On 15-Sep-00, Ian Greenway wrote:
>
> Hi Bob...
>
>> >> onclick="window....."> instead of A HREF. Why? 'coz there's no
>> >> "hand - cursor" when You put a mouse over the link.
>>
>> Any site that needs that the cursor turn into a hand to identify a
>> link needs to be redesigned.
>
> I wasn't offering comment on the desirability to remove the pointer
> changing, although IMHO it is put there for a purpose.
The company I work for uses Novell Groupwise as a mail client. It
changes the pointer to a hand over links embedded in an email. I don't
see any need for it there. I can't see any compelling reason for that
behaviour, other that the programmer's need for gratification in doing
some clever coding.
>
>> > So is that behaviour documented, or does it just happen to occur in
>> > the browser you prefer?
>> The behaviour comes from exploiting the ability to change the cursor.
>> That ability resides at the OS level and M$ based browsers all handle
>> it.
>
> Yes, but what I want to know is whether that "exploiting" is a
> documented feature. I expect it isn't. Just because all M$ broswers
> handle it does not make it either standard or documented - there are
> hundreds of browsers for dozens of platforms out there. What would
> you do if Microsoft decided the behaviour was in fact a bug, an
> oversight, and the next version of MSIE causes the pointer to change
> over an "onclick" area? They might prefer it that way.
Changing a cursor in Windows is documented, including how to create
custom cursors.
How to do the same thing in AmigaOs is also documented as far back as
1.2
>
> The point made by the originator of the thread was to ask why it seems
> people code their sites to be unneccessarily complicated, risking
> incompatibilty, without apparent reason. The responses made only
> serve to demonstrate the point of the questioner, far from justifying
> the actions.
That's because a lot of it is simply due to the programmer amusing
h(im|er)self at being clever.
>
> It takes time and effort to code something, anything, "properly",
> conforming to rules and API's. Everyone is quick to complain when
> some subtle oversight in a program means it fails to work with their
> favourite patch, tool, RTG software, etc. I think there are equal
> grounds for complaint when websites fail to comply with the rules. "We
> can't be bothered 'cos it works ok with XXX browser", is the response
> of an incompetent designer. Sorry. :-/
>
Yes it takes time and effort to code properly, be it HTML,VBA or C++.
All too often, programmers rely on templates, snippets of borrowed
source that they don't understand, and automatic code generators that
bloat and do really obtuse things..
--
Bob Q
Rocket Scientist during the day,
Amiga Afficionado all night.
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
