By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
429,189 Members | 2,167 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 429,189 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

XP SP2 and opening windows

P: n/a
I have an application page with a datagrid with a checkbox on each row. The
user should check the rows they want to modify and then click a button. When
the button is clicked, I have a Click handler that builds a url and then
registers a startup script to open a modal dialog window. With XP SP2
installed the pop-up blocker stops the windows from displaying. Is there any
way around this? My users are too stupid to turn off the popup blocker or
anything else to allow the modal to display. I need it to work without the
user having to do anything.

I kinda doubt that it's possible since the web interface for these
newsgroups suffer from the same problem.

So, are we going to allow developers to create internet applications, or is
Microsoft basically killing internet applications by not allowing you to make
a webpage into an application? The popup blocker should be turned off by
default and there should be a way to open windows from server-side event
handlers that are called when a button is clicked.
Nov 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
Matt Hamilton wrote:
I have an application page with a datagrid with a checkbox on each
row. The user should check the rows they want to modify and then
click a button. When the button is clicked, I have a Click handler
that builds a url and then registers a startup script to open a modal
dialog window. With XP SP2 installed the pop-up blocker stops the
windows from displaying. Is there any way around this? My users are
too stupid to turn off the popup blocker or anything else to allow
the modal to display. I need it to work without the user having to do
anything.
Matt, why don't you create a nice help page with lots of screenshots that
shows your users how to fix the problem? They would need to do it only once
if they put your site on the exception list (or whatever it is called in the
English version of IE).
I kinda doubt that it's possible since the web interface for these
newsgroups suffer from the same problem.

So, are we going to allow developers to create internet applications,
or is Microsoft basically killing internet applications by not
allowing you to make a webpage into an application?
You're disregarding the first law of web applications: The broader your user
base is, the more restricted is your choice of technologies. If your
application breaks with XP SP2 while your users are free to use whatever
(Windows) OS version they like, it's your problem.

I also don't feel that "modal windows" and "web applications" really fit
together. Why not display the dialog in the same browser window?
The popup blocker
should be turned off by default
I strongly disagree, but YMMV.
and there should be a way to open
windows from server-side event handlers that are called when a button
is clicked.


That's impossible -- server-side code runs on the server. How is that
supposed to open anything on the client machine?

Cheers,
--
Joerg Jooss
jo*********@gmx.net
Nov 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
My user base is restricted to Windows PCs and Internet Explorer 5.5+. They
expect any application to function like all other applications function (i.e.
What good would a spell checker do if it opened in place of the document
instead of in another window/dialog or frame? What if the Solution Explorer
in Visual Studio always opened in place of the currently open document? What
if we could not have multiple documents open at the same time at all? What if
Excel forced you format cells without a dialog window? And there are probably
many more relevant examples... ). The key to our application is being able to
see all other grid rows while modifying any number of grid rows (this occurs
in about 100 different places) so it makes sense to have a modal dialog which
allows the user to see the content of the main browser window while not being
able to focus on anything except the modal window. Why should an internet
application that is restricted to IE 5.5+ follow different rules than a
Visual Basic application? Could I have my internet application verifed by
Microsoft as safe and then prompt the user to add it to their trusted sites
when they first login to the app?... Actually, can I do that myself?... IE
defaults to downloading plugins with a simple warning... Why not say, "The
site you are visiting is trying to include itself in your list of trusted
sites. This could affect the security of your PC. Do you wish to continue?"
Instead of displaying a help message that says do this, then this, then this,
then this... Now you can use our application. It is hard enough to market an
internet application in my industry without adding an "install" process.

I agree that users should learn to adapt and change their preferences
themselves on occasion, but the fact is, they should not have to in this
case. Microsoft claims that the popup blocker stops popups that are not
created by a direct user action. I would call a button click on a button
titled "Open Modify Window" a direct user action. The fact that I need to go
back to the server to build the url is my business and the user should not
have to be told that some buttons work because they open with the client-side
onclick and some do not work because they need a trip to the server before
the window opens. Either block all popup windows or let us open windows with
the server-side equivalent client-side event handlers that are currently
allowed to open modal dialogs... Why the hypocrisy?

I think that users who visit the shady sites that misuse popups should have
to change their preferences to block popups instead of blocking popups for
everyone by default. Also, why is it more important to include a popup
blocker than integrated virus protection? Windows cannot recognize a
virus-infected file a user downloads, yet it will stop an extra window from
opening on a webpage that the user chooses to visit.

"Joerg Jooss" wrote:
Matt Hamilton wrote:
I have an application page with a datagrid with a checkbox on each
row. The user should check the rows they want to modify and then
click a button. When the button is clicked, I have a Click handler
that builds a url and then registers a startup script to open a modal
dialog window. With XP SP2 installed the pop-up blocker stops the
windows from displaying. Is there any way around this? My users are
too stupid to turn off the popup blocker or anything else to allow
the modal to display. I need it to work without the user having to do
anything.


Matt, why don't you create a nice help page with lots of screenshots that
shows your users how to fix the problem? They would need to do it only once
if they put your site on the exception list (or whatever it is called in the
English version of IE).
I kinda doubt that it's possible since the web interface for these
newsgroups suffer from the same problem.

So, are we going to allow developers to create internet applications,
or is Microsoft basically killing internet applications by not
allowing you to make a webpage into an application?


You're disregarding the first law of web applications: The broader your user
base is, the more restricted is your choice of technologies. If your
application breaks with XP SP2 while your users are free to use whatever
(Windows) OS version they like, it's your problem.

I also don't feel that "modal windows" and "web applications" really fit
together. Why not display the dialog in the same browser window?
The popup blocker
should be turned off by default


I strongly disagree, but YMMV.
and there should be a way to open
windows from server-side event handlers that are called when a button
is clicked.


That's impossible -- server-side code runs on the server. How is that
supposed to open anything on the client machine?

Cheers,
--
Joerg Jooss
jo*********@gmx.net

Nov 18 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.