Consider a web application (not a content site). My menu bar is fixed, maintains state, and I don't want it to reload every time the content frame reloads (thus saving bandwidth). Now, AJAX aside, CSS alone will not give you this. And as a writer of web applications (not sites), it frustrates me to no end that the W3C is abandoning useful features like these (and others)...I will admit that they have been wrongly used in the past, but is that any reason to get rid of them Just my $.02. Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Spammer gone
WSG members, Apologies for "nitinaggarwal12".The user has been unsubscribed with extreme prejudice. If you experience further issues, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than the list. Thanks for your patience! Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [Virus entfernt] [WSG] the file
I always get a virus message, when you email to the group! The last one was Email-Worm.Win32.Nyxem.e Check your computer for viruses and worms with an actual scanner! Greets Arne nitinaggarwal12 schrieb: hi i send the details bye ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** Dieser Anhang war mit dem Virus "Email-Worm.Win32.Nyxem.e" infiziert. Der WEB.DE E-Mail Virenschutz hat den Anhang gelöscht, der Inhalt der E-Mail sowie eventuelle weitere Anhänge wurden nicht verändert. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] OT: Block virus sender
I sent a note to the administrator to try and have that user blocked. In the mean time, it might help to have your mail client delete any messages sent via this list that have an attachment. That works for me. -- Dwacon(com) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: I'm getting fed up with this. You still haven't told me WHY it makes perfect sense! Why, that is, the W3C have decided that using a target is undesirable, ultimately. I have no idea why W3C decide anything, but they have made some decisions and written the standards accordingly. I may suggest: 1: Target has been misused to such a degree that some browser-makers have added defenses against it. Most browser-makers are members of W3C. 2: Target isn't working too well on all of today's (and tomorrow's) software and devices. Plenty of confusion around on that subject. If you are using a frameset, it's highly likely that you'll want to make use of the target facility. Yes, you can do it using transitional, but the very name 'transitional' implies that it's OK for now, but it won't be when you 'do it properly'. When you 'do it properly' you can't use target, even though you can use a frameset. A frameset _is_ a 'transitional' solution, so it _is_ only OK for now. Same with 'Transitional', so Frames and Transitional suits each others like hand and glove. There are no 'Strict Frames'. What is it about targetting that is so bad? I never called targeting bad, although I "kill" all targeting at my end (as a user). Targeting is a left-over from yesterday, so I guess it depends on where you want your designs to go is what matters when you decide whether to use targeting or not. And then you should use the proper doctype/standard. That's what those standards are there for. There will come other standards, and some may even be implemented across browser-land - one day. Maybe you'll get a suitable, and working, 'target' back in one of them. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. So your point is? but you're not are you? you're using an inaccessible frameset when the same purely visual effect can be done in a more accessible way using CSS. if you want strict and a framed effect do it with CSS instead of frames and then all users can access all your content. instead of asking for target in strict (an inaccessible frameset attribute) and asking us to justify why you can't have it, why don't you justify the use of frames, when all they are is a visual effect that can be achieved with CSS. ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: Designer wrote: No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for pages that are included in a frameset? I'm just banging my head against the wall here! The reason I'd use a strict doctype in a frameset is the same reason I'd use one anywhere else. Why one earth anyone should think that a standards approach can be ignored because it's a frameset is just incredible. if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional one and all will be valid and good... Yes, I've known that for a long time now. the whole point of the XHTML strict DTD is: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. So your point is? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Stop
The viruses. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Multimedia Artist | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Designer wrote: The 'problem' is that you can use a strict xhtml frameset AND xhtml files and that's OK with the W3C recommendations - so why on earth have they done away with one of frames main uses/advantages, i.e., targetting one or more of the frames. No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to keep Strict out of Frames. W3C haven't done away with anything since you still can use Transitional. They are just telling you (quite clearly) that you can't use a "transitional solution": Frames and 'target', in combination with Strict. You are given a choice between standards: Transitional /or/ Strict. No need to mess them up and make them one and the same. regards Georg I'm getting fed up with this. You still haven't told me WHY it makes perfect sense! Why, that is, the W3C have decided that using a target is undesirable, ultimately. If you are using a frameset, it's highly likely that you'll want to make use of the target facility. Yes, you can do it using transitional, but the very name 'transitional' implies that it's OK for now, but it won't be when you 'do it properly'. When you 'do it properly' you can't use target, even though you can use a frameset. What is it about targetting that is so bad? This is my last mail on this subject (no cheering please :-) ) : I'm going away now, to quietly bang my head against the wall. Roll on xframes is all I can say . . . -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] OT: Block virus sender
Hi, Would it be possible to block [EMAIL PROTECTED] that keeps posting virus to the list? Kim ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
That´s really understandable, but transitional is meant to be a 'transition' before all web sites turn into strict web standards. So it is also understandable for developers to start digging in how to translate our sites to those, let´s say, definitive, or totally usable, standards. Am I wrong? Best regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's mad, is what it is. target_blank is allowed under transitional standards. if you adopt strict standards then adhere to them. forcing a new window on a mobile phone or the forthcoming UA that integrates with your optic nerve and projects the web on a virtual screen is not sensible. arguing about target_blank has been done, a decision reached and standards set. IIRC the original argument started when someone wanted to force a new window *and* have code valid to xhtml strict standards. I firmly believe that new windows should be the users choice and there are no business cases for new windows that can't be done a different way. I think they *should* be done differently if you want widest use of your business application on the web. However, if you're creating a desktop application for a closed usage on an intranet? well why not have multiple windows spawning? - that's what we expect windowed applications to do, but code to a transitional standard, that allows for it. I'm a pragmatic coder though and if the time and effort or commercial budget are an issue and the client can't be persuaded that new windows are a bad idea then I just change to a less strict standard and code to that. let's not argue for a change to the standards because we don't like them, just choose one that allows the behaviour you want and *understand* and *educate* clients on the why and wherefore... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I totally agree. I forgot about pop-up blockers. I thought it was not that black and white but this thing may be annoying. Don´t know how many uses these blockers, and of course it is easy to disconnect them, but anyhow, rather than doing it more efficciently it is a slower way of presenting information. Not a new clean window, but a popup as banks do. Regards; Eugenio. On 8/15/06, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: The 'problem' is that you can use a strict xhtml frameset AND xhtml files and that's OK with the W3C recommendations - so why on earth have they done away with one of frames main uses/advantages, i.e., targetting one or more of the frames. No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to keep Strict out of Frames. W3C haven't done away with anything since you still can use Transitional. They are just telling you (quite clearly) that you can't use a "transitional solution": Frames and 'target', in combination with Strict. You are given a choice between standards: Transitional /or/ Strict. No need to mess them up and make them one and the same. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for pages that are included in a frameset? if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional one and all will be valid and good... the whole point of the XHTML strict DTD is: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: but I'm struggling to understand the problem. the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"? and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate them against a strict DTD? Who said the framed pages have no doctype? They do if you want to conform to standards and validate your markup! I use this: "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd";> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";> and the other files in the set are XHTML1.0 strict. The 'problem' is that you can use a strict xhtml frameset AND xhtml files and that's OK with the W3C recommendations - so why on earth have they done away with one of frames main uses/advantages, i.e., targetting one or more of the frames. No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Ian Pouncey wrote: Tony Crockford wrote: > the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"? > and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate > them against a strict DTD? Why do the framed pages not have a doctype Tony? I can't see anywhere in the article you reference where this is stated. I read this: "The starting point for any framed set of Web pages is the tag, which usually uses the src attribute to point to a particular HTML document. The tag defines the content of a single framed page. The example above assumes that you want to have a file called mainpage.html displayed within the frame. The only required attribute for the tag is the src attribute, which obviously tells the browser what file to display inside the frame. So far so good. You can also control the appearance of scrollbars inside the frame with the scrolling attribute: The default value for this attribute is auto, which lets the browser decide whether or not scrollbars are to be displayed. The other two values are yes and no, which are pretty self-explanatory. There is no closing tag. You should not include any tag information in the mainpage.html file, since the file represents a larger document. Everything on this page should be included within the tags." (from: http://www.sitepoint.com/print/frames-frame-usage-explained) and understood it to mean that framed content would just be content in any case I think we're all agreed that trying to include a Strict doctyped page inside a frameset is pointless. why anyone would want to mix up frames and strict DTD's I still don't understand. ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
I will be out of the office Wednesday 16 Aug. Issues regarding complaints or food safety can be forwarded either directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR by calling 1300 552 406. For urgent issues, please contact Greg Irwin, Executive Director on 02-9741 4744. Other issues I'll attend to on my return Regards Craig Morony M: 0417 410 909 Let's all call Greg and tell him Craig send us. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
I will be out of the office Wednesday 16 Aug. Issues regarding complaints or food safety can be forwarded either directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR by calling 1300 552 406. For urgent issues, please contact Greg Irwin, Executive Director on 02-9741 4744. Other issues I'll attend to on my return Regards Craig Morony M: 0417 410 909 From Monday 5th April 2004, the NSW Food Authority is responsible for food safety across the entire food industry, from primary production to point-of-sale. You can contact the NSW Food Authority on our new contact centre telephone number 1300 552 406 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] watch for our new Web site at www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au or you can reach us at our office; 6 Avenues of Americas, Newington on telephone 02 9741 4777, fax 02 9741 4888 or postal address PO Box 6682 Silverwater NSW 1811. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This e-mail message, including any attached files, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. NSW Food Authority prohibits the right to publish, copy, distribute or disclose any information contained in this e-mail, or its attachments, by any party other than the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender and delete it from your system. No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of NSW Food Authority by e-mail. The views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of NSW Food Authority. NSW Food Authority accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail and recommends that the recipient check this e-mail and any attached files for the presence of viruses. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Thank you for your email. I am currently on a training course and will be out of the office until Tuesday 22 August 2006. If you need any assistance with web publishing requests please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For personal matters you can contact me on my mobile. Your email has not been forwarded. Cheers Tracey Meziane If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: > the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"? > and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate > them against a strict DTD? Why do the framed pages not have a doctype Tony? I can't see anywhere in the article you reference where this is stated. If you look at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#h-16.3 you will see that the example 'framed' document (init_dynamic.html) is given an HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype. Whether it is an oversight in the spec or not it appears that target is only valid for a transitional doctype even when used in a frameset. This makes sense as there is nothing in the framed document that explicitly states that it should only be viewed as part of a frameset. I don't think this thread is going anywhere any more. Most, if not all, the people on this list are probably never going to use another frameset. If anyone does the answer is to use a transitional doctype for documents other than the frameset itself.Ian **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
I am out of the office until Monday 21st August ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Matthew Pennell wrote: The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets. well yes, I thought that was obvious? but I'm struggling to understand the problem. the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them "strict"? and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate them against a strict DTD? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AIUI the frameset page has the doctype (using the frameset DTD) and the framed pages have no doctype at all and are included in the frameset by using so why can't you use target_ in the framed pages? I think the point is that, while the frameset itself will have the frameset DTD, the framed pages do not - so if they are Strict, you can't use target to make links inside those pages open inside other frames within the same frameset. The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: Tony Crockford wrote: Eh? if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid. you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what are you talking about? time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration. ;o) Hi Tony, AFAIK, the files that are used to make up the frameset (ie, the ones that appear in the browser) are 'ordinary' files which will not accept the frameset DTD. That is reserved for the frameset definition file, not it's components. It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! okay, colour me confused. AIUI the frameset page has the doctype (using the frameset DTD) and the framed pages have no doctype at all and are included in the frameset by using so why can't you use target_ in the framed pages? http://www.sitepoint.com/print/frames-frame-usage-explained is a good article... -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! If you are set on using the TARGET attribute you will get it right by using a transitional DOCTYPE. Why would you want to choose a strict DOCTYPE when your document does not conform to the strict rules explained in the corresponding (X)HTML recommendation? Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: Eh? if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid. you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what are you talking about? time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration. ;o) Hi Tony, AFAIK, the files that are used to make up the frameset (ie, the ones that appear in the browser) are 'ordinary' files which will not accept the frameset DTD. That is reserved for the frameset definition file, not it's components. It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: Global centralised Javascript libraries (was: [WSG] target=_blank)
I don't think it's such a good idea. For one thing you're relying on the network connections being good enough to the repository that holds the JS files to make the site respond quickly. If the JS repository doesn't respond, or is slow, that could be your entire web application screwed. In the case of Yahoo, who I guess have some pretty spectacular bandwidth resources available, this isn't a huge worry. The idea was to use Akamai, which means it will be delivered from a box nearest to you. However the thing that really bothers me with that idea is the fact that suddenly Yahoo (or whoever) would have access to loads more information about what's happening with my site/application. The big internet companies already know more about us than many people are happy with, why give them your web user stats on a plate as well? How so? All you pull is a file. Seriously, if people want to know what is going on, they have already. Your ISP, your phone company... Don't really think there is privacy, not after 9/11. The bottom line is that any code that is used on a website - whether (X)HTML, CSS or Javascript - should be optimised to make sure it's as streamlined as possible. Users on dialup won't get as frustrated, and even broadband users will appreciate it when the site loads in the blink of an eye. > We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. Christian, I take it that you gave up on that idea? Actually it is being discussed. Dojo has a packaging system and is planning on going the same route. Of course it wouldn't be mandatory, you can always download the lot, change it, pack it and use it off your server. That is why it is BSD licensed. If you have any detailed concerns, email me off-list and I can forward and include them in the discussion. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Global centralised Javascript libraries (was: [WSG] target=_blank)
I don't think it's such a good idea. For one thing you're relying on the network connections being good enough to the repository that holds the JS files to make the site respond quickly. If the JS repository doesn't respond, or is slow, that could be your entire web application screwed. In the case of Yahoo, who I guess have some pretty spectacular bandwidth resources available, this isn't a huge worry. However the thing that really bothers me with that idea is the fact that suddenly Yahoo (or whoever) would have access to loads more information about what's happening with my site/application. The big internet companies already know more about us than many people are happy with, why give them your web user stats on a plate as well? The bottom line is that any code that is used on a website - whether (X)HTML, CSS or Javascript - should be optimised to make sure it's as streamlined as possible. Users on dialup won't get as frustrated, and even broadband users will appreciate it when the site loads in the blink of an eye. > We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. Christian, I take it that you gave up on that idea? Chris -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Bruniges Sent: 15 August 2006 08:38 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank > You touched a good argument for another discussion though. People do > tend to rely on massive libraries though. The solution would be to > centralise the libraries on one server and ask people to use these > URLs instead, then they'd be cached on the first page they are used > and subsequently cached. We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. I think that would be an AWESOME idea Christain! I do the same with my core CSS files were I work and can now change site wide colour palettes in seconds on a very "global" basis - for YUI the term global would actually be properly global! I am sure there are practical reasons why this may not work but from my point of view I would really be for that! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 3:34 AM "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > I'm waiting to see if target=_blank reaches 100 postslol > I wore out my delete button > > Bruce Prochnau > > bkdesign Abolutely HOT thread indeed. Are you keeping count? Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
I'm waiting to see if target=_blank reaches 100 postslol I wore out my delete button Bruce Prochnau bkdesign - Original Message - From: "Kat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Focas, Grant wrote: In general though, I find the popups=evil argument a bit flawed. Take as an example a page which has a list of 25 cars for sale. YES LETS DO! Lets take carsguide.com.au as an example, though admittedly they have more than 25 cars for sale listed. So I load up a car page and search for cars. There is a list of 25 (or so) cars that have fit my criteria on the first page and at least a few more pages with a continuation of the listing. As I run through the first page, I'll see a car I want and middle click it to get more information. As this page is still loading in it's own tab in the background, I will continue to run through the list and middle click each car that I think is interesting. At the end of the list on the first page, I will click on the link to go to the second page of cars that meet my criteria. While this new page loads, I turn to the other tabs I have been loading in the background. With the crazy javascript pop-up crap, absolutely nothing appears in those windows. *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING -- as in white screen of death* This goes against my natural way of surfing. It means I have to close quite a few empty pages, and click the back button on the tab with the list, and hope it re-loads properly. Sometimes, I have to re-start my search. This is entirely frustrating. Guess how often I return to those sites? Its built by people expecting users who are stuck in MIE 5.0-6.0 that doesn't have tabs. With MIE 7b2 on the way, with a tabbed-browsing environment, more and more users will follow this sort of path. Kat Most pop-ups really are evil. As far as I am aware, most screen-readers still have difficulty dealing with pop-ups, though others on this list would know more about that than I. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target='anything' : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? I agree entirely. Furthermore, it's not only target=_blank, it's target= anything! You can still produce a valid frameset by using the frameset DTD, but you 'cannot' target any of the frames if you want/need to use strict markup (html or xhtml) without resorting to javascript. Eh? if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid. you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what are you talking about? time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration. ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Focas, Grant wrote: In general though, I find the popups=evil argument a bit flawed. Take as an example a page which has a list of 25 cars for sale. YES LETS DO! Lets take carsguide.com.au as an example, though admittedly they have more than 25 cars for sale listed. So I load up a car page and search for cars. There is a list of 25 (or so) cars that have fit my criteria on the first page and at least a few more pages with a continuation of the listing. As I run through the first page, I'll see a car I want and middle click it to get more information. As this page is still loading in it's own tab in the background, I will continue to run through the list and middle click each car that I think is interesting. At the end of the list on the first page, I will click on the link to go to the second page of cars that meet my criteria. While this new page loads, I turn to the other tabs I have been loading in the background. With the crazy javascript pop-up crap, absolutely nothing appears in those windows. *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING -- as in white screen of death* This goes against my natural way of surfing. It means I have to close quite a few empty pages, and click the back button on the tab with the list, and hope it re-loads properly. Sometimes, I have to re-start my search. This is entirely frustrating. Guess how often I return to those sites? Its built by people expecting users who are stuck in MIE 5.0-6.0 that doesn't have tabs. With MIE 7b2 on the way, with a tabbed-browsing environment, more and more users will follow this sort of path. Kat Most pop-ups really are evil. As far as I am aware, most screen-readers still have difficulty dealing with pop-ups, though others on this list would know more about that than I. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=enough_already
Are we done with this now or do I have to stop it before it descends to "I know you are, but what am I?" Feel free to take it off list to squabble... Please! P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target='anything' : was [target=_blank]
On 8/15/06 3:11 AM "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > So the message is that it's still OK to use frames in certain > circumstances, but under no circumstances is it OK to target them > (strict). No-one has ever explained the logic of this to me in any > convincing way. . . > > -- > Best Regards, > > Bob McClelland Badda-boom! Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Adreaus, please listen mate you are really getting into a fantasy that is getting unreal! I am on my G3 OSX Mac now, Macs do not do that at all, you can hold the mouse down and then you get a choice to open in a new tab or window. Some of your arguments are personal opinion, other like this Mac reason to flaunt standards is not just weak, it is wrong. You equate webpages with applications, they are not the same thing. I am part of the Mac community and I state that your new window assumption about Mac is incorrect. On 15/08/2006, at 5:03 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie Gardner-Brown Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a new browser window ... The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] target='anything' : was [target=_blank]
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? I agree entirely. Furthermore, it's not only target=_blank, it's target= anything! You can still produce a valid frameset by using the frameset DTD, but you 'cannot' target any of the frames if you want/need to use strict markup (html or xhtml) without resorting to javascript. As I remember, the ability to target a frame in a frameset was (in 199x) the major advantage/reason for using frames in the first place! (And it still is, as far as I'm concerned). So the message is that it's still OK to use frames in certain circumstances, but under no circumstances is it OK to target them (strict). No-one has ever explained the logic of this to me in any convincing way. . . -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Well said Tony I was aghast as well about so many emails about avoiding the standards Call it a personal preference but it is not about standards. This attidude that "I" feel is wasting a lot of time on this group. If you feel otherwise than using standards join a net hacking group. It is not my personal judgment, but my committmernt to W3C standards and consideration for my users that I regard new windows as verboten so does W3C Strict validation probably for very good reasons. On 15/08/2006, at 5:43 PM, Tony Crockford wrote: Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? "The Web Standards Group is for web designers & developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote "web standards" within the development community" perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. There seems to be some misinformation floating about this list. I have accounts in both Commonwealth and Bankwest, who both seem to think that popups are a fantastic idea. Bankwest are more evil though because when you logout they resize your window which shits me to tears. Anyway, the point I am making is that I am not forced to use their crappy pop-up, as it is a webpage that can be loaded directly into your browser, which I do. Yes, it is easily done. Point one: There is no real way to enforce a pop-up for your user if they don't want one. The other issue I have is that people are under a false impression that a pop-up is more secure. A pop-up adds no more extra security to that which is already present. Do not be fooled!! Point two: No extra security. I honestly think the banking pop-ups are a waste of time and effort and are a pain in the *rse. Kat ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Well said Tony I was aghast as well about so many emails about avoiding the standards Call it a personal preference but it is not about standards. This attidude that "I" feel is wasting a lot of time on this group. If you feel otherwise than using standards join a net hacking group. It is not my personal judgment, but my committmernt to W3C standards and consideration for my users that I regard new windows as verboten so does W3C Strict validation probably for very good reasons. Please no more personal preference to avoid standards. On 15/08/2006, at 5:43 PM, Tony Crockford wrote: Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? "The Web Standards Group is for web designers & developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote "web standards" within the development community" perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
No there is no more room for discussion here You have had enough advice and not taken any notice of it. Please desist from your hobby horse and consider the thousands who do comply? As Tony said Strict or Transitional are your current choices. Please consider you have had a good run please stop. On 15/08/2006, at 5:51 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:43 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Web Standards
>A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. I would say that was just 'a' common practice rather than any sort of standard. The concept of 'Web Standards' and the role of WaSP is about standardising in some sort of quantifiable way, just as in the UK we have the British Kite Mark to benchmark working practices in the manufacturing industry. Anthony Green http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? It's mad, is what it is. target_blank is allowed under transitional standards. if you adopt strict standards then adhere to them. forcing a new window on a mobile phone or the forthcoming UA that integrates with your optic nerve and projects the web on a virtual screen is not sensible. arguing about target_blank has been done, a decision reached and standards set. IIRC the original argument started when someone wanted to force a new window *and* have code valid to xhtml strict standards. I firmly believe that new windows should be the users choice and there are no business cases for new windows that can't be done a different way. I think they *should* be done differently if you want widest use of your business application on the web. However, if you're creating a desktop application for a closed usage on an intranet? well why not have multiple windows spawning? - that's what we expect windowed applications to do, but code to a transitional standard, that allows for it. I'm a pragmatic coder though and if the time and effort or commercial budget are an issue and the client can't be persuaded that new windows are a bad idea then I just change to a less strict standard and code to that. let's not argue for a change to the standards because we don't like them, just choose one that allows the behaviour you want and *understand* and *educate* clients on the why and wherefore... ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Now that websites are moving more towards application style, they should really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And a fact is that applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when information is provided that falls outside of a linear process. The typical example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms and Conditions. Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. Never do those applications provide the user with the option of opening the supplementary information in the same window. For a good reason: the users would get taken out of the linear process they are in and potentially loose whatever they were working on. Just imagine you would loose your 200-page thesis in MS Word just because you didn't specifically request the HELP information to open in a new window. So if websites are becoming applications, why shouldn't they behave in the same fashion that we are accustomed to from other applications? In Word, if I decide to go to a new document, I expect it to open in the main window. Ergo: On the web, if the user decides to go to a different website, it should open in the main window. In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any different on the web? Making "target" an invalid attribute for links is plain stupid. It forces developers to revert to some javascript ways of opening a new window which potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with javascript disabled. Developers should be educated in the correct use of the target attribute, eliminating it just creates a whole new problem. At last, some fresh air, & unblinkered thinking! About 18 months ago, I vented my feelings about this: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/scribbles/windows.html It won't hurt to say it again, as nothing has changed! :-) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
> 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the > form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show > them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make > the user lose her data to boot. This solution is quite user-unfriendly. In most cases people do not want to read the T&C as they are standard legal talk that hardly anybody understands anyway. They have to be accessible, people have to agree to them, but we all know that 90% of the people do not want to read it. Yes, but at least it is honest. If you HAVE to comply with terms and conditions, then tell the user about that and don't hide it. It works for ANY software installation or sign up process for webmails for example. > 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them > with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make > them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is > that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in > server-side. Pretty much the same user-unfriendlyness: you present the user with a very long page of content that they do not understand. T&C are intimidating to the users and people do not want to read them. How so? The idea is to have the Terms and Conditions below the form. If I want to read them, all I need is to click the link and you even stay on the same page. No surprises or dangers of losing data. You could even do a fancy lightbox effect. > 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree > with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) > and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a > handler. This assumes that users know what they want. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many users might not understand the importance of opening this page in a separate window. They click on the link without pressing Shift and then realise that they just lost all their data. There is fallbacks for that, see next point. A counterargument for that is that people without popup blockers are so conditioned not to consider data in any popup worth while that they close it without seeing it. I encountered both when conducting user testing. Have you? > ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions > button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST > arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. Users do not know that their data was just stored in a POST argument. They don't need to know, it just happens. Firstly, most users will get a shock, assuming they just lost all their data. Then they will press the Back button and be presented with the shocking "Refresh your browser" message that most people do not understand. They don't get a shock when there is a big heading explaining that they can go back to the form. Sorry, bad IA and UI is not the fault of technology, it is yours. I am sorry, but in the long run the popup window is the best solution for T&C. The reason for this is that users expect this behaviour when requesting information while in the middle of a linear process. Experience with other applications (be it Word, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, whatever) taught us that this is how computers behave. Did it? I learnt a lot by doing real user testing rather than relying on my assumptions or comparing my product with something different. The same analogy would make dropdown navigation on the top the best web site or web application navigation. What it forgets to take into account is that your application already resides in another application that does follow all these rules. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. That is why they are not laws. Anything on the w3c site is a recommendation or guideline. The implementation of it and the consensus that it is a best practice makes it a standard. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford > Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:43 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank > > Rick Faaberg wrote: > > It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of > if *I* feel that a > > new window is the best way to present the information! > > I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. > > in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the > standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. > > if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are > you a member of the web standards group? Sometimes even web standards can be wrong. I do not think this discussion is so much about personal preference as it is about the question whether this particular web standard is correct or not. People who decide on Web Standards can make mistakes. That's why standards change all the time. A few years ago it was standard to have all links to other websites open in new windows. Now it moves against this behaviour. There is room for discussion, don't you think? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
> > On 8/15/06 12:15 AM "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent > this out: > > > >> Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my > users are so > >> stupid. > > > > It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of > if *I* feel > > that a > > new window is the best way to present the information! > > > > Sigh... > > > > Rick > > > -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim > Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:37 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank > > What you "feel" is irrelevant to your user's experience > You are making a huge assumption, committed to a position you could > reconsider. > Change your feelings, fall out of love with this position it is > demeaning to many users. > > I hate sites that open new windows. > I feel that you are wrong. I do not think that personal opinions should have anything to do with how we create websites. Some people like a website blue, others red. Whether you hate sites that open new windows is irrelevant. What is important is to make a website as user-friendly as possible. Now you could say a website is not user-friendly because it opens a new window on your desktop. In most cases I agree with you. However, there are cases in which opening a page in a new window is extremely important to the effectiveness of the users. If a user cannot successfully complete a task because a link just deleted everything they typed into a form: that is terrible and should never happen! If you are unhappy because a new browser window just opened, that is an annoyance, but no more than that. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? We-ell, Windows does it too, you know. And a Linux GUI is liable to open new windows as well, depending on your configuration. But in those circumstances, it's a known behaviour pattern and you actively invite a new window as an informed user. The issue on the web, IMHO, stems from the misuse of pop-ups for advertising and porn, especially the verdammt on_close spawuning of new windows. As an experiment once I ran through a cycle of popups to see how many I would get from one source. I stopped with 29 open windows due to resource constraints on the PC (it was only a pentium, after all). So, in order to ensure users don't get snared in a mass spawning, collective wisdom has decreed that new windows are bad. As with most things in life, I don't think it's that black and white. There are times when a new window might be useful. I, myself, have been known to right-click a new window into being when I want to keep something separate. The KEY thing here (and pardon me, Rick Faarberg, but I don't think you're getting it) is that it is MY choice to fire off a new window. It's not up to the developer's judgment - it's up to the USER's judgment. Christian came up with a bunch of ways to achieve a business need without opening a new window - we need to think more creatively about the workflow we're creating so we don't put users in bad positions. cheers Mark Harris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Heilmann > Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 5:23 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank > > [the classic terms and conditions] > > > But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving > this problem without > > target=_blank? > > 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the > form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show > them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make > the user lose her data to boot. This solution is quite user-unfriendly. In most cases people do not want to read the T&C as they are standard legal talk that hardly anybody understands anyway. They have to be accessible, people have to agree to them, but we all know that 90% of the people do not want to read it. > 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them > with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make > them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is > that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in > server-side. Pretty much the same user-unfriendlyness: you present the user with a very long page of content that they do not understand. T&C are intimidating to the users and people do not want to read them. > 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it > when the user comes back Only works with JS > 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it > when the user hits the T&C link (not that accessible, but does work) Only works with JS > 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree > with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) > and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a > handler. This assumes that users know what they want. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Many users might not understand the importance of opening this page in a separate window. They click on the link without pressing Shift and then realise that they just lost all their data. > ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions > button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST > arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. Users do not know that their data was just stored in a POST argument. Firstly, most users will get a shock, assuming they just lost all their data. Then they will press the Back button and be presented with the shocking "Refresh your browser" message that most people do not understand. I am sorry, but in the long run the popup window is the best solution for T&C. The reason for this is that users expect this behaviour when requesting information while in the middle of a linear process. Experience with other applications (be it Word, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, whatever) taught us that this is how computers behave. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:43 AM "Tony Crockford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: >> It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a >> new window is the best way to present the information! > > I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. You've missed the point. There are many secure transaction et al scenarios that pretty much require new windows. See Steve Olive's follow-on post. I've quoted it below for your viewing pleasure. :-) Whatever... my "feelings" are not hurt! ;-) Rick Steve Olive's response There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. Opening a new window, secured with SSL encryption and breaking this connection by closing the window when "logging off". Usually all browser buttons, address bars, menus are turned off on these windows so there is no way a user can change to "normal" surfing of the Internet thus preventing any history security issues. By removing "target=_blank" you are forcing the use of JavaScript to open the window. This usually isn't an issue because JavaScripts are used for other features, but it should not be necessary just to generate secure sessions. I'm sure there are other secure online transactions that need this feature and are stopped from using strict doctypes (XHTML or HTML) because of this feature is removed. Opening new windows for secure sessions makes me feel very 21st Century - the developers are understanding the security risks presented by the wide spread adoption of online life. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
> -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susie > Gardner-Brown > Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:05 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] target=_blank > > 2. On a Mac, if you open a new Word document when you've got > one open already, it offsets it so you can see both are > there! Which is also what happens on a Mac when you go to a > new browser window ... > > The obvious answer is that everyone should switch to Macs!! > Funny that you mention the Mac behaviour. Mac does exactly what all of us are agreeing to be terrible behaviour of some websites: it constantly opens new windows all over the place. So how comes this behaviour is accepted by the Mac community who are known to openly support their interface, yet it is shunned in web development standards? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:36 AM "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > What you "feel" is irrelevant to your user's experience > You are making a huge assumption, committed to a position you could > reconsider. > Change your feelings, fall out of love with this position it is > demeaning to many users. When I say "feel" I meant PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. Your professional judgment is that a new window is never justifed? Sigh. Don't you ever have a professional judgment that a new window might be the best way to get a user to refresh their login *for example* without destroying their current browser window? Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:30 AM "Christian Heilmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: >>> Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so >>> stupid. >> >> It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a >> new window is the best way to present the information! > > Why do you ask then? I didn't ask a thing. Just saying that if the best way to present a smaller morsel of info is, say, a small new window, then I want that control and I don't need a bunch of wsg folks (or maybe even w3c folks) saying it's so (ahem) evil that I dare not do it. As someone else said, lots of us are headed toward webpages-as-apps and much of this "new window is evil" stuff becomes pretty stupid in itself when a new window perfectly presents some info in the most useful way and a simple "close window" or "accept" puts you right back where you were in the prior window. But you do your thing! You have my permission! :-) Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 10:21, Christian Heilmann wrote: > > I know what is wrong with popups - they are unreliable, mean a new > instance of the browser rather than taking resources for only one, > they are insecure (until browsers always show the location bar - which > MSIE will do in the 7th version you can simulate a popup appearing to > be from the originating page while it isn't - and ask people for their > credit card details) and they simply give me a 1999 feel. > > Generally: What is useful to you is not useful to everybody. You can > easily offer these things when and after you tested if the user's > browser can support it - or even better if the user wants it (a > checkbox with "open links in new windows" for example). But assuming > users can and want to deal with several windows is just arrogance. There are very good reasons to open new windows, not just when using frames, online banking being one of them. Opening a new window, secured with SSL encryption and breaking this connection by closing the window when "logging off". Usually all browser buttons, address bars, menus are turned off on these windows so there is no way a user can change to "normal" surfing of the Internet thus preventing any history security issues. By removing "target=_blank" you are forcing the use of JavaScript to open the window. This usually isn't an issue because JavaScripts are used for other features, but it should not be necessary just to generate secure sessions. I'm sure there are other secure online transactions that need this feature and are stopped from using strict doctypes (XHTML or HTML) because of this feature is removed. Opening new windows for secure sessions makes me feel very 21st Century - the developers are understanding the security risks presented by the wide spread adoption of online life. -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 _ ... (0)> ... / / \ .. / / . ) .. V_/_ Linux Powered! Registered Linux User #355382 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
Rick Faaberg wrote: It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! I'm aghast at such an attitude on a web *standards* list. in fact the whole thread contains arguments against using the standards and they all seem to be about personal preference. if you want to create web pages based on personal preference, why are you a member of the web standards group? "The Web Standards Group is for web designers & developers who are interested in web standards (HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, XSLT etc.) and best practices (accessible sites using valid and semantically correct code). We aim to: * Provide web developers and designers with a forum to discuss issues and share knowledge (via our discussion list and regular meetings) * Provide web standards information and assistance to developers * Promote "web standards" within the development community" perhaps we should all examine our attitudes? ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
> You touched a good argument for another discussion though. People do > tend to rely on massive libraries though. The solution would be to > centralise the libraries on one server and ask people to use these > URLs instead, then they'd be cached on the first page they are used > and subsequently cached. We were thinking of doing that with the YUI. I think that would be an AWESOME idea Christain! I do the same with my core CSS files were I work and can now change site wide colour palettes in seconds on a very "global" basis - for YUI the term global would actually be properly global! I am sure there are practical reasons why this may not work but from my point of view I would really be for that! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
What you "feel" is irrelevant to your user's experience You are making a huge assumption, committed to a position you could reconsider. Change your feelings, fall out of love with this position it is demeaning to many users. I hate sites that open new windows. I feel that you are wrong. On 15/08/2006, at 5:22 PM, Rick Faaberg wrote: On 8/15/06 12:15 AM "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Sigh... Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
> Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so > stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Why do you ask then? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
[the classic terms and conditions] > But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without > target=_blank? 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it when the user comes back 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it when the user hits the T&C link (not that accessible, but does work) 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. ah (6) Make the terms and conditions link a terms and conditions button that sends the data and stores it in the session or POST arguments and retains them when you choose the form view again. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
[the classic terms and conditions] But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? 1) Make the Terms and conditions a mandatory step before reaching the form - this is also legaly the most secure. As they are annoying show them upfront as a must rather than sneakily in a link that might make the user lose her data to boot. 2) Embed the terms and conditions in the same document and link them with an anchor - that also allows you to use any CSS magic to make them not take up too much screenspace (overflow) - if your argument is that they need to be maintained separately, use SSI to pull them in server-side. 3) Store the data already entered in a session via Ajax and retain it when the user comes back 4) Include the data in an IFRAME or via Ajax setting the focus to it when the user hits the T&C link (not that accessible, but does work) 5) Call the link next to the terms and conditions checkbox I agree with the _Terms and Conditions_ (shift-click to open in a new window) and remove the parenthesis when JS is available and you can apply a handler. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 8/15/06 12:15 AM "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out: > Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so > stupid. It's not a question of users' stupidity! It's a matter of if *I* feel that a new window is the best way to present the information! Sigh... Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] target=_blank
On 15/08/2006, at 4:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the T&C in a new window Why not? This is one huge assumption that your users are silly and cannot shift click or right click. Let them open a new window themselves. I do not assume my users are so stupid. The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] target=_blank
> --- Original Post --- > Now that websites are moving more towards application style, > they should > really behave like applications as we are accustomed to. And > a fact is that > applications require pop-up windows at certain stages. Mostly when > information is provided that falls outside of a linear > process. The typical > example: a user fills out a form and wants to read the Terms > and Conditions. > Or a user works in MS Word and wants to read the Help File. > > [...] > In Word, if I decide to access information that help me work with the > current document (e.g. help file, save dialog, document preferences) I > expect them to open in a pop-up window. Why should it be any > different on > the web? > > Making "target" an invalid attribute for links is plain > stupid. It forces > developers to revert to some javascript ways of opening a new > window which > potentially makes websites extremely user-unfriendly for people with > javascript disabled. > > -Original Message- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:57 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: RE: [WSG] target=_blank > > If the website is not user friendly for those with JavaScript > disabled then > it is a poorly designed website. Allowing target="_blank" > does not fix this. > For instance, how would a cell phone browser handle > target="_blank"? You > can't rely on it. > Well, let's take the scenario of a form that people have to fill out on a website. Before submitting the form, the users need to agree to certain Terms & Conditions. If we imagine the Terms & Conditions are way too long to display as part of the form, the obvious solution is to display them on a separate page that users can open if they wish. What other reasonable solution is there than using target=_blank for that link? Opening in the same page will loose all the information the user entered into the form, which is one of the most frustrating things in the world. You cannot expect users to know to Shift-click a link to open the T&C in a new window. If you rely on Javascript to open the page in a new browser window than those with Javascript disabled will again loose whatever they entered into the form. Of course the best solution would be to use Javascript to open the window in a user-friendly format (e.g. foreground, focus, smaller than the main window, blah, blah) and use the target=_blank as the alternative for browsers without Javascript. But can anybody give me a reasonable example of solving this problem without target=_blank? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
