|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 01/08/06 22:05
Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
> Jake <jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>On the one hand, people should have the choice as to whether or not to
>>>open a new window, and this defeats that choice (usually invisibly). A
>>>new window can disorient people, defeat the back button, and use
>>>(perhaps scarce) system resources.
>>
>>Sure. It's a major problem for people with less than 15 minutes exposure
>>to the Web.
>
>
> Correct. And for the great majority of other people, too. You seem to imply
> otherwise, though, thereby exposing your rather deep ignorance of the issue.
Your aggressive bashing was not justified here. I thought we were all
talking, discussing on a particular issue. You should not assume that
people are not receptive, open-minded on issues like this one, Jukka.
>>If it really was an issue, then browser manufacturers would provide a
>>setting to override the spawning of a new window -- forcing the target
>>to be the existing window.
>
>
> They do. Didn't you know this? Well, neither do many other people. And that's
> really part of the problem.
>
>
>>>On my site I have used it (I believe) judiciously, mainly opening new
>>>windows into "foreign" sites and using the default (use the same
>>>window) for most in-site links.
>>
>>Fine.
>
>
> Not fine. It's a symptom of the disease of trying to "keep the user on my
> site", thereby quite often _making_ the user leave the site, rather than
> preventing that.
Personally, I wouldn't identify with an icon an external site. Some
sites do that (e.g.: http://gemal.dk/ , http://www.microsoft.com/).
Opening external links into a secondary window is not what I would
recommend. But clearly identifying a link opening a new window or
recycling an already opened secondary window is what I do recommend.
>>Just warn your users that links to eternal sites open in a new browser
>>window.
>
>
> That would break the fundamental rule "never bother the user with
> technicalities". Besides, all communication fails, except by accident,
> so many people will waste their time reading the warnings, yet failing to
> understand what they try to say. And when your page is printed, the warning
> will look rather stupid, won't it?
>
>
>>I notice that a number of authors are now starting to append an icon to
>>a link that opens in a new window, with both 'alt' and 'title' text on
>>the <img> informing the user of the fact.
>
>
> That's a further distraction, requiring users to get familiar with such
> idiosyncratic symbolism. (Authors naturally apply the NIH principle, using
> each their own "icons" for the purpose.)
I disagree. You can see 12 icons (and even 2 cursors) being used on
sites (even some major international sites) here:
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.open#Always_identify_links_which_will_create_.28or_will_re-use.29_a_new.2C_secondary_window
I fail to see how these icons are not self-explanatory, intuitive for
users. Maybe some are better than others. Ideally, it would be best if
we all use the same icon for the same identification purpose. An icon is
better than no icon IMO.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|