|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/17/20 11:20
With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Cornford quothed
> > Well, it's easy enough to determine if the user has
> > javascript activated and a window won't open.
>
> You may say that but I have seen dozens of proposed examples of pop-up
> blocker detectors (all actually not-pop-up bocker detectors with the
> false assumption applied to the result) but none have ever taken account
> of the full range of behaviour exhibited by pop-up blockers. And so all
> of those examples would potentially error-out, either preventing the
> completion of the test or producing false positive, or negative,
> results.
Well, in order to continue and enhance this discussion profitably, I
have to do some tests of my own and to be honest with you I just don't
care (i.e. I'm too lazy <yawn>.)
> It still depends on what it is you are trying to do. If it is a question
> of verifying the viability of using pop-ups in a UI then the 'confirm
> when loaded' strategy is 100% accurate. If you are planning to tell the
> user that they must disable their pop-up blocker then the percentage who
> never were running a pop-up blocker are going to think you a fool when
> you ask them to turn it off.
I still say how can you have javascript active yet be unable to open a
window except the obvious? But...<yawn>.
> Some people don't mind their users thinking
> them a fool, other would rather avoid giving that impression.
It never bothered me.
> > And it's surely a valid programming technique.
>
> That probably depends a lot on what you are programming, though I cannot
> think of many tasks where a 1% failure rate would get past QA. And there
> is no point writing code that will be rejected and need to be re-done
> when you can be certain that is going to happen before writing it.
I'll admit there might be bugs in the absolute deduction of my position,
but what program is 100% bug-free? None of them are, that's what.
Anyway, I wouldn't bet my soul on it working perfectly.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|