HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:

I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.

Straw man. Target is not required to *allow* this ease of use. Opening
a link in a new window is an option your users already have.

This has nothing to do with trapping people.

Nonsense. Target doesn't give anyone a new option for navigation. It
takes away an option you don't happen to like, trapping your users into
your own personal opinion of what's easier.

This is like going into someone's house, taking away all of the food
except a can of beans, then bragging that you've "given" the cook the
"option" of having a can of beans for dinner.

If you're going to be a control freak, at least have the decency to
admit it - don't try to pretend you're doing your users a favor.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:

I want to write good HTML

Make up your mind. Target is not "good HTML."

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Guy Macon schreef:

Erwin Moller wrote:
>

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the load of links, I knew one or two already.
I'll work through them.

>I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
>I DON'T want w3c removing attibutes that are considered useful by many.

>
<BLINKwas/is considered useful by many...
>
It has been my experience that many who think that target
blank is useful have not bothered to read and understand
the reasons why it is so reviled. The following pages make
a compelling case, and are well worth your time.
>
Using the target blank tag to force a link
to open in a new window breaks the Back button
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html

Yes, the back button is broken in a new window.
(Exception, windows opened with JavaScript can keep the the browsinghistory )
Conclusion: don't open new windows without a good reason.

>
Target Blank is a Crime
http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/

Well, that writer makes a few mistakes.

This is the worst:

Don’t assume you know better than your users when it comes to ingrained
expected behaviour. If they want a link opened in a new window, they
will command click or select the option from a contextual menu. If they
don’t want it opened in a new window they’ll click without a modifier
like normal and expect normal behaviour.

This is maybe true for experienced websurfers, but surely NOT for
everybody. Like I wrote elsewhere: Using a controlbutton to open a new
window is considered as complex as quantummechanic s to some.
So I want to help them.

I am NOT opening a new window to keep my company's webpage active, I am
opening a new window for ease of use of administrative tasks.

>
The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html

(You are making mistake #1 and mistake #2...)

More of the same:

1. Breaking or Slowing Down the Back Button
<snip>

I addressed that already. I don't open new windows for no reason.
In my case the user don't need the back button anyway in the new window.
(And yes, in this case that is up to me do decide.)

2. Opening New Browser Windows
Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who
starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't
pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since
current operating systems have miserable window management). If I want a
new window, I will open it myself!
Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on
their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied in
taking over the user's machine, the strategy is self-defeating since it
disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to
previous sites. Users often don't notice that a new window has opened,
especially if they are using a small monitor where the windows are
maximized to fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the
origin will be confused by a grayed out Back button.

"Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on
their site."
Jumping to conclusions?
This guy (no pun intended) is making up his own argument, puts it into
your/my mouth, only to show the argument is invalid. Then he concludes
his first statement must be true.
I believe this is refered to as the 'strawman argument', a famous
logical fallacy.

I do not want to keep my company's website open.
I want to create an easy-going GUI for my clients.

>
Links in new windows (target="blank" ) considered harmful
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window

Allthough I visited annevankesteren .nl for other things, I think this
article is of little importance.

>
I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)

http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/

>

That article describes how to avoid it from happening.

WAI WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.1:
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."
>

Guy, seriously, the BACK button is the only valid argument.
If webmasters like to open windows for no reason, they will only annoy
their visitors, I totally agree to that.

Still: I don't get it why the STRICT doctype doesn't allow the target
attribute.

Like I said elsewhere: I YOU (or the whole w3c) thinks a red border
around an image is annoying, you don't forbid it.
You allow the annoying red border, maybe warn against it, but you don't
forbid it.

In my opinion, this was a really bad call from w3c.
It helps NOBODY.

--Stupid webmasters who want to create many many new windows still do
so (using transitional, or even STRICT and don't validate).
--Good willing webmasters (like me) are forced to use transitional
because of lack of support of the target attribute.

So this decision is helping nobody.

I need a working solution for my problem, and I want it in STRICT.
Right now the only solution I have involves full pagereloads, unless
Andrienne can help me out (See other part of this thread). ;-)

Thanks for your time though. :-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller


--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Lars Eighner schreef:

In our last episode, <48ec8c3c$0$195 $e4fe514c@news. xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>
>

>Lars Eighner schreef:

>>In our last episode, <48ec8174$0$191 $e4fe514c@news. xs4all.nl>, the lovely
>>and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>>>
>>>Thank you for your clear response.
>>>So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
>>>attribute.
>>'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
>>sites.
>>>

>

>Nonsense.
>I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
>admin/visitor/etc.
>This has nothing to do with trapping people.

>
Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab? There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.
>

Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.
Thanks.

Erwin

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:

Why do people think I want to trap visitors?

Because that's what target does.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[CJM]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target



"Erwin Moller"
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrote in
message news:48eccfd6$0 $200$e4fe514c@n ews.xs4all.nl.. .

>>
>In this case, I do the following:
>1. Inform the user that link is going to open in a new window. I include
>this information on the page itself, and also in the title attribute of
>the link itself, eg: <a href="http://example.com/" title="Visit example
>in a new window" target="_blank" >Example</a>.

>
Yes, I like to warn my visitors too when I open a new window.
>

In some cases, I provide two links: the larger (ie. default) link renders in
the same window, and an image link to indicate a new window. There are
occasions where my users like the choice depending on circumstance (yes, of
course there is always shift-click, middle-click etc).

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Sherm Pendley schreef:

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:
>

>I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
>admin/visitor/etc.

>
Straw man. Target is not required to *allow* this ease of use. Opening
a link in a new window is an option your users already have.

Hi,

You make the mistake to assume the avarage webuser has your knowledge.
Most don't.
I am 100% sure my mother doesn't know how to open a new browserwindow.

>

>This has nothing to do with trapping people.

>
Nonsense. Target doesn't give anyone a new option for navigation. It
takes away an option you don't happen to like, trapping your users into
your own personal opinion of what's easier.

Don't assume so much.
My personal opinion is that I open a new window when it suits ME, not
when it suits the builder of a webpage.
Sites that open a lot of windows, or open new windows without a clear
reason, loose me as their visitor. I hate that.

My whole point is that I find myself sometimes in situations where a new
window actually makes life easier for the visitor (and for my server
too): and now I cannot open a new window without being valid in STRICT
doctype.

Not putting target="" into the STRICT doctype doesn't help anybody.
Sites that want to make new windows keep doing so.
Sites that need it, for a good reason, cannot use it without giving up
STRICT doctype.

>
This is like going into someone's house, taking away all of the food
except a can of beans, then bragging that you've "given" the cook the
"option" of having a can of beans for dinner.
>
If you're going to be a control freak, at least have the decency to
admit it - don't try to pretend you're doing your users a favor.

You don't know what I am talking about.
You don't know how the webapplication at hand works, nor asked.
You don't know why I think it is easier for the client, nor asked.

Hell, you haven't got the slightest clue why I need a new window.
And, of course, you don't ask....

But that doesn't stop you claiming I am a controlfreak without any decency.
Nice meeting you Sherm.


Now please stay out unless you have something useful to contribute.

Erwin

>
sherm--
>

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:

Lars Eighner schreef:

>>
>Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
>window/tab?

>
Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.

Attacking Lars reflects badly on you, not he - it makes it appear that
you're dodging a question for which you have no logical answer. And it's
a reasonable question; using "target" does effectively disable the back
button, as the new window has no history. Why do you want to do that?

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Scott Bryce]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

CJM wrote:

That fact that many in this group seem to easily forget is that the
platforms originally developed for the world-wide-web are now
legitimately used in different scenarios.

I will grant you that there are times when those who know the rules, and
know the reasons behind the rules, will decide that they have a
compelling reason to break the rules. I have broken a lot of the rules
on my own site. If I thought I could present the information more
effectively using the rules, I would do so.

[CJM]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target



"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseig hner.comwrote in message
news:slrngepk5u .43j.usenet@deb randed.larseigh ner.com...

There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.

Lol... moving from an ideological viewpoint to an insulting rant.

Erwin thinks he has a good reason to want to dictate the target for a new
link. You disagree with him because you think it should be entirely left to
the user.

I don't recall him indicating an intention to trap people. I don't recall
him providing a URL - how did you determine that his content is so lame?
Apart from being 'that time of the month' is there any other reason you are
so hot under the collar?

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


BootNic schreef:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200
Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrote
in: <48ec8fff$0$186 $e4fe514c@news. xs4all.nl>
>
[snip]

>I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.

[snip]
>

Hi BootNic,

So now you have a page the is almost strict, it just has one or more
target attributes that muck it up.

Yes. All else validates now just fine.

>
Does a well built page have errors?

No. :-)

If you choose to ignore the errors,

I think you are falling short of you goal to have a well built page.

I agree.

That is excactly why investigated futher in this newsgroup.
It seems very illogical to me to not include target attribute into the
STRICT doctype.
It serve a purpose. The argument I hear against it involves misuse of
it. And that doesn't make sense to me since every webmaster who want to
keep misusing it can do so easily.

What I want is this:
1) Create webpages that validate in STRICT.
2) I need a solution for the missing new window. What I heard untill now
is simply that it is not possible.

So this is a kind of frustrating situation for me.
Appearantly w3c decided the target attribute is not wanted in STRICT,
but I don't have a solution for my problem: A page that is heavy to
create on the server (a few big queries) where I want to offer editting
for certain fields. I don't want to make a rundrobin to the server for
every small update. That is where a new window comes in handy.

>
I would suggest you go ahead an write your page as strict, then when
it's complete, only has errors relating to the use of the target
attributes, rather then ignoring the target errors change the doctype
to loose.

Agree. I think I will do that.

But..but...but. . I cannot be the first who makes this argument, since I
am a late starter with STRICT.
Does anybody know how and why the w3c came to this decision?

Thanks for you time BootNic.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[CJM]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target



"Scott Bryce" <sbryce@scottbr yce.comwrote in message
news:ouOdnVqwVf 87fXHVnZ2dnUVZ_ hOdnZ2d@comcast .com...

>
I will grant you that there are times when those who know the rules, and
know the reasons behind the rules, will decide that they have a
compelling reason to break the rules. I have broken a lot of the rules
on my own site. If I thought I could present the information more
effectively using the rules, I would do so.

It is debatable whether my reason is compelling. I could insist that users
be better trained in both standard browser behaviour and better trained in
my applications, so they know how & when to break out of the starting
window. But experience and practicality ushers me in a different direction.

The will surely come a day when target= simply won't work, or worse still,
will fundamentally break the application - and I am mindful of this.
Equally, there may also come a day where the W3C approach changes to address
the issue, to provide some sort of compensation for the need that makes me
want to work against the standard.

It's a trade-off between a quick & practical solution and the ideal one.

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Sherm Pendley schreef:

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:
>

>Lars Eighner schreef:

>>Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
>>window/tab?

>Oh man, get a life.
>If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
>head, simply stay out.

>
Attacking Lars reflects badly on you, not he - it makes it appear that
you're dodging a question for which you have no logical answer. And it's
a reasonable question; using "target" does effectively disable the back
button, as the new window has no history. Why do you want to do that?
>
sherm--
>

Ah Sherm again..

I'll answer your question:

What you left out so conveniently in your posting was the rest of Lars'
post.
I'll quote it for you again:

There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.

Do you call that a fair question?
My lame content?
I being an idiot who thinks it serves a purpose to keep visitors locked
up in my site?
Come on Sherm...
I must read through the insults and insinuations to find an actual
question that is being discussed already, in a mature way, by Guy Macon
elsewhere in this thread.

No thanks. I have been on usenet long enough: I have developed a good
sense to spot people who try to be a smartass and don't help at all.
I never start flaming myself, but if people ask for it, well I return
the favor.

I also seriously doubt what you claim: "Attacking Lars reflects badly on
you, not he".
If this is Lars' regular way of posting, I don't expect him to be well
respected at all. Sorry.

Let's drop this.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Erwin Moller]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target


Sherm Pendley schreef:

Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_r ead_this_I_am_s pammed_too_much @spamyourself.c omwrites:
>

>Why do people think I want to trap visitors?

>
Because that's what target does.

Sherm,

If you really think THAT is what target does, well that says a lot about
you, not about target or me.

You have a very narrow understanding of what I need.

Did you ever build serious websites with a huge underlying database?
If so, how do you offer editting for certain users of a very large
resultset without the use of Ajax or a new window?
Do you reload your page on each and every request/post?

Please, get to business.
I am a experienced developer, and I have a real world problem.
I don't need your cheap shots like "Because that's what target does.".
Doesn't help at all.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
sherm--
>

--
=============== =============
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
=============== =============

[Carl]

Re: HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

Guy Macon wrote:

Carl wrote:
>

>If it was really annoying to users, they would stop coming,

>
And you know how many people have stopped coming to your
website because of the annoyance -- how?
>
>
Links about using target="blank" or target="_blank" :
>
_Using the target blank tag to force a link_
to open in a new window breaks the Back button

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html

>
_Target Blank is a Crime_

http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/

>
_The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes_

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html

(See mistake #1 and mistake #2...)
>
_Links in new windows considered harmful_

http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window

>
_I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)_

http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/

>
_WAI WCAG 1.0 usability checkpoint 10.1:_
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."
>

It would be very obvious if they stopped coming. If opening a new
window for a picture is really that perturbing, then I would know from
the decreased traffic. Since traffic does not decrease, and in fact
increases, I can be fairly certain that open a new window for a pic is
not a problem to worry about.