Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Steve Olive]

Ian Anderson wrote:Name one for which a popup window is the only valid and, indeed, best solution!There is one very common use that makes great sense - online banks use this to open a new window (often full screen in size) for logging in with no menu bars or toolbars so users don't continue surfing the web in the same window as they conducted their banking. Logging off closes the popup window effectively killing any sessions that are created when navigating around the bank's web site. This makes good sense from a security stand point, and I believe this should be implemented more widely for all electronic financial transactions.SteveOn 15/02/2006, at 11:28 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:Ian Anderson wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons for opening a popup window, don't do it. I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, there are several very good use cases. Name one for which a popup window is the only valid and, indeed, best solution! The primary one is help windows, where instructions can be compared with the items in the main window. A variant of this is T&Cs in forms, where there are serious consequences for the user if they move off the page while in the middle of completing a form - they may lose some or all data. While that is legitimate use-case that comes up quite often on the web, the best solution does not involve popup windows.  In fact, related to the issues I discussed earlier, popup windows can be prevented and you have no idea which users do this.  Thus, while relying on the popup windows to solve this problem may work for 99% of visitors, for the 1% that don't get a new window (incl. those without script and those, like myself, that explicitly disable popups), the problem you're trying to solve is still a problem.This is one solution that doesn't involve popups, that I have actually used myself in a recent project.http://juicystudio.com/article/form-help-without-popups.htmlThat solution works acceptably for 100% of users, regardless of their support for _javascript_, popup windows or any other feature. I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a little unhelpful. But the statement is 100% accurate.  I, as a user, hate popups.  I know of many others that hate popups too.  I did not say "all users", just "users".  Regardless of how many users that is, are you really willing to annoy them?  Is it not safer to avoid using popup windows, considering that people that don't mind them won't be at all upset when they don't see them; but those that hate them, will be if they do? I am sure a lot of people dislike popup adverts, but to dismiss all use of popups on this basis is clearly to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm not just dismissing them on the basis that popup adverts annoy people, I'm dismissing them for serious usability and accessibility concerns, some of which I discussed earlier.  Here's another:Every time you open an unrequested window (assuming my browser wasn't configured to block them completely), that's another window I eventually have to close.  That's annoying, especially when I didn't request it. My mouse has a built in back and forward button and when you open a popup, those buttons don't work - there is no "close popup" button.  It takes longer to move my mouse up to the close button than it does to push the back button with my thumb, which is just wasting my time on a tedious task I shouldn't have even been faced with. That is absolutely no better than using the target attribute.  In fact, for accessibility reasons, it is worse. This is not true, Yes it is.  I even gave an example to explain why.  Just because your usability testing failed to test the scenario I presented, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, because the button UI is usually turned off, You're assuming the browser is configured to let you turn off the chrome.  That's another bad assumption, because browsers can be easily configured to always show the chrome that the user wants. there are fewer issues with users starting to surf in the new window and losing their window history, which is a problem using target _blank. So what if they started to surf with the new window!?  Is there some rule against that?  It's a browser window, just like the original,  It clearly doesn't really matter whether they browse with that one or any other.What I really don't understand is that there are so many people who participate in this and various other mailing lists, newsgroups and forums that actively advise against using popups and explain why they hate them, yet you still somehow believe that users are ok with them. Newsflash: we are users too!  Listen to us when we tell you outright that *we hate popup windows!*  Do not use them, find a better solution.-- Lachlan Hunthttp://lachy.id.au/**The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/gu

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Rimantas Liubertas]

>
> It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
> and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)
>

Well, your audience will be where _they_ need to be, no matter how
many new window one may try to open to keep them.
If someone intends to keep the original page they may choose to open
link in new tab/window
for themselves. If not - there is no point in keeping them by force.

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Joshua Street]

On 2/16/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They can of course continue in that new window - their choice.
>
> Their choice? *You're* the one who made their browser open a new window...

Yeah. That's MY (emphatically "my"... no widespread testing here,
folks. Pure opinion.) biggest problem with pop-up windows.
Occasionally, I'll be on a site (mostly for research purposes,
following a trail of information) and click a link with absolutely no
intentention of staying/returning to the original site (having
exhausted its usefulness).

Some sites you can pick as being probable "target="_blank"" offenders
(gratuitous advertising, hyperlinked/ad keywords, web developer's
toolbar indicating quirks mode... these things all add up), and on
those I'm more likely to middle-click to force a new tab, then click
the "Close" button on the original tab. In the cases I don't pick it
accurately, it's Alt + F4 then middle click THEN close the original
tab. Either way, I'd already made up my mind to leave the site.

My browser doesn't offer a mechanism when you right click a hyperlink
to "Open this link in THIS window" -- because that is (or, more
accurately, SHOULD be) the default action. Hence (middle-click/new
tab-oddity aside) choice is being taken from me by forcing a new
window to open.

This is BY FAR the experience of most users, also. MSIE doesn't offer
the functionality I just described, and we're all painfully aware of
how prevalent that is. Don't try and deny that forcing a new window
removes choice from the user. That's utterly incorrect. Saying "Users
want it that way" might be true for x sample of your audience, but the
remaining portion probably have little power to override the behaviour
you forced upon them. Conversely, by sticking with default behaviours
if users want a new window badly enough, they CAN opt to have one
open.
**
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 in 4.01 Strict - ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED

[russ - maxdesign]

ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED

Reason:
There has been a lot of good points raised within this thread, on both
standards and usability. However, we have definitely moved away from
cooperative, useful advice on web standards practices towards strongly held
and vocal personal opinion.

Please do not continue this thread.

If you have a problem or a comment associated with the closing of this
thread please do not reply on-list. Instead, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks
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: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[James Bennett]

On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
> and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)

One click to close the window.

Two clicks to summon the appropriate "Back" functionality.

Does it make enough fo a difference to justify annoying those users
who don't want a new window?

> They can of course continue in that new window - their choice.

Their choice? *You're* the one who made their browser open a new window...

--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
  -- George Carlin
**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Feb 16, 2006, at 5:58 PM, James Bennett wrote:


I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's
reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I
don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of
extended Back functionality which displays a list of all the previous
pages for the current window/tab and allows any one of them to be
selected.


Safari has this same functionality: onclick=> 1 step back;  
onmousedown=> popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure  
how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing.
Even then, there is the History (Go in some other browsers) menu to  
help the user out.


Philippe

Philippe Wittenbergh



**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Rick Faaberg]

On 2/16/06 1:22 AM "Philippe Wittenbergh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> Safari has this same functionality: onclick=> 1 step back;
> onmousedown=> popup menu with your recent widow history. I'm not sure
> how many steps it remembers, I never use Safari except for testing.
> Even then, there is the History (Go in some other browsers) menu to
> help the user out.

It remembers them all afaict. Not the point.

It's much simpler to close that new window that has all that history in it
and go right back to my site, which is where I need my audience to be. :-)

They can of course continue in that new window - their choice.

Rick Faaberg

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Rick Faaberg:


All popup windows break the back
button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not).


So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, 
you're

fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?
Assuming of course that no-one else is opening windows for me then I'd 
use the drop down that most browsers have, or the history function. The 
back button is still the quickest way of backing out of a single link 
that doesn't suit me and going back more than one link is a simple 
repetitive action that requires minimal effort on my part.


Wouldn't "close window" in the new window (with the 12 clicks inside) 
be

much quicker?
If your site was the only site in the world to open new windows then 
sure this might be quicker. But when a lot of sites (randomly) insist 
on opening windows it is easy to loose track of where you are and where 
you came from. The effort required to close a window. Locate other open 
browser windows and select the one I want to return to is most 
definitely more than hitting the back button.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[James Bennett]

On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have that little down-pointing arrow (probably not using the same
> browser as you are). After 12 clicks, I probably wouldn't even remember the
> original site's title anyway.

I was being somewhat facetious, but every browser I have within arm's
reach (which includes all the popular browsers except Safari -- I
don't have a Mac here at home to refer to) implements some form of
extended Back functionality which displays a list of all the previous
pages for the current window/tab and allows any one of them to be
selected.

> I wouldn't assume that. In fact some of my audiences specifically have said
> that they want back directly to my site and simply closing a window is good
> way to do it.

Even so, I can't help agreeing with others in this thread and state
that the best option is to let users choose what they want to do
rather than forcing the issue. Consider the options:

1. Force a new window/tab for the link. Users who want the new
window/tab will be happy, but users who do not will be annoyed.

2. Force nothing and provide an ordinary link. Users who want a new
window/tab will be able to get it by whatever expedient their browser
provides (often a middle-click or a Shift+click)

With option 1, you cause annoyance because your site forces a
particular browsing convention on a set of users who dislike that
convention. With option 2, you cause no annoyance because your site
allows all users to follow their own preferred browsing conventions.
Thus, option 2 is the clear winner.

--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
  -- George Carlin
**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Rick Faaberg]

On 2/16/06 12:05 AM "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

>> So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're
>> fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?
> 
> Ever notice that little down-pointing arrow next to the back button?
> You know, the one that lists all the pages you can go back to, and
> lets you jump straight to the one you want?
> 

I don't have that little down-pointing arrow (probably not using the same
browser as you are). After 12 clicks, I probably wouldn't even remember the
original site's title anyway.

>> Wouldn't "close window" in the new window (with the 12 clicks inside) be
>> much quicker?
> 
> The original argument here seemed to be that spawning new windows for
> external links would somehow encourage visitors to come back to the
> original site; if someone goes twelve clicks deep on the linked-to
> site, I think it's a safe bet they're not coming back ;)

I wouldn't assume that. In fact some of my audiences specifically have said
that they want back directly to my site and simply closing a window is good
way to do it.

Rick Faaberg

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[James Bennett]

On 2/16/06, Rick Faaberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're
> fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?

Ever notice that little down-pointing arrow next to the back button?
You know, the one that lists all the pages you can go back to, and
lets you jump straight to the one you want?

> Wouldn't "close window" in the new window (with the 12 clicks inside) be
> much quicker?

The original argument here seemed to be that spawning new windows for
external links would somehow encourage visitors to come back to the
original site; if someone goes twelve clicks deep on the linked-to
site, I think it's a safe bet they're not coming back ;)

--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
  -- George Carlin
**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Rick Faaberg]

> All popup windows break the back
> button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not).

So if you are 12 clicks into the new site in the original window, you're
fine with clicking "back" 12 times to get back to the original site?

Wouldn't "close window" in the new window (with the 12 clicks inside) be
much quicker?

Rick Faaberg

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Christian Montoya]

On 2/15/06, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Christian Montoya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You're pre-supposing. If popup windows are scripted you reuse the
> > same
> > window object over and over. You can never have more than one open.
> > Your statement is only true if the target attribute is used.
>
> I'm not pre-supposing anything. All popup windows break the back
> button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). When I am done
> with the site that pops up, I want to use the back button to get back
> to the original site. That is natural web use and popups interfere
> with that. I have to close the window to go back, which, like has
> already been said, is not as convenient, as the back button is on my
> trackball (like a mouse but cooler), while closing a window requires
> alt-f4 (two buttons miles apart) or reaching for the X.
>
> Usually at this point I close the popup and "back out" of the
> offending site. But maybe I'm too harsh.
>
> ---
>
> With all due respect, you are making a blanket assessment based on a
> worst case scenario. Having one or two links on a few pages in a site
> that open a single, named popup window containing, for example, sample
> pages for a tutorial in the main window, is a practical use for popup
> windows - at least in the opinion of some folks. I think it might be
> gracious of you to admit that there might be more than one useful
> opinion on this matter.

I would, if you weren't misunderstanding me. I am referring to,
specifically, the case of opening external sites from a weblog, or
opening external sites on a business page. I haven't said anything
about the help links, and I do think Javascript is better than having
the help on another page. I think popups are only reasonable for media
such as music players, photos, etc.

And they are definitely bad for PDFs... first a window opens and then
the PDF loads in its own program... very annoying.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Herrod, Lisa wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

The users!  Please, won't somebody think of the *users*!


This line reminds me of something from my favourite show when I was a kid:
Fantasy Island. "the plane, the plane!" :)


Actually, it's a slightly misquoted line from Helen Lovejoy in the The 
Simpsons: "Won't somebody _please_ think of the children??"


Every site is different, every user is different, every demographic varies 
from the last.

...
Don't assume anything... whether or not it's best practice.


Which is exactly why I make no assumptions about the user's browsing 
environment or preferences, and I don't attempt to force new windows 
upon them which they may or may not want - they are free to do as they 
please, without interference.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Helen Morgan]

Don't assume anything... whether or not it's best practice.


Good points you make here Lisa. If I could pick up on the term "best 
practice" too. It drives me and my colleagues mad, because people seem to 
use it as an excuse not to think sometimes. We prefer the term "better 
practice", and to keep to the horse analogy, I guess it's all horses for 
courses!


Cheers,
Helen  


**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Herrod, Lisa]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> The users!  Please, won't somebody think of the *users*!

This line reminds me of something from my favourite show when I was a kid:
Fantasy Island. "the plane, the plane!" :)

Let's just change it here to "the users, the users!"


Can I kindly suggest you all try some usability testing on each of the sites
you create?

That way you will truly know what the users of your site really think.

Every site is different, every user is different, every demographic varies
from the last.

I once tested a site on a group of novice users where all of the navigation
on a particular page disappeared and was replaced with a flash animation.
The only link back was below the fold. None of them had problems finding it.

Also, I have to say, in testing I've found that users tend to distinguish
between pop-ups used for utilities and external links, and those used for
advertising and other annoying unrelated information. Usually it's only the
latter that is a problem. But again, it depends so much on the individual.


Don't assume anything... whether or not it's best practice.



... and with that I will gallop off on my Clydesdale, another very tall
horse




**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

From: "Christian Montoya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You're pre-supposing. If popup windows are scripted you reuse the 
same

window object over and over. You can never have more than one open.
Your statement is only true if the target attribute is used.


I'm not pre-supposing anything. All popup windows break the back
button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). When I am done
with the site that pops up, I want to use the back button to get back
to the original site. That is natural web use and popups interfere
with that. I have to close the window to go back, which, like has
already been said, is not as convenient, as the back button is on my
trackball (like a mouse but cooler), while closing a window requires
alt-f4 (two buttons miles apart) or reaching for the X.

Usually at this point I close the popup and "back out" of the
offending site. But maybe I'm too harsh.

---

With all due respect, you are making a blanket assessment based on a 
worst case scenario. Having one or two links on a few pages in a site 
that open a single, named popup window containing, for example, sample 
pages for a tutorial in the main window, is a practical use for popup 
windows - at least in the opinion of some folks. I think it might be 
gracious of you to admit that there might be more than one useful 
opinion on this matter.


Thanks.

--
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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Jude Robinson wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:


There are no valid use-cases or reasons for opening a popup window


Well...there's *one*: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/open_new_windows.html


No, Jakob is wrong about that one.  I know, it's strage, he's rarely 
wrong about usability issues, but he is in this case.


Browsers and/PDF viewers can be configured in various ways:
* Open PDF within browser (the unfortunate default)
* Save PDF to disk, then open in external application (e.g. "PDF 
Download", Firefox extension)

* Load PDF in external application (saving only to temp directory)
* User may not have a PDF plugin installed, and just be prompted to save it.

For anyone without the default setting, forcing a popup window would 
result in new blank window.  For those with the default setting, I'm 
aware of the fact that this has been known to cause problems in older 
versions (incl. crashing), but that is an issue for the browser/PDF 
plugin vendors to address, not each individual site author.


The only information a browser needs is this in the HTTP headers:
  Content-Type: application/pdf

It may help to include that in the type attribute.
  foo (PDF)

But few browsers ever use that attribute by default.  There may be 
extensions that do (I don't know), but CSS can be used to style it or 
JavaScript to do something else with the link to make it obvious to the 
user that the link is to a PDF.


Theoretically, it's possible to interpret that type attribute to mean 
open a new window, and it would seem trivial to write a Firefox 
extension (or Greasemonkey script) to do that.


The important point is that telling the user/browser that the file is a 
PDF should be all that is required for the user/browser to make an 
informed decision about what to do with it.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Hope Stewart]

On 16/2/06 11:47 AM, "Al Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Al Sparber:
>>> If popup windows are scripted you reuse the same window object over
>>> and over. You can never have more than one open. Your statement is
>>> only true if the target attribute is used.
>> 
>> Doesn't this present yet another usability problem where you might
>> open a link in the window.object over the top of a link the user has
>> decided to keep but has returned to your page to follow other links
>> (the original reason for popping a window)?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean - wait.. let me do a quick test and perhaps
> you can explain what you mean in a bit more detail.

I have found some instances where having not only pop-up windows but
multiple pop-ups to be very user-friendly.

For example: I needed to look through about 200 photos of a jazz band on a
professional photographer's website to select about 6 for final use. The
thumbnails were on several pages. Clicking a thumbnail opened an enlargement
with the photo's unique ID number in a separate window without all the
browser's normal toolbars.

By allowing me to have multiple pop-up windows open at the same time, I
could easily go from one thumbnail page to the next and readily compare
several photos side-by-side to choose the preferred ones. I didn't have to
keep track of which thumbnail page they come from, nor did I have to go back
to any of the thumbnail pages I had already viewed to access an enlargement.

Pop-ups have been over-used and abused over the years but there are still
some instances where they can be user-friendly.

Horses for courses.

Hope Stewart



**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Christian Montoya:

I'm not pre-supposing anything. All popup windows break the back
button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). When I am done
with the site that pops up, I want to use the back button to get back
to the original site. That is natural web use and popups interfere
with that. I have to close the window to go back, which, like has
already been said, is not as convenient, as the back button is on my
trackball (like a mouse but cooler), while closing a window requires
alt-f4 (two buttons miles apart) or reaching for the X.


Two words: occams razor.

See: http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/simplicity.cfm (about halfway 
down)



kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Jude Robinson]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:


There are no valid use-cases or reasons 
for opening a popup window


Well...there's *one*: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/open_new_windows.html

...but only one :)

Mark Pilgrim wrote a concise little page about popups a few years ago: 
http://tinyurl.com/4c5n8


**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

From: "Terrence Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

1. Your links open a new window object 'foo'.
2. User now has two windows: their window with your page, 'foo' with 
external page.
3. User decides to leave 'foo' open because they are interested in 
the page loaded into it, and return to their window to explore your 
page again. Success!! this is the exact behaviour we want from 
opening new windows - it's the marketing argument.
4. User finds another link to explore on your page and clicks the 
link.

5. The link targets 'foo' and loads a new page into it.

Now we are not only forcing the user to manage two windows, but we 
are also loading all our links into 'foo', which potentially the 
user may not want (if they are expecting to return to some content 
they have left before) or notice.


Phew... it all seems so much more complicated than just using a back 
button =)


OK. I see. If a developer has all the links, or a lot of the links, on 
a page, open in "foo", then that would be very bad. In a real world 
scenario, I would use a popup only to show, for example, an example 
during the course of a tutorial - like on this page:


http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/navigation/pmm/rootimages/index.htm

--
Al 



**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Al Sparber:
You might be right about new windows being a fiscal non-issue when 
examined or tested. We do have experience with some frameset impact, 
that are downright interesting.



it's our Demo Viewer application. It has an enormous impact on sales.


If I'm not mistaken it reloads a dynamic frameset for each link, so 
window targets don't seem to apply here - it's more a convenient way to 
load the navigation for your product catalogue without having to work 
navigation into each demo page or cause users to pogostick between 
pages (nav then sample then nav etc). I see why it works for you.


Aside: Perhaps the noframe content could point back to the front page 
where there is the option to review each product individually.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Christian Montoya]

On 2/15/06, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Montoya wrote:
> > Maybe, but this is just another example of how marketers try to
> > control the browsing experience. Things have to look a specific way,
> > behave a specific way, etc... but there isn't any proof that this is
> > good for business. Popups are a usability problem, in that they
> > break
> > the back button and they result in a lot of windows that have to be
> > closed.
>
> You're pre-supposing. If popup windows are scripted you reuse the same
> window object over and over. You can never have more than one open.
> Your statement is only true if the target attribute is used.

I'm not pre-supposing anything. All popup windows break the back
button (popup as in a new window, Javascript or not). When I am done
with the site that pops up, I want to use the back button to get back
to the original site. That is natural web use and popups interfere
with that. I have to close the window to go back, which, like has
already been said, is not as convenient, as the back button is on my
trackball (like a mouse but cooler), while closing a window requires
alt-f4 (two buttons miles apart) or reaching for the X.

Usually at this point I close the popup and "back out" of the
offending site. But maybe I'm too harsh.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Al Sparber:

Doesn't this present yet another usability problem...

can explain what you mean in a bit more detail.


1. Your links open a new window object 'foo'.
2. User now has two windows: their window with your page, 'foo' with 
external page.
3. User decides to leave 'foo' open because they are interested in the 
page loaded into it, and return to their window to explore your page 
again. Success!! this is the exact behaviour we want from opening new 
windows - it's the marketing argument.

4. User finds another link to explore on your page and clicks the link.
5. The link targets 'foo' and loads a new page into it.

Now we are not only forcing the user to manage two windows, but we are 
also loading all our links into 'foo', which potentially the user may 
not want (if they are expecting to return to some content they have 
left before) or notice.


Phew... it all seems so much more complicated than just using a back 
button =)


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Stephen Stagg:
browsers with easy settings allowing you to over-ride the 
site-specific link behaviors, this way, authors could suggest a 
default action for a link and then people who passionately care about 
their windows can override it, result; everyone happy.


There is a default action for links - they open in the same window =). 
Users can choose to open them if required. Same result, opposite 
approach.


Not every user really cares about browsers - they are a tool to do a 
specific job, much like pen and paper, or a phone - they want to use it 
and be done with it, not fiddle with endless pref's and options.


Kevin Futter:

I open a Flash-based music player in a new window - a small pop-up.
Pretty sure you should be able to prevent a flash movie from playing 
onload... I accept your point about having persistent music player with 
the caveat that a music site may be a specialist type site for a 
specialist audience - In the same way that I accept flash based 
experiential sites are appropriate for flash designers for example.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

From: "Terrence Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Al Sparber:
If popup windows are scripted you reuse the same window object over 
and over. You can never have more than one open. Your statement is 
only true if the target attribute is used.


Doesn't this present yet another usability problem where you might 
open a link in the window.object over the top of a link the user has 
decided to keep but has returned to your page to follow other links 
(the original reason for popping a window)?


I'm not sure what you mean - wait.. let me do a quick test and perhaps 
you can explain what you mean in a bit more detail.




You might be right about new windows being a fiscal non-issue when 
examined or tested. We do have experience with some frameset 
impact, that are downright interesting.
Would that revolve around targeting a frame (necessary for a 
traditional frameset implementation), not necessarily targeting new 
windows?


No, it's our Demo Viewer application. It has an enormous impact on 
sales.


--
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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Kevin Futter]

On 16/2/06 10:52 AM, "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Kevin Futter wrote:
>> On 15/2/06 6:57 PM, "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons
>>> for opening a popup window, don't do it.  If you think you have one, I'd
>>> like to hear it, but know this: I've heard many excuses over the years
>>> (some more often than others) but every single one of them has been
>>> flawed in some way.
>> 
>> Yes, in fact I do have one. For a couple of sites I do for musicians, I open
>> a Flash-based music player in a new window - a small pop-up. Why? Because if
>> you embed the music player in the page and begin to play a song, and then
>> navigate to a different page or website, you lose the entire show.
> 
> I'm not convinced.  There is no reason why the user can't choose to open
> it in a new window/tab for themselves.  Even if they don't, they can
> continue navigating elsewhere in a different window/tab.  Besides, you
> shouldn't need to write your own flash-based music player.  You could
> provide the song in an downloadable MP3 or a streaming audio format and
> let them play it in their own media player.

I'm sorry Lachlan but you're really reaching here. I consider it more of a
usability issue if a user selects a song to play and then navigates away
only to find that they hadn't realised they needed open a new window to make
the experience persistent.

I chose to build the player in Flash because my clients wanted a way for
audiences to sample full songs without being able to download them. Sure,
technically this is no guarantee, but Flash audio *is* a streaming format
(after a fashion), so it all suited my (and my client's) needs perfectly.
Incidentally, for those songs where that wasn't an issue, I also provided
downloadable versions as MP3 files.

-- 
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Stephen Stagg]

But I think the best option is to completely disable the target  
attribute to prevent the author from interfering with your decision  
and make it yourself, every single time.  You cannot possibly rely  
on the author to make the right decision for you, because every  
user is different.




Superficially, I agree with you, it is better to let the user decide  
[see also the PDF content-type threads].  However in practice, it is  
not sensible to assume that a user will be able to configure their  
browser, or even to make an intelligent decision on which types of  
links should behave in particular ways.It would be like arguing  
not to send impoverished farmers a plough, but to send them wood,  
metal and an angle-grinder to let them optimize the product for their  
soil.  [p.s. I know it's a slightly flawed analogy but I think it  
gets my point across]


Unless every user to your site is a geek, you have to assume that 90%  
of visitors will not be aware of User Style-sheets or even what a  
style-sheet(Bed linen made of silk?) is.


Interestingly, I have been involved in a similar argument wrt. GIMP  
development, GIMP is very difficult to use in MS Windows because of  
all the windows it creates that have to interact with each other.   
The Die-Hard Unix Hax0rs say that this is correct and the application  
[Insert relevant application] should leave all the window management  
up to the window manager, and if the Windows XP window manager isn't  
good enough, then switch to Linux.  The more down-to-earth MS Windows  
users on the list were arguing that they're stuck with a crappy  
Window Manager so perhaps the Hax0rs might be a bit more understanding.


Perhaps we need browsers with easy settings allowing you to over-ride  
the site-specific link behaviors, this way, authors could suggest a  
default action for a link and then people who passionately care about  
their windows can override it, result; everyone happy.  This must be  
a fairly simple thing to implement, no?  IIRC, Firefox already has an  
'open all windows as new tab' option somewhere,


Stephen
**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Serdar Kılıç wrote:
When I first started my weblog all internal links had no target 
attribute thereby browsing within my site was within a single window. 
Any offsite links were brought up in a new window, a window for each 
link clicked.


The way *I* browse some sites is how I built my site.


But you need to remember that you're not building your site for you. 
You're building it for *your visitors*.  For every user, there is only 
one person can decide if they want a new window: themselves!


The problem is is that there are no visual clues whether or not a 
link will open in that window or a new one (I'm not a fan of little icons).


Which is why shouldn't rely on a author to a) open a window for you if 
you want one, or b) not open a window if you don't want one.  You can 
use a user stylesheet to indicate the presence of a target attribute:


a[target] { cursor: crosshair; }

But I think the best option is to completely disable the target 
attribute to prevent the author from interfering with your decision and 
make it yourself, every single time.  You cannot possibly rely on the 
author to make the right decision for you, because every user is different.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Kevin Futter wrote:

On 15/2/06 6:57 PM, "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons 
for opening a popup window, don't do it.  If you think you have one, I'd 
like to hear it, but know this: I've heard many excuses over the years 
(some more often than others) but every single one of them has been 
flawed in some way.


Yes, in fact I do have one. For a couple of sites I do for musicians, I open 
a Flash-based music player in a new window - a small pop-up. Why? Because if 
you embed the music player in the page and begin to play a song, and then 
navigate to a different page or website, you lose the entire show.


I'm not convinced.  There is no reason why the user can't choose to open 
it in a new window/tab for themselves.  Even if they don't, they can 
continue navigating elsewhere in a different window/tab.  Besides, you 
shouldn't need to write your own flash-based music player.  You could 
provide the song in an downloadable MP3 or a streaming audio format and 
let them play it in their own media player.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Serdar Kılıç]

Terrence you're right, I shouldn't impose my browsing habits on to my visitors.

On 16/02/06, Terrence Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Important point: that is your browsing habit. You *can* open new
> windows if *you* want or prefer it. Shouldn't you give your users the
> same degree of freedom over their browsing experience.
>
> kind regards
> Terrence Wood.

--
Cheers,
Serdar Kilic
http://weblog.kilic.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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Serdar Kılıç:


The way *I* browse some sites is how I built my site.


Important point: that is your browsing habit. You *can* open new 
windows if *you* want or prefer it. Shouldn't you give your users the 
same degree of freedom over their browsing experience.


kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Lachlan Hunt:

If the viewport isn't the "right" size...seemingly nothing happens.
The only way I could replicate this in the demo page was by resizing 
my window so that the the text box and help button were at the bottom 
of the viewport with nothing visible below them.
This is a "valid" usability concern and your observation is exactly how 
it manifests itself. I mentioned the above scenario on the recent FAQ 
thread which discussed toggled screen elements.


Al Sparber:
If popup windows are scripted you reuse the same window object over 
and over. You can never have more than one open. Your statement is 
only true if the target attribute is used.


Doesn't this present yet another usability problem where you might open 
a link in the window.object over the top of a link the user has decided 
to keep but has returned to your page to follow other links (the 
original reason for popping a window)?


You might be right about new windows being a fiscal non-issue when 
examined or tested. We do have experience with some frameset impact, 
that are downright interesting.
Would that revolve around targeting a frame (necessary for a 
traditional frameset implementation), not necessarily targeting new 
windows?


kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Kevin Futter]

On 15/2/06 6:57 PM, "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Bert Doorn wrote:
>> Serdar Kýlýç wrote:
>>> How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it
>>> be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that
>>> there is no attribute called target
> 
> The users!  Please, won't somebody think of the *users*!
> 
> Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons
> for opening a popup window, don't do it.  If you think you have one, I'd
> like to hear it, but know this: I've heard many excuses over the years
> (some more often than others) but every single one of them has been
> flawed in some way.

Yes, in fact I do have one. For a couple of sites I do for musicians, I open
a Flash-based music player in a new window - a small pop-up. Why? Because if
you embed the music player in the page and begin to play a song, and then
navigate to a different page or website, you lose the entire show. My choice
was to put it in a frame - which I did do for a while - or open a new
window. I decided that the small pop-up was the lesser of two evils, as the
other choice required changing the structural approach of the entire
website. An additional benefit of the pop-up not afforded by frames is that
the music player is still available even when the user chooses to leave the
site.

-- 
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Serdar Kılıç]

When I first started my weblog all internal links had no target
attribute thereby browsing within my site was within a single window.
Any offsite links were brought up in a new window, a window for each
link clicked.

The way *I* browse some sites is how I built my site. For example, if
I visit some other weblog and they have a "links of the day" feature I
really want to visit these sites individually at the same time,
thereby  opening them in new windows. The problem is is that there are
no visual clues whether or not a link will open in that window or a
new one (I'm not a fan of little icons).

There's plenty of food for thought in this thread, and I appreciate
everyone's responses.

--
Cheers,
Serdar Kilic
http://weblog.kilic.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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

Christian Montoya wrote:

On 2/15/06, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


From: "Ric Raftis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

For commercial
sites, I ALWAYS open a new blank window on a link.  I do however
advise users that this will happen and that they only have to 
close
the new window to return to "my" site.  From a marketing 
standpoint,

why would you want to be showing people the door and then pushing
them out into the street?


I think you raise a very "valid" point. People who rely on a web 
site

to make money tend to have a much different view of such things and
use much different criteria to judge the merits of various
techniques. That said, I have maintained for a long time that
Javascript, with a return false, is the best way to open a new
window and we've been doing it that way for years. The W3C, 
however,

does need to get a bit more mindful of the commercial side of the
Web. Who knows, frames might one day become the tool they should
have been all along, if the W3C develops logical specifications :-)


Maybe, but this is just another example of how marketers try to
control the browsing experience. Things have to look a specific way,
behave a specific way, etc... but there isn't any proof that this is
good for business. Popups are a usability problem, in that they 
break

the back button and they result in a lot of windows that have to be
closed.


You're pre-supposing. If popup windows are scripted you reuse the same 
window object over and over. You can never have more than one open. 
Your statement is only true if the target attribute is used.



--
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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

From: "Terrence Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The usually reason cited in support of new windows for money makers 
is that they improve "conversion". However, AFAIK there is no 
evidence to support this, and in all the literature I have read 
(outside of opinions expressed in  mailing lists) I am yet to come 
across a recommendation (with proof) that popping new windows is a 
good practice to improve conversion. There are examples that 
recommend against it, including one from an e-marketeer.


You might be right about new windows being a fiscal non-issue when 
examined or tested. We do have experience with some frameset impact, 
that are downright interesting. 



**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Jona Decker wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

For what reason are they annoying?  You can't just say something is
annoying because you think something else is better, you have explain
what it is about it that is annoying, and perhaps the issue could be
addressed to improve the method without resorting to popups.


If the viewport isn't the "right" size you do not see 
this expanded text. So you click on the help question mark, and
seemingly nothing happens. 


The only way I could replicate this in the demo page was by resizing my 
window so that the the text box and help button were at the bottom of 
the viewport with nothing visible below them.  It seems strange that you 
wouldn't have scrolled the page up nut even then, the scrollbar clearly 
resized when I clicked it, indicating that I need to scroll down.


I know it's not perfect, but it wouldn't be hard to solve this problem, 
here's a few quick ideas.  (I'm sure there's many other possibilities)

* A script could scroll the page a little (if required).
* The icon could change from a question mark to a down arrow, pointing 
to the help.

* The help could be positioned beside the field, rather than below.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Designer wrote:
I'm surprised at your comment that the number of windows is being 
reduced these days - have you seen Dreamweaver lately?


Dreamweaver has a nice tabbed interface, I'm not sure what you mean.

 Flash 7? 


No, I don't use flash.


Photoshop?


I find photoshop's use of windows annoying, it would help a lot if all 
the little tool windows would actually dock together in one manageable 
group.


I find it impossible to work on a lot of these graphics 
programs without two monitors on the go!


And you don't consider that evidence against the use of so many windows?

Incidentally, preview pane: surely, having something appear in the 
preview pane is the same as opening it?


Yes, it is.  But it doesn't appear in the preview pane until I select 
it, but even if I do, it is 100% safe for me.


And opening mail is a really 
good way to set a virus free.


I'm well aware that there are/have been major security holes in Outlook 
that allow malicious software to run simply by reading e-mail, but this 
is impossible to do in Thunderbird (or any other decent mail client, for 
that matter) in plain text mode, and I know of absolutely no security 
holes even in HTML mode, which I'm rarely in anyway.



Looking at the subject, who it's from etc and deciding whether to
read it or bin it is much more secure as far as I can see.


True, and the few that aren't picked up by my junk filter get manually 
marked as junk before I read them.  But even if I did open them, it 
would still be completely safe.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Christian Montoya]

On 2/15/06, Al Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: "Ric Raftis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For commercial
> > sites, I ALWAYS open a new blank window on a link.  I do however
> > advise users that this will happen and that they only have to close
> > the new window to return to "my" site.  From a marketing standpoint,
> > why would you want to be showing people the door and then pushing
> > them out into the street?
>
> I think you raise a very "valid" point. People who rely on a web site
> to make money tend to have a much different view of such things and
> use much different criteria to judge the merits of various techniques.
> That said, I have maintained for a long time that Javascript, with a
> return false, is the best way to open a new window and we've been
> doing it that way for years. The W3C, however, does need to get a bit
> more mindful of the commercial side of the Web. Who knows, frames
> might one day become the tool they should have been all along, if the
> W3C develops logical specifications :-)

Maybe, but this is just another example of how marketers try to
control the browsing experience. Things have to look a specific way,
behave a specific way, etc... but there isn't any proof that this is
good for business. Popups are a usability problem, in that they break
the back button and they result in a lot of windows that have to be
closed, and these usability issues annoy users. From a marketing
standpoint, do you really want to annoy users? Sure, they might be
used to this kind of behavior, but it doesn't mean they like it, just
like they might be used to tiny text 760px width sites with pointless
flash content, but still find it annoying.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Terrence Wood]

Al Sparber:
I think you raise a very "valid" point. People who rely on a web site 
to make money tend to have a much different view of such things and 
use much different criteria to judge the merits of various techniques.


Nice pun.

The usually reason cited in support of new windows for money makers is 
that they improve "conversion". However, AFAIK there is no evidence to 
support this, and in all the literature I have read (outside of 
opinions expressed in  mailing lists) I am yet to come across a 
recommendation (with proof) that popping new windows is a good practice 
to improve conversion. There are examples that recommend against it, 
including one from an e-marketeer.


I think the concept of opening new windows belongs in the same bin as 
"the three click rule" and "the magic number seven" (not related to you 
in any way Al).


It is far easier for a user to open a new window when required, than to 
circumvent new windows from opening when they're not wanted.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Designer]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

[a lot! :-)]

---

Hi Lachlan,

I am not attempting to reply to all your specific points, except in 
generalisation.


I think that we all have different ways of working, and that's OK by 
me.  Your points about tabbing I accept, but for the purpose of this 
discussion, a tab is the same as a window.  (It's just 'contained' in a 
different way).  You still have to move your mouse (or keyboard) to get 
from one to another.


I'm surprised at your comment that the number of windows is being 
reduced these days - have you seen Dreamweaver lately? Flash 7? 
Photoshop?  I find it impossible to work on a lot of these graphics 
programs without two monitors on the go! (I'd often like 3 actually - 
code on the middle screen, tools on the left screen and browser on the 
right :-)


Incidentally, preview pane: surely, having something appear in the 
preview pane is the same as opening it? And opening mail is a really 
good way to set a virus free. Looking at the subject, who it's from etc 
and deciding whether to read it or bin it is much more secure as far as 
I can see.


Thanks for your comments - they are all food for thought!

Bob
Cornwall (U.K.)
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Jona Decker]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

>>
For what reason are they annoying?  You can't just say something is
annoying because you think something else is better, you have explain
what it is about it that is annoying, and perhaps the issue could be
addressed to improve the method without resorting to popups.
>>

I'll tell you what I found annoying...and I'm sure I'll get pounded for
pointing this out. If the viewport isn't the "right" size you do not see
this expanded text. So you click on the help question mark, and
seemingly nothing happens. 

I had a captive audience when this discussion started...my visiting
Mother. One of those "senior users" who isn't particularly savvy. I
fired up a non-maximized window on my laptop, experienced it for myself,
and asked her to take a look at the page.

She was absolutely flummoxed by the "invisibility" of the help text, and
presumed something was broken. 

The first time she opened a popup, awhile back, she was surprised. She
was surprised by just about everything, to be frank. She learned from
her first popup. But her expectation, when she clicks on help, is for
*something* to happen. With the viewport the wrong size, it does not
with this method.

Jona


**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Designer wrote:
Since then, the systems have grown and improved and are the norm - the 
thought of going back to DOS is pretty repellent for nearly everyone, 
and esp for folk doing graphics (Photoshop for DOS? Illustrator for DOS? 
- the mind boggles!


So, we all work in Windows, of one sort or another.


True, but there have been significant steps taken over the past several 
years in order to reduce the number of windows open.  Tabbed-browsing is 
probably the most significant example of this.  Also, the find-toolbar 
in Firefox is a wonderful invention, compared with the old-style find 
dialogs.


The whole basis of our way of working centers around windows: if you're 
in an application and need help, you hit the help link/button and it 
opens in a new window.


Which unfortunately covers up the application I'm using, making it 
difficult to both reference the help while working with the application. 
 I need to mess around with resising the windows to align them 
side-by-side to do so.


One of the best help-windows I've seen is the way it's done in MS 
Office, with Clippy (yes, I love the paper clip, though it shouldn't 
prompt me about writing letters nearly as often as it does) sitting 
nicely in the bottom corner which doesn't cover up any of my work. 
Then, when I open a help topic, it opens up in a nice side bar, which is 
very easily referenced while working in the app and it doesn't cover up 
anything.  (it actually takes care of the resizing for you and puts it 
back again when you close it.


This is good - instead of removing what you are 
working on, the help is displayed separately, maintaining the original 
content intact.


I agree with not losing what you're working on, but that is exactly what 
that form help without popups script does, from juicy studio which I 
linked to earlier in the thread.


You want to send a mail? No problem. just click your 
mail icon and another window opens.


Yes, but it would be nice if it didn't open a new window.  I can't wait 
for tabbed-mail-clients to be introduced.  I read somewhere a while ago 
that Thunderbird will be introducing this in the future.  I find it 
annoying that I need to have a separate compose window for every e-mail 
I'm typing at the same time, I would love to have a single tabbed 
interface for this.



...and has improved productivity enormously,


Actually, I disagree with that.  From my own experience, my productivity 
is inversely proportional the number of windows I have open, as a 
significant amount of time is wasted keeping track of them all, and 
looking for the one I want to switch to next.


The same is true of browser tabs, I can't handle more than 5 or 6 open 
at a time.  The ability to re-order tabs has helped since I can keep 
them in a logical order, but still I find it difficult and really don't 
understand how people can have 20 or more.  Although, I understand that 
is a personal choice and, for some, that many may increase their 
productivity.  My point is that everyone is different and has different 
requirements and work habits and, therefore, it needs to be up to the 
user whether they want so many new windows or not.


in this standards environment, you'll find that the web developer 
toolbar for firefox opens its results in a new window (tab, whatever).


That must be configurable, it never opens a new window for me.  It 
defaults to opening tabs for validation, viewing response headers, etc.



View source? Certainly Sir : here it is - oh yes, it's in a new window!


There are Firefox extensions that cause View Source to open in a new tab 
(web dev toolbar can do that) and Opera will view source in a new tab by 
default.


Even this mail you are reading is probably in a new window (unless you 
use a preview pane and risk opening a virus, of course)!


What?  The preview pane is no more of a security risk than than opening 
the mail in a new window, unless you're using Outlook (aka. Virus 
Express) and there's some unpatched security vulnerability in it (which 
wouldn't surprise me at all).  However, it seems you're using 
Thunderbird 1.0.2 (note: it's way out of date, upgrade to 1.5), so it 
would very much surprise me if you could point out a valid vulnerability 
specifically related to use of the preview pane, even if it's already 
patched in more recent versions.


Anyway, the most secure (and recommended) way to view (and send) e-mail 
is plain-text only.  It's immune to any potential JavaScript security 
holes (TB disables JS by default anyway, unlike Outlook) and it's not 
vulnerable to the common URL spoofing techniques with HTML mail (even 
though recent versions of TB will give warnings about that in HTML 
mode).  It's also much more readable than HTML for various reasons (but 
that's getting off-topic).


So, having been accustomed to this way of working for many years, I try 
to get some of this flexibility and uncluttered approach into my web


How could opening new windows be considered an

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Al Sparber]

From: "Ric Raftis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bert Doorn wrote:

The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, 
leaving it up to the user to decide, which is why the target 
attribute was removed.


G'day Bert,

This always seems to be a subject of some debate.  For commercial 
sites, I ALWAYS open a new blank window on a link.  I do however 
advise users that this will happen and that they only have to close 
the new window to return to "my" site.  From a marketing standpoint, 
why would you want to be showing people the door and then pushing 
them out into the street?


I think you raise a very "valid" point. People who rely on a web site 
to make money tend to have a much different view of such things and 
use much different criteria to judge the merits of various techniques. 
That said, I have maintained for a long time that Javascript, with a 
return false, is the best way to open a new window and we've been 
doing it that way for years. The W3C, however, does need to get a bit 
more mindful of the commercial side of the Web. Who knows, frames 
might one day become the tool they should have been all along, if the 
W3C develops logical specifications :-)


--
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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Stephen Stagg wrote:

On 15 Feb 2006, at 12:28, Lachlan Hunt wrote:


What I really don't understand is that there are so many people who 
participate in this and various other mailing lists, newsgroups and 
forums that actively advise against using popups and explain why they 
hate them, yet you still somehow believe that users are ok with them. 
Newsflash: we are users too!  Listen to us when we tell you outright 
that *we hate popup windows!*  Do not use them, find a better solution.




For that matter, I am a user too and I like popups when used properly.  
Perhaps your aggressive responses tend to be a bit pony-ish?

You can never please everyone, the example you gave of


http://juicystudio.com/article/form-help-without-popups.html


is not something I prefer over a well implemented popup and therefore, 
for this issue, using these inline-hidden-help-comments are annoying me, 
and people like me.


For what reason are they annoying?  You can't just say something is 
annoying because you think something else is better, you have explain 
what it is about it that is annoying, and perhaps the issue could be 
addressed to improve the method without resorting to popups.


If you don't like having to move your mouse up to the toolbar of your 
window when closing them, learn your OSs key combination for closing the 
active window.  (Windows: Alt-F4, Mac OSx Cmd-W)  This way, you can 
improve your productivity.


I know the key combination, but then I'd have to move my hand to the 
keyboard which takes just as long.  While browsing I use the mouse far 
more often than the keyboard since a) most of the time, I'm not typing 
anything, and b) my mouse has every major browsing function built in 
(back/forward, clicking links (obviously), scrolling, selecting text, etc.).


I don't have a >100Mbit connection so I like it when a site opens an 
external link in a new window,


Then you have every right to request your browser to do so for you. 
What reason does the author have to believe that all users feel that way 
about the situation, when they clearly don't?


Every time I click a link, I make that decision for myself.  It's not 
that hard.  If I want the same window, I'll left click and if I want a 
new tab (or window, if you prefer), I'll middle click.  You and every 
other user can perform exactly the same function with your browser 
(using whatever mouse/keyboard command it's configured with), the author 
should not interfere with the user's decision.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

James Gollan wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Ian Anderson wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:


I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a 
little unhelpful.


But the statement is 100% accurate...


It may be technically 100% accurate, but in that case so is the 
statement "users hate it when a new site opens in the current window and 
takes them away from the site they were viewing". It only takes 2 users 
to make this true. And these 2 users may also be annoyed :)


True, but such users can only be annoyed with themselves for failing to 
understand how to use their browser in a way that gives the results they 
want; not with the author for failing to meet their specific 
requirements, which will very likely differ significantly between every 
user.


I am not a pop-up advocate, I think it's best to clearly identify 
external links but open them in the current window. I do, however, 
wonder about the number of users that actually know that they can 
override the browser and open a link in a new window.


I'm sure there are many that don't know how to open a new tab/window, 
but I'm sure there are many, many more that don't know how to prevent a 
new tab or window.  This is, perhaps, a browser usability issue, but it 
should be addressed by the browser vendors, not web page authors.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hello Stephen,
 
Don't apologize for being blunt. If 
that's how you want to write your sentiments it's fine by me. No offense taken. 

 
For the record, I'm not 
saying hiding the target attribute in a script element is standards 
compliant, and I don't open new windows on any of my sites. None. I 
was just trying to answer the fellow's question with yet another alternative 
that functions and doesn't set off the validator (plus facilitates keyboard 
users). Others had already supplied window.open.
 
My only personal use of this 
is in my CMS [1] so that users can open the documentation 
library while in mid-edit without fear of losing their work. This is known 
in advance by CMS users if they read the documentation supplied before 
downloading and using the product. I also offer a setting in the CMS that users 
can choose if they want their site to open in a new window if launched from 
within the CMS.
 
[1] http://greenbeastcms.com/
 
Sincerely,
Mike Cherimhttp://green-beast.com/http://accessites.org/
 
 
[pony mode]?¿? This seems a little ridiculous to me.  Just because 
a page/site,  passes the automated W3C test, does not make it standards 
compliant.   Tricking the validator into thinking that you are 
serving valid  X?HTML[1:5] while breaking it 
using _javascript_ to  insert non-standard code completely undermines the 
whole self- accreditation process.  This is as bad as using your Web 
server to  present clean versions of your page to the validator while 
serving  bad pages to your users.[/pony mode]Ok that might 
of been a bit blunt but...why not use window.open('') as a standard behavior 
OR just include  the target property in the HTML, I don't think you'll 
break any  browser by doing this and you will be able to settle with 
your  conscience that you're not being underhand about using 
non-standard  HTML.Stephen

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Designer]

Ian Anderson wrote:

I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, there are several very 
good use cases.


The primary one is help windows, where instructions can be compared 
with the items in the main window. A variant of this is T&Cs in forms, 
where there are serious consequences for the user if they move off the 
page while in the middle of completing a form - they may lose some or 
all data.


I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a 
little unhelpful. I am sure a lot of people dislike popup adverts, but 
to dismiss all use of popups on this basis is clearly to throw the 
baby out with the bath water.


I agree absolutely. My reasoning (based upon lots of user feedback to 
me) is as follows:


Partway through the eighties, Microsoft launched Windows in competition 
with the Apple MAC, which had become renowned for it's graphical User 
Interface (or GUI). This was hailed as a major step forward, with users 
able to do real multi-tasking at last.


Since then, the systems have grown and improved and are the norm - the 
thought of going back to DOS is pretty repellent for nearly everyone, 
and esp for folk doing graphics (Photoshop for DOS? Illustrator for DOS? 
- the mind boggles!


So, we all work in Windows, of one sort or another.

The whole basis of our way of working centers around windows: if you're 
in an application and need help, you hit the help link/button and it 
opens in a new window. This is good - instead of removing what you are 
working on, the help is displayed separately, maintaining the original 
content intact. You want to send a mail? No problem. just click your 
mail icon and another window opens. And so it goes on. It's /very/ 
convenient indeed, and has improved productivity enormously, esp 
compared to the old days of 'one program, one at a time' of DOS.  Even 
in this standards environment, you'll find that the web developer 
toolbar for firefox opens its results in a new window (tab, whatever). 
View source? Certainly Sir : here it is - oh yes, it's in a new window!  
Even this mail you are reading is probably in a new window (unless you 
use a preview pane and risk opening a virus, of course)!   And the 
reasoning? It's VERY convenient!


So, having been accustomed to this way of working for many years, I try 
to get some of this flexibility and uncluttered approach into my web 
pages. If I have a gallery of images, a click on a thumbnail will 
perhaps open a larger display of the image - in a new window. If there 
are some notes to be referenced, they open in a new window. If a link is 
waiting for the content to be completed, an alert box "available 
shortly" pops up, instead of you going to a useless (or non-existent) 
page and having to come back unfulfilled. Marvellous! Instead of waiting 
to go 'back' or 'forwards' all the time, the web experience becomes as 
convenient, handy, and easy to navigate as the rest of the computing 
experience. Great!


. . . or so I thought!

It seems that what I'm doing is wrong - popups are evil, opening new 
windows is the work of the devil, and lots of similar horror accusations 
abound. Apparently, it's an accessibility sin to open new windows - it's 
also an affront to a user's choice if I dictate that a new window is 
opened, esp if I don't warn the user. OK, everyone just hates those 
annoying advertisement popups which appear, unsolicited, when viewing 
certain web sites. But that isn't the same thing as opening a help or 
information link in a new window, now is it?  OK, in practice I do try 
to be as accessible as possible. If you look at my site link below, 
you'll see that in the 'portfolio' section (where I want open new 
windows) it clearly says so on the links. So I do try to be 'good'.


However, I do remain confused: Whilst I really do have every sympathy 
with someone who has an accessibility problem, I cannot reconcile how it 
can be OK (indeed desirable) to use a fully fledged windows system (MAC 
or PC) for 'computing', but as soon as you boot up your browser, all the 
'requirements' change. 


Duh??

Bob McClelland
Cornwall (U.K.)
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 in 4.01 Strict

[James Gollan]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Ian Anderson wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:


I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a 
little unhelpful.


But the statement is 100% accurate.  I, as a user, hate popups.  I 
know of many others that hate popups too.  I did not say "all users", 
just "users".  Regardless of how many users that is, are you really 
willing to annoy them?  Is it not safer to avoid using popup windows, 
considering that people that don't mind them won't be at all upset 
when they don't see them; but those that hate them, will be if they do?
It may be technically 100% accurate, but in that case so is the 
statement "users hate it when a new site opens in the current window and 
takes them away from the site they were viewing". It only takes 2 users 
to make this true. And these 2 users may also be annoyed :)


I am not a pop-up advocate, I think it's best to clearly identify 
external links but open them in the current window. I do, however, 
wonder about the number of users that actually know that they can 
override the browser and open a link in a new window. This is often put 
up in support of the no pop-up argument, but I find it hard to imagine 
that the average user (whatever that may be) knows about this feature. 
Any stats or studies you know of?


**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Stephen Stagg]

On 15 Feb 2006, at 12:28, Lachlan Hunt wrote:


What I really don't understand is that there are so many people who  
participate in this and various other mailing lists, newsgroups and  
forums that actively advise against using popups and explain why  
they hate them, yet you still somehow believe that users are ok  
with them. Newsflash: we are users too!  Listen to us when we tell  
you outright that *we hate popup windows!*  Do not use them, find a  
better solution.




For that matter, I am a user too and I like popups when used  
properly.  Perhaps your aggressive responses tend to be a bit pony-ish?

You can never please everyone, the example you gave of


http://juicystudio.com/article/form-help-without-popups.html


is not something I prefer over a well implemented popup and  
therefore, for this issue, using these inline-hidden-help-comments  
are annoying me, and people like me.


Every time you open an unrequested window (assuming my browser  
wasn't configured to block them completely), that's another window  
I eventually have to close.  That's annoying, especially when I  
didn't request it. My mouse has a built in back and forward button  
and when you open a popup, those buttons don't work - there is no  
"close popup" button.  It takes longer to move my mouse up to the  
close button than it does to push the back button with my thumb,  
which is just wasting my time on a tedious task I shouldn't have  
even been faced with.


If you don't like having to move your mouse up to the toolbar of your  
window when closing them, learn your OSs key combination for closing  
the active window.  (Windows: Alt-F4, Mac OSx Cmd-W)  This way, you  
can improve your productivity.


I don't have a >100Mbit connection so I like it when a site opens an  
external link in a new window, this way I can continue reading the  
original page while the new site loads-up in the background.  Also,  
during product research / information farming, I can fairly  
confidently expect most sites I visit to open external links in new  
windows.  This allows me to carry 2 or 3 research threads at one  
time, It allways irks me when a site doesn't do this and I  
accidentally close the active window and loose my history.


I'm not tying to disagree with the points you made, they are valid,  
but so are mine, yours isn't the only point of view.  So flaming the  
list to try to get people to bow to your experience is not always  
helpful.


Stephen.

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Stephen Stagg]

On 15 Feb 2006, at 11:53, Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:


If I *have* to open a new window, I use this:

onclick="target='_blank'" onkeypress="target='_blank'"

It is still script dependent, and does work with key operation as  
well.




[pony mode]
?¿? This seems a little ridiculous to me.  Just because a page/site,  
passes the automated W3C test, does not make it standards compliant.   
Tricking the validator into thinking that you are serving valid  
X?HTML[1:5] while breaking it using Javascript to  
insert non-standard code completely undermines the whole self- 
accreditation process.  This is as bad as using your Web server to  
present clean versions of your page to the validator while serving  
bad pages to your users.

[/pony mode]

Ok that might of been a bit blunt but...
why not use window.open('') as a standard behavior OR just include  
the target property in the HTML, I don't think you'll break any  
browser by doing this and you will be able to settle with your  
conscience that you're not being underhand about using non-standard  
HTML.


Stephen**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Ian Anderson wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or 
reasons for opening a popup window, don't do it.


I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, there are several very 
good use cases.


Name one for which a popup window is the only valid and, indeed, best 
solution!


The primary one is help windows, where instructions can be compared with 
the items in the main window. A variant of this is T&Cs in forms, where 
there are serious consequences for the user if they move off the page 
while in the middle of completing a form - they may lose some or all data.


While that is legitimate use-case that comes up quite often on the web, 
the best solution does not involve popup windows.  In fact, related to 
the issues I discussed earlier, popup windows can be prevented and you 
have no idea which users do this.  Thus, while relying on the popup 
windows to solve this problem may work for 99% of visitors, for the 1% 
that don't get a new window (incl. those without script and those, like 
myself, that explicitly disable popups), the problem you're trying to 
solve is still a problem.


This is one solution that doesn't involve popups, that I have actually 
used myself in a recent project.

http://juicystudio.com/article/form-help-without-popups.html

That solution works acceptably for 100% of users, regardless of their 
support for javascript, popup windows or any other feature.


I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a 
little unhelpful.


But the statement is 100% accurate.  I, as a user, hate popups.  I know 
of many others that hate popups too.  I did not say "all users", just 
"users".  Regardless of how many users that is, are you really willing 
to annoy them?  Is it not safer to avoid using popup windows, 
considering that people that don't mind them won't be at all upset when 
they don't see them; but those that hate them, will be if they do?


I am sure a lot of people dislike popup adverts, but 
to dismiss all use of popups on this basis is clearly to throw the baby 
out with the bath water.


I'm not just dismissing them on the basis that popup adverts annoy 
people, I'm dismissing them for serious usability and accessibility 
concerns, some of which I discussed earlier.  Here's another:


Every time you open an unrequested window (assuming my browser wasn't 
configured to block them completely), that's another window I eventually 
have to close.  That's annoying, especially when I didn't request it. 
My mouse has a built in back and forward button and when you open a 
popup, those buttons don't work - there is no "close popup" button.  It 
takes longer to move my mouse up to the close button than it does to 
push the back button with my thumb, which is just wasting my time on a 
tedious task I shouldn't have even been faced with.


That is absolutely no better than using the target attribute.  In 
fact, for accessibility reasons, it is worse.


This is not true,


Yes it is.  I even gave an example to explain why.  Just because your 
usability testing failed to test the scenario I presented, doesn't mean 
it doesn't happen.



Also, because the button UI is usually turned off,


You're assuming the browser is configured to let you turn off the 
chrome.  That's another bad assumption, because browsers can be easily 
configured to always show the chrome that the user wants.


there are fewer issues with users starting to surf in the new window 
and losing their window history, which is a problem using target _blank.


So what if they started to surf with the new window!?  Is there some 
rule against that?  It's a browser window, just like the original,  It 
clearly doesn't really matter whether they browse with that one or any 
other.


What I really don't understand is that there are so many people who 
participate in this and various other mailing lists, newsgroups and 
forums that actively advise against using popups and explain why they 
hate them, yet you still somehow believe that users are ok with them. 
Newsflash: we are users too!  Listen to us when we tell you outright 
that *we hate popup windows!*  Do not use them, find a better solution.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

If I *have* to open a new window, I 
use this:
 
onclick="target='_blank'" onkeypress="target='_blank'"
 
It is 
still script dependent, and does work with key operation as 
well.
 
Mike 
Cherimhttp://green-beast.com/http://accessites.org/
How 
  does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have itbe valid? 
  For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained thatthere is no 
  attribute called target--Cheers,Serdar Kilichttp://weblog.kilic.net/

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Ian Anderson]

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons 
for opening a popup window, don't do it.


I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, there are several very 
good use cases.


The primary one is help windows, where instructions can be compared with 
the items in the main window. A variant of this is T&Cs in forms, where 
there are serious consequences for the user if they move off the page 
while in the middle of completing a form - they may lose some or all data.


I think generalisations like "users hate popup windows" are perhaps a 
little unhelpful. I am sure a lot of people dislike popup adverts, but 
to dismiss all use of popups on this basis is clearly to throw the baby 
out with the bath water.


That is absolutely no better than using the target attribute.  In fact, 
for accessibility reasons, it is worse.


This is not true, in my experience. Popup windows with JavaScript are 
more usable than with target, because they are usually sized smaller 
than the main window (so not causing confusion), and caused users with 
disabilities no problems at all in any of the user testing we've done 
where popups were encountered in tasks.


Also, because the button UI is usually turned off, there are fewer 
issues with users starting to surf in the new window and losing their 
window history, which is a problem using target _blank.


In fact, screen reader users may well perform tasks faster in popup 
windows because there is a lot less clutter around the content. Provided 
they are used appropriately, and the user is informed of their use in 
situations where they are not normally found, in my view there is no 
huge problem with them.


Cheers

Ian

--
_
zStudio - Web development and accessibility
http://zStudio.co.uk

Snippetz.net - Online code library
File, manage and re-use your code snippets & links
http://snippetz.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] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Christian Montoya]

On 2/15/06, Serdar Kılıç <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it
> be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that
> there is no attribute called target

Serdar, you have to trust your visitors. They know how to use the back
button. If they want to return to your site, they will. If they don't,
don't annoy them by keeping your weblog open when they actually try to
leave your site by following a link.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Miika Mäkinen]

Very good points by Lachlan. Personally I got so annoyed for example of cssimport opening links to new window that I just stopped checking that site. It definately should be the visitors choice to open a link in new window or not.
On 2/15/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bert Doorn wrote:> Serdar Kýlýç wrote:>> How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it>> be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that>> there is no attribute called target
The users!  Please, won't somebody think of the *users*!Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasonsfor opening a popup window, don't do it.  If you think you have one, I'd
like to hear it, but know this: I've heard many excuses over the years(some more often than others) but every single one of them has beenflawed in some way.> The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, leaving it
> up to the user to decide, which is why the target attribute was removed.Correct.> But if you want to (or "have to"), either go back to transitional or use> _javascript_.  You may find some discussions about it in the mail list
> archives, but the simplest implementation would go along these lines:>> link textThat is absolutely no better than using the target attribute.  In fact,
for accessibility reasons, it is worse.Good browsers, like Firefox (and probably many others), allow the userto easily disable the effect of the target attribute when it would causea new window to open, without interfering with legitimate uses of it in
frames (which are also evil).  However, with window.open, the ability isnot so easy.  It is possible to do in Firefox.  I do it myself, so thatany call to window.open acts like a regular link and opens the page in
the same window).  However, it does have side-affects that an averageuser would find more difficult to cope with.Thus, while I personally find that both the target attribute orwindow.open() (when used like the example above) are of little concern
[1], most users wouldn't be able to override the script as easily as thetarget attribute.  Additionally, a user stylesheet may be used toindicate the presence of the target attribute, but not of that specific
type of script, and so the user has no opportunity to take furtheraction to prevent it (if required).Also, for those that don't know how to prevent even the target attributefrom opening a new window, why should they be forced to accept them?  Do
you consider it a kind of opt-in/out feature, whereby unless a userexplicitly requests not to see new windows, then they must be ok with them?[1] window.close(), on the other hand, is a pain in the *** thanks to a
bug in Firefox, which has only recently been fixed in the trunk--Lachlan Hunthttp://lachy.id.au/**The discussion list for  
http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Lachlan Hunt]

Bert Doorn wrote:

Serdar Kýlýç wrote:

How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it
be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that
there is no attribute called target


The users!  Please, won't somebody think of the *users*!

Many users hate popup windows.  There are no valid use-cases or reasons 
for opening a popup window, don't do it.  If you think you have one, I'd 
like to hear it, but know this: I've heard many excuses over the years 
(some more often than others) but every single one of them has been 
flawed in some way.


The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, leaving it 
up to the user to decide, which is why the target attribute was removed.


Correct.

But if you want to (or "have to"), either go back to transitional or use 
javascript.  You may find some discussions about it in the mail list 
archives, but the simplest implementation would go along these lines:


link text


That is absolutely no better than using the target attribute.  In fact, 
for accessibility reasons, it is worse.


Good browsers, like Firefox (and probably many others), allow the user 
to easily disable the effect of the target attribute when it would cause 
a new window to open, without interfering with legitimate uses of it in 
frames (which are also evil).  However, with window.open, the ability is 
not so easy.  It is possible to do in Firefox.  I do it myself, so that 
any call to window.open acts like a regular link and opens the page in 
the same window).  However, it does have side-affects that an average 
user would find more difficult to cope with.


Thus, while I personally find that both the target attribute or 
window.open() (when used like the example above) are of little concern 
[1], most users wouldn't be able to override the script as easily as the 
target attribute.  Additionally, a user stylesheet may be used to 
indicate the presence of the target attribute, but not of that specific 
type of script, and so the user has no opportunity to take further 
action to prevent it (if required).


Also, for those that don't know how to prevent even the target attribute 
from opening a new window, why should they be forced to accept them?  Do 
you consider it a kind of opt-in/out feature, whereby unless a user 
explicitly requests not to see new windows, then they must be ok with them?


[1] window.close(), on the other hand, is a pain in the *** thanks to a 
bug in Firefox, which has only recently been fixed in the trunk

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

[Kim Kruse]

Hi Sedar,

Try this one http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/popups.asp

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Ric Raftis]

Bert Doorn wrote:

The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, leaving 
it up to the user to decide, which is why the target attribute was 
removed.


G'day Bert,

This always seems to be a subject of some debate.  For commercial sites, 
I ALWAYS open a new blank window on a link.  I do however advise users 
that this will happen and that they only have to close the new window to 
return to "my" site.  From a marketing standpoint, why would you want to 
be showing people the door and then pushing them out into the street?


As I say, only my personal opinion though.

Regards,


Ric

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Brian Cummiskey]

Bert Doorn wrote:

The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, leaving 
it up to the user to decide, which is why the target attribute was 
removed.


But if you want to (or "have to"), either go back to transitional or 
use javascript.  You may find some discussions about it in the mail 
list archives, but the simplest implementation would go along these 
lines:


link 
text



Agreed.  A good example of the JS method is outlined here:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/standards-compliant-world

**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Bert Doorn]

G'day

Serdar Kýlýç wrote:

How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it
be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that
there is no attribute called target


The main idea is that one should not open new windows at all, 
leaving it up to the user to decide, which is why the target 
attribute was removed.


But if you want to (or "have to"), either go back to transitional 
or use javascript.  You may find some discussions about it in the 
mail list archives, but the simplest implementation would go 
along these lines:


link 
text


Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites


**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Taco Fleur]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only way is
 http://www.pacificfox.com.au"; onclick="window.open( this.href );
return false;">test


Kind regards,
 

Taco Fleur - CEO

Free Call 1800 032 982 or Mobile 0421 851 786
Pacific Fox http://www.pacificfox.com.au an industry leader with commercial
IT experience since 1994 …

*   
Web Design and Development 
*   
SMS Solutions, including developer API
*   
Domain Registration, .COM for as low as fifteen dollars a year,
.COM.AU for fifty dollars two years!
*   
We endorse PayPal, accept payments online now!
*   
Seamless Merchant integration


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Serdar Kiliç
Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2006 3:46 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] TARGET in 4.01 Strict

How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it be
valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that there is
no attribute called target

--
Cheers,
Serdar Kilic
http://weblog.kilic.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
**



**
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 in 4.01 Strict

[Serdar Kılıç]

How does one open a new window with a 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and have it
be valid? For my weblog I ran the w3 validator and it complained that
there is no attribute called target

--
Cheers,
Serdar Kilic
http://weblog.kilic.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
**